House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
1. What steps she is taking to reduce the routine use of antibiotics to prevent disease in farm animals.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We have made it very clear that we do not support the routine preventive use of antibiotics or the use of antibiotics to compensate for poor animal husbandry. That is reflected in the revised guidelines on the responsible use of animal medicines on the farm, published by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate last December. We continue to work with a number of industry bodies to encourage the development of prescribing guidelines, to challenge and optimise prescribing practices and behaviour.
Kerry McCarthy
Today, we hear that MRSA of a livestock origin is not only likely to be well established within the UK pig herd but has for the first time been found in British retail pork, from which it could be passed on to humans. In the light of this new and extremely troubling evidence, will the Department now finally set clear targets for phasing out routine preventive use of antibiotics in farm animals where no disease has been diagnosed, or is the Minister happy to take the risk of a post-antibiotic future?
George Eustice
It is important to recognise that livestock-associated MRSA is a different strain from that which affects our hospitals and does not cross to the human population. This country has always had slightly lower levels of antibiotic usage than countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands, which have had more serious problems. They have to be prescribed and clinical decisions have to be made, but the guidelines we have issued mean we have managed to suppress the use of antibiotics and ensure they are used sparingly.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that microbial antibiotic resistance is by no means exclusively a concern for veterinary medicine, and will he join me in welcoming the publication back in 2013 of a Government strategy to deal with the issue across Departments?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This issue also affects the Department for Health, and the chief medical officer is leading our work in this area. As my hon. Friend says, we have published an antimicrobial strategy setting out our approach for the next five years. It is also true that, although the use of antibiotics in farming has been relatively static over the past decade or so, we have seen an increase in the use of antibiotics in medicine, which is of great concern.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
McDonald’s is phasing out beef products that contain antibiotics, but it has indicated that beef products containing ionophore drugs will be acceptable, as they harm neither animals nor humans. What discussions has the Minister had with the catering industry about that?
George Eustice
I have not had any specific discussions on that point. As I have said, all antibiotics have to be prescribed. It is important to distinguish between routine use and preventive use. Sometimes it is right to use them preventively if there is a particular problem in a herd or a flock, but they have to be prescribed by vets—and only sparingly.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
2. What discussions her Department has had with Glasgow City Council on projections for Glasgow’s air quality and compliance with EU air quality regulations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
As the hon. Lady is aware, air quality in Scotland is a devolved issue, so I have not had direct conversations with Glasgow City Council, but I saw the Scottish Environment Minister on Monday. Officials are in regular contact with Scottish Government officials about the revision of UK nitrogen oxide air quality plans, including those for the Glasgow urban area.
Alison Thewliss
I thank the Minister for that response. Given the recent European Commission ruling relating to Client Earth, does the Minister consider it wise, with ongoing issues on Hope Street in Glasgow, that Glasgow City Council expedites its action on this issue in its air quality action plan?
Rory Stewart
I reconfirm that this is very much a devolved issue and one on which officials from Glasgow City Council can work closely with our departmental officials to resolve, but I do not wish to stand at this Dispatch Box and dictate to Glasgow.
Mr Speaker
The question relates to Glasgow or, at its widest interpretation, Scotland, but not Meriden or elsewhere.
Mrs Spelman
Scotland, in common with 27 member states of the European Union, is non-compliant with the EC arrangements. Does the Minister agree that low emission zones can help improve air quality in cities such as Glasgow and that, in proposing a low emission zone for London, the Mayor of London has offered a good way to improve air quality?
Rory Stewart
I pay tribute to the Mayor of London for his work on air quality. I am unable, however, to connect directly the work of the Mayor of London to the question about Glasgow.
Mr Speaker
The question is certainly not about Poplar and Canning Town or Denton and Reddish, but about Glasgow.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I am glad that you recognise my Glasgow credentials, Mr Speaker, because sometimes my classic cockney accent confuses people.
I welcome the Minister to his place. In any such discussions with Glasgow, I ask that he takes into account river traffic. The Thames is busier than the Clyde, but vessels on the Clyde do contribute to emissions. Will he ensure that he remembers that addition?
Rory Stewart
Among the different sources of nitrogen dioxide emissions, river traffic is indeed a substantial emitter. Glasgow City Council and officials from the Department will take that into account.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Minister to his place. Last year, the Government wrote a letter to all local authorities, trying to blame them for the 29,000 deaths that air pollution is causing every year in the UK and saying that any fines imposed by the EU for failure to comply with the air quality directive would have to be paid by them. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is the Government who are solely responsible for compliance and any fines arising, will the Secretary of State write again to all local authorities to accept her responsibility and overturn her previous threatening letter?
Rory Stewart
I am very happy to discuss that matter in detail, but as the shadow Minister said—[Interruption.] “Say yes”, it is suggested from the Opposition Front Bench. As the shadow Minister has acknowledged, we need to tackle this issue in partnership with local authorities. The prime responsibility needs to reside there because the sources of the emissions are quite different from one local authority to another, and therefore the solutions will be different from one local authority to another.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
3. How many flood defence schemes are planned to begin construction under the Government’s six-year flood defence programme in 2015.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
One hundred and sixty-one schemes are due to start this financial year, as part of our £2.3 billion, six-year programme, which will protect an additional 300,000 properties by 2021. That represents a real-terms increase in flood investment.
Karl MᶜCartney
Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the work of the three internal drainage boards that affect my constituency, Witham first district IDB, Witham third district IDB and Upper Witham IDB? What steps will the Government take to ensure that the Environment Agency, which is lackadaisical in my local area, and other parties work together more effectively for the benefit of my constituents in Lincoln and the people of Lincolnshire?
Elizabeth Truss
Like my hon. Friend, I am a huge fan of internal drainage boards. We have some fantastic drainage boards in Norfolk and I have visited the internal drainage boards in Boston. I want internal drainage boards to work closely with the Environment Agency to continue to protect homes and farmland. I would like this model to be rolled out across the country.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The coalition Government announced £80 million to protect the Humber estuary over six years. That is only 9% of what the Environment Agency said was required. Does the Secretary of State agree that investment in flood defences can be seen as an economic opportunity, rather than as a burden that has to be borne?
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree with the hon. Lady that investment in flood defences is an economic opportunity. Our six-year programme will result in the generation of £30 billion of economic value. We are committed to looking at the Humber plans and are due to report back on them in July.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
4. Whether she plans to bring forward legislative proposals to repeal the Hunting Act 2004; and if she will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
As we said in our manifesto, we will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act 2004 on a free vote on a Government Bill in Government time.
Paul Blomfield
The Secretary of State will understand that my constituents and, indeed, the whole country are overwhelmingly opposed to the repeal of the foxhunting ban. As she said, the Government have made a clear commitment to a vote on repeal, but she has not made clear the nature of that vote. Will she confirm that the vote will be on a parliamentary Bill that is considered in this House and the other place in the normal way?
Elizabeth Truss
I confirm that that is what we are committed to. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that pledge was part of our manifesto, which people voted on at the general election, and we are committed to fulfilling it.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
We on this side of the House are confident that we would win a vote to prevent the repeal of the Hunting Act, but it is clear from the Minister’s answer that no plan is in place for a vote. On that basis, and given that 80% of voters support the ban on hunting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) pointed out, why does not the Secretary of State just drop the idea and get on with the job of making sure the legislation is enforced?
Elizabeth Truss
I am a bit surprised to hear the hon. Lady talk about her side of the House, given that this has always been a free vote matter that is up to the conscience of individual Members. I have made it very clear that I support repeal of the Hunting Act and would vote on that basis, but I recognise that Members need to make their own decisions on the issue, so I am surprised to hear that the vote would be whipped by the Labour party.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
5. What steps she is taking to invest in flood defences.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
Flood defences are an absolute priority for this Government. We are spending £2.3 billion on more than 1,500 schemes over the next six years, which will help us reduce flood risk to our country by 5%.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Secretary of State for her response, but the reality is that in the last Parliament the Government promised £3.1 million of investment to reduce flood risk in my constituency, but figures published by the Environment Agency show that only £1 million of funding has been granted. Can the Secretary of State confirm which schemes will not go ahead and why the Government are failing to deliver on their commitment to manage flood risk?
Elizabeth Truss
Seven schemes in the hon. Lady’s constituency have now been identified within the six-year programme between now and 2020-21, with a total investment value of £4.3 million. We are also raising money from partnership funding and the private sector, which enables us to protect more homes and more communities.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
In 2007, the community of Thatcham suffered the surface water flooding of more than 1,100 homes. Since then a huge community effort, working with the Environment Agency and unlocking a lot of local funding as part of the partnership funding scheme, has seen a lot of measures reintroduced. The last piece of that work needs preliminary design funding for this year. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the new Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), whom I welcome to the best job in Government, look closely at this case, so that Thatcham is protected for the future?
Elizabeth Truss
I am sure that we will look very closely at the case that my hon. Friend has made. We are enabling local communities to bundle up projects so that we can have more small-scale projects, and we have put through our plans on sustainable urban drainage better to protect housing from flooding.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
6. What plans she has to increase the productivity, competitiveness and resilience of the UK food and farming sector.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
7. What plans she has to increase the productivity, competitiveness and resilience of the UK food and farming sector.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
8. What plans she has to increase the productivity, competitiveness and resilience of the UK food and farming sector.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
British food and farming is worth more than £100 billion a year to our economy and employs one in eight workers in Great Britain. That is why the Government are committed to working with industry to develop a long-term plan to buy more, sell more and grow more British food. The plan will set out how British food and farming can become a world leader that is innovative, competitive, profitable and resilient, and we will work on that in the months ahead.
Julian Sturdy
I draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interest.
Population growth predictions estimate that we will need to produce 60% more food by 2050, but British crop yields have plateaued over recent years and the agrichemical toolbox available to farmers has been ever reducing. Will the Minister look seriously at offering more support for research and innovation that is focused on increasing yields and on the production challenges that farmers face today?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Following large growth immediately after the war, yields have plateaued in recent decades. DEFRA is spending about £1.75 million a year on research into crops, and our research councils, through the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, have a number of programmes in this area. In particular, Rothamsted has a major programme called “20:20 Wheat”, which aims to get yields of wheat to 20 tonnes per hectare in the next 20 years.
Kevin Hollinrake
This week a dairy farm in my constituency closed its gates for the last time. That follows a 55% reduction in the number of dairy farms in the UK since 1998. What can the Minister say to support British dairy farming?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend highlights a real problem with dairy at the moment. We have had a very difficult year, following a very good year last year. The long-term prospects for the industry are good: demand is growing by about 2% a year, and the Government are making it easier for farmers to average their tax, working with the National Farmers Union to develop futures markets to help farmers manage volatility, and making available investment—through the rural development programme—to help farmers improve their competitiveness.
Derek Thomas
The number of young people entering the UK food and farming sector is encouraging. What assurances can the Minister give that young people can access the skills they need to ensure that the sector has a secure future in areas such as west Cornwall and my hon. Friend’s constituency?
George Eustice
As my hon. Friend knows, we have Duchy College in my constituency, and many of his constituents attend it. He makes an important point: we want to treble the number of apprenticeships in food and farming and to encourage more young people to choose farming as a career. We are working with organisations such as Bright Crop to get ambassadors to go into schools to help teenagers to choose the right subjects so that they can take up careers in farming. That area will be a major part of our food and farming strategy.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
18. Does the Department have a contingency plan to support British agriculture and protect the British food industry’s market access in the event of our leaving the European Union and the common agricultural policy? If so, will the Minister publish it?
George Eustice
No, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government want to renegotiate our relationship with the European Union, and then we intend to campaign to stay in. The CAP is not perfect, and during the course of this Parliament we will push for a mid-term review. We will also argue for longer term reform so that the CAP serves farmers and consumers more effectively.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Farmers in my constituency, a mere 10 miles from Manchester city centre, are still seeing the productivity and competitiveness of their businesses inhibited by the lack of superfast broadband. What discussions is the Minister having with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to expedite the roll-out of superfast broadband in rural areas?
George Eustice
The Secretary of State had a meeting yesterday on that very issue. Broadband Delivery UK has made available some £750 million to roll out superfast broadband in our most rural areas, as well as funds to pilot new technologies in the hardest to reach areas. We recognise that this is an important issue, and the Government will focus much of their energies on it.
Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)
The Government have withheld from Scotland the vast majority of a €230 million pillar one allocation of EU uplift money. The UK qualified for that money only because of Scotland’s low payments. Can the Minister explain why, against the clearly expressed will of the Scottish Government and all political parties in the Scottish Parliament, the Government intend to deprive Scottish farming communities of most of that money?
George Eustice
The allocations that we have made are based on land types, and historically Scotland has tended to have less per hectare because its land was less intensively farmed, but it actually receives more per farm holding than any other part of the UK. We have made it clear that we will have a mid-term review of that issue, which will include comparisons of land types in every part of the UK.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
9. What steps her Department is taking to prioritise flood prevention and introduce a climate change adaptation plan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
Our £2.3 billion capital investment programme will better protect 300,000 homes through a range of flood risk management measures. York will benefit from the programme to the tune of £5 million. We already have a climate change adaptation plan—the national adaptation programme—and it is currently being assessed by the adaptation sub-committee: we expect to learn from its report.
Rachael Maskell
In my constituency, 2,053 homes experience a medium to very high risk of flooding, as does York city centre. Where are the Government in implementing a flood reinsurance scheme to give my constituents some assurances?
Rory Stewart
As I mentioned, £5 million has been committed specifically to flood defences in York. The flood re scheme is currently on track. It is an extremely impressive but complex scheme that will provide insurance to the most vulnerable and at-risk people within your constituency.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
10. What steps she is taking to reduce the cost of living in rural Britain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
Reducing the cost of living in rural areas depends primarily on overcoming the challenges of distance and sparsity. That means boosting productivity and investing in a strong economy and infrastructure, such as road, rail and high-speed broadband. The rural fuel rebate means that some of the most rural areas now benefit from a 5p per litre fuel discount.
Alex Cunningham
People in villages such as Stillington, Carlton, Thorpe Thewles and Redmarshall in my constituency have seen their buses reduced to the odd one here and there, or they have gone altogether, as private companies have pulled out because local authorities no longer have the money to subsidise them. I am sure the Minister agrees that affordable transport links are essential for rural areas, so what can I tell my constituents that the Government will do to connect them to the rest of the area?
Rory Stewart
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that connections of any sort, whether digital or bus connections, are vital for isolated rural areas. Some councils have found solutions to that and there is a community bus fund, championed by the Department for Transport. I look forward to talking in detail to the hon. Gentleman, if he is interested, about the problems in his constituency.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
The Minister mentions the rural economy in the context of broadband. I quite agree that we need to boost broadband, but does he agree that we really need to send a signal to BT to enhance its efforts to ensure that we are properly connected in rural areas?
Rory Stewart
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Working with BT involves the work of every single constituency MP to ensure that we get the information on which areas will be connected and we hold British Telecom to account for the more than £700 million of public money that the Government are investing in a highly impressive programme in rural broadband roll-out.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister, like me, a compulsive listener to “Farming Today”? Is he aware that many experts are saying on “Farming Today” that the cost of living in rural communities will be affected in the long term by climate change and how it impacts on the crops we can grow successfully in the rural economy? Is he worried about that? Is he talking about it, or have this Government given up on climate change worries?
Rory Stewart
Climate change is baked into every aspect of this Department’s work. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the risk assessment conducted in 2012 on climate change adaptation focused specifically on flood risk, but he is correct that there are other issues we need to look at—and look at relentlessly—which is why we look forward to providing a full response to the assessment provided by the climate change adaptation sub-committee.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
There can be no question about it: it does cost more to live in rural areas compared with urban areas, so I very much welcome the reduction in fuel duty, the cap on petrol prices and equalising the council tax. All these things are extremely helpful, but transport must be central to this. Twenty-five per cent. of people in my constituency do not have cars. Will the Minister take steps to look into community bus services, such as Bradies taxis, which I launched last week in my constituency? They are at the end of a telephone and will go and pick people up from their rural locations.
Rory Stewart
My hon. Friend is a great champion of the issues of rural areas. The Department for Transport launched an interesting scheme towards the end of the last Parliament to provide support for community transport schemes. If he wishes to discuss it in more detail, I would encourage the council to apply to the Department for Transport for that fund.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
11. What discussions she has had with her ministerial colleagues on promoting the purchase of more local and seasonal food in the public sector.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
We launched the Bonfield plan in July last year to help the public sector to buy more local, seasonal food. It means that £400 million of business is available to our farmers and food producers. We are making good progress on that, and only this week I discussed with the Justice Secretary how it could be implemented in his Department.
Wendy Morton
The Secretary of State mentioned the efforts she is making in central Government, but what progress does she think is being made at a local level to support our first-class farmers and food producers, not least those in the west midlands?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We have fantastic produce in the west midlands, from Burton’s Marmite to Worcestershire pears. I am pleased to see that Birmingham City Council is working to make sure all its schools meet the Bonfield standards, and I would like other cities, towns and villages across Britain to do so too.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Will the Secretary of State outline what discussions have been held with the devolved regions about the use and promotion of local food right across the UK public sector?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I recently met the Scottish Agriculture Minister to talk about how to promote British food. I look forward to meeting my Northern Ireland counterparts very soon to discuss that issue, too.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Ever since I have been a Member of Parliament, the amount of home-grown food as a proportion of the total has dropped and dropped. If we could increase it, it would be good for our balance of payments and good for jobs. What does my right hon. Friend propose to do to increase it?
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we need to grow more, buy more and sell more British food. We produce fantastic food in this country. At the moment, for example, we are importing two third of our cheese. There is more we can do to encourage investment in the dairy industry and we have a massive opportunity with exports. By 2018, China will be the world’s biggest food importer, and we have just put in place a food and agriculture counsellor in China to promote that fantastic British produce.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
12. What steps he is taking to reduce levels of air pollution in towns and cities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
The Government are taking a series of steps to reduce air pollution. We are tackling pollution particularly from transport on a number of fronts. For example, we are transforming public transport and private vehicles by supporting the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles and encouraging sustainable transport by investing in cycling. We are also tackling pollution from industry.
Alison McGovern
I thank the Minister for his reply. The common good matters nowhere more than in respect of the air we breathe. Will he commit today to drop all objections to European standards on air pollution—unless they are on the basis that the standards are too lenient?
Rory Stewart
I look forward to discussing in more detail with the hon. Lady exactly which European standards she is talking about—concentration levels or total emission levels, for example. If she is talking specifically about nitrogen dioxide, this Government are absolutely committed to meeting the EU targets as soon as possible.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Johnson Matthey, the world’s leading manufacturer of autocatalysts, which is internationally recognised for its diesel trap technology. Will he do all he can to ensure that the tax regime in this country and emissions regulations that apply here allow for the deployment of the latest technology in this field?
Rory Stewart
My hon. and learned Friend will not expect me to comment on a Treasury issue in relation to taxation, but I would like to pay tribute to the work of Johnson Matthey. My hon. and learned Friend has suggested that we meet, and I look forward to meeting this company with its innovative technology as soon as possible.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Fifty-nine years ago, the former Denton urban district council was one of the first local authorities in the land to sign up to the Clean Air Act 1956. Back then, we had thick pea souper smogs that could be seen; today, air pollution is an invisible killer. Is it not time that this Government adopted a new Clean Air Act fit for the 21st century?
Rory Stewart
I am glad the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged the work done over the last 60 years by parties on both sides of the House to address air pollution. It is very striking that sulphur dioxide is down by 88%, while we have halved emissions in particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide. More is to be done, particularly on nitrogen dioxide, and I look forward to working very closely with the hon. Gentleman on that subject.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
13. What support her Department plans to provide for bees and pollinators through the national pollinator strategy.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Bees and other pollinators play an absolutely crucial role in our environment and are estimated to contribute around £400 million a year to our economy. Last year, DEFRA published the national pollinator strategy—a 10-year plan to bring about the best possible conditions for pollinators to flourish. The Government are committed to taking action to support pollinators across all types of land, enhancing the response to pest and disease risks and improving our evidence base.
Iain Stewart
I share the concerns of many constituents who have contacted me about the threat to the bee population from the proposed use of pesticides. We tamper with bees’ wellbeing at our peril; the evidence on this issue is incomplete. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that the restrictions on neonicotinoids will not be lifted until the evidence is complete?
George Eustice
I can tell my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom has implemented the restrictions in full, and that the European Food Safety Authority is about to conduct a review. It has made a call for evidence, to which the United Kingdom will contribute. We have commissioned work from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, and that will be taken into account when the authority has completed its review.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I recommend to the Minister Hoxton Manor honey, which is made by the many urban beekeepers who are now based in my constituency. Production there has mushroomed in the last decade; indeed, my first piece of casework involved a beekeeper. Does the Minister agree that we need to encourage more urban beekeeping to ensure that we have a good ecosystem in our inner cities as well as elsewhere?
George Eustice
I entirely agree, and the national pollinator strategy refers to the importance of providing better habitats for bees in urban areas. I can inform the House that there is even a beehive on the roof of the DEFRA building.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I welcome the pollinator strategy, but yesterday I was contacted by a large number of people who were effectively lobbying. Will the Minister assure us that he will look at all the evidence, in order to ensure not just that the wonderful bees are protected, but that our farmers can farm economically and produce healthy food?
George Eustice
Many of my hon. Friend’s constituents have contacted me as well, and I know that there is a great deal of concern about the issue. There is a gap here: we do need more field trials. The United Kingdom has commissioned some work of that kind, as have other European Union member states including Sweden.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I should probably declare an interest, Mr Speaker, as I am an urban hobby beekeeper myself.
Robert Flello
I am going to lose all my honey now. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] I shall ignore the heckling from my own side. It usually comes from the other side.
I was very concerned to learn that farmers who use polytunnels are buying hives in order to pollinate them and, as a condition of their contracts, must then destroy the hives with the live bees inside. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm or deny that, in the context of his review, or at least look into it if he is not sure of the answer.
George Eustice
I was not aware of that particular problem. We have tightened the regulations on imported bumblebees that are used in glasshouses in order to ensure that the native breed, audax, is the main one used, but if there is a specific issue involving honeybees, I shall be happy to engage in correspondence and then deal with it.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
DEFRA’s priorities are a cleaner, healthier environment, a world-leading food and farm industry, a thriving rural economy, and a nation that is well defended against natural threats and hazards. As a one-nation Government, we will ensure that people in rural areas have access to the same opportunities and technologies as those in towns and cities. We want to unleash the potential of our fantastic countryside.
Glyn Davies
All sectors of the livestock industry, which is hugely important in Montgomeryshire, are struggling with low prices, and that includes milk producers. The Minister said earlier that he saw a positive long-term outlook, but many dairy farmers will not survive in the long term. What steps are the Government taking to help to ensure that all livestock farmers can compete internationally on a level playing field?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend has made an important point. The dairy industry is vital to the future of food and farming. I was delighted when the Chancellor announced in the Budget that farmers would be able to “tax average” over five years, which will help to manage the current volatility. We are also seeing exciting developments in the dairy sector: for example, the producer organisation launched by Dairy Crest will improve farmers’ bargaining powers when they are selling their products.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
In a message to all the people of the world, Pope Francis will say that climate change is mainly caused by human activity, and threatens unprecedented destruction of the ecosystem. Does the Secretary of State agree with the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), her predecessor as Environment Secretary and a well-known climate change denier, or does she agree with the Pope?
Elizabeth Truss
I agree with the Pope. The Government are absolutely committed to tackling climate change. The Paris summit is coming up, and we have taken the lead in securing a deal to limit temperature rises to 2°, which is an important priority. Our Department is clearly responsible for adaptation to climate change, and we take that into account in everything that we do, whether it relates to agriculture, flood defences or protecting nature.
Maria Eagle
I am glad to hear it. The right hon. Lady has accepted the second-largest percentage cut of any Department—an £83 million decrease—in this year’s budgets demanded by the Chancellor. Can she assure the House that she will not repeat the mistakes of her predecessor in 2010, who is in her place, and who cut £100 million a year from the flood protection budget, only for the Department to have to put some of it back after the winter floods caused devastation in 2013?
Elizabeth Truss
Over the previous Parliament, we succeeded as a Department in reducing our budget at the same time as protecting frontline flood defences; we actually saw a real-terms increase in flood defence spending over that of the previous Government. At the same time we also protected our animal-disease response capability, so that we had the same number of vets working in our Department in 2010 as we did in 2015, and I will—
Mr Speaker
Order. These exchanges are too long. Ministers and shadow Ministers are going to have get used to the fact that I want to hear Back Benchers. That is the way it is going to be.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
T2. Bovine TB is an incredibly serious disease, with over 26,000 cattle slaughtered last year alone. My constituency of Lewes falls in a high-risk area. What steps are being taken to roll out pilot vaccination programmes and other measures to help support farmers in the south-east?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
It is part of our 25-year strategy to roll out additional cull areas in high-risk areas and to roll out vaccinations in edge areas. The hon. Lady’s constituency, in East Sussex, is part of a high-risk area and has an edge area, and we would be happy to consider any application that came forward.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
T3. With a Greek exit from the eurozone a looming possibility this week, and given the inevitable downward pressure that will put on the exchange rate between sterling and the euro, has the Minister made any contingency plans to deal with the disastrous impact that that exchange rate change will have on the real value of farm support payments in the UK?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we do face risks and difficult economic times. What we are committed to doing is helping British producers sell their products—we have seen exports rise to £19 billion. Also, when we had the issue with the Russian trade embargo last year, we were able to find new markets for products—for example, we found a new market for mackerel in Nigeria—and we will continue with that work.
Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)
T4. Wales is home to some of our country’s finest food and drinks: Welsh lamb, Brains beer and Penderyn whisky, to name a few. What role does the Secretary of State think protected food names have to play in adding value to and boosting Welsh exports?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I enjoyed some of those fantastic products at the Royal Welsh show last year. There are great protected food names, like Welsh lamb. We have 63 protected food names in this country, and they command a market premium at home and overseas. I want to see us get up to the level of the French, who have over 200, and I encourage companies across our country to apply.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
T6. In the Minister’s written answer to me yesterday, he refused to publish the National Farmers Union application for an exemption on the ban on using neonicotinoid pesticides. Does he agree that on this vital subject and this major threat to bees and pollinators the public should know what is going on behind closed doors? If so, will he publish that information, even if he redacts the names of the farmers?
George Eustice
The hon. Lady knows that that information is commercially sensitive, but what I can say is that two applications are being considered by the Health and Safety Executive, and before any decision is taken we would take the advice of our expert committee on pesticides.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
T5. The black country’s canal network is an important part of our industrial heritage, supports a variety of wildlife and hosts many leisure facilities. Will the Minister update the House on what is being done to clean up our inland waterways?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
I could not agree more strongly with my hon. Friend on the importance of waterways. Nearly 10,000 miles of rivers and internal waterways have been cleaned up; phosphate pollution is down by one fifth and ammonia down by one sixth; and water companies will be investing £3.5 billion over the next five years in improving our water quality.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
T7. Up to 4,000 properties are at risk of flooding in my constituency, so the Government’s announcement of an extra £7.5 million for flood defences in Great Grimsby was welcome. However, that figure includes a £5 million black hole of unallocated funding and my constituents are worried that their homes may be flooded again this year. Will the Secretary of State meet me so that we can get this funding shortfall sorted out and start protecting people from the risk of flooding?
Elizabeth Truss
I am delighted that the hon. Lady is pleased about the investment in flood defences in her constituency. During the last Parliament, we raised £140 million in additional funding, which is 10 times that raised by the previous Government. We are already up to £250 million—more than 40% of our target—within two months of our six-year programme, and we are going to help deliver that.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
T8. Page 73 of the Conservative party manifesto said:“We will press for…further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy”.What specific reforms does my right hon. Friend expect to be agreed prior to the referendum?
Elizabeth Truss
We are working on this all the time. One of the most complicated common agricultural policies in history has just been introduced, and we are already in discussions with Commissioner Hogan about simplifying that and making it easier for farmers to apply it. The next round of CAP negotiations are coming up and we want a much simpler policy.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
T10. Many of my constituents in rural areas desperately need faster broadband speeds to run their businesses and create jobs in an area where unemployment is 50% higher than the average. The Under-Secretary referred earlier to planned investment, but rather than have my constituents wait years under current plans will he meet the providers again and tell them to get a move on?
Rory Stewart
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the progress on superfast broadband has been pretty remarkable; we have gone from 40% to 80%, and we will be at 95% by 2017. If there are specific issues related to his constituency, I would, again, be very happy to sit down to discuss them in detail.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
T9. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. British beer is the best in the world, and our beer sales at home and abroad are booming. That is good for British brewers and for British farmers, connecting grain to glass to the lips of beer lovers across the world. What can we do to encourage more beer exports?
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree with my hon. Friend; we are now exporting 1 billion pints of beer around the world. I have had the opportunity to visit the Ilkley brewery and taste its fantastic produce, as well as Fuller’s in London. I have not yet visited Burton—I am still waiting for the invitation. Perhaps it is in the post, so that I will be able to promote it, too.
Stewart McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
When does the Secretary of State expect that her Department will become a living wage employer?
Elizabeth Truss
I am committed to making my Department a living wage employer.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
1. What plans the Church Commissioners have to improve the sustainability of church buildings.
Mrs Spelman
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course we must briefly pay tribute to my predecessor, who fulfilled this role with great aplomb and will be for ever remembered as enabling the legislation on women bishops.
The Church faces a great challenge in terms of its sustainability, particularly in rural areas. The Church Commissioners will be helping to support those churches that want to come back to the heart of the community by opening their doors to a wide range of uses that serve the community.
Andrew Stephenson
May I join you in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend and welcoming her to her new role, Mr Speaker? Brierfield Methodist church recently secured much-needed Heritage Lottery funding support for roof and masonry renovations, but Nelson United Reformed church is having to close next month, after 150 years of worship. Will my right hon. Friend set out how she will work with the Heritage Lottery Fund and other bodies to help preserve the church buildings, for which the Church Commissioners are responsible?
Mrs Spelman
My hon. Friend has just mentioned the Methodist Church and I am sure you would agree that it is right that we should all record our sympathy to the Methodist Church in South Carolina, which has suffered a terrible shooting tragedy.
I intend to work very actively with the Heritage Lottery Fund, which dedicates about £25 million a year to essential repairs for all listed places of worship. Given the urgency of my hon. Friend’s specific case, I suggest we work on it together immediately.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
Last winter, the church of St Mary’s in Lytchett Matravers was shut due to a lack of heating, and parish churches across Dorset struggle to meet both their parish share and to ensure that their buildings remain open. What plans does the Church Commissioner have to provide support for churches such as St Mary’s in Lytchett Matravers to ensure that they remain open, and will she meet me to discuss the matter?
Mrs Spelman
A total of 250 churches have managed to install renewable energy facilities. The Church offers a church care support system to help parishes make changes and modifications to their heating systems to bring down the costs of heating. I suggest that we work closely together with this specific example and see what can be done.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
2. What assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the effect of whether the question is posed in the affirmative or negative on the outcome of a referendum.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
6. What assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the neutrality of the proposed EU referendum question.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
The Electoral Commission has begun its assessment of the referendum question proposed in the European Union Referendum Bill and will publish its assessment before Parliament returns from recess in September. The Commission has previously reported on the neutrality of the proposed question as part of the assessment of the question contained in a private Member’s Bill in 2013. That report found that a number of voters perceived a bias if the phrase, “Remain a member of the European Union” is used in isolation. The Commission therefore recommended an alternative question, which it found to be more neutral but which did not use yes and no as response options.
Mr Streeter
It is certainly the case that the Electoral Commission has given advice on the purdah rules, which I will discuss when we reach question 5. Happily, I am not responsible for the Government accepting that advice.
Philip Davies
The Electoral Commission has said that the most neutral question for the EU referendum would be: should the UK leave the EU, or should it remain within the EU? Does my hon. Friend not believe that the Government should accept the independent advice of the Electoral Commission as to what is the most neutral question and put that in the referendum Bill?
Mr Streeter
My hon. Friend slightly anticipates the situation. The Electoral Commission is currently assessing and consulting on two questions: the question in the Bill and the question, “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union.” It will provide its findings and recommendations to the House in September.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
3. If the Electoral Commission will commission a lay-person’s guide to the costs and benefits of UK membership of the EU before the EU referendum.
Mr Streeter
The Electoral Commission is currently considering what public information it will provide to voters on how to register and cast their vote at an EU referendum. However, given that it is also responsible for designating lead campaigners as well as registering and regulating other campaigners, the Commission does not believe that it would be appropriate for it also to produce a guide providing information about the costs and benefits of EU membership first hand as campaigners would want to make such a case themselves.
Derek Thomas
Does my hon. Friend agree that the British public have a right to a completely objective guide to our membership in order to take an informed decision in the in/out EU referendum?
Mr Streeter
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, and that is what many of our constituents want. The issue is: who is best placed to provide that impartial guide? Given the complexity of the question—there are so many unknowns—and the importance of ensuring that the Electoral Commission does not in any way undermine its neutrality and independence, it may not be the right organisation to carry out that task.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
If they are not the people to do it, I am quite happy to take on that task. It would be pointless having such a document because it will have pages and pages and pages of costs; I doubt that we would find a page on the benefits.
Mr Streeter
I will certainly put that offer back to the Electoral Commission. I am sure that it will be as enthusiastic as I am.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
4. What representations the Church of England has made on the protection of Christians from persecution in Iran.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
The Church of England is aware of the plight of the Christian community in Iran and works closely with the Bishop of Cyprus and the Gulf, the right Reverend Michael Lewis, and the Bishop of Iran, the right Reverend Azad Marshall, to give support where it can.
Fiona Bruce
The recent report on the persecution of Christians in Iran by Christians in Parliament with the all-party group on religious freedom and belief recounts serious neglect of human rights of Christians in Iran. Surveillance, arbitrary arrests, lashings, torture and severe prison sentences are common. What steps is the Church taking to encourage respect and tolerance for Christians and for those of other minority faiths in Iran and elsewhere in the middle east?
Mrs Spelman
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the report produced by the APPG. I attended the meeting at which some of those recommendations were put to a Foreign Office Minister yesterday. The Archbishop of Canterbury invited the Grand Imam of al-Azhar to both Houses of Parliament to express encouragement to religious and political leaders to speak out in support of moderate voices in the region.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
May I echo the remarks made by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce)? It seems to me that one’s right to faith and freedom of religion are fundamental human rights and I am concerned that within the Christian faith, Christian leaders need to do more to educate those who come to worship on a Sunday and do not know that others are denied that right.
Mrs Spelman
The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is important for people of all faiths to encourage one another in a spirit of tolerance. The Grand Imam made the point that the message of Islam and Christianity is enough to build the bridge of continuous understanding. That is what he said in this place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In 2014, 75 Christians were arrested for their faith, physically and mentally abused, and threatened with execution. What representation has the Church made on behalf of those 75 Christians?
Mrs Spelman
The Church works closely in tandem with the Foreign Office to put diplomatic pressure on countries in which there is abuse of religious freedom. I know that the hon. Gentleman was present at the APPG yesterday and he will have heard the Foreign Office Minister give us encouragement to work together on this.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
5. What assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the proposals in the European Union Referendum Bill relating to disapplication of purdah.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
The Electoral Commission has set out in its briefings on the European Union Referendum Bill why it does not agree with the disapplication of section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, as proposed in the legislation being considered by this House. The commission’s briefing papers on the legislation are circulated to hon. Members and published on its website.
Mr Burrowes
Does my hon. Friend expect the Government formally to respond to the helpfully clear advice that
“there is a risk that the use of significant amounts of public money for promotional activity could give an unfair advantage to one side of the argument”?
If so, can it be published?
Mr Streeter
I am not aware of any legal duty for the Government to respond to any recommendations made by the Electoral Commission, but I was pleased to hear earlier this week that the Government appear to be moving in the direction of the advice given by the commission. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is a tenacious warrior on this issue, will welcome that.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
As the hon. Gentleman just said, the Electoral Commission clearly disagreed with the Government’s position. Why does he think that the Government disagreed, other than in a wish to rig the referendum?
Mr Streeter
Happily, that is not a matter for me. I am sure that will be a question the hon. Gentleman will ask Ministers on the Front Bench, if he has not already done so.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
7. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to assess and support the wellbeing of clergy.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
The Church of England seeks to support its clergy and their families and dependants through their challenging roles ministering to parishes. This support includes, but is not limited to, housing, pensions and continual training.
Rachael Maskell
The demanding responsibilities of clergy in the Church and across civic society is having a serious impact on their physical and mental health. In the light of their office holder employment status, what commitments can the Church Commissioners give to improving their duty of care to clergy?
Mrs Spelman
Those of us in public life are all aware of the pressures on mental and physical wellbeing, but I acknowledge that is particularly the case for clergy. The hon. Lady worked closely with an important test case on the status of clergy and it is right to take forward the question of their wellbeing. Programmes such as the Arrow programme, provided by the Church Pastoral Aid Society, can assist clergy in making themselves more resilient in these challenging roles.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
8. What discussions she has had with the Church of England on broadening the diversity of the General Synod.
Mrs Spelman
The elections for the General Synod of the Church of England will be taking place during late September to mid October. Any communicant lay person who is on the electoral roll is eligible, so I suggest that we all encourage those who we know who could increase the diversity of Synod to apply.
Mr Sheerman
I am encouraged to hear that. I am a lay canon at Wakefield cathedral, and when I go to church most of the people in the church are women, but 65% of the membership of the Synod are men—mainly middle-aged men like me. When are we going to get some leadership to get more women in the Synod?
Mrs Spelman
As I just said, one thing we can all do is encourage more women to apply for the elections this year. As an ex officio member of Synod and the first female Second Church Estates Commissioner, I will be doing my bit to diversify the Synod.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
9. What steps the Electoral Commission is taking to make guidance clearer on the use of commonly used names on ballot papers.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
The commission first clarified its guidance on the law on commonly used names in 2011, then restated that guidance in March 2015 when it became clear that there was some confusion surrounding the rules. The Electoral Commission keeps its guidance under regular review.
Caroline Nokes
Advice from the Electoral Commission at the recent local elections suggested that middle names were not acceptable as commonly used names, leaving the wonderful councillor John Nigel Steward Anderdon on the ballot paper simply as “Nige”. What assurances can my hon. Friend give me that guidance will be clearer in the future?
Mr Streeter
The law that we in this House passed in 2006 states that a candidate may state a commonly used forename if it is different from any other forename that he or she has; therefore the use of a second or third Christian name—for example, Nigel or Boris—does not qualify under the 2006 legislation. The Electoral Commission is reviewing the matter, and if people have representations they would like to make, the commission would be grateful to receive them.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
10. What steps the National Audit Office plans to take to monitor and scrutinise spending on the Palace of Westminster restoration and renewal project.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The current arrangements for the audit of the House of Commons by the Comptroller and Auditor General differ from those for the public bodies which allow him the right to examine the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditures under the National Audit Act 1983. As a consequence, any examination of the restoration and renewal programme would require the House to request him formally—he must be requested; he has no right—to review and report on these expenditures. Those arrangements secure the absolute independence of the House.
Sir Edward Leigh
Of course we must have value for money on this project. The National Audit Office is already involved: it is working with the project managers and will be looking at the finances on a continual basis. The House must report its finances. If the hon. Gentleman can restrain his impatience, the independent options appraisal will be published this afternoon, and for my part, I hope we can be allowed to stay here.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I am pleased to be able now to announce the results of the elections for Chairs of Select Committees. No ballot was necessary for 12 Committees for which a single nomination had been received. They are as follows:
Committee | Elected |
Communities and Local Government | Mr Clive Betts |
Energy and Climate Change | Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil |
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs | Neil Parish |
Northern Ireland Affairs | Mr Laurence Robertson |
Procedure | Mr Charles Walker |
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs | Mr Bernard Jenkin |
Scottish Affairs | Pete Wishart |
Standards | Kevin Barron |
Transport | Mrs Louise Ellman |
Treasury | Mr Andrew Tyrie |
Welsh Affairs | David T.C. Davies |
Women and Equalities | Mrs Maria Miller |
In the contested elections, a total of 621 ballot papers were submitted, the ballots being counted under the alternative vote system. The following candidates were elected:
Committee | Elected |
Backbench Business | Ian Mearns |
Business, Innovation and Skills | Mr Iain Wright |
Culture, Media and Sport | Jesse Norman |
Defence | Dr Julian Lewis |
Education | Neil Carmichael |
Environmental Audit | Huw Irranca-Davies |
Foreign Affairs | Crispin Blunt |
Health | Dr Sarah Wollaston |
Home Affairs | Keith Vaz |
International Development | Stephen Twigg |
Justice | Robert Neill |
Petitions | Helen Jones |
Public Accounts | Meg Hillier |
Science and Technology | Nicola Blackwood |
Work and Pensions | Frank Field |
I warmly congratulate all those elected. I should like—I hope on behalf of the whole House—to thank all those who put themselves forward for election.
Business of the House
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)
Before I do so, may I echo Mr Speaker’s words of congratulations to all those elected as Select Committee Chairs, offer my commiserations to those who were unsuccessful, and echo Mr Speaker’s words of thanks to all those, particularly the Officers of the House, who were involved in conducting the election process?
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 22 June—Second Reading of the Education and Adoption Bill.
Tuesday 23 June—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Finance) Bill, followed by a motion relating to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill.
Wednesday 24 June—Opposition day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 25 June—General debate on reports into investigatory powers.
Friday 26 June—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 29 June will include:
Monday 29 June—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (day 2).
Tuesday 30 June—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (day 3).
Wednesday 1 July—Opposition day (4th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 2 July—General debate: subject to be announced.
Friday 3 July—The House will not be sitting.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business, which includes, in particular, the Adjournment debate we will have next Monday on stone theft. After the events of the past few months, we on the Labour Benches have been wondering where our election stone has got to.
I, too, offer my congratulations to all those colleagues who have just been elected to chair Select Committees. They do an extremely important job in this House. I add my commiserations to those who were unsuccessful. Given that my own nomination process is over now as well, I can safely say that MPs are now free to roam the Corridors completely undisturbed.
Later today the report on options for the restoration and renewal of Parliament will be published, and I understand that the recommendations will all have significant and expensive implications. Will the Leader of the House tell us how he will ensure that the whole House has a chance to discuss and debate the way forward?
I note that once again there is no reference to English votes for English laws in the future business, but rumours continue to abound that we will be discussing Government plans as early as next week, so can the Leader of the House assure me that we will have adequate time to discuss and debate these important proposals, and will he tell us when that is likely to be?
The Greek debt crisis poses a serious threat to Europe’s economy, including that of the UK. With the Greek central bank now warning of a “painful” road ahead and no sign of a solution, what contingency plans exist to protect the UK economy from the effects of a Greek exit from the eurozone? Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chancellor to come to the House and report on the outcome of the meeting of EU Finance Ministers in Luxembourg today?
After last week’s breathtaking U-turn in the Bavarian Alps , the Prime Minister is now in full retreat on the European Union Referendum Bill. We have had complete confusion over the referendum date. First, the Prime Minister said it could coincide with next year’s elections, but this week he was forced to back down at the last minute because he knew he had lost his majority. We still do not know whether Eurosceptic Cabinet Ministers will be able to campaign for an out vote—something I believe the Leader of the House will want an answer to, at least some time soon.
Finally, on Tuesday, after frantic whipping and a desperate letter from the Minister for Europe begging them not to rebel, no fewer than 27 Back Benchers, including five former Cabinet Ministers, voted against the Government. After that sorry spectacle, will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government have already conceded our amendments on today’s amendment paper? May we have a debate on the complete chaos that has characterised the Government’s flagship Bill? I was thinking about watching the new film “Jurassic World”, but if I want to see a bunch of dinosaurs tear each other apart I might as well stay and watch his Back Benchers.
This week we marked 800 years since the signing of Magna Carta and the origin of the rights we enjoy today. Although some of its clauses, such as those on the return of Welsh hostages and the removal of fishing weirs from England, have been somewhat overtaken by events, this country’s commitment to basic rights and freedoms remains a proud part of our heritage and crucial to our future. As the nation celebrated at Runnymede, will the Leader of the House tell us why the Prime Minister chose to mark the anniversary by reaffirming his intention to scrap the Human Rights Act? Will he tell us why the Prime Minister has rejected the advice of his previous Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who said that scrapping the Act will undermine human rights across Europe?
I know that the Prime Minister could not tell us what Magna Carta actually meant when he appeared on “Letterman” three years ago, but he would be wise to pay attention to the lessons of history now. Magna Carta came about because the King fell foul of pushy, rebellious barons who would not accept his authority. After it was signed, the King ignored it and kept going back on his word. It took his death from a surfeit of peaches and the accession of a new young King to finally quieten the rebels. After the Chancellor’s impressive debut at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, if I was the Prime Minister I would be worried, and I would certainly stay well away from any peaches.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady mentioned stone theft. It is a matter of great concern to all of us when parts of our national heritage are endangered, and I was particularly concerned by the idea that the Labour party might take an object of great symbolic importance, break it into tiny pieces and sell them, as happened to the Berlin wall. Perhaps she can give us an assurance that that will not happen.
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments on the Select Committee Chairs. Of course, she is wrong to say that the election process is over, because we will now have Members campaigning to join the Committees. It has certainly been a great exercise in democracy across the House. The Tea Room will probably be much quieter for at least the next 48 hours.
On the restoration of the Palace of Westminster, hon. Members will be aware that today we will see the independently commissioned report on the nature of this building and the challenges that await us in ensuring that it has a strong future. Officials will brief Members of Parliament later today. We will then approach the issue immensely carefully. We will set up a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the report and the options it lays out. We will then decide on the best approach, but that provisional decision will be subject to extensive discussions over the months ahead and to a vote in both Houses. My clear view, as I said last week, is that this building is an important part of our national heritage and our democracy and must remain as such. I am not warm to the idea that we should look to move elsewhere. None the less, we have to face the challenges of ensuring that the building is fit for the 21st century, and that discussion will involve all Members of the House.
The hon. Lady asked about English votes for English laws. I know that she is eager to see our proposals, but she will have to wait a few days longer. I have given a commitment that the proposals will shortly be laid before this House, discussed and then voted upon.
The hon. Lady asked about the situation in Greece. It is an immensely important matter, and the Government are thinking very carefully about how we would respond if the situation deteriorates. If there are developments, clearly the Chancellor will feel a duty to inform the House. Let us hope that the situation can be resolved without the kind of economic turmoil that it could lead to in Greece and elsewhere in Europe.
The hon. Lady mentioned party unity. I have been impressed this week by the breakout of unity on the Labour Benches as Members from all sides of their party united behind the great hope for the future of their leadership—the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). As I looked at the hon. Lady’s background and the nature of the people who have been supporting her campaign—I congratulate her on having made the next round of the contest—I wondered whether she and the hon. Gentleman might make a dream ticket together.
The hon. Lady mentioned anniversaries occurring this week. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you are aware that this week also marks the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, with the re-enactment of that great battle taking place today. What you might not have known is that Napoleon’s armies marched to Waterloo under the banner of an eagle. The eagle was defeated, it was captured, and it is now in the hands of the Scots.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
After yet another very serious car crash near Galleys corner on the A120 in my constituency, will my right hon. Friend make Government time for a debate on traffic flow and safety improvements on this very important road in my constituency?
Chris Grayling
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place in this House. He has already made a great start in representing the interests of his constituency on an immensely serious issue that we as a Government take very seriously. He will be aware that the Department for Transport is already funding a study on how it can improve safety on that stretch of road. It will look very carefully at the conclusions of that study and will, I hope, make necessary improvements.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I too thank the Leader of the House for the business for next week. I add my congratulations to the winners of the Select Committee Chairs—not because I have a personal interest—and give my commiserations to the losers. I felt that it was like a bad Oscars or “Britain’s Got Some Sort Of Talent” when the announcements were being made, but congratulations to everybody involved.
I am sure that the Leader of the House has heard this morning the absolute fury from Scotland about the early ending of the renewables obligation for onshore wind and the very real threat from the Scottish Government to have this judicially reviewed, such is the threat to the 70% of the industry that is based in Scotland. Some 100 applications will now be under threat because of this Conservative Government’s almost ideological contempt for onshore wind and other renewables.
This seems to fit into a pattern. We have the return of the Scotland Bill in a couple of weeks, but this week not one amendment was accepted by a Government who said they would listen to the Scottish Government on the Bill. Amendments that were agreed cross-party even by the Conservative party in the Scottish Parliament have been rejected by the Government. It is almost as if they want us to go, given the way they are dealing with Scottish issues in the House of Commons.
I want to talk about English votes for English laws as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) asked some very basic and reasonable questions about the Leader of the House’s proposals and plans for English votes for English laws, and what did we get? “I intend to bring the proposals to the House.” We know that is what he intends to do, but as well as having no debate, no scrutiny and no consultation, we are not even supposed to ask him basic questions about English votes for English laws. When are we going to see these proposals and have them brought before the House?
I thought I was going to take part in business questions today after the first Government defeat. What a gift was given to the Labour party this week with the Tory rebellion—an open goal, only for it to put the ball in its own net. The Leader of the House likes to go on about seating arrangements in this House. I suggest that what we might want to do is to have us on the Labour Benches as the real Opposition to this Government, because that compliant lot, sitting on their hands again and again, are letting the Tories off the hook. They will not be let off the hook by the Scottish National party—that’s for sure.
Chris Grayling
May I start by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee? He is going to be busy, because he wears another hat when participating in business questions.
On onshore wind, this Government are committed to renewable energy, but I am afraid that my idea of renewable energy does not involve covering some of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom and the highlands of Scotland with wind farms. I support offshore wind, but I also support the beautiful countryside of the United Kingdom and I want to preserve it. I am proud to be part of a Government who believe that is important.
The Scotland Bill implements the recommendations of the Smith commission—a commitment that was made by the previous Government and which has been continued by this Government—in the wake of the decision by the Scottish people to remain a part of the United Kingdom.
On the issue of English votes, as I have said, I will, when we are ready, inform the whole House. I say to the Scottish nationalists, with apologies, that I do not intend to inform them of our plans before I tell the whole House.
Finally, on the seating question, I gather that the morning race continues and it looks like the SNP won this morning. Opposition seating arrangements are a matter for the two parties involved to sort out and for us to watch with amusement.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I have recently been contacted by the directors of the last remaining traditional Nottingham lace makers, Cluny Lace, which operates in my constituency. It has recently been informed by Historic England that both its business and its business premises are about to be listed. That would seriously impact on the way in which this historic company operates and may put it in jeopardy. Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the way in which Historic England operates its listing process, given the fact that Cluny Lace is a going concern, not a museum?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Regulation to protect our heritage should not destroy it. She is absolutely right to draw the matter to the attention of the House. I encourage her to draw it to the attention of the Department concerned through both a written question and, possibly, an Adjournment debate. She has made an important point and I am sure Ministers will have noted it.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 143 on Careermakers Recruitment, standing in my name?
[That this House condemns in the most severe terms the employment practices of Careermakers Recruitment, 86 Cheetham Hill Road, Manchester, M4 4EX, and in particular their maltreatment of a constituent of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to overlong working-hours and failure to observe health and safety legislation; calls on the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to investigate their activities and, if he regards it as appropriate, to refer their violation of employment laws to the police; and warns all potential contacts to have nothing to do with these swindlers.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman turn his attention to it, in order to get the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and, if need be, the police to deal with these rogue people who exploit employees and harm and damage their lives? This is an essential matter and I look to the right hon. Gentleman to follow it up.
Chris Grayling
May I commend the Father of the House for his continuing diligence on behalf of people in Manchester who have to deal—not often, but from time to time—with unacceptable employment practices of the kind that this House would always condemn? I cannot comment specifically on the case he has raised, but I will make the Department for Work and Pensions aware of his concerns and I hope he will take the opportunity to raise them directly with the Secretary of State as well.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
First, may I say that my Adjournment debate on stone theft is on Monday evening?
My local Kirklees Council does not have a local plan in place, resulting in a developers’ free-for-all, and I am encouraging local residents to submit their objections to the Grimescar Valley development. Could we have an urgent debate on such situations and on planning as a whole?
Chris Grayling
I wish my hon. Friend well with his debate on stone theft. We wait with interest to see whether the precedent set in the general election campaign will be followed by any of the Labour leadership candidates producing their own stone commitments.
The serious issue of planning affects many constituencies. The changes this Government have put in place are specifically designed to give greater power and authority to the local plan. I urge every council to move ahead as quickly as possible with the planning process, and I urge my hon. Friend to bring the matter to the attention of Ministers during Communities and Local Government questions in 10 days’ time.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
Is it still the Government’s intention to hold a debate in Government time on the renewal of the Trident platform, and is the right hon. Gentleman able to say something about the timing of such a debate?
Chris Grayling
I cannot give an indication yet about the timing of such a debate, but there will be, at an appropriate moment, a chance for this House to decide on the future of Trident. That is only right and proper, and this party and this Government are absolutely committed to it. I know there are some divisions of opinion in this House, but I hope that, on the two Front Benches at least, there is an absolute commitment to preserving our nuclear deterrent.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I return the Leader of the House to the independent options appraisal on the future of this building? I know that there will be a vote next year, that a Committee will be appointed and all the rest of it. However, the report has been widely trailed and we are told that it will be incredibly expensive for us to stay here. It would be useful to have an early debate, so that the views of Members can be discussed. There is no point in saying that this is an iconic building; what is important is what goes on inside this building.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course we have to ensure that this building is fit for the work that is done in it today to continue for generations to come. There will be a briefing on the report in the Boothroyd Room at 12 o’clock. I will work as hard as I can to ensure that all Members have an opportunity to contribute their views, not only in this Chamber but in discussions with those who are involved in the project.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I am extremely worried for my constituents in Ashton-under-Lyne, Droylsden and Failsworth, and for people across the country. This week, a report was published in the media regarding the crisis that is unfolding in home care services. We all have a vested interest in this matter as we are all getting older. I would like an urgent debate about how we can ensure that older people are treated with dignity and respect, and how we can deal with the unfolding crisis.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady has taken advantage of the Adjournment debates system to bring that and related issues to the House next week, when I am sure she will make her representations to Ministers. Of course we are all concerned to ensure that proper care is provided to the elderly. That is why the last Government established the better care fund, which will integrate social care and health care funding in a way that will improve the quality of care for the elderly, which is very necessary.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Sir John Chilcot’s failure to publish his report in a timely fashion is a betrayal of the military covenant, a betrayal of those who served in Iraq and, in particular, a betrayal of those who have suffered as a result of the Iraq war. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on why Sir John has failed to bring forward his report?
Chris Grayling
You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that there is increasing concern across the House about the amount of time it is taking for Sir John’s report to be published. The Prime Minister himself has expressed concern about this matter. It is, of course, an independent study, but I very much hope that those who are involved in putting the report together are listening carefully to the strength of the views being expressed in this House. The current delay is not what anyone envisaged, nor is it the right way to treat an issue of this importance.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Is the Leader of the House as alarmed as I am at the collapse of a number of trials of notable republicans in Northern Ireland, including Padraic Wilson, Rosa McLaughlin and a host of others, and at other cases where people have been arrested, such as Gerry Adams, with no trial pertaining thereto, and at the fact that these trials have all collapsed because of serious sex cases that the people have allegedly been involved in? The fact that none of those historic trials can be brought to a proper, full and complete hearing is damaging public confidence. Does the Leader of the House feel that there is an opportunity for a proper inquiry into those matters?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman makes a series of important points. In my previous role, I had regular contact with the judiciary in Northern Ireland. I regard them to be of very high quality and to be very committed citizens of Northern Ireland. I do not wish to say anything that in any way denigrates the work that they do. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will take note of the questions that he has raised in the House today. They are matters that need to be dealt with sensitively, given the independence of the judicial process. I will make sure that she is aware of his concerns.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
With the resurfacing of the M6 diverting much of the night-time traffic through Penkridge, Gailey and Dunston in my constituency for up to 70 nights over the coming months, may we have a debate on how Highways England can operate resurfacing and other major works more efficiently and effectively, so that they do not cause such disturbance to residents?
Chris Grayling
Having had to divert off the M6 a couple of times recently myself because of the roadworks, I share my hon. Friend’s concern about the impact on the surrounding communities. That is not always avoidable, given the need for improvements. As the improvements take root and the road is reopened, there will probably be a positive impact on the communities that he represents. I will ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of the Department for Transport, and he should use all the channels available to him to ensure that Ministers are aware of the need to speed things up as much as is humanly possible.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
While we are waiting for the briefing on the parliamentary building, is it not clear that previous reports have shown the crumbling state of the building and how costly it would be if the essential work to be undertaken were done with Members, staff and everyone else in place? I heard what the Leader of the House said about the Committee and the rest of it, but is it not important that a decision is reached, so that the necessary work can begin in 2020? The longer we delay it, the more costly it will be.
Chris Grayling
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need to get on with this, because there is no benefit in inappropriate delays. Of course, there is other work to be done on the parliamentary estate before that work can happen, but I am clear that we need to move ahead with it expeditiously.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May we have a debate on vehicle excise duty, which most people call car tax or road tax? That would give Members the opportunity to consider the rules governing that tax, particularly the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s practice of collecting tax twice for the same month when a vehicle changes hands from one owner to another.
Chris Grayling
I hear my hon. Friend’s point. Of course, the DVLA is working hard to improve the vehicle tax system. The removal of the tax disc, for example, has both saved money and created a system that we hope and believe will be more efficient. I am sure that Ministers will have noted his comments.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Will the Leader of the House inform us how many drafts of the Chilcot report the Government have received for comment?
Chris Grayling
We will wait to receive the report along with everybody else. It is an independent report, and independent reports are submitted to Government when they are submitted to Government. As soon as we are able to give further information about it we will, but we are waiting in the same way that the hon. Gentleman is.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Further to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave last week to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about legislation on caste discrimination, does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue is not so much whether discrimination legislation is unwanted as whether it is necessary? If we are to have a statement by the Minister for Women and Equalities, will she acknowledge in it the meetings that she has had with those affected by caste discrimination in this country and the representations that she has had from them?
Chris Grayling
These are of course sensitive issues. We are a society in which every individual should be treated equally and fairly, and the law should apply to all parts of our society in the same way. There will of course be opportunities to address Ministers the week after next, when we will have Women and Equalities questions and Communities and Local Government questions. Both colleagues who have raised the issue in the past week and a half should feel free to raise it with Ministers again on those occasions.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Why is everybody assuming that if we have to move out of Parliament while it is repaired, we will automatically move somewhere else in London? Why cannot we move to the midlands—preferably the black country? It would be much easier for most Members to get to, and it would enable Ministers and the metropolitan elite running the civil service to find out what life is like for the rest of us. As you will know from your celebrated visit to Dudley just a few years ago, Mr Speaker, and as the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), who is in his place, will know, the Edwardian masterpiece that is Dudley town hall is at least twice the size of this Chamber and would provide adequate accommodation for every Member.
Chris Grayling
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his diligence in promoting the great town of Dudley and the black country, which is a fine part of this country with a great heritage, some great businesses and some great communities. However, I suspect that if we ended up having a debate about alternative venues for the House, we would probably find 650 different arguments being made.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Southampton airport is in my constituency. Aircrew on planes from all airports are rightly suitably trained for any emergency, but recently a 47-year-old woman died on a plane heading to Europe. Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate on the availability of suitable equipment on aeroplanes, particularly defibrillators, for use in times of need and to prevent diversions?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I pay tribute to Southampton airport. Many years ago, long before I was a Member of this place, I was involved in organising the launch event for the terminal building, so I know it well and it is a fine asset to the area around her constituency. I am sure that Transport Ministers will have noted what she said, but it is important that she uses the platform that she has as a Member of Parliament to make the point to the airlines. Influencing outside organisations to change the way they operate is one of the things that MPs can do.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
For seven years, public sector workers have borne the brunt of the austerity agenda imposed on them by the Conservatives—800,000 people have lost their jobs, and others have had cuts in pay and pensions and attacks on terms and conditions. May we have a debate in Government time on when we will start respecting and rewarding our public sector workers, and in particular how we will recruit nurses, firefighters and care workers in the future? If we keep treating them with disrespect, no one will want to do the job.
Chris Grayling
We have some magnificent people in our public sector who do a fine job for this country, but that fact does not remove the need for us to balance the budget or the need for this country to live within its means. That was the big division and argument between us at the general election, and the reality is that we won.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
After Chad, the UK charges the most passenger duty of anywhere in the world. Indeed, many of our European competitors do not charge any such tax. A recent PwC report highlighted the fact that if the tax were abolished, the economy would benefit by up to £2 billion. May we have a debate on the future of air passenger duty?
Chris Grayling
Air passenger duty is one of the taxes that was introduced by the Labour Government and that I wish was lower. I am pleased that in government we have been able to freeze it and remove it for children. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will continue to keep it under review and, after the Budget in early July, we will have extensive chances to debate air passenger duty and other taxes. I hope that my hon. Friend will take advantage of the opportunity.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Leader of the House may be aware that following the recent takeover of Friends Life, Aviva plans to slash £225 million from its annual budget. As part of the proposals, it intends to close its offices in Salford, Stretford and Salisbury, creating devastating job uncertainty for more than 780 employees. It has further proposals to close offices in Dorking, Exeter and central Manchester. Given the national scale of this terrible issue, is the Leader of the House amenable to diarising an urgent debate in this Chamber?
Chris Grayling
It is always difficult when major corporations reorganise—they cut jobs in one part of the country and create jobs in another to rationalise their operations. I commend the hon. Lady for what she is doing to raise the issues and challenges faced by her constituents. I suggest that she uses the opportunities that exist in this Chamber and Westminster Hall to bring a Minister along, so that she can raise her concerns directly. I give her an assurance that if her constituents end up losing out, the facilities available through the Department for Work and Pensions to help those who have lost their jobs will be deployed as effectively and as quickly as possible.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Can the Leader of House give us an early statement on the future of onshore wind farms, following the welcome announcement today of an ending of the subsidy and the change to planning law? Perhaps in that debate we could remind the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that more than double the current number of SNP MPs wrote to the Prime Minister demanding that change four years ago, and nearly six times as many MPs had it in their manifesto this time.
Chris Grayling
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he has done in that area. To those colleagues who are new to the House, I say that one of the things that they can all do is to change the way this country works by making a consistent and effective argument. My hon. Friend did that on wind farms and, in my view, has made a big difference to the way in which the Government operate.
I agree with my hon. Friend and I am still befuddled by the way in which the SNP appears to want more wind farms in some of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom, which I want to cherish and protect for future generations.
Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (SNP)
If the Leader of the House is unwilling or unable to confirm how many versions of the Chilcot report he has seen, can he definitively confirm that the Government have seen some? A simple yes or no would suffice.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
May we have a debate on the continued crossings of illegal immigrants across the Mediterranean? While it is perfectly understandable that people want to see people who are at risk of dying rescued, many of my constituents are concerned that the Royal Navy is picking these people up and continuing their journey into the EU, rather than picking them up, turning them round and taking them back to where they came from. Is it now the Government’s policy to give safe passage to any illegal immigrant seeking to enter the EU or the UK, provided they can prove that their journey is dangerous and life-threatening?
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the Leader of the House replies, can I very gently remind the House—this is not with specific reference to what we have just heard, but more generally—that questions should relate to next week’s business and include a request for a statement or a debate?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have a twin duty. One part is to ensure that the right humanitarian support is in place to prevent people from drowning in the Mediterranean—I commend the work being done by members of our armed forces to ensure that that does not happen—but alongside that we need a long-term solution to the problem. We are not opted in to the arrangements that could lead to some of those arriving in Italy being moved to this country. It is our view that we need to put in place arrangements that will deter more people from setting off across the Mediterranean. The Home Secretary has been in discussions about that this week in Brussels. The Government will continue to seek to encourage EU partners to find a solution to the problem, but I am absolutely of the view that the solution is not about a large number of additional people coming to the UK.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the serious cases in the press this week involving the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), as well as the historic cases involving my constituency, of individuals travelling to Syria, Iraq and elsewhere to fight. Can he find time for an urgent statement from the Home Secretary on the progress being made on tightening up exit checks and engaging with airlines, border posts and transit countries, so that we are doing everything we can to prevent young people from travelling to fight in these horrendous conflicts?
Chris Grayling
First, let me be clear that I am as disturbed as I suspect every Member of this House is by the events of the last few days. My heart goes out to the two fathers whose families have apparently travelled to Syria; none of us can truly understand why they would have taken that decision. We have already put in place much more stringent exit checks, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the two families appear to have been previously stopped upon attempted exit from the country. I know that the Home Secretary will be looking carefully at what has happened and whether additional measures can or should be taken, and will update the House accordingly.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I am sure the whole House will share my concern that Torquay United’s youth academy may close. May we have a debate on the future of youth development in our national game?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern. A youth football structure in this country is vital. We cannot simply buy all the players we need in this country from overseas. We need a strong youth development structure. We need to bring forward the stars of tomorrow at all levels. What I would say is that the one thing that football as a whole is not short of is money. I would like to see the different football authorities doing the right things to ensure that youth development in this country is done properly, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), shares that view.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I remind the Leader of the House that we need an urgent debate on the cost to individuals, families and our country of autism? Is he aware that, up and down the country, if we do not diagnose autism early and give the recommended treatment and support, that cost to individuals, families and the country becomes greater and greater? May we have that urgent debate?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. There are some fantastic people working in the field of autism who are making a real difference to young people’s lives. I pay tribute to Linden Bridge school in my constituency, which I have seen turn the lives of young people around, helping them to deal with autism. He makes an important point; I know he will continue to use the opportunities in this House to make that point. This is an issue that very many of us share his concerns about, and I know that the Secretary of State for Health does too.
Mr Speaker
And, of course, the excellent Dr Gillian Baird, who is a specialist in this subject, is also one of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents—something I think he knows very well.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
The Sunday Times suggested that during the renovation of this wonderful Palace, we should all decamp to Dunsop Bridge in my constituency. Welcome as that might be, it could add a few billion pounds to the costs—costs varying between £1 billion and £6 billion. I know we are in uncharted territory when we start renovating this wonderful iconic building, but can the Leader of the House assure us that during all the processes that are followed and the clinical monitoring that will be necessary, he can ensure a tight grip on the costs? We want it done right, but my goodness, can we make certain that the taxpayers are not fleeced?
Chris Grayling
As I said a moment ago, 650 different arguments might be made, including one for the Duchess’s stand at Epsom Downs racecourse. In reality, I am very committed to the future of this building. We have got to do this right. It has got to be done carefully and in consultation with Members in both Houses of Parliament, as it affects both Houses. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the financial side, and I do not think there is any danger of the Treasury leaving that untouched. The important thing is to do the right job for future generations. We are custodians of a great part of our national life in this building—of what takes place within it and of the building within which it takes place: we should protect them both.
Stewart McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The case of the Saudi blogger, Raif Badawi, is well known in this House. I have had a look back at some statements made by Ministers since 2010, and in response to the questions and statements, no Minister of this Government or the previous one has ever said without equivocation that Mr Badawi should be set free. We should be joining Sweden in calling for just that. May we have a statement from the Government on this urgent issue?
Chris Grayling
As a Government, we have deplored the sentence passed in Saudi Arabia on Raif Badawi. I will make sure that the Foreign Secretary is aware of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I do not see any justification for that sentence, and floggings in public should, I think, belong to the past, not the present or the future. I will make sure that the Foreign Secretary is aware of what the hon. Gentleman said.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Potholes in my constituency continue to be expensive for drivers and dangerous for cyclists. The last Government increased local highways maintenance funding by around £1 billion compared with the previous five years, but it is right to say that the results are not always feeding through into improvements on the ground. Will the Government hold a debate on how we can help councils make taxpayers’ money go further?
Chris Grayling
If my hon. Friend has this problem in his area, I would advise him of my experience in my constituency and the county of Surrey, which is that the patch-and-mend approach that many councils adopt does not work. When it comes to repairs like this, it is better to replace sections of road rather than simply put some material in the hole. I encourage my hon. Friend to talk to his local authority and ask it to look at where it has been done better elsewhere. The money there at the moment can be made to work better.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware of deep concern that the recent Independent Police Complaints Commission report into events at Orgreave recommended no further action, despite finding evidence of serious criminality during and after those demonstrations. Can he ensure that the Home Secretary comes to the House to make a statement, because these events have ensured a denial of justice to those people involved at Orgreave while also called into question whether the IPCC is fit for purpose?
Chris Grayling
This, of course, has been the week in which the Philae lander came back to life again after many months of silence. It has also been the week when the Labour party of the 1980s came back to life again. The IPCC has looked at these issues, reached its conclusions —and there, I am afraid, I believe the matter should rest.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
The Department for Education entered into a funding agreement to establish Watling Park free school in my constituency. The school has already offered 40 places to children in an area of high demand, and they were due to start in a temporary class this September. Barnet council played its part when its assets regeneration and growth committee agreed, through a majority decision, to sell the school a parcel of land. Unfortunately, a minority of members of the Labour group decided to refer the decision back to the full council, thus putting the 40 places in jeopardy. As I was unfortunately not called during Education questions—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not disputing its importance. In a kindly way, I am telling the hon. Gentleman—I am not debating the issue with him; I am telling him—that the question was too long. A short sentence, and that will deal with the matter.
Chris Grayling
This is another example of the Labour party’s inability to move away from the ideologies of the past. The fact is that free schools are making a real difference to the education of young people—they are helping to raise standards in a way that is necessary for the future of those children, and for the future of everyone in the country—but the Labour party is blocking that process at a local level.
I am sure that my colleagues in the Department for Education will have noted my hon. Friend’s remarks. I just hope that the Labour party will take account of the need for change, and the need to allow improvements to happen.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Reference has rightly been made to the Greek crisis, which is indeed reaching a climax. It is possible that the Greeks will have re-established their own national currency within a few days. As well as engaging in a full debate on all the implications of that event for Britain, Europe and the world, may we hear some suggestions from the Government of ways in which we might extend the hand of friendship to the Greeks, who have suffered so terribly as members of the eurozone?
Chris Grayling
I can give the hon. Gentleman two assurances. First, if matters develop in a way that leads to the problems in Greece becoming more pronounced, Ministers will certainly want to address those matters in the House. Secondly, we regard the Greeks as friends—as long-standing allies—and we certainly wish to do all that we can to help them in difficult times.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
May I pursue the question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)? This morning’s written statement from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on subsidies for new wind farms is very welcome. It will certainly be welcomed in Lincolnshire, where we have seen far too many attempts to carpet our beautiful countryside in wind farms. [Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend try to persuade the Secretary of State to come to the House so that we can ask whether individual applications which are still in the pipeline will or will not be permitted, and can that happen next week?
Chris Grayling
Fortunately, I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that the Secretary of State will be in the House for Question Time next week, and I urge him to take advantage of that opportunity to raise the points that he wishes to raise with her. He is, of course, one of the Members who have made a real impact on the Government’s policy, and he has rightly sought to protect the character of Lincolnshire.
It amazes me that we still hear sedentary complaints from SNP Members about this decision, which will actually help to protect the character and beauty of Scotland.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I believe that, as we speak, the Vatican is publishing a new encyclical letter from Pope Francis, which will contain a radical message about social justice and protection of the environment. When might the Government respond to that, and will the House have an opportunity to consider what the Holy Father has to say?
Chris Grayling
We would not normally make a direct governmental response to a statement from the Vatican, but in the next few days Members will have opportunities to raise those matters with both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Of course, the Pope is making important points. I remind the House that only this week the Secretary of State gave consent to an important new project in Swansea bay that will generate renewable electricity. A smart approach to renewables is the right approach, and it is what this Government stand for.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the long-running scandal surrounding the way in which the Post Office has dealt with issues involving its Horizon software system. A large number of postmasters and postmistresses may have been wrongly prosecuted. May we have an urgent debate about that system, and about the potential injustices, both past and current?
Chris Grayling
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being such a persistent advocate of those who have been affected by that issue. It is of course a commercial matter between the sub-postmasters and the Post Office; they are independent contractors to it. None the less, he has played an important role in ensuring that the issue is firmly on the Post Office’s agenda, and I know he is doing so again next week. The issue was addressed by the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills in the previous Parliament, and it will only be through the persistence of Members such as he that any wrongs end up being righted.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
When we consider what we do about the refurbishment of this place, will we have an opportunity to discuss what happened between June 1941 and October 1950, when the House of Commons met in the House of Lords Chamber, a period when we won the war and also had the greatest Government ever—the 1945 Labour Government? Would that be one option we could consider?
Chris Grayling
I remind the hon. Gentleman that those decisions need to be taken by both Houses of Parliament, with great sensitivity and after extensive discussion. Trying to identify individual solutions now might be slightly premature.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
In Colchester we have seen an unfortunate number of high-profile cases involving knives over the past few years. Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate about the importance that education institutions and charities can play in tackling the scourge of knife crime?
Chris Grayling
I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend. Members may not be aware that notwithstanding his fantastic victory in Colchester at the election, the coalition is still alive and kicking there, because last week he and a Liberal Democrat councillor made a citizen’s arrest on a burglar. I congratulate my hon. Friend on doing that; he brings a new dimension to justice enforcement in this House. Knife crime is an issue that the Government take very seriously, and I encourage him to bring forward questions or an Adjournment debate to make his points about Colchester.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Before we embark on the essential inquiry into the terrible mistake of sending troops into Helmand in 2006 in the vain hope that not a shot would be fired, could we debate the need to replace the cumbersome Chilcot arrangement with the form of parliamentary inquiry commended by a Select Committee in 2009, which would ensure that truth was speedily delivered, not endlessly delayed?
Chris Grayling
When the Chilcot process is finally completed, there will be some serious lessons to be learned from it. I personally believe that we should make greater use of the skills that exist in this House. I cannot prejudge any post-mortem of the process, except to say that I have no doubt at all that it will take place.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
Over the past few weeks we have seen Caffé Nero blackmailed by a bunch of people—only 200 of them—into not taking milk from my constituents. Could we please find time to debate in the House the point that these organisations feel that they can get away with it and do what they want, and that there is no recourse to law or any other way of stopping it?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend has made and put on the record an important point. It is not acceptable, in my mind, for companies to give in to pressure from a very small number of activists in a way that can damage the livelihood of people who may in reality have no connection at all to the issues being raised. What took place was utterly unacceptable, and I am glad that Caffé Nero has changed its mind, but I wish it had not taken that decision in the first place.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The NSPCC’s very disturbing report this week showed that there were an additional 8,500 recorded sexual offences against children to April 2014, yet prosecutions are actually falling. Following that, may we please have a debate in Government time to find out what is happening in this very important area?
Chris Grayling
This is an enormously important issue. I suspect that a significant part of the increase is because—in an entirely welcome way—more victims feel able to come forward to report crimes that would otherwise go unnoticed and unreported. That is good. It is of course of enormous importance that all authorities involved do everything they can to bring to justice the perpetrators of those crimes. Justice questions is on Tuesday next week, and I hope that the hon. Lady will raise the matter directly with my colleague the Secretary of State.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Yesterday, Prime Minister’s questions were a revelation. I thought that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who stood in as Leader of the Opposition, did an extremely good job, but I am sure that all parts of the House will have been wowed by how the Chancellor of the Exchequer handled himself at the Dispatch Box as acting Prime Minister. He has been made First Secretary of State, but in next week’s business could the Leader of the House arrange for a short written statement confirming that if the Prime Minister were incapacitated the Chancellor would take over?
Chris Grayling
I will make sure the Prime Minister is aware of my hon. Friend’s question.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is well known for his preoccupation with the health of others.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Leader of the House may well be aware of the series of crises that have afflicted Barts Health NHS Trust in east London. It is the biggest trust in the country, serving 2.5 million people, and has been the subject of a series of damning Care Quality Commission reports. The situation is not sustainable—it simply cannot go on. May we have a statement on the Floor of the House from the Secretary of State for Health, or perhaps a debate, on that issue?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. A number of trusts have faced pressures and a number are doing an excellent job. Of course the Secretary of State and those who lead NHS England will always take careful cognisance of where problems and issues arise. I will make sure the hon. Gentleman’s concerns are drawn to the Secretary of State’s attention, and I will invite my right hon. Friend to respond to him accordingly.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
May we have a debate about looked-after children going missing from care? A concerning report from the London Assembly this week highlighted the fact that in Enfield 199 children have gone missing from care in the past five years, 109 of them for more than 24 hours. That puts those vulnerable children at risk of abuse, exploitation and radicalisation.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which links very much to the one made a moment ago by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). The disappearance of children from care can lead to all kinds of adverse consequences. I have talked to some of the victims of the sex abuse gangs, and one of the most striking things was the way in which in many parts of this country young people were able to walk into and out of care easily, without proper monitoring and without supervision. That simply should not happen, and every local authority has a duty of care to young people to ensure that they are not wandering the streets at night and cannot be preyed upon by gangs.
Mr Speaker
As colleagues will know, I am almost invariably keen to get everyone in at business questions, but we do now need to speed up a bit. If account of that could be taken, it would be helpful.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I shall be incredibly brief, Mr Speaker. We have touched on the ending of the subsidy for renewable onshore wind. With a stroke of the pen, a written statement and a press release, £3 billion-worth of investment in Scotland is at risk. When will the Secretary of State come to this House to explain that disastrous decision?
Chris Grayling
The Secretary of State will be here next week, but we will continue to have a substantial wind sector in this country and we continue to support offshore wind. I do think there are limits to the amount our countryside can be covered by wind farms. That may be a point of difference between me and the hon. Gentleman, but I am happy to have that argument with the residents of Scotland, as well as the residents of England.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Davies commission on the future of airport expansion is due to report at the end of this month. Clearly, the Government will want to reflect on its recommendations. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made on the day the report is issued, followed by a full day’s debate, so that Members from across the Chamber can give their views and inform the thinking of the Government?
Chris Grayling
First, I can assure the House that the Secretary of State will, of course, be addressing these issues in this Chamber. I will take note of my hon. Friend’s request for a debate. This report will affect a number of colleagues. It will need to be considered carefully by Government and by this House, and I will do everything I can to make sure that happens.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
One week after the events at Harwich, in an unreported and undocumented incident, 55 people, mainly Albanian nationals, were trafficked into Killingholme docks in Lincolnshire. That received no coverage and was hushed up. Border Force is losing staff on the Humber and in Lincolnshire, and the entire enforcement office at Hull. Teesport officers were sent down to deal with the situation but have now found themselves with 90 days’ notice of redundancy. What exactly is the Government’s policy on border controls on the east coast of England?
Chris Grayling
Our policy is to do everything we can to make sure our borders are tight and secure. We face a constant battle to do that, but I will draw my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s attention to the concerns the hon. Gentleman has raised and ask her to respond to him.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware that, earlier this week, many RBS customers failed to receive funds into their accounts as a result of a computer failure. I was surprised to hear an RBS spokesman say on Radio 4 yesterday that it was inappropriate for customers to receive compensation. Banks are compensated in reverse by charging their customers. Will he find time very soon for a debate on that issue?
Chris Grayling
If a bank has a failure of that kind and it ends up costing its customers money, it has a duty to its customers; it is as simple as that. Those customers are buying a service from the bank. If the bank ceases to be able to deliver it for a period of time and customers suffer financially as a result, the bank should respond accordingly, and I very much hope that it does.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Although my friends in the Scottish National party may wish for hard-pressed electricity consumers to continue to pour money into the wind energy gravy train, communities across the United Kingdom will welcome the Government’s announcement today. However, given the consequences of the high cost of electricity, may we have a debate on why the Government still insist on electricity consumers subsidising expensive offshore wind energy when there are cheaper alternatives from oil and gas generation?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to raise that point with the Secretary of State next week. I am glad that he welcomes today’s decision. There are a great many beautiful parts of Northern Ireland, which are sometimes well served by wind, but which I would not wish to see covered in wind farms.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Two weeks ago, a fire took place in Clowance Street in my constituency. Members will be relieved to know that there were no fatalities. However, it was the second serious fire in my constituency in the past six months. May we have a debate on how we improve safety, and on what measures we can take to avoid house fires?
Chris Grayling
I am pleased that there were no fatalities, but house fires are always alarming when they happen, jeopardising life. It would be beneficial for fire safety generally if we in this House did what we could to raise awareness of the issue. May I suggest that my hon. Friend takes advantage of one of the 90-minute slots in Westminster Hall to requisition such a debate? That would help build awareness of the challenge to which he rightly draws attention.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
During the general election campaign, the Prime Minister told my constituents that the A&E in Halifax would not close. Last week, the clinical commissioning group said that the Prime Minister’s pledge should be taken up with the Prime Minister and not with it. May I ask for a statement from the Prime Minister, or, alternatively, a meeting with him to clarify just how and when he intends to keep his promise to my constituents to keep the A&E open?
Chris Grayling
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her election. The whole point of the reforms that we put in place in the previous Parliament is that, ultimately, the decisions rest with GPs. In my own constituency, where there was a similar situation, I consulted all the local GPs. It became clear that they did not want change, so change did not happen. I suggest that she does the same.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
This morning, the Government issued two written statements about the future of onshore wind. They are important policy changes, especially when linked with the Prime Minister’s clear assurance two weeks ago that any wind farm without planning permission currently will not receive any subsidy whatsoever. May I add my request for a written statement so that we can explore the implications of those changes, particularly on my constituency of Montgomeryshire, which is threatened with desecration?
Chris Grayling
I very much hope that the changes we have announced today will prevent any such desecration. My comments about beautiful areas apply equally to the beautiful areas of his constituency. It is one of the loveliest parts of Wales, and I hope that the changes will protect his constituency for the future. I also hope that he will take advantage of next week’s Department of Energy and Climate Change questions to ensure that the Secretary of State gives him that further information that he is looking for.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the ability or otherwise of Highways England correctly to manage infrastructure projects, particularly in the light of its failure to manage the A483/A55 Posthouse roundabout project in my constituency? Might that debate also include the possibility of the private sector contractors, which have contributed to that failure, being precluded from further public sector work until they can demonstrate competence? Such a debate would be timely, because, in the next two weeks, we are coming up to the third deadline for the completion of the work.
Chris Grayling
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. He rightly raises an important issue that affects the Chester area, so I suggest that he looks to take advantage of the system of Adjournment debates to bring a Minister to this House so that he can raise the issue directly.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
May we have a debate on the future of consistent forms of renewable energy, such as wave and tidal, and of energy storage to future-proof our energy network? I wholeheartedly welcome this morning’s written statement on the ending of lucrative taxpayer subsidies to onshore wind farms, which threaten to encircle the city of York.
Chris Grayling
I am glad that my hon. Friend is happy with today’s announcement. I share his views about renewable energy and am very pleased that the scheme in south Wales has been given the go-ahead for tidal power generation. He will of course have the opportunity to raise these issues next Thursday with the Secretary of State and I hope that he will do so.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
May I add my voice to those from both sides of the House who want an urgent debate or statement on further delays to the Chilcot inquiry? I impress on the Leader of the House the anger and frustration about the issues of Maxwellisation and impress on him the views of my constituent Mrs Rose Gentle, whose son, Gordon, was killed on active duty in Iraq. There is concern that these people have waited for answers for far too long.
Chris Grayling
I agree with the hon. Gentleman and share that frustration. I understand the frustration felt by his constituents. This is an independent process and I have no doubt that after it has been completed lessons will need to be learned, but the messages going out from both sides of the House are appropriate and will, I hope, speed things towards a proper conclusion.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
To mark national care home open day tomorrow, I will visit three care homes across Pendle. The debate on care homes often focuses on bad care, so may we have a debate on national care home open day, which would allow hon. Members across the House to pay tribute to the many excellent local care workers in our constituencies and to celebrate the many examples of great care that we see?
Chris Grayling
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the important point he is making. Bad examples of care often hit the headlines whereas the good examples in all our constituencies and the devoted and diligent work done by the people who work in those homes often goes utterly unmentioned. It is right and proper that that should be championed and I commend him for what he is doing. The Minister for Community and Social Care will visit a care home in Cheshire tomorrow and I hope that all Members will take advantage of the opportunity in the next few days to say thank you to those people in their constituencies who do this important work.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
The whole House will be aware of the recent decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute Lord Janner for alleged child abuse owing to his apparent ill health. May we have a debate on this decision, and will the Leader of the House offer any advice on why Lord Janner can retain his seat in the other place, writing laws, when he is apparently unable to face the law himself?
Chris Grayling
This immensely sensitive issue is part of a much broader sensitive issue. I commend the hon. Gentleman for his work in this regard; he has done as much as anyone to bring this matter of great national concern to the fore. There has been a lot of debate and controversy about the decision that has been taken, and there will be an Adjournment debate next week in which Members will have the chance to raise concerns and issues about the Crown Prosecution Service. I am sure that the messages from that debate will be listened to very carefully.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) asked the Leader of the House. The Care Quality Commission has just inspected Admiral Court care home in my constituency, saying that it showed a blatant disregard for humanity. Residents were virtually imprisoned and were denied food and water, and wheelchair users were not allowed to wash. It is an absolute disgrace that this sort of thing happens in our country in 2015. On the back of that, may we have an urgent debate on the quality of social care to ensure that those who are often the most vulnerable people in our society do not have to suffer in this way again?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman’s point is the flipside of what we heard a moment ago. Although there is great care in this country, there is sometimes awful care. What I find encouraging at the moment is the willingness of the Care Quality Commission simply to close bad homes. It is not acceptable to leave people in that condition and anyone who is running a care home that is substandard in looking after our elderly should expect a knock on the door and should know that their livelihood is in danger. I commend the CQC for ensuring that that happens in enough cases to send out a message.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
In the past 12 months, the eight NHS hospital trusts in Greater Manchester have spent more than £100 million on employing agency staff. May we please have a statement from the Health Secretary about the training, recruitment and retention of nurses in the NHS so that our health service can be both financially and medically sustainable in the future?
Chris Grayling
This subject is debated regularly in this House and will continue to be so. I know that health service managers and Ministers in the Department of Health are focused on the unnecessarily high level of cost. Personally, I am strongly in favour of creating banks within the NHS rather than externally generated ones, and some trusts are now doing that—certainly, that is beginning to happen in my area. It is right and proper that we try to bring down costs in the health service where we can, and this is an important way of doing so.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Leader of the House will be aware that a few days ago the UK Government rejected a freedom of information request on the grounds that compliance would involve the release of information that could damage our relationship with France. Given that the request was about the circumstances in which a then Minister of the Crown authorised the deliberate leaking of a confidential, but probably inaccurate, record of a private conversation between another Minister of the Crown and a senior representative of the French Government, may we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland to reassure the House that the Government’s attitude to secrecy and open government is based on what is in the interests of the public and not on what is politically expedient for individual politicians?
Chris Grayling
Given the recent changes, the Government have no particular reason to have a vested interest in this matter, but I would say two things to the hon. Gentleman. It is important that Government can operate in a way that is in the interests of the country, and I know that those who look at ways to respond to such inquiries will always seek to do that; but if he and others are concerned, the point of having an Information Commissioner and an Information Tribunal is to enable decisions to be challenged, to establish whether they were right or wrong.
Point of Order
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, I asked twice about onshore wind—once directly of the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on the Floor of the House, and once in last week’s business questions requesting a statement on support for renewables. This morning, a written statement came out with appearances in the media, and they have added to the confusion. Even a few minutes ago in this morning’s business questions, Tory Back Benchers were seemingly clueless about what the announcement might mean for projects in the pipeline especially. What powers do you have to frogmarch DECC Ministers here to show respect to the House and those in the onshore wind industry, both those in jobs and investors?
Mr Speaker
I fear that the hon. Gentleman invests me with powers that I do not possess. I am not in the frogmarching business. There are procedures for bringing Ministers to the House with which the hon. Gentleman, as an experienced hand, is well familiar, and he can seek to deploy them if he thinks it appropriate. Whether a Minister makes a statement in the House today on the matter in question is a matter for the Minister. I heard the exchanges, and if the hon. Gentleman, who is a dextrous and versatile operator in this House, remains dissatisfied, he well knows that there are means by which he can continue to raise the matter on the Floor of the House.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Were you astonished, as I certainly was, when last week the Minister for Skills made an important statement about changing policy on apprenticeships in The Sun—not to this House, not in this Chamber? It was a real innovation in policy, but it was announced in The Sun. Is that right?
Mr Speaker
Very few things astonish me. I am not sighted on the matter and I want to let the hon. Gentleman down gently, but I am not invariably in the business of reading The Sun, so I have not seen the material so covered. If a Minister has erred, I hope that the Minister will make amends. If the hon. Gentleman, on the strength of his 36 years’ service in this House, continues next week to be dissatisfied, I have a feeling that both the Minister and the House will not be unaware of the fact. We will leave it there for now.
European Union Referendum Bill
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:47 - divided: - Ayes: 71 / Noes: 514 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:07 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 265 / Noes: 310 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:56 - divided: - Ayes: 267 / Noes: 308 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)
I must notify the Committee that amendment 51 is wrongly marked on the amendment paper as applying to line 16, whereas it should apply to line 17, and should therefore be listed after amendment 18. Therefore we begin with amendment 18 to clause 2.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 18, in page 1, line 17, leave out from “electors” to the end of line 12 on page 2 and insert—
“at a local government election in any electoral area in Great Britain, or
(b) the persons who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Northern Ireland.”
This amendment extends the franchise in the referendum to EU nationals resident in the United Kingdom.
The Second Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Amendment 51, in page 1, line 17, leave out “parliamentary” and insert “local government”.
The amendment would allow citizens of all countries of the European Union living in the UK and Gibraltar to vote in the referendum.
Amendment 1, in page 1, line 17, at end insert
“and persons who would be so entitled except for the fact that they will be aged 16 or 17 on the date on which the referendum is to be held”.
The amendment would entitle British citizens, qualifying Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Republic of Ireland aged 16 and 17 to vote in the referendum.
Amendment 12, in page 2, line 9, after “Commonwealth citizens”, insert
“or citizens of the Republic of Ireland”
Amendment 2, in page 2, line 12, at end insert
“and persons who would be so entitled except for the fact that they will be aged 16 or 17 on the date on which the referendum is to be held”.
The amendment would entitle Commonwealth citizens aged 16 and 17 who would be entitled to vote in Gibraltar for elections to the European Parliament to vote in the referendum.
Amendment 19, in page 2, line 16, at end add—
‘(3) A person is entitled to vote in the referendum if, on the date on which the poll at the referendum is held, the person is aged 16 or over and registered in—
(a) the register of local government electors, or
(b) the register of young voters maintained under section (Register of young voters) for any such area.”
This amendment follows the Scottish independence referendum model for the franchise, which includes 16 and 17 year olds and EU nationals.
Amendment 52, in page 2, line 16, at end add—
‘(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983, as amended, or of any other statute, a British citizen resident overseas in a country within the European Union will be eligible:
(a) to register to vote and
(b) to vote in the referendum.
The amendment would entitle British citizens living in any country in the European Union to vote in the referendum irrespective of the time they have been resident overseas.
Clause 2 stand part.
New clause 2—
“Register of young voters
‘(1) For the purposes of this Act, each registration officer must prepare and maintain, for the officer‘s area, a register to be known as the register of young voters.
(2) The register must contain—
(a) the names of the persons appearing to the registration officer to be entitled to be registered in the register, and
(b) in relation to each person registered in it, the person’s—
(i) date of birth,
(ii) (except where otherwise provided by an applied enactment) qualifying address, and
(iii) voter number.
(3) Subsection (2) is subject to section 9B of the 1983 Representation of the People Act (anonymous registration).
(4) A person‘s qualifying address is the address in respect of which the person is entitled to be registered in the register.
(5) A person‘s voter number is such number (with or without any letters) as is for the time being allocated by the registration officer to the person for the purposes of the register.
(6) A person is entitled to be registered in the register of young voters for any area if, on the relevant date, the person—
(a) is not registered in the register of local government electors for the area,
(b) meets the requirements (apart from any requirement as to age) for registration in the register of local government electors for the area, and
(c) has attained the age of 16, or will attain that age on or before the date on which the poll at an independence referendum is to be held.
(7) In the case of a person who has not yet attained the age of 16—
(a) the person‘s entry in the register must state the date on which the person will attain the age of 16, and
(b) until that date, the person is not, by virtue of the entry, to be taken to be a voter for the purposes of any independence referendum other than one the date of the poll at which is on or after that date.
(8) Where a person to whom subsection (7) applies has an anonymous entry in the register, the references in that subsection to the person’s entry in the register are to be read as references to the person‘s entry in the record of anonymous entries.
(9) In this section, “the relevant date” mean the date on which an application for registration in the register of young voters is made (or the date on which such an application is treated as made by virtue of section 10A(2) of the 1983 Act).”
This amendment extends the franchise in the referendum to 16 and 17 year olds.
Amendment 13, in clause 8, page 4, line 15, at end insert—
““Commonwealth citizens” does not include citizens of any country which has terminated its membership of the Commonwealth or which has been wholly or partly suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth by the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group.”
Stephen Gethins
I shall speak to amendments 18 and 19 and new clause 2.
It is apt that we are debating our future relationship with the European Union on this, the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. Even though we in the Scottish National party voted against the referendum, we want to see a good relationship with Europe going forward, not one that is damaged by the Prime Minister or the Conservatives. If we are to have a referendum—obviously, we voted against it—we want to see it meet the gold standard that was met by the Scottish independence referendum.
Even though it is the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, French nationals and other nationals should be able to vote in that referendum. We have mentioned before the example of Christian Allard, a very fine Member of the Scottish Parliament, who is a French national who has made a significant contribution to Scottish public life—a more significant contribution than many have made. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) will build on that and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) will discuss it further. On the subject of EU nationals, I refer hon. Members to the excellent intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) on Tuesday.
I shall focus on 16 and 17-year-olds. I am glad our Labour colleagues have tabled an amendment and are backing a long-standing SNP policy on giving votes to 16 and 17-year-olds.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Stephen Gethins
I would love to give way on that point—in fact, this is the first intervention I have taken.
Mr Sheerman
I feel privileged that I am able to give the hon. Gentleman his first intervention, but may I tell him that we are not united on the Labour Benches? I chaired the Children, Schools and Families Committee for 10 years. I believe that the measure that he proposes will shrink childhood. We will eventually have young people going into the Army at 16, and many of the protections that children currently have through to 18 will be destroyed. This policy will bring adulthood down to 16 and will take away protections just as childhood becomes less and less that part of life.
Stephen Gethins
I am not terribly surprised to find out that Labour Members are split. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a good point but we disagree. That was not our experience in the Scottish independence referendum, which I shall go on to discuss.
We need to get more young people engaged in politics. All of us across the Committee can agree on that. Even if we disagree on this issue, we can all unite on that; I am sure the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) will agree on that. I know his views are held honestly. In the independence referendum, an astonishing 75% of 16 and 17-year-olds took the opportunity to vote. The same survey showed that 97% of them said that they would do so again. Turnout in the UK election was 66.1%. It was higher in Scotland than in the rest of the UK—because of the Scottish independence referendum, we like to think, and a more politicised electorate. There are lessons for us all to be taken from that.
In February 2015 a BBC “Newsbeat” survey found that young people in Scotland aged 18 to 24 were more politically engaged than in any other part of the United Kingdom. As somebody from Scotland, I am proud of that, and I think everybody from Scotland who engaged in the referendum, whether they voted yes, as we on the SNP Benches did, or no, as our colleagues from the other parties did, should be proud of that.
An Edinburgh University study has found that two thirds of Scottish 16 and 17-year-olds have said that they would vote if they could, compared with just 39% in the UK as a whole. That is a challenge for every one of us across this Chamber. That is why we think that the independence referendum was a great opportunity to get people politically engaged, and we would like to see young people continue to be engaged.
With the EU referendum we have a big question over whether we remain a part of that Union. We want to see a positive case not just for remaining a part of that Union, but for looking at where we could work together more closely, for example, on security, on dealing with the worst refugee crisis since the second world war in the Mediterranean, on climate change, which we were all lobbied about yesterday, or on creating a more socially just Europe. I think that the way to engage more young people is by having a positive campaign—not just tinkering around the edges of certain policies on which the Prime Minister might or might not be able to win the argument.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On Second Reading the Secretary of State rejected the strong case that the hon. Gentleman is making for giving 16 and 17-year-olds a say, claiming that he would rather get 18 to 24-year-olds to turn out. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those two things are not mutually exclusive? One of the best ways to get 18 to 24-year-olds to vote is by engaging all young people in precisely the way he is describing.
Stephen Gethins
As is often the case, the hon. Lady is absolutely spot-on. The facts that I have read out show that giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote is the way to make them more politically engaged from an earlier age, and therefore more likely to vote later in life.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman was giving reasons why young people would be interested in the referendum in general. I referred in my speech on Second Reading to the wider horizons that young people have. The unity we seek in Europe is a matter not only of the stomach and the wallet, but of the imagination and the spirit. The referendum could be an opportunity for those young people to express that hope.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman made an excellent contribution on Tuesday, and he makes an excellent point today. I think that 16 and 17-year-olds have a perspective that many of us lack, just as people from an older generation have their own perspective, and that is what makes our democracy so rich. He and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) have made excellent points.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Is not this about trusting young people to make informed decisions about their future, given that 16-year-olds can leave school, go to work, pay income tax and national insurance and consent to sexual relationships? This is about their future, too. That is why it is absolutely right to extend the franchise.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman speaks for the other side of the Labour party on this—I wonder whether there is a third side—and he makes a very good point.
On the Scottish Parliament’s Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill, which I will talk about in a moment, YouthLink Scotland has stated:
“We believe that this Bill addresses the inequality that young people aged 16 and 17 years old have historically faced: the discrepancy between their democratic rights and responsibilities—16 and 17 year olds can join the armed forces, enter employment and be subject to taxation, get married and drive a car, yet they were deemed too immature to cast a vote in an election.”
That is exactly the point the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made.
Stephen Gethins
I have given way to Members on the Opposition side of the Committee, so I would be delighted to give way to someone on the Conservative side.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman speaks fluently on the legitimacy of 16 and 17-year-olds participating in this debate, and I understand the points he is making. As a former soldier, I want to say how proud I was to serve with many who were 18, 19 and 20 years old—young men who served their country with courage and determination—and how pleased I was that we in this country do not use child soldiers. I think that the age of legal responsibility in that sense, whether on the military or democratic front line, should be aligned.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I respect his service. Voting in an election and trying to get young people engaged in the democratic process is quite different from fighting on the front line, so there is a distinction to be made in that regard.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Stephen Gethins
I will make some progress for the moment. I have been generous so far, and I will happy to take more interventions later.
On this very day, Scotland is again ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom. Today the Scottish Parliament is on stage 3—the final stage, for Members who are not in the know about the dealings of the Scottish Parliament—of the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill. That is one of the many examples of where power has been devolved from this place to Holyrood and the Scottish Government have put it to good effect. Today the Scottish Parliament will historically pass that Bill into legislation and give 16 and 17-year-olds a vote. The Scottish Government deserve praise for what they are doing, just as they deserved praise in the independence referendum. I look forward to the next local authority elections, when we will be able to go out and canvass for the votes of 16 and 17-year-olds.
Interestingly, as Members from across the House will be delighted to learn, this draws cross-party support. Even Tories are supporting it.
Stephen Gethins
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that votes at 16 are supported not just by the SNP, Labour, the Greens, and even the Liberal Democrats—we still have some—but by the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson, who says:
“I’m a fully paid-up member of the ‘votes at 16’ club now”.
It is great to see progress being made even with the Conservative party in Scotland. The benefit of this is not just to 16 and 17-year-olds; it is in having a bit of common sense across all the parties.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons there has been such a change in attitude in Scotland is the experience of seeing how well-informed young people were when they had the chance to vote, when they were among the best-informed parts of the electorate?
Stephen Gethins
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We found that 16 and 17-year-olds, in particular, were studying the information and taking it from a wide range of sources. As she says, they were among the best-informed parts of the electorate. That is a great credit to the 16 and 17-year-olds who took part in the democratic process.
Dr Murrison
I have lots of 13, 14 and 15-year-olds in my constituency who have very good political views on a variety of issues. On what basis has the hon. Gentleman fixed on 16 as the age of enfranchisement?
Stephen Gethins
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware—he was clearly not listening earlier, so I will repeat it—at 16 and 17 people can get married and pay tax; all sorts of responsibilities kick in at 16. We therefore think—and, interestingly, others across this Chamber think—that 16 is the right age at which to give people the vote. Ruth Davidson, the leader of his own party in Scotland, thinks that 16 is bang on the right age as well. She and I may not agree on many issues, but I am very glad that she has come round to our way of thinking on this.
Stephen Gethins
Not at the moment; I will make some progress.
On the example of the Scottish Bill, for which we must give due credit to the Scottish Parliament, Children in Scotland said:
“Children in Scotland believes that it is vital that 16 and 17 year olds are able to participate directly in the democratic process, and strongly supports the extension of the franchise to young people. This Bill will play an important role in addressing the discrepancy that young people aged 16 and 17 continue to face as far as their democratic rights and responsibilities are concerned.”
Young Scot said:
“In line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child…we believe that young people should be involved in making decisions that directly affect them, and that one of the best ways of getting involved in decision-making is through voting. Therefore, Young Scot strongly supports extension of the franchise for all elections”.
We have a responsibility across this House to try to engage people as fully as we can in the democratic process. Each one of us, of every political colour, knows the challenge that we face. Scotland has some good ideas, believe it or not. When we came to this place, we came to be constructive. We know there will be good ideas from Members from other parties, and we look forward to hearing them, but we also want to look at areas where Scotland has been ground-breaking, and this is one of them.
Voltaire said, once upon a time:
“We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation.”
Obviously, we know that the Labour leadership candidates are all looking for ideas on leadership from Scotland’s First Minister, but perhaps this is an area on which we can work together. The Electoral Reform Society puts it succinctly:
“There is a widening gulf between people and politics—we see lowering the franchise age as vital to nurturing more active citizens for the future health of our democracy.”
It then makes a good point:
“If they vote early, they vote often!”
That has been our experience in Scotland and we think that extending the franchise will result in it also being the experience of the rest of the United Kingdom.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called so early in this debate. With no disrespect to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), I will speak to amendments 12 and 13, which stand in my name.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary indicated that this is an important matter for the United Kingdom—it is indeed—and therefore that the appropriate franchise is the general election franchise. That, in my respectful judgment, is absolutely correct.
This Bill extends the franchise to Gibraltar because it is part of the south-west constituency of the European Parliament. Clause 2(1)(c) states that those entitled to vote will include
“Commonwealth citizens who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote in Gibraltar as electors at a European Parliamentary election in the combined electoral region in which Gibraltar is comprised.”
The difficulty, however, is that the proposed franchise for Gibraltar is not the general election franchise, because it leaves out of the count those who are citizens of the Republic of Ireland.
I know not how many people that may affect—it may affect three, five or a dozen, or it may affect none—but if we are going to pass legislation, it should be consistent. I suspect that, because this is a new extension of the franchise, the issue was overlooked by the Government and the Foreign Office lawyers when they considered how the Bill should be drafted to extend the franchise to Gibraltar.
I do not intend to push the amendment to a vote, but, because this House aims for consistency and because the Government’s stated aim is to use the general election franchise, the franchise extended to Gibraltar, with the consent of its Government, should be the same franchise as that which is used for general elections in this country. That is why I ask the Minister to consider amendment 12 and perhaps table it as a Government amendment. It would insert words designed to ensure that those who are citizens of the Republic of Ireland but who are none the less domiciled in Gibraltar are entitled to vote in the forthcoming referendum.
Amendment 13 seeks to deal with the definition of “Commonwealth citizens”. I have searched long and hard in electoral law, including the Representation of the People Acts, and, indeed, in this Bill and other sources to try to ascertain who is and who is not a Commonwealth citizen. There is, obviously, a broader debate to which this House may wish to turn in due course, particularly given the accession of Mozambique and Rwanda to the Commonwealth, about whether Commonwealth citizens should continue to be part of the franchise for general elections in this country. There is also, however, an entirely different problem, which relates most acutely to nationals of Zimbabwe who are resident in this country and in Gibraltar.
At the moment, Zimbabwe is not a member of the Commonwealth; it has simply withdrawn from it. The Commonwealth ministerial action group is charged with deciding who is and who is not a member of the Commonwealth, who is suspended and whose membership is terminated, and it is unclear whether or not some countries—for example, Fiji—are currently members of the Commonwealth for all purposes.
I know not whether there is non-statutory guidance for returning officers, but the law is unclear whether they are supposed to afford the right to vote in a general election to a national of Zimbabwe, which, as I say, is not currently a member of the Commonwealth.
As I understand it, a previous Government indicated that no Zimbabwean should, as a result of that country’s withdrawal, suffer in respect of their ability to vote in general elections. However, in the absence of a definition, who is and who is not entitled to vote among Commonwealth citizens of countries that have been suspended from the Commonwealth or that have terminated their membership is, in practice, entirely unclear. We might therefore end up with the position where in one place in this country, a Zimbabwean national is on the electoral roll and entitled to vote, whereas in another place, a Zimbabwean national is not entitled to vote because the returning officer takes the view, rightly or wrongly, that Zimbabwe is not a member of the Commonwealth and therefore that that person is not a Commonwealth citizen.
There is a much broader debate to be had about this matter, but the Government need to ensure that there is consistency across the entire country and to make it clear whether the national of a Commonwealth country that has withdrawn from the Commonwealth or been suspended by the Commonwealth ministerial action group who has permanent leave to be here and should therefore be entitled to a vote is able to vote. When the Minister responds, I would like to hear what his plans are in this area.
Amendments 12 and 13, although they originate from the Back-Benches, are meant to be helpful to the Government, in the sense that they will provoke debate and ensure that there is consistency across the legislation. For that reason, I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government’s attitude to them is.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 1, which would extend the franchise for the referendum to 16 and 17-year-olds, and amendment 2, which would have a similar effect in Gibraltar.
The franchise that has been chosen for the referendum, which is set out in clause 2, is the franchise for UK parliamentary elections, but with two exceptions. First, it is extended to peers, and secondly, it is extended to the people of Gibraltar. The Opposition have no objection to those two extensions of the franchise, but we believe that they are incomplete. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) flagged up our concern on this issue on Second Reading, when he said that we wished to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for the purposes of the referendum.
There has been an active debate for some years about extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and we heard some of the arguments in the initial exchanges of this debate. People of that age can pay income tax and national insurance, obtain tax credits, consent to sexual relationships, get married, enter a civil partnership, become a company director and do many other things. In fact, both my party and the Conservative party allow them to join and have a vote in the selection of the party leader, if they so wish. Until very recently, 16 and 17-year-olds could not vote in national or local elections, despite their ability to select someone who aspires to become Prime Minister.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
If the right hon. Gentleman is going to cite a list of things that people can do at 16, he also needs to consider the things that they cannot do. They cannot leave school without being in full-time education until they are 18. They are protected in law as a minor if they commit a crime. They do not serve on the front line. They can only get married with parental permission, and they cannot buy fireworks, alcohol or cigarettes. I do not see the point of trading these lists. We have made a decision that young people at the ages of 16 and 17 receive protection in law, up to a point. That is agreed in relation to the franchise.
Mr McFadden
The hon. Lady makes the point that not every right and legal responsibility is conferred on people at 16. That is true, but many of them are. The question of the right to democratic participation is therefore not a science, but a matter of judgment. That judgment will be the subject of the rest of my remarks.
Mr Sheerman
I find this very awkward, because I nearly always agree with my right hon. Friend, but is not what is missing from this debate the responsibility that we have as parliamentarians to care for young people who are very vulnerable? Up and down this country, young people are vulnerable to sexual predators and ghastly things happen to them right up to the age of 18. This move towards making people adults at 16 will make a lot of young men and women more vulnerable to sexual predation than they are at the moment.
Mr McFadden
I have huge mutual respect for my hon. Friend, but I do not see the connection between extending voting rights to people at 16 and making them more vulnerable to sexual predators.
Of course, the first major poll in the UK in which 16 and 17-year-olds were allowed to vote was last year’s Scottish independence referendum. That major referendum tested all the familiar arguments that we have heard before and which we may hear in this debate about whether such people are old enough to understand the issues and mature enough to take part in the debate and exercise their democratic responsibilities. I do not think that anyone on either side of the independence debate argues that Scotland’s 16 and 17-year-olds did not pass those tests with flying colours. Many campaigners have said that the debates among 16 and 17-year-olds were some of the most engaged and informed of the referendum campaign. The post-referendum report by the Electoral Commission said:
“109,593 16 and 17 year olds were included on the registers by the registration deadline and 75% of those we spoke to claimed to have voted. Importantly, 97% of those 16-17 year olds who reported having voted said that they would vote again in future elections and referendums.”
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that schools and colleges have a role to play? Perhaps the thought that anyone who is vulnerable or who has certain issues can have a wider debate in the school or college context, and therefore be better educated about democracy and the role it can play, will put the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) at rest.
Mr McFadden
I do not think any of us would ever want schools to be engaged in partisan debate, but schools do have an important role in teaching young people about citizenship, their responsibilities, the importance of elections and so on. My hon. Friend is right about that.
The experience of last year is that young people did understand the issues and did take part. They felt empowered by their democratic choice, not apathetic or overawed. They exercised their democratic rights in huge numbers and, afterwards, said that they would be more likely to vote again. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) quoted the leader of the Scottish Conservative party as saying that she is now
“a fully paid-up member of the ‘votes at 16’ club”.
There may be a relationship between allowing votes at 16 and 17 and encouraging voting in the 18 to 24 age group. If we get young people registered early and they stay on the register when they are between 18 and 24, it might address the low turnout among that group. That is the age at which people leave home to study, to go to work or for other reasons. That is a challenge on the registration front and the turnout front.
Dr Murrison
The argument that the right hon. Gentleman is employing could equally be made for 13, 14 and 15-year-olds, so may I put to him the same question that I put to the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins)? Why is he fixed on 16, as opposed to a lower age, for example 13, as the age for enfranchisement?
Mr McFadden
As I said, the rules of the hon. Gentleman’s own party allow people to join at 15, but we have related our amendments to the age at which legal responsibilities and rights are conferred. There is a slight difference between the general argument about the age of the franchise and its applicability to important constitutional referendums.
Stephen Phillips
The right hon. Gentleman says that he is fixed on 16 as the age at which legal rights accrue to the individual, but that is true only of some rights. It is not until an individual is 18 that we treat them as being a full member of society. Surely that is the point at which they should be enfranchised and be able to contribute to our national life through a full democratic debate.
Mr McFadden
We could argue that there are some rights that people do not get even at 18. In the end, it is a matter of judgment. I do not want to go through the list again, but when people can start to work, pay taxes and do many other things, there is at least a reasonable case for giving them the right to vote.
Mr Sheerman
A small minority of Labour Members worry that we will make 16 the age of becoming an adult, which will shrink childhood at a time when kids in this country are going to live to 100. The amount of time that they will be children is getting smaller as a percentage of their life. There are arguments for and against certain things happening at 16 and at 18, but if the Opposition amendments became law, they would mean that young people would become adults at 16.
Mr McFadden
My hon. Friend has made his point about shrinking childhood before. I say to him that maturity is not an exact science. There will be some people who are mature at 16 or perhaps less, and some who manage to hang on to their immaturity for a great many years after that. I do not believe that any of us can pinpoint an exact age.
One thing that the EU referendum has in common with the major constitutional referendum that took place in Scotland last year is that it is a decision for a long time into the future. To quote the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who is not here today, it is a decision to be made once in a lifetime, or at least for a generation, not something to be repeated every few years. I hope that all hon. Members will agree with that. The referendum will not return every few years like general elections.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman will remember from our happy days together in the Labour club at Edinburgh University that in Scotland, unlike in England, the age of legal capacity is 16. However, child protection laws in Scotland, like those in England, go up to the age of 18. The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) made the point that the age of legal capacity in England is 18, but it is worth making the point that it is 16 in Scotland.
Mr McFadden
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her intervention.
The issue before us is the UK’s future in the European Union, a huge constitutional issue that will affect the future of the country and its citizens for many years to come. The rights of Britain’s young people will be directly at stake in the referendum. Let us consider the politics behind why the referendum is coming about. A major reason is concerns about how the free movement of people operates in the EU and in this country. Our citizens currently have the right to live, work and study in 27 other member states by virtue of our membership. I do not think there are many people who want us to leave the European Union but do not want to restrict the right of free movement. There may be some, but not many, and that is pretty high on the agenda of those who want to leave.
If we leave the European Union, and as a result decide that we will restrict the rights of other European citizens to come to live and work in the UK, we can be sure that reciprocal action will be taken against young people from the United Kingdom. The rights that British citizens currently enjoy to live, work and study throughout the EU are directly at stake in the referendum. Even setting aside the general debate about the right of 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in elections, that is a strong reason for giving those citizens the right to vote in the referendum. Their future is directly at stake.
It is 40 years since this country last voted on membership of the European Union. As we hear perennially in these debates, someone would have to be in their mid-50s to have voted in the last EU referendum. The referendum will not come around every few years. It is a generational decision that will have a direct impact on young people’s future rights, which is why I believe they should be given a voice in it.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
One of the key rights that we have as citizens in this country is to be judged by a jury of our peers, and eligibility for jury selection begins at 18 because of how important a responsibility it is. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that that eligibility, which is drawn from the electoral roll, should be changed to 16?
Mr McFadden
That is not part of our amendments, but I am sure such things can be considered in other debates. My point, as the hon. Lady has just heard, is that the referendum result will have a direct impact on our citizens’ right of free movement.
Tom Tugendhat
I associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) said, because her point is fundamental. We are talking about the constitution of the United Kingdom and the details that allow people to participate in decisions on it. The right hon. Gentleman is arguing that we should play with it in the case of this particular referendum, but in fact we should have a proper debate in the House about the age at which people should be enfranchised to debate the matters of our nation. That age should apply throughout, whether to juries or to an EU referendum.
Mr McFadden
I believe that the long-term trend will be towards enfranchisement at a younger age, for some of the reasons that have been set out in the debate. My party believes in a general reduction to 16, but the amendments are concerned with the EU referendum facilitated by the Bill. My argument is that there is a good reason for enfranchisement at 16 in this case, given the direct impact of the result on the right of free movement and the right to study and work in other EU countries. There is a good argument for that, and I do not believe that it is a partisan one that is made only by Labour or Scottish National party Members. Some Conservative and other Members support it.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Although some say that the voting age should be dealt with generally rather than specifically, is it not the case that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government and the House were quite happy for a specific change to be made for the Scottish referendum? Why cannot my 16 and 17-year-old constituents in London, and those in the rest of England, have a vote, yet Scottish young people can?
Mr McFadden
The decision was taken for the Scottish referendum because the power to do so was devolved. The power has also been devolved to the Welsh Assembly.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
It may be helpful if I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the last Parliament the House in fact voted for votes at 16.
Mr McFadden
It did, but it was not put into legislation in the way that we have the opportunity to do today.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has given way on the nature of the legislation before us as we are—after all—in Committee. I welcomed the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) about the electoral register and I am deeply alarmed that the proponent of any amendment would not have—in the right hon. Gentleman’s words—“thought through” whether it would have an effect on such an important issue as jury service. I am a supporter of votes at 16, and I shall seek to make further comments on that later, but we are now examining the quality of legislation.
Mr McFadden
I thank the hon. Lady for her praise of my amendment, but its effect would be clear and we have taken advice on the point. The amendment would extend to 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote on exactly the same basis as the other changes to the franchise in the rest of the Bill. As was said on Second Reading, the Bill already changes the franchise—for Gibraltar and for peers—so the amendment, like the Bill, will apply only to the EU referendum.
The amendment on EU citizens is also in this group of amendments. The franchise in the Bill is that for UK parliamentary elections, except for the exceptions that we have discussed, and the amendments would extend it to citizens of other EU countries. EU citizens currently have the right to vote in local and European elections, but not in parliamentary elections. When other EU countries have held referendums on EU accession decisions or treaty changes in recent years, EU citizens from member states outwith those countries have not been given the vote. That is true for recent referendums held in France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark and many other countries. When a member state makes a decision on its own membership of the EU, on whether to join the euro or on whether to accept treaty change, the pattern has been to use the franchise for national elections. It has not been the pattern to extend that to citizens of other EU countries. For that reason, we do not support allowing citizens of other EU countries to participate in this referendum, but we do believe that it is important to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
We all visit schools in our constituencies, and I am sure I am not alone in thinking that some of the most thoughtful and challenging discussions in those visits have been with 16 and 17-year-olds. Do I feel that they have the capacity to understand the information, to weigh it and to communicate their views? Absolutely I do. The question is whether Members of Parliament have the capacity to change our view and give those young people a voice and a vote. I could not return to my constituency, look those young people in the eye and tell them that I had denied them the opportunity to take part in the forthcoming referendum.
I have lobbied hard for everyone in my constituency to have their say on our future in Europe, but when I reflect on who will feel the impact of the result most, I conclude that it will be 16 to 25-year-olds, who will live with the decision for longer than the rest of us. I am delighted that we have extended the franchise to Members of the Upper House, and that their lordships will have the opportunity to vote in the referendum, but I feel strongly that we should extend the same courtesy to young people in our constituencies.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend think that 16 and 17-year-olds are mature enough to decide whether to buy a pint of beer in a pub or 20 cigarettes to smoke?
Dr Wollaston
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear me say that I do not think that we should widen the opportunity for young people to be exploited by big tobacco or big alcohol—I am robust on that point. I do not think, however, that we need the same thresholds across the board. We have already heard that we judge people to have capacity at many different thresholds, but we do not deny people detained under the Mental Health Act the opportunity to vote. We do not deny the opportunity to vote to people who may lack capacity because of advanced dementia. We understand that those people need the opportunity to express their voice.
The wider point is that as the age of our population increases, which is a good thing—the only thing worse than getting older is the alternative—it will have profound implications for us all, and we should be concerned about that. Because older people vote, it tends to drive policy in their direction. There is a compelling case for balance, and we need to give young people a voice and a vote.
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I, too, often speak to sixth-form colleges, and after a discussion about whether 16 and 17-year-olds should vote, I often ask them whether they would like the vote themselves. In my experience, the majority of sixth-formers say that they would prefer to wait until 18 to vote as they could then make a more informed decision. Has that been my hon. Friend’s experience?
Dr Wollaston
Absolutely not. I am clearly talking to very different young people in south Devon. I agree that young people—indeed, people of every age—are crying out for clear information. Perhaps, instead of the Government churning out information that is not widely trusted, we could consider some way in which we could grade the quality of information, as we do for scientific papers, which are graded according to the quality of the evidence. Perhaps we could ask academic bodies, or the Library, to grade the information to which people have access, so that they can judge whether it comes from one perspective or another. People want clear information.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree in principle that votes at 16 is an idea whose time has come, but that it should not be introduced by means of an amendment on a matter of this significance? Does she agree that lowering the voting age to 16 is inevitable and would she welcome, as I would, the Government taking the initiative on that sensible and timely reform of our franchise?
Dr Wollaston
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the time has come. The time came in Scotland, and we saw very clearly how important that was for young people. More than 90% of young people in Scotland registered to vote. They now permanently have a voice and a vote, and I do not think they will accept its being taken away from them now. That would be infantilising. We should accept that they have the capacity to make these decisions, and the House should embrace that.
I believe this should be a decision for Parliament, not a party political decision through the Whips. I would like the whole House to have the opportunity to decide on this in a free vote. Furthermore, on my hon. Friend’s point about whether we should take this as a stand-alone issue or debate the wider franchise, I will be making the same point and voting in the same way when this comes back and we have a wider discussion about the franchise in other elections. Let us not be dragged into this kicking and screaming; let us make a positive decision that we trust our young people and want to give them a voice.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Lady is making a rigorous case. I agree with her very much about the importance of information, and certainly young people in Brighton are telling me that they would like more information too. Does she agree that things such as more personal, social, health and economic education in schools is one place where we could have that kind of debate? I have had a private Member’s Bill for mandatory PSHE in schools, so I wonder whether she would support that point.
Dr Wollaston
I think the hon. Lady knows that I agree with her on the importance of PSHE in schools, and there are also opportunities through citizenship. I have heard people in this debate so far arguing, “Well, shouldn’t we first be concentrating on getting 20-year-olds to vote?” I absolutely agree—that is important too, but the two are not mutually exclusive. We can set patterns for a lifetime if we get young people starting to think about the importance of voting, as well as about their active participation in politics. That is important, because although young people take part in politics—we know that; they are very engaged on issues and with community activism—we need to persuade them that it is absolutely in their interest to vote as well, because of the way in which voting drives policy, as I said earlier.
In my opinion, too much of our policy across this House is being driven by issues that are important to people who vote, and as there are more and more people from the older demographic who vote, there is a risk that our debates will become even more distorted. We must recognise the need to balance that by giving young people a greater voice, but the voice is always stronger if it is accompanied by a vote. What message will we send to the young people we will be asking to vote in 2020 if we infantilise those same young people and deny them the vote as 16 or 17-year-olds in 2016 or 2017?
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a persuasive and enlightened case. She is right: we should never be fearful of making fundamental changes to the franchise; but they should be properly and fully considered, and not rushed. Does she agree that the Electoral Commission should be asked to carry out a full review of the voting age? I think it last did so in 2003-04, when it said it wanted to return to the issue in the next five to seven years, and we are now 11 to 12 years on.
Dr Wollaston
I agree with my hon. Friend, but we can sometimes use excuses to delay important issues. The important thing is to look at the experience in Scotland and the way the vote was energised. Is anybody seriously arguing that 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland were incapable of taking in the information, weighing it in the balance and communicating their views? Is anybody seriously suggesting that there were harms to those young people from taking part? No, and I would say to those on our Benches that they should look at what has been written by Ruth Davidson for the Tory Reform Group. She makes a compelling case for Conservative Members to embrace that change and take this forward. We must do so for the referendum for the very reason that we are talking about the young people who will be most affected by the decision and living with it for the longest, but who will not, as in general elections, have an opportunity to change their view in five years’ time. This decision will last for decades.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a strong argument, but, to reflect the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), surely it is better that a constitutional issue that is so important that it affects all elections should be fully debated by the House as a separate matter. She has mentioned Scotland. Scotland has a heritage of 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote in local elections, and when it comes to responsibilities such as marriage, there has been a long-standing position that people can get married there without their parents’ permission. That is not the case in England at 16. Therefore, we need a far more in-depth discussion about this issue, rather than cramming it into today’s debate on amendment 18 to clause 2.
Dr Wollaston
My hon. Friend is right that we need to debate it. We need to do that too, and I will be making exactly the same argument at that point, but we must not miss this opportunity to express a view as a House. I believe we should have a free vote—I believe that passionately—on whether 16 and 17-year-olds have the capacity. I say to my hon. Friend: what is the harm and what are the benefits? We should all weigh up—if we look at our ethical grid—the benefits versus the harms to the individual and society. As I said earlier, I believe there are compelling societal reasons why we must give young people a voice and a vote, because without the vote, they do not have the same voice. There are also societal reasons about the changing structure of our population, but I ask him: where are the harms?
Chris Skidmore
Taking a philosophical approach, if we look at, say, young offenders institutions and prisons, is my hon. Friend therefore arguing that 16-year-olds should go straight to incarceration in adult prisons? If we take voting as part of the age of responsibility, we will be opening a whole can of worms; therefore, the argument that they could be placed in prisons comes up. That is what I am worried about. Sixteen-year-olds are vulnerable. I appreciate what she is saying, but this is not just about the voting age; it is about looking after those vulnerable young people. She is making the case for voting, but the obverse of that is that equality must apply everywhere.
Dr Wollaston
Let me point out to my hon. Friend that one of the things I campaigned long and hard on in the last Parliament—one of the things that perhaps drove me into politics—was the scandal of children being detained in police cells under section 136.
Dr Wollaston
But the point is that these are children who are being incarcerated. The inquiry on child and adolescent mental health services that I led as Chair of the Select Committee on Health at the end of the last Parliament shows, I feel, the opposite. The point is that one of the reasons we have such woeful services for young people suffering from mental health problems is partly the way that policy drivers tend to come from the other end of the age spectrum. If my hon. Friend is going to bring up incarceration in prisons, I would say yes, we do incarcerate young people in wholly inappropriate circumstances. Part of giving them a voice and a vote is about changing the way we treat our young people in those circumstances. I am delighted that the Government are finally making progress on this scandal and stopping the incarceration of children in cells—something that I witnessed as a forensic medical examiner and have felt passionately about for years.
One of the most extraordinary arguments I have heard this afternoon was from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who is no longer in his place. He suggested that children would somehow be at greater risk of abuse if they were allowed a vote. I would say absolutely the opposite, so I do not accept the argument that my hon. Friend has made about the criminal justice system. Let us stop infantilising young people; let us give them a voice and a vote.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
My hon. Friend may not be surprised to know that I agree that it is time for people to have votes at 16. However, we are seeing an interesting and passionate debate in the Committee, and if something is worth doing and is important, it is worth doing well. Our hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) raises some interesting points. Whatever we think about them, these are important points for debate. If we open this new opportunity for young people, there may be inconsistencies. Consistency in when we feel that young people are adults and responsible is something that we have to get right. Does my hon. Friend feel that it is now time for the Government to grasp the nettle and have a proper debate about the franchise and when we have the vote? This is not the time for that, because a lot of debate needs to be had and there is too little time now in which to have it. If it is worth doing, it is worth doing well.
The Temporary Chair (Mr George Howarth)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) continues, I should say that there has been a great deal of tolerance of over-long interventions, but they are straying into the territory of mini-speeches. Those intending to make an intervention should try to keep it to a single point and be brief.
Dr Wollaston
There will always be inconsistencies. We will never get complete consistency on the threshold issues; we will continue to have different thresholds for different things, and the points at which we choose cut-offs tend to be around 16 and 18. I am comfortable with that. The issue is whether we feel as a Committee and as parliamentarians that we should look those 16 and 17-year-olds in the eye and say to them on an issue that will have far-reaching implications for their future that although they have the capacity to make decisions, we are going to deny them the vote and kick it into the long grass.
If we are honest, there are other political reasons at stake, and we should be honest about them. We should give young people a voice and the vote in this referendum and then let us have the other discussions. As I say, I will make the same arguments about the wider general election franchise, but I feel that the case for this particular referendum is compelling. I can see no reason why we would not want to give young people a vote on this extremely important issue, which will affect them for far longer than it will affect me.
Dr Murrison
I am always keen to follow what my hon. Friend has to say and the thoughtful way in which she makes her case. Does she agree that this is indeed all to do with maturity, and that the reason why we protect children concerns their level of maturity and the need for society to make sure that they are okay? The same argument can be deployed for the age of enfranchisement. We need to define what we mean by a child and what we mean by an adult. The argument about enfranchisement is really a supplementary and consequential argument, depending very much on the age we have determined.
Dr Wollaston
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I feel that this is the right age to have the opportunity. Do I think that 16-year-olds have the capacity to make decisions and weigh all the arguments in the balance in this referendum vote? Absolutely. I cannot believe how I could walk into classrooms to meet 16 and 17-year-olds, look them in the eye and say, “Actually, I do not believe that you have the capacity to understand and make a case.”
Hywel Williams
Are not the people who are arguing against votes at 16 also doubting, by extension, the virtue of the vote in Scotland earlier this year, which came down, of course, on the Unionist side?
Dr Wollaston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point and take another intervention.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Does the hon. Lady think there are lessons to be learned about what happened in Scotland, where there was massive engagement on the part of young people? Also, after a debate very similar to this one in the Scottish Parliament, when people saw what really happened, they stopped being worried about what might happen, so there is now very little opposition in Scotland to giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote for every election.
Dr Wollaston
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Who could have watched that extraordinary debate, the most compelling debate of the referendum campaign, with thousands of people in the stadium in Glasgow, without feeling inspired by the opportunity and enthusiasm for the whole campaign and the wide turnout? I believe those young people will continue to be engaged in politics, not just in activism within their communities but in turning out to vote, which is the important issue here. We must increase voter engagement. If we do nothing, we could face a situation within a decade where half the population are simply not turning out to vote. That will have terrible consequences for our democracy.
I shall finish on that note. I really hope that any Members in doubt about the issue who feel that we can kick it into the long grass will ask themselves whether they want to walk into those schools after this debate and tell young people that they have denied them the vote.
Mike Gapes
I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on her speech, and I absolutely agree with what she said. I will support votes for 16 and 17-year-olds and the position put forward by my Front-Bench team. I want to speak to my amendments 51 and 52. Amendment 51 relates to a serious anomaly in the current position regarding European Union citizens living in the United Kingdom, while amendment 52 relates to a further anomaly regarding British citizens living elsewhere in the EU.
Let me deal first with amendment 51. As things stand, a citizen of Malta, Cyprus or the Republic of Ireland, which are all European Union countries, can vote in the proposed referendum on the future of the UK in the EU. Those citizens can do so because, in the case of Malta and Cyprus, they are also in the Commonwealth. In the case of the Republic of Ireland, they can do so because it was once a British colony and there would be complications with regard to Northern Ireland if they could not vote. These are historical reasons. Under our parliamentary franchise, we allow citizens of those three countries and all other Commonwealth citizens in the UK to vote in the election.
Oliver Dowden
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a valid reason for extending the franchise to members of the Commonwealth—many of the citizens of those countries fought and spilt blood in defence of the freedoms we enjoy, which gives them a unique entitlement to vote?
Mike Gapes
I will not be diverted into a long argument, but I have constituents and friends who are Poles, whose parents and grandparents fought with the British. I also have constituents whose relatives fought with the resistance, with the left in Italy and in France against fascism and Nazism. I have friends from other European countries who acted similarly, so I am afraid the hon. Gentleman cannot use that argument.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. In Scotland, we have an excellent Polish community, for example. We have a huge Polish community who fought incredibly bravely during the war, and a newer Polish community who are making a significant contribution to Scottish life.
Mike Gapes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
On the question of EU citizens, there is a very good organisation called New Europeans. I was privileged to be involved when it launched exactly two years ago on 18 June 2013 in the Boothroyd Room. I spoke at the launch. It brings together EU citizens living in the UK. New Europeans has just sent to the Prime Minister a letter signed by a large number of people. I will not list them all, but Nishan Dzhingozyan from Bulgaria, Monika Tlacyt from Poland, Anastasios Vourexakis from Greece and Dean Domitrovic from Croatia were the four main signatories. It was signed by a representative of each of the other EU countries resident in the UK. These are people who are paying taxes, studying, working and living here. Many of them have children born here.
In my recent general election campaign, I met a couple on the street: he was British, she was French. She has been living in this country for many years, and they have children at a school in my constituency. In the referendum, however, one of them will have a vote and the other will not. We have the interesting scenario whereby Commonwealth citizens can vote. A person from Jamaica can vote in the referendum. A person from India or Bangladesh can vote in it. However, someone from Italy or Spain who may have lived in the United Kingdom for longer than people from those other European countries that I mentioned cannot vote.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his pronunciation of all those names.
In her brilliant speech, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) spoke of sending a message. I hope that the Committee will accept my hon. Friend’s amendment, which I have signed and which I support—I also support the amendment tabled by the Scottish National party—because it sends the message that those who come to this country and pay their taxes ought to have the same franchise as everyone else, and to be able to vote in the same way.
Mike Gapes
I take that point entirely. The letter that the New Europeans sent to the Prime Minister points out that it is unfair to discriminate against some EU citizens by not allowing “so many of us” to vote.
Antoinette Sandbach
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) read out a powerful list of other European countries that apply exactly the same criteria. I speak as the child of an EU citizen—my mother—who does not vote. She chooses to retain her nationality and her citizenship in the Netherlands, where she was born, although she has lived in this country for many years. Ultimately, it is for such individuals to decide what their citizenship is. If they wish to become British citizens, they can exercise the franchise here.
Mike Gapes
That is true, but there remains an anomaly which is not dealt with by what has been said by either the hon. Lady or my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East. We allow some EU citizens to vote in our elections; there is not a blanket ban. A Cypriot can vote, a Greek Cypriot can vote, but a Greek cannot vote.
Mike Gapes
I will let my Front-Bench colleagues speak for themselves. I will not put words into their mouths. I am presenting a case that is linked with my other amendment, which relates to British citizens living in other EU countries.
Mr Dodds
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for his amendment in arguing against differentiation between people of different nationalities who are resident here and pay taxes, but why stop at EU citizens? Why does he not apply the same argument to citizens of the wider world who are also resident here and pay taxes, and who will also be affected by the decision?
Mike Gapes
I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but the referendum is about the European Union. I agree that people in the United States and other parts of the world are affected, but we already allow a great many people from other countries who live here to vote in our parliamentary elections, because of the Commonwealth. A large number of British people living in other countries and a large number of Commonwealth citizens living in the United Kingdom—many of whom have not taken British citizenship, whether they have come from Pakistan, India, Australia or Canada—can vote in those elections.
Chris Skidmore
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman’s argument relates to the complexities of our current system of eligibility to vote in either the potential European referendum or a general election, but may I take up the point made earlier by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who mentioned tax? How long does the hon. Gentleman think the period of contribution should be? Should it be five years or 10 years, or should taxpayers be eligible immediately?
Mike Gapes
That is not a question that I can answer at this stage. We have residence rules with regard to people’s eligibility to vote. The essence of my argument is that there should be no discrimination against European Union citizens who are not from Commonwealth countries that are in the European Union. My amendment would end discrimination against EU citizens who may have lived in the United Kingdom for many years—perhaps with children who are at school or university—and may have been making a contribution during that time, whether they are directors of companies, accountants, traders in the City of London, or taxi drivers. Yesterday, I was taken to the climate change event on the South Bank and Lambeth Bridge in a rickshaw pedalled by a Polish guy who had been living in London for many years, working as a rickshaw driver.
The future of many people who are making a contribution to British society could be seriously affected by the referendum. If we leave the European Union, what will happen to the right of those people—many of whom have children who were born here—to stay in our country? The referendum has enormous implications for them and their families, and it also has huge implications for the 2.2 million British people who live elsewhere in the European Union. That is what amendment 52 is about.
The two amendments are balanced, in a sense. There are 2.3 million EU citizens living in the UK, and 2.2 million British citizens living in the other 27 EU countries. However, the demography is a bit different. The people who are living here are younger, they are paying taxes, and they are working. Many, although not all, of those British citizens are living in countries such as Spain and France. Today, I received e-mails from people in, for instance, Crete and Germany who believe that their voices should be heard.
It is possible for people who live abroad to register to vote in UK elections, although there is a restriction. A person who has lived in any other country as a British citizen for up to 15 years has a right to register as an overseas voter, although, despite the efforts of political parties, very few people do. However, a person who has lived in another country for more than 15 years is not eligible to register.
I tend to study the manifestos on which general elections are fought, and I came across a paragraph in the Conservative party’s election manifesto that states:
“We will complete the electoral register, by working to include more of the five million Britons who live abroad. We will introduce votes for life, scrapping the rule that bars British citizens who have lived abroad for more than 15 years from voting.”
That is in the Conservative manifesto and was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, yet the Government propose a referendum that is not consistent with their own policy on which they were elected. I am perplexed by that, so perhaps the Minister when he responds will explain why they want to change the law and allow people in future general elections, presumably, and local elections, probably, to have a vote irrespective of how long they have lived abroad. They are not, however, going to allow those people—the 2.2 million—living in the EU, of whom a significant number have lived in Spain, France or elsewhere for more than 15 years, to have a vote in a referendum that is vital to their future.
There is an organisation that represents Labour party supporters who live in other countries. It is called Labour International. It is affiliated to the Labour party and sends people to our annual conference. Other parties have similar organisations; there is an equivalent Conservative one. Labour International this week sent an email to the general secretary of the Labour party. It quoted one of its members, who says:
The In/Out Referendum has the very real and very frightening possibility of making me an illegal immigrant overnight. How are you going to get the Government to protect me, my family and friends should the electorate turn their back on Europe. What will happen to my rights under the Freedom of Movement clause? What about my job, my pension, my health-care, my property? Will I be able to/forced to claim political asylum? Will I be compensated for losses? Who is making our voice heard in the UK? The list of questions just grows and grows along with my insomnia.
There are people, who perhaps went to Spain 25 or 30 years ago, who are extremely nervous about their future. They are apprehensive, because a decision will be taken in as little as two years’ time that will have an enormous impact on their status, their future and their life. They thought they were settled in another European country, yet they will have no say over that decision, because the British Government—the Conservative Government—believe that their future can be put at risk through this referendum, while they as British citizens living in other European countries have no democratic voice because they have lived there for more than 15 years.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case, as does that email, but first, may I gently remind him that it was the previous Labour Government, whom he supported, who introduced the 15-year limit; and secondly, may I assume from everything he has said that he will support the proposal he read out from the Conservative manifesto to extend the limit for life, beyond 15 years, when it comes before the House?
The Temporary Chair (Mr George Howarth)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, I must say that interventions are supposed to be on a single point. When I hear the words “and secondly”, I begin to get a bit concerned. Please keep interventions as brief as possible.
Mike Gapes
There is no proposal from the Government, and that is why my amendment explores exactly what their position is. It is unclear to me why they believe that British citizens living in a European Union country for 15 years and one month should not have a democratic right, while those living there for 14 years and 11 months do. That is an argument for all parties; I am just raising the democratic principles. A referendum is going to happen that will have a profound impact on British citizens and their families living in other European countries, on British-born children, on people in this country with European Union backgrounds and on people from other countries who are married to, working with or employing British citizens in this country. Yet, none of those people has a voice in this debate. These are serious democratic anomalies which need to be dealt with, if not today, then by another place when it considers these matters.
Chris Skidmore
Is the hon. Gentleman therefore restating his opposition in principle to a referendum and to allowing the British people to have their say? I thought the Labour party had finally done a U-turn and walked through the Lobby with us the other week.
Mike Gapes
It is a pity the hon. Gentleman was not here on Tuesday to hear my response to another intervention from one of his colleagues. I will not repeat it now. My views on a referendum are well known—they are the same as Margaret Thatcher’s and Clement Attlee’s—and if he reads Tuesday’s Hansard he will see the whole quotation.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman consider the fact that some people who miss out during elections are impacted when such votes occur? Government Members are seeking to ensure that the rules are completely consistent and that those who vote in general elections—indeed, those who voted for this referendum—are the same people who vote to decide whether to stay in the European Union.
Mike Gapes
The problem with that argument is that the hon. Gentleman’s party agreed to a local government and European Union-model franchise for the Scottish referendum. European Union citizens living in Glasgow or Edinburgh were allowed to vote in the referendum that took place in 2014, yet European Union citizens living in London, although they will be able to vote in the mayoral election next year, will not be allowed to do so in the referendum in 2016 or 2017, on membership of the European Union, which will have a profound impact on whether they can continue to live in London and whether their families stay here afterwards. There is an anomaly, and the Government need to get real about the problem and the damage it could cause to the presence of people who are a benefit to our country and to our own citizens in European Union countries.
I do not wish to prolong my contribution. I have made my points—[Interruption.] I am happy to take another intervention before I conclude.
The situation is clear: hon. Members on both sides of the Committee need to look carefully at the implications of this referendum for the future of our country, our citizens and those who are resident here. It is going to happen, and it needs to be seen to be fair—and to be seen to be in the interests of our country—so that we get the best possible result.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Surely, the hon. Gentleman recognises that one way to guarantee that the referendum will not be seen to be fair is to change the rules of the franchise from those which applied when he was elected—when all of us were elected—just a few weeks ago.
Mike Gapes
The choice is clear: we could have the local government franchise, which would allow European Union citizens to vote, as they did in the Scottish referendum and in the Mayor of London and local council elections; or we could have the restrictive franchise that the hon. Gentleman proposes. On the wider question, I quoted the Conservative party’s manifesto, which stated that they would extend the franchise period for British citizens living abroad, yet mysteriously—perhaps the Minister will explain why—that proposal is not in the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Bill is a local or a national matter? If he thinks that it is a local matter, will he not seek to apply a local franchise? If he thinks that it is a national matter, will he not seek to apply the franchise that is traditional in this country at national elections?
Mike Gapes
This Bill is more than a local or national matter; it has wide-ranging international implications. Before the hon. Gentleman puts his hands up in the air, he should note that EU citizens living in the UK can vote for MEPs in this country. Given the wide ramifications for our relations with our partners in other European countries, and the mingling and movement of peoples and investments, which is an inevitable consequence of a European Union with a population of 500 million, there are enormous interests for many British people and their families in having a say on this proposal. That is not being allowed to many of them at the moment.
Hywel Williams
Conservative Members liken this argument to arguments about local government, but the Scottish referendum was based on a franchise of 16-year-olds and European citizens voting, and it could be scarcely have been on a more profound matter: the very Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Mike Gapes
I absolutely agree with that. I will conclude my remarks with the hope that both Front-Bench teams are listening to the points I have made, because the voice of the European Union citizens living in the UK and of British people living elsewhere in the EU needs to be heard in this debate.
Mrs Main
I would like to say it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), but I found his arguments somewhat confused and wide-ranging. Let me remind him that the reason we have a Conservative Government is that a Conservative manifesto promised the people that if we had a Conservative-led Government, they would have a referendum. That was decided on by the current franchise of 18-year-olds and over. Those people voted to have a Conservative Government—I like saying that—so that we could then give those aged 18 and over a choice on their future in Europe. As someone who is in her late 50s, I am sorry to say—[Hon. Members: “Never!”] You are so kind. I would like to remind Labour Members that until this moment they, including the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who led for the Opposition, wanted to deny me, in my 50s, a choice on the future of my country. I am glad there has been a Damascene conversion to allowing people of all ages, including me, to have a choice that I never had 44 years ago.
We now have a choice on the future of our country. Muddying the waters by, as the hon. Member for Ilford South was suggesting, including every person who could be affected as a result of being in this country in the time of a referendum and trying to make the franchise so wide—
Mrs Main
Let me make a little progress, because Scottish Members have made a lot of comments in this debate. I am pleased that Scotland had its own referendum under its own rules, because that was devolved as such, but we are not devolved here. We have a franchise and I would like to stick with it. That is why I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) that I fully disagreed with the points she made. I understand the passion with which she made them, but I do not believe this is the time to adopt her approach. The electorate who decided that we would have this choice should now have the right to exercise that choice.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) argued that we should have people on the franchise at 16 because it gets them into good habits, but he then made the confused argument that between 18 and 25 people dropped into bad habits, because they went off to university, got married, moved away or went travelling during a gap year. But those 16-year-olds would eventually become 18-year-olds, so surely they would then have the same chaotic approach to voting that he described. This is not a time to make the point that we will get 16-year-olds into good habits that they will continue for the rest of their lives.
In a relatively short time, we will have this momentous referendum, which I have wanted for a significant period. I would have been hugely disappointed because up until now a Labour Government would have denied me that choice—I am sure I would have gone to my grave without ever having had it. We should stick with the franchise we have. As people have said, they want there to be a recognised choice and a momentous decision. Eighteen is not so far past 16 to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said, that these people are not going to be the ones who have that future—they are, too. We should be making the effort to engage the 18 to 25-year-olds and to increase the turnout. St Albans had a high turnout—
Stephen Gethins
A study by the University of Edinburgh showed that if people engage at 16, that increases their chances of being engaged from 18 to 24. That is one of the many reasons why we should have votes at 16.
Mrs Main
I respect the right of the Scottish people to draw those conclusions, but my conclusion is that we need to look at why in so many of our constituencies—perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell me the turnout in his in a further intervention—the turnout is so low. Why does the weather affect the turnout?
Stephen Gethins
The turnout in my constituency was 72%, which was significantly higher than the turnout across the UK, as indeed was the turnout in every Scottish constituency.
Mrs Main
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, but his turnout was lower than my turnout. Having said that, many Members will know that in their constituencies the turnout, particularly in local elections, is woefully low. The turnout among young people is woefully low. I did 10 hustings—I am sure he did 110—but I can tell the Committee that many young people told me that those who were able to vote did not know enough. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes on that, because we need to make sure that that information is got across. We do not have the mechanisms at the moment to get the information to enough young people in a way that I would like. I do not believe now is the time to consider lowering the age for the franchise and including 16 and 17-year-olds. We need to put our energies and efforts into the 18-plus group.
In my intervention, I made the point that we have things that people can do at 16, but we have a lot of things that they cannot do. The comments made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) have been somewhat misinterpreted by the Committee. I think the point he was trying to make is that we protect young people from a lot of things—he happened to discuss child and sexual abuse. If a young person gets involved in a bad group and eventually goes down the criminal path, we treat them in a way that accepts their youth in law. We treat them in a way that protects them and we hope they will learn the error of their ways before they enter the adult world when they would face extremely serious consequences. We take that approach on a lot of things for young people. We try to protect them from the evils of smoking, drugs and drink.
I know that this is different in Scotland, before someone bounces up and down to tell me so, but we say that a young person still needs parental permission in our country to get married at 16, which I would suggest is a very young age to be getting married. Now is not the time, in an amendment to a Bill as important as this, to decide that we have to review the whole franchise. I do not accept that it is infantilising young people to treat them as what they are—young people, pre-18, the age at which the full weight and consequences of the law fall upon them.
Let me also point out to Opposition Members that people pay tax aged three if they happen to be a child star—that has nothing to do with age. So let us leave that one out; “taxation and representation” is somewhat of a misnomer. We say that young people are protected. What we need to say is why those young people of 18 are then considered adults. They can leave school—they can leave full-time education—and enter the world of work. They lose that protection of that twilight era between being a very young child and an adolescent, and being a young adult.
Chris Skidmore
Has my hon. Friend considered the issue of who the electoral roll and electoral data should be made available to? During the general election we all had access to the data in order to ensure that we provided materials, but those data could be used in other ways, such as by marketing companies to target 16 and 17-year-olds. How would she ensure that the roll is used sensibly and is not used for damaging purposes?
Mrs Main
My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but I will be chided if I go down that route because it is not within the remit of the amendments under consideration. Such a matter would have to be discussed if we were to reconsider the franchise. I do not think that we should pick and choose our franchise arrangements; I know that Scotland did for the referendum. At the moment, we have a franchise of 18 plus. Those voters elected this Government and asked this Government to deliver a referendum and it is those voters who should vote in the referendum; it is as simple as that.
If we are going to start treading in these waters of saying that 16-year-olds should vote, why should we stop there? As has been said in this Committee, why not 15-year-olds? Why not 14-year olds? How have we picked this arbitrary age? Scotland went down the 16-year-old route. Does that make it the right one?
Alison Thewliss
Does it not strike the hon. Lady that whenever franchises have been extended in this country, whether it be from 21 to 18, or indeed allowing women the franchise, arguments about capacity and the ability to vote have always been made, yet the franchise age has gone down? More people have participated in elections, and that has been a good thing for democracy.
Mrs Main
The hon. Lady has just made my point. My point is: why not any age? She has exactly made the point. We choose ages for a reason. My generation was one of the first to vote at 18. I am sure that my father thought I was barking mad and should not even be running a whelk stall. The point is that we made a decision, and that decision has stood us in good stead. We must face the fact that 18 to 24-year-olds are not exercising that franchise. Moving the franchise inexorably downwards, which the hon. Lady thinks is a good idea, does not necessarily mean that we get better political engagement, debate or even consequences.
The hon. Member for Ilford South seemed to feel that the franchise for this particular referendum should apply to everyone who may or may not feel they are affected by being in the country as a result of EU membership; well, I profoundly disagree. This is about the self-determination of our country and how we see our place within Europe. That is something that I have never voted on, and I wish to vote on. I am pleased that the public have been offered such a vote now.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely rich of the Opposition to have a view on the details now when they were seemingly disinterested in the basic question for many years?
Mrs Main
My hon. Friend reinforces my point. Up until this very moment, the Opposition did not want us to have this debate. Suddenly, they are coming up with a whole load of detail that they feel is crucial to the debate. I think they suspect that the younger generation are more likely to want to remain in Europe. Political opportunism is why they are looking to move the franchise. I agree that, in the future, we should all have a larger debate on whether the franchise is pitched at the right age. Let us park that political opportunism, welcome the fact that Opposition Members want to give us old birds an actual vote—at long last—but let us keep the franchise where it is. It has stood us in good stead. Any efforts and bluster—
Keith Vaz
I missed that last comment. I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Just to be clear: she keeps referring to Opposition Members. Some of us have been calling for a referendum on this subject for many, many years—and it was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto in 2010. It is just that the Front Bench team took a bit of time to get to where some of us were.
Mrs Main
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; I hope that he will forgive my comments. We have many friends on both Benches who have wanted a referendum. I accept that he is a firm and staunch European. He wanted to have the referendum to give a choice, with the choice being, in his view, to stay in. He has colleagues who share that view, and others who share the opposite view. I am prepared to be corrected by the right hon. Gentleman, who holds staunch views.
The right hon. Gentleman is also right in another regard. I have that poster on my wall that says, “We are the only party that will give a true referendum”. I think we were playing games with the Lisbon treaty at the time. A poster of Nick Clegg, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, is on the wall in my office, and has been there for some time, as are pictures of those who want to give us a true referendum.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My hon. Friend said that her father might have thought she was eccentric voting at the age of 18, when she was first allowed to do so. The fact that she has a poster of Nick Clegg on her wall seems to add to her father’s view. Does she need some help in this matter?
The Temporary Chair (Mr George Howarth)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg). I really hope that we are not going to spend a great deal of time talking about the artistic merit of what hangs on the hon. Lady’s wall.
Mrs Main
I have been gently chided from going down that route. The point is that a referendum is something that has been rattled around for a considerable time. We are now having one, thanks to the fact that we have a Conservative Government who have promised to deliver a referendum, and deliver it we shall. I do not wish to muddy the waters of something so vital, so important and so longed for by trying to move the franchise down to the age of 16 or 17.
I look forward to all sides expending as much effort and energy on this matter to ensure that those people who currently have the franchise exercise it. That will be the best way to ensure that we get a vote that represents the true wishes of the people of this country. Those people of 18 will be living with the consequences for a very long time—just as those of us in our fifties have lived with the consequences of what our parents chose for us. We should stick with our current franchise, and not be considering passing an amendment that does something so momentous as extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Such a decision may be for another day. All the implications raised by the hon. Member for Ilford South could be discussed then. We could consider who should vote at general elections and at local elections. That is an important issue, but it is not for today. I shall vote with the Government and not support the amendment.
Tom Brake
I rise to speak in favour of amendments 51, 1, 2 and 18. Having been advised that the lead amendment would be 51, I put my name to that, but I am also happy to support amendment 18, which seeks to achieve the same thing in relation to EU citizens being able to vote.
Briefly, on the subject of votes at 16 and 17, the Scottish referendum has demonstrated convincingly that 16 and 17-year-olds are interested in politics and that when there is a vote of substance, they will want to take part. They have demonstrated, I would have thought convincingly to the House as a whole, that they should be entitled to vote. Certainly, that is something that the Liberal Democrats have pursued vigorously for many years. Indeed, Stephen Williams, the former Member for Bristol West, pursued the matter in the previous Parliament and ensured that the House voted in favour of votes at 16. It was not legislated on, because it is not something that the Conservatives would agree to in the coalition.
My friend in the other place, Lord Tyler, has also pursued the issue through a private Member’s Bill in the other place, calling for votes at 16 for all elections and referendums.
Chris Skidmore
The right hon. Gentleman takes a snipe at the Conservative party for refusing to take certain decisions within the coalition. But the Liberal Democrats refused to give us a referendum on Europe in the previous Parliament, which is why we are having it now. It is hardly fair to make those assumptions when his party, at heart, has always been against a referendum on Europe—certainly after 2010.
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman will know that that is not the case. In the previous Government, we legislated to allow a referendum to take place if there was a substantial transfer of powers—or proposals for such a transfer—from the UK to the EU.
There is one final reason why 16 and 17-year-olds should be given a vote in this referendum, which is that if the UK votes to come out of the EU, it will be a one-way street. If we choose “Brexit” rather than “Bremain” there will be no “Breadmission”. What does that mean for 16 and 17-year-olds? Their options for living, working, travelling and studying abroad are curtailed. Their horizons are restricted and their futures diminished. They have a right to have their say in a referendum, which, if the UK votes to leave the EU, could have a long-lasting and damaging impact on their life chances. We in this place should be giving them that right.
In relation to the franchise for EU citizens, currently 2.3 million citizens of other European member states live and work in the United Kingdom. In the regional and local elections that will be held across Britain and Northern Ireland next year, all EU citizens living in the UK will be entitled to vote, yet, as clause 2 stands, EU citizens living abroad in the UK will not be entitled to vote in the referendum. To respond to the point made by the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), I do not think the fact that other countries have not allowed EU citizens to take part in similar referendums means that that is the path that the UK Government should follow.
I said earlier that EU citizens will not be entitled to vote, but of course, as several hon. Members have said today, a number of EU citizens will be able to vote in the referendum, because there is no consistency. Citizens of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta living in the UK will be able to vote in the referendum, but citizens from all other EU member states will not. As the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) said, it is clear that non-British EU citizens living in the UK have a very big stake in this election. If Britain leaves the EU, those men and women will still be EU citizens—unlike their UK counterparts, who will lose their EU citizenship rights—but they will no longer have the automatic right to live and work in the UK.
We should also remember that non-British citizens have the right to vote and stand in regional and local elections. There are many examples of European citizens playing a leading representative role in our democracy. As SNP Members will know, one of the best-known cases is that of the French-born Christian Allard, the SNP MSP for North East Scotland. It would be a disgrace if he was not allowed to vote in the EU referendum.
Do we really want to say to EU citizens who make such an outstanding contribution that they are good enough to represent us in the Scottish Parliament, in the Greater London Authority, or as our local councillor or mayor, but that they are not good enough to have a say in the EU referendum? Do we want to say to EU citizens that they are good enough to invest in Britain, set up a business here, pay their taxes and contribute to our communities, but that we do not want their voices to be heard in the referendum? Do we have the chutzpah to go to EU citizens next year, when all the political parties in this place will be competing for their votes in next year’s local and regional elections, and say, “Sorry, we didn’t give you the vote in the EU referendum, but please give us your vote now so that we can represent you”?
Simon Hoare
The corollary of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument is that he is advocating the abolition of the distinctions between the registers for local government elections and for Westminster and European elections. Is that at the heart of what he is saying? While I am on my feet, may I stress that this is not a qualitative position? We are not saying that people are either good enough or not good enough. It is about whether it is right or not.
The Temporary Chair (Mr George Howarth)
Order. Saying “While I am on my feet” is almost the same as saying “and secondly”. Members should make a single point.
Tom Brake
I certainly agree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on the latter point, if I may respond to just one of the points that he made. This is about what is right and what is wrong, but there are some Opposition Members who believe that it is right to give EU citizens the right to vote in the referendum. Clearly, most Members on the Government Benches, if not all of them, do not think that it is.
Most importantly, EU citizens are mobilising and demanding the vote. A former Member of this House, whom I knew quite well as he represented a constituency close to mine, Roger Casale, an Italian by origin, has set up an organisation, New Europeans, which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Ilford South, to ensure that EU citizens living in the UK have their voices heard. The organisation is celebrating its second birthday today, so I wish it a happy birthday.
On Tuesday, Roger and fellow members of New Europeans visited the House of Commons during the first Committee day of the EU referendum debate to speak to MPs about the franchise in the EU election. We have already heard the names of many of those who attended and I will not attempt to pronounce them, as that was well done earlier by the hon. Member for Ilford South.
EU citizens in Scotland had the right to vote in the referendum and may have helped to keep Scotland part of the United Kingdom by voting no to its break-up. Many EU citizens living in the UK now demand the right to vote in the EU referendum to keep Britain in Europe. Would we have argued that the independence referendum in Scotland was illegitimate if it had been won by such a narrow margin as to make the votes of EU citizens there decisive in the outcome? If not, why should we deny EU citizens the vote in the EU referendum, fearing that the outcome of the vote might depend on them?
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
As we all know, rightly or wrongly, many of the people who would vote to leave the European Union would do so because of the perceived issue of the number of people coming into the country. If we were to vote to stay in specifically as a result of the votes of European citizens, would that not be inflammatory to many millions of people who voted no?
Tom Brake
I will let the hon. Gentleman speculate on that, but what is clearly inflammatory is that 2.3 million EU citizens who live here will not be able to take part, if the Government have their way, in a referendum that will have a significant impact on them and their children. The Government disregard that at their peril.
This is exactly the argument that many Government Members have made to deny EU citizens the vote. It is a tactical and political argument that says that they want the referendum to be won—that is, for us to come out of the EU—on the votes of British citizens alone. There is no consistency in who can vote in the election, because it is not just British citizens who will be included. Citizens of 73 nationalities will be able to vote in the referendum, as they come from Commonwealth countries, and members of three EU states will be able to vote alongside British and Commonwealth citizens, yet citizens from the other 24 member states of the EU will not have the vote under the current parliamentary franchise.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I suspect that given the ferocity with which the Conservative party opposes any proposed extension there would not have been much point in my trying to pursue that as Deputy Leader of the House.
EU citizens in the UK are the group whose future will be most affected by the outcome of the vote, as well as 16 and 17-year-olds, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said earlier. EU citizens in the UK are demanding the vote and for too long, we in this place have not listened to their voice in our communities. That has to change. It is the Liberal Democrats’ policy to allow EU citizens to vote and we call on other parties to follow suit. When we go to the polls next year in the regional and local elections, we will be held to account by more than 2.3 million EU citizens in the UK for the actions we take today. It is time to do the right thing and empower EU citizens by giving them the vote in the referendum. What better way to mark the second anniversary of New Europeans and to acknowledge the rights of the 2.3 million EU citizens they represent than to extend the franchise in the EU referendum to all EU citizens rather than just some? Basing the provision on the local election franchise and not the parliamentary franchise would achieve that, so I commend these amendments to the House.
Chloe Smith
I believe passionately—I have spoken on this point before, both in this place and outside it—that young people should have a place in our democracy. Doing nothing about their current position within our democracy is no option at all, and I would follow on from the arguments in that regard made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). However, I shall not support the amendments today. Let me explain why.
Disraeli tells us with some wisdom, as he often does, that we can see two nations in one. I do not mean two nations under one roof in the United Kingdom, but rather that there are two nations of older and younger voters. His original point was that his two nations might as well have been dwellers on different zones or planets, as they had so little sympathy with each other’s positions. One might be drawn to think that from the relative turnout figures for older and younger voters. In the 2010 election, the last one for which we have the complete figures, I believe, the average voting rate was around 65%. The rate among pensioners was about 75%, and the rate among 18 to 24-year-olds was about 44%. The data we have for the election just past are incomplete, but I understand that one set of data suggests that the turnout rate among 18 to 24-year-olds declined by one percentage point.
The point is this: we in the UK have a serious problem of low youth turnout—we are the sick man of Europe, or indeed the world on some counts. Some studies suggest that, at that statistical level, we are hopelessly behind other countries in Europe. There is a US-UK-Germany study on this point, which shows that, although young people turn out less than their elders in other countries—the US is a good example—in the UK the divergence is accelerating. That is a serious problem.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The percentage of young people who turned out in our election just past is expected to have been in the high 60s, compared with just above 40% here. I would lay that at the feet of the referendum. A referendum means that every single vote in the country counts. You will never inspire young people as much as with a referendum, because if they are in a safe seat, whether they agree or not, their vote may not count. A referendum is exactly the time to look at extending the franchise; otherwise, you are facing the prospect of your turnout in a decade’s time being pitiful.
Chloe Smith
The hon. Lady makes a good point about the nature of a referendum, although if I understood her correctly, I probably ought to balk at her references to there and here and you and we, and some points of division that I think she is seeking to make. However, I believe she is broadly with me on my point that the UK as a whole, in national UK elections, has a problem about which we all despair.
Chris Skidmore
On the point about referendum turnout, is my hon. Friend aware of the Electoral Commission study of the ICM poll showing that, in the recent Scottish referendum, turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds was 54%? It was 75% among 17-year-olds, but the study concluded that many of them were accompanied to the ballot box by their parents. Among those who had turned 18 and were independent, turnout slumped to 54%.
Chloe Smith
I will attempt to draw the statistically based interventions together into a broader point: young people turn out to vote less than older people, and we should all be concerned about that. We are all in the business of looking for ways to improve that situation.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Lady makes some good points, and I hope she will join us in the Lobby tonight, unlike the Labour Members who say they are for something but then do not actually vote for it. On the point that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) raised, what the study showed is that people who start voting at 16 and 17 are more likely to continue voting. As the Electoral Reform Society has said: vote early and vote often.
Chloe Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes a sound point. Voting is a habit that is formed early, and we ought to treat it as such. The franchise is but one element of all that we should do to encourage young people to take an early interest in politics and to sustain that throughout their lifetime. I will discuss that more broadly later in my speech.
The nature of young people’s interest in politics compared with that of their elders is evolving. Some would argue that young people simply become like their elders as they get older—it is, in effect, a life cycle argument, which I think we should cease to make. There is a lazy complacency open to us to say, “It’s all going to be okay. They’ll just start voting when they get married and get a mortgage and settle down.” To start with, we all know perfectly well that getting a mortgage is increasingly hard for a young person. That is part of another evolutionary change we are seeing in our economy and society, but what we are confronted with is a generation—our generation; I include myself in that generation and others in this House may choose to define themselves that way, too—who are willing to be involved in politics, but perhaps less wiling to be involved in traditional, formal politics. We see young people who choose to make their voices heard using new technology and techniques, getting out there and rolling up their sleeves to achieve community change, and that is a very fine thing. I think that traditional politics has adapt to that, so my first point is that we have to do a range of things to make traditional, formal politics adapt to a new generation.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
My hon. Friend’s point about low turnout among younger voters is a good one. What is her opinion on the possibility of extending the franchise to younger people having the effect of lowering average turnout, because it will take in a group whose propensity to vote is also low?
Chloe Smith
Unfortunately, mathematically my hon. Friend may well be right. I am endeavouring to avoid the dry maths, but her prediction may be correct. She returns me to my key point: we need to do more than just concern ourselves with percentages, turnout rates and franchises if we are to address the problem.
Damian Green
My hon. Friend is a great expert on these matters. The point has been made that efforts to encourage 17 to 18-year-olds and 18 to 24-year olds to vote are not mutually contradictory. Does she agree that, on the evidence we have so far, such efforts are mutually reinforcing—that we are more likely to increase lifelong voting by allowing people to vote before the age of 18 than by waiting until they are over 18? Such fairly limited academic evidence as we have suggests that that is the case.
Chloe Smith
Yes, I do agree. I think my right hon. Friend is echoing a point made by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins). The question of the quality of the evidence available to us is a difficult one. Any “evidence” will be something like a poll of 16 and 17-year-olds asking, “Would you like this franchise?” My understanding of the evidence is that it is extremely mixed. I have seen polls of 16 and 17-year-olds asking them that question, and they say, “Yes please.” I have also seen polls of a wider age group asking, “Would you like this franchise, or would you have liked this franchise?” to which they reply, “No, we’re not so sure, because we think we might not be ready,” if they are younger than 16, or, “We might not have been ready,” if they are older.
Hywel Williams
One does not have to speculate about the effect of lowering the voting age to 16. Musings from the other side are not necessary when one merely has to look at what happened in Scotland.
Chloe Smith
I take that point, but I still think the evidence is mixed. We have one—very strong—example. Ruth Davidson is one Conservative, and I am another, who reflects positively on that experience and thinks that we should learn from it, but other evidence in this arena is scant and not concrete.
Tom Tugendhat
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and allowing me to make a point in response to the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams). In fact, the evidence is not quite as clear as he suggests. The Scottish referendum was on a simple yes/no question and we know that such questions attract higher turnouts of every age, so the question whether 16 and 17-year-olds’ participation attracted a higher turnout is moot.
Chloe Smith
My hon. Friend places me in a difficult position. As he was responding to the hon. Member for Arfon, he will have to allow me to skip his intervention and return to my speech.
Chloe Smith
If I may, Mr Howarth, I will suggest that the two hon. Members sort themselves out. [Laughter.]
The Temporary Chair (Mr George Howarth)
The hon. Lady has resumed her seat. Has she finished?
The Temporary Chair
In that case, may I commend her on her amazing good sense?
Chloe Smith
I have found, Mr Howarth, that it is always good sense to try to stay on the right side of the Chair, and I will do that.
Let me return to the main point of my remarks. We need to do a number of things to address the question of youth engagement in politics. I have already noted that there is high youth engagement in political activity, but not in traditional politics. That is one of the characteristics of the problem facing us. If Mr Speaker were in the Chair, he would no doubt refer us to some of the work that he has led on digital democracy, which is another aspect that we should consider. There is more to the question than the franchise and the age at which we enfranchise young people. The franchise age is no silver bullet on its own.
Dr Whitford
Clearly, the hon. Lady is keen to see young people engaged. She talks about their broad interest in dynamic politics, but not necessarily in party politics. As the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) pointed out, referendums get a higher turnout. The question is simple and, as I said earlier, every single vote counts. The Conservative party is in danger of passing by the best opportunity to engage young people that we may have in a decade.
Chloe Smith
I thank the hon. Lady for her point, which I think is the point she was making earlier. I do not dispute the special quality of referendums which gets people excited. That is a good thing, and I am delighted that we are having a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union. It is one of the things I was proud of in the Conservative party manifesto. It allows us to engage people of any age in an important question for our country. However, the referendum is not the vehicle for us to attempt to change the full franchise. I shall come on to that as my main argument.
When I was in the position now held by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who is one of the Ministers present today, I stood at the Dispatch Box and demurred on the question whether we should change the age of the franchise. I referred to mixed evidence and said at that time that, on the basis of the evidence available to us, I was not convinced that we ought to alter the age of enfranchisement in this country. I have since changed my view and come to believe that we should have votes at 16. I have come to that view for a number of reasons: additional evidence has come in from the Scottish referendum and it is such an important signal to send to young people to welcome them into our democracy. As I have argued, it is no silver bullet, but it is a very important signal to give.
I endorse the work of the Tory Reform Group. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) have contributed to that and I have collaborated with them. There is an important argument to be made from the Conservative Benches in favour of enfranchising young people and engaging them in our politics. Let me make that Conservative argument briefly. The youngest generation in our adult world today is least interested in big redistributive schemes. Of the generations in our democracy today, it is most interested in welfare reform and in enterprise. We have an opportunity in our party to make the Conservatives the home for young voters, and we should grab that opportunity with both hands.
We have made a good start. We are the party that has just won a national election on the basis of an improving economy, jobs for young people and record youth employment figures, and on our record of fixing this country’s debts so that they do not fall on the heads of future generations, helping young families with childcare and putting education in this country on a stable footing that serves those young people for their future. We are the party of young people and we can be the party of young voters. However, the Bill is not the vehicle for extending the franchise. Let me explain why.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The hon. Lady seems to be making the case that 16 is not too young to vote, but the referendum would be too soon to make that change. Rather than the evidence being mixed, is she not giving us a very mixed argument?
Chloe Smith
The hon. Gentleman kindly brings me to my next point, which is the nature of making a change as important and as necessary as this through an ad hoc means. I am arguing for a lasting change for young people, not for an ad hoc change, as represented by making it on a one-time referendum. As good as referendums are, they are by their nature one-timers.
Tom Tugendhat
I fully agree that there is a strong argument for lowering the voting age in this country and I would welcome a full debate on the issue in this place in due course, but I am not sure whether the British public, who have waited more than 40 years for a referendum on Europe, would forgive us for squabbling over the franchise at this point. Does my hon. Friend agree that a full and frank discussion about the enfranchisement of 16 and 17-year-olds is needed in this place in the fullness of time and that such a discussion should not be rushed?
Chloe Smith
My hon. Friend is exactly right: we should do this properly. The Bill is not the place for that.
Mark Durkan
In that case, why has the franchise been extended in relation to peers? Now the only additional young voters we are going to get are four Lords called Young and one called Younger. The franchise is being altered specifically for them as a one-off. If it is okay to extend the franchise for them, why not for 16 and 17-year-olds?
Chloe Smith
My answer to that, as opposed to the Minister’s, which he will give to explain the full point, is that if we agree here, as many of us do on a cross-party basis, that we ought to look at ways to bring young people into our politics, we need to do that more permanently. I for one would not be happy to settle for doing so only on the ad hoc basis of a referendum. For that reason, and because I want to make sure that this is good-quality legislation, as I mentioned earlier, I will not vote for the amendments today because they would not do that properly.
I refer to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who has just left her place. She emphasised the need to make sure the electoral register is robust, so that we can have a robust jury service system. I refer also to the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who says that we should do this properly as a view of the age of majority. Several important points are not adequately dealt with by swiftly enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds in an ad hoc manner.
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend is being a little too kind by using the phrase “ad hoc”. The phrase I think she is looking for is “gerrymandered”, because those who advocate an amendment to the clause are trying to gerrymander a register to get the result they want.
Chloe Smith
My hon. Friend may think that—I couldn’t possibly comment. What I will comment on is the need to ensure that everyone of a suitable majority in this country has a chance to play their role in democracy. Defining a suitable majority is a much bigger thing than we could do through the amendment, as the quality of the debate today has shown.
Tom Brake
Given that the hon. Lady wants to deal with the issue holistically, has she spoken to Ministers and asked them if they would urgently introduce a Bill that would deal with it in a holistic manner? The referendum could then take place with 16 and 17-year-olds voting.
Chloe Smith
I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, having served alongside him on some of these matters in the previous Government. I want to say to Ministers through my remarks in the House today, in addition to whatever I may say to them privately, that we ought to return to this matter in the House. Some very important issues have been raised in the debate and I hope my remarks serve to show that there is cross-party consensus on the need to involve young people in our democracy. I am sure the Front-Bench team are listening very carefully to that.
Andrew Gwynne
I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady and have a large degree of sympathy with her argument. Given how important the EU referendum is—the issue has defined the Conservative party’s political agenda for at least the past 15 to 20 years—does she not realise that giving the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds would allow them to take charge of their own destiny, because the EU treaty rights will be theirs as well as hers?
Chloe Smith
The hon. Gentleman is right that this is an important matter for the Conservative party, and I think that he would be forced to concede that its absence from his party’s agenda has also been a defining matter for it. I repeat that I am delighted that we are in a position to have this historic referendum, which is wanted by many of my constituents and others. Indeed, during the election campaign, I could barely find one constituent who could comprehend the idea of not having the referendum.
Let me go to the heart of the technical point that the Committee is considering. Clause 2(1) gains its legitimacy from the parliamentary franchise. Any change that we might want to make should be made at the source. If the legitimacy of holding a referendum derives from a franchise, we ought to change that franchise if we think that is the right thing to do, rather than do so on an ad hoc basis.
Suella Fernandes
My hon. Friend makes another excellent point. Does she agree that throughout history this House has granted suffrage and extended the franchise after full and robust debate, not in a last-ditch, shoehorn way in Committee?
Chloe Smith
I think that my hon. Friend is with me in my argument. We should do this properly. Some very important issues have been raised, and some extremely important consequential matters, such as the quality of our jury service, should also be dealt with.
Today, I am calling on the Minister to review this issue. I hope that he will be able to take away from today’s debate the nature of the cross-party support for enfranchising young people and empowering them to take their rightful place in our democracy. Taking my cue from my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), I note that neither she nor I would have been here under the franchise of previous decades. It is important that we take—dare I say it?—a progressive stance on these matters. It is important that every party in this House considers how it can best encourage young people to take their rightful place in our democracy. We must not do that in a slap-dash way; we must do it in a way that allows every aspect of the age of majority to be properly discussed.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does the hon. Lady not agree that to refer to this as ad hoc is really quite disingenuous? In Scotland, we saw a generation of people engaged, and I think that any 16 or 17-year-old watching this debate would hear lots of technical points, but would she not consider it to be a regressive step to have given the young people of Scotland the opportunity to engage in their nation’s future—we on the SNP Benches heard from many young people south of the border who were just as engaged—and then make them feel that they are losing out on a major opportunity?
The Temporary Chair (Mr George Howarth)
Order. The conjunction “and” is rather like “secondly” and “thirdly”, and two “ands” is at least one too many.
Chloe Smith
Thank you for your guidance, Mr Howarth, and thank you for your patience; I am conscious that I have made some lengthy remarks and taken plenty of interventions.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and share her desire to say to any young person watching today, “We believe in your place in this place. We believe in your place in politics. We believe in your place in changing the world in which you live.” I want to do that in a fundamental and lasting way, rather than a temporary, one-time way, which is inevitable with a referendum. I am pleased to have heard all the arguments built up for a case for change. I am delighted that there have been way markers in building up that case for young people to be properly involved in politics, both community politics and traditional, formal politics.
Chloe Smith
I will not take any more interventions, because I want to bring my remarks to a close and allow other Members to contribute fully.
My plea to the Minister is to take these issues away and review them fully. Will he speak to his colleagues, including those in charge of bringing forward the legislation needed to extend the enfranchisement of overseas voters? Perhaps that will provide an opportunity to return to these matters shortly. Let us do this in a way that achieves fundamental, lasting, good-quality change and that can make us all proud to go back to young people in our constituencies and across the country and say, “You have your place in politics.”
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
If we are going to have this referendum, we really should aspire to have the widest possible engagement in it. I rise to support the various amendments that seek to extend the franchise to all people over the age of 16 who are legally resident in this country.
Let me deal first with votes at 16. Growing up is clearly a process; changing from a child to an adult is something that happens over time. However, we must, as a matter of administration, put legal definitions on things. In this country we confer rights and responsibilities on people at different ages as they go through that process: at 16 they have the right to marry and to join the Army; at 17 they can drive a car; and at 18 they can buy a drink in a pub. The question, then, is this: why 16, rather than 17 or 15? To my mind, the answer is that 16 is the age at which we are given a number: our national insurance number. We turn from being simply a member of society to someone who has a liability to contribute to society. We reach the age of economic majority. That is why I believe that 16 should be the age at which people are allowed to vote.
Suella Fernandes
I note the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the argument about consistency just does not stack up, because 16 and 17-year-olds can marry only with the permission of their parents, and they cannot buy cigarettes or alcohol. If he is going down the consistency line, is he advocating extending the age for those activities?
Tommy Sheppard
I point out to the hon. Lady that 16-year-olds can marry without their parents’ consent in Scotland. I think that trying to draw a comparison to cigarettes and alcohol is mischievous, to be honest. I think that having the right to vote is an awful lot less dangerous than the consumption of cigarettes or alcohol. We should look for the widest possible and most generous interpretation.
We live in a changing world, and I think that this House needs to be aware of the world the way it is. There have been particular changes that relate to this debate over the past decade. There has been an information explosion in this country. People are more connected, aware and engaged than ever. Sixteen-year-olds are far more aware of what is going on in this world and in this country than many of their parents are. To say that they do not have the right to make up their minds on things, frankly, is to treat them with disrespect.
As I said earlier this week, we should be making our policy on the basis of evidence, and we are indeed fortunate in this case, as in some others, to have direct evidence of what happens when we lower the voting age to 16, and this is because of the experience of the Scottish referendum. We saw a remarkable thing. Despite concerns that young people would not be interested in voting, we saw a 97% registration rate among 16 and 17-year-olds and a 75% turnout. The turnout was slightly lower than average, but it was higher than some other age cohorts. That dismisses completely the idea that if they are given the opportunity, young people will not want to get engaged.
Tom Tugendhat
Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on his economic argument, which I find extremely interesting? If he is saying that as soon as someone is economically viable, they have the right to vote, does he recognise that the duke’s boy who inherits millions of acres of land and starts paying tax at the age of three should be enfranchised, whereas the post office worker’s boy who does not pay tax until he is earning should not have the right to vote until that point?
Tommy Sheppard
I would not enfranchise him, but I would certainly be happy to take the money. I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for addressing what I believe to be the elephant in the room. She let the cat out of the bag by expressing her concern about what 16 and 17-year-olds might do if they had the right to vote. I think there are probably too many people in this Chamber whose attitude towards whether to allow young people the right to vote is determined by their perception of how young people might exercise that vote.
Again, I refer to the experience of the Scottish referendum and ask hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to put caution to one side. Two years out from the Scottish referendum date of 18 September, the attitude profile of 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland was significantly different from how it ended up on the day of the vote. Quite simply, an awful lot of people changed their minds during the referendum campaign, because they applied their intellect and their thought. They listened to the arguments and made up their minds. To my mind, that vindicates not only the democratic process but the decision to allow young people to have the vote in the first place.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
On that note, I have a 16-year-old son, and before the general election I discussed with him and his friends whether they should be able to vote in the election. They came to the conclusion that young people of 16 are wont to change their minds very frequently, and that perhaps it was not good to be voting on something so important, and that they would prefer to be more mature. If we are all to live until we are 100, there is no hurry.
The Temporary Chair (Mr George Howarth)
Order. The hon. Lady will not go on any further.
Tommy Sheppard
Young people have different opinions about many things, and they will change their minds. I do not think that we can judge whether to accord somebody the right to vote based on their propensity to change their mind. That would be a contradiction of democracy.
The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) brings me to my next point. The younger someone is when they vote in the referendum, the longer they will have to live with the result. It seems to me iniquitous that we should not allow our younger citizens to participate in a decision over the future of their country, when they will have to put up with the consequences of that decision for the longest.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend accept that we are having this debate because so many people have not been given the right to have their say in the EU debate? Does he accept that in extending the franchise for this election, it is of vital importance that young people have the right to have their say and have their voices heard in such an important debate?
Tommy Sheppard
My hon. Friend echoes the points that I am making. There are many international comparisons in this discussion. Young people—16-year-olds—have the right to vote in Austria, Brazil and many other countries. Nearer to home, they have the right to vote in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. I think we should play catch-up and accord them the right to vote here. This is an idea whose time has come.
Several hon. Members have suggested that they are relaxed about the longer-term principle of lowering the voting age in this country but they feel that we are rushing into it with the referendum, so they object to it today because of their commitment to trying to get the process right. I suggest that they should look at it the other way around. They should treat the referendum as an experiment, a trial and an opportunity to see whether lowering the voting age would work. The results of that experiment could inform our longer-term discussions about the franchise more generally.
Will Quince
Is it appropriate to have experiments with our constitutional matters?
Tommy Sheppard
The hon. Gentleman’s Government have been quite keen to inflict experiments on Scotland. I refer him to the poll tax, if nothing else, which the Government decided to implement first in Scotland on an experimental basis before applying it to the rest of the United Kingdom. There is an argument for saying that with constitutional change of such magnitude as changing the voting age, we might want to try it first and see how it works in a referendum, after which we could certainly apply the results to the longer-term franchise.
Dr Philippa Whitford
I want to take up the point that we have heard from Government Members that making the change through this amendment would be inappropriate. I do not understand why we cannot allow young people to vote in this referendum and later go through the issue with a fine-toothed comb before making a permanent change.
Tommy Sheppard
My hon. Friend makes the point well. I commend those on the Government Benches who are curious about and interested in the idea of lowering the voting age to try it and see.
I turn to the question of EU nationals. I have the great fortune to represent a mainly thriving metropolitan area in central Edinburgh full of creative and dynamic people who have moved to the city and made it their home because of its attractions. Several of my constituents have contacted me because they are concerned about the fact that they may not be able to vote in the forthcoming referendum. Dr Carmen Huesa came here 18 years ago from her native Spain and got her PhD at Aberdeen University. Ever since, she has worked as a senior research scientist, and she is currently working on trying to develop a cure for osteoporosis as part of an important research team at the University of the West of Scotland. She has been here for 18 years, and her partner, children and family are here; she has no intention of going anywhere else. Another constituent, Esther Kuck, came here from Germany and settled in the thriving neighbourhood of Portobello. She has contributed to that community by building up her own small business and providing a vital service. She, too, has made her home here, and she has no intention of going anywhere else. Elia Ballesteros has also come from Spain and lives in the city centre. She is a BAFTA award-winning film maker, and a vital member of our creative community in the city of Edinburgh. They all have in common the fact that they are not on a gap year, they are not backpacking through this country and they have not come to visit. They have come to apply their intellect and their industry to make this country better.
Huw Merriman
If those individuals reside and work in the country, they are adding great value, but they are citizens of countries in the EU that govern their membership of the EU. If a vote came up in those countries, they would of course be entitled to vote. Otherwise, they would end up with two votes.
Tommy Sheppard
I will come to that point in a moment. It takes me on to the discussion about why people should be able to vote in the process in the first place. I reflect back a couple of weeks to when I made my maiden speech, and a Conservative Member—I think he was trying to be kind and helpful—said, in an attempt to endear himself to Scottish National party Members, that he had Scottish blood in his veins. I did not get the chance to say so at the time, but although he may well have some Scottish blood in his veins, I have none whatsoever in mine. I am a member of the Scottish National Party and I represent my constituents because I have chosen to make my life in Scotland. I am going to die in the city of Edinburgh. It is a fine city, and I would not envisage going anywhere else. It is not a question of identity or genetics; it is a question of residence.
The thing I am most proud of in the Scottish referendum is that that was the principle we applied. We said that if people choose to come and live in this country, make their future here, contribute to the country and be part of it, they have an equal say with anyone else in the future of their country. I find an awkward national identity being proposed, which is not the current franchise for Westminster; amendments are being made to it anyway. Attempts are being made to couch it in these terms: if people have some sort of historical or genealogical connection with the country, they have a right to a say in its future, but if they have worked here for decades, contributed their taxes and raised their families here, they may not. I think that that is iniquitous. It will drive wedges between families and communities, and it will make many of our citizens feel second class. I urge the Committee to try to avoid that situation by supporting amendment 18.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I will speak in support of Labour amendments 1 and 2 to clause 2 to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum. I will also argue generally in favour of lowering the voting age for all elections everywhere in the UK. I am arguing for 16 and 17-year-olds as young people, not as adults. I consider that all the arguments about this being a way of bringing down the age of adulthood are missing the point.
Tom Tugendhat
Does the hon. Lady accept that the hazards of drinking and smoking are to do with the ability to foresee the consequences, whether it be tomorrow’s hangover or next year’s lung cancer? Does she agree that some elections—indeed, some rather well-reported elections—can also bring hangovers?
Thangam Debbonaire
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and I thank him for my first experience of an intervention. Yes, of course, those are potential forms of harm where young people may not be able to see the consequences of their actions. However, as I have said, going into a polling booth, in and of itself, does not present any harm, whereas smoking immediately presents harm to a young person.
Peter Grant
Is the hon. Lady aware that the argument against allowing younger people to drink alcohol is not merely social or one of predicting consequences? There is significant medical evidence that the human liver takes longer to develop than once thought, and allowing and encouraging young people to drink alcohol—some would even say up to 21—can have medical effects that are much more severe than they would be for drinking the same amount of alcohol at an older age.
Thangam Debbonaire
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and of course I agree. Again, I draw a contrast between the risks of harm from certain behaviours and the lack of risk of harm from going into a polling booth. The risks of harm from drinking early are well known and well presented. There is a large amount of evidence, as there is on smoking.
The Electoral Reform Society wrote:
“If we get more young people registered early and into the habit of voting, we will not only see lasting improvements in turnout but a lasting improvement in our democracy.”
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to see those consequences, for young people and for ourselves. I am not arguing that 16 and 17-year-old young people be termed “adults”. I am simply arguing that they are capable of voting and interested in voting, and the evidence suggests that it would be a good thing generally for democracy that they be allowed to vote. That does not make them adults; they should simply be given the right to vote.
Tom Tugendhat
Thank you, Sir Roger, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I have to declare an interest because—[Hon. Members: “You’re 16.”] It is a somewhat different interest to the one that hon. Members are suggesting. My wife is not 16, or 17, but she is French. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) talked about divided households. I can say that none is as united as mine on this issue. My wife has identified what hon. Members would be well advised to note. As a constitutional expert in French law, she realises that what we are talking about is not a tactical political change, but a major constitutional change to the state of the United Kingdom.
I understand that nations within our great kingdom have taken different decisions, and I recognise and respect the right of those decisions to affect the laws and conduct—
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
The laws of Scotland, as well as the laws of England, recognise that majority is not attained until someone passes a certain age. In England that age is 18, but in Scotland it is 21. Legal rights are given to 16 to 18-year-olds in Scotland in relation to the economic activity that we have heard about.
Tom Tugendhat
I bow to my hon. Friend’s superior knowledge of Scottish law.
My point is not about 16 and 17-year-olds because my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) covered that so completely and so ably.
Tom Tugendhat
May I make a little progress, please?
I will instead make a few comments about citizenship, because that is what we are really talking about. This is a constitutional vote. It is not a tactical vote or a minor amendment; it is about the constitution and governance of our country. When someone chooses to be a member of our society and a participant in it, there are various things they can choose to do. They can choose to reside here for educational purposes and stay for year or two, or perhaps do a PhD and stay for longer. They can also choose to reside here for an occupation and stay for a few months or a few years; or they can choose—as I am extremely glad my wife has done—to reside here for significantly longer to raise a family, marry and settle. If they do so, they are choosing a specific state of existence in our nation. What they are not choosing is full citizenship, because that is governed by other laws.
Joanna Cherry
Following on from what the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) said in his intervention, the age of legal capacity in Scotland is 16.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. and learned Lady has greater knowledge of that subject than I do, but I do not know whether her knowledge is greater or less than that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire. I will leave it to them to debate that.
Peter Grant
The hon. Gentleman has listed a lot of things that we can choose to do to set our position in society. Does he agree that a significant number of people—citizens of these nations—have chosen to surrender the right to vote in order to take a seat, often at the request of Her Majesty’s Government, in the other place? How can he justify giving them the chance to undo what should have been a permanent decision by giving them the right to vote, but not giving the right to vote to people who have lived here for 25 or 30 years?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I will leave it to greater minds than mine to decide whether noble Lords have made such a decision or whether they have simply chosen to access a different seat and therefore surrendered on one, but not every, electoral term. They do not rescind their right to vote universally; they merely rescind their right to vote in general elections, because they already hold a seat in Parliament.
Citizenship is not something to be added or taken away arbitrarily, and that is what we are talking about when it comes to the enfranchisement for the referendum. It is not simply a tactical choice; it is the act of citizenship. In constituency cases, I have been sad to hear time and again people think that they have rights that they do not. Concepts of “common law this” or “common law that” do not exist, and in this case there is no such thing as common law citizenship. If people wish to have citizenship, the laws of citizenship, immigration and naturalisation cover it. If people wish to have citizenship in Her Majesty’s great United Kingdom, they have a choice to ask for it. There are laws that allow them to do so and rules that set out at what stage they can or cannot apply.
As people move through the process of residency in our great kingdom, there are various moments at which they may or may not choose to take that citizenship, and there are consequences that go with that.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a cost of £1,005 to seek naturalisation in this country deters many people who cannot afford it from claiming citizenship, and that they should be allowed to vote in the referendum by virtue of residency? There should be no price on democracy.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but I would argue to the contrary: the right of citizenship in this kingdom is so great that the price of £1,005 is but a small price to pay for the benefit of being British.
Citizenship is not a common law right: there is no common law marriage, common law contract or common law citizenship. It is, therefore, no more the right of this House to bounce people into citizenship than to bounce them into any other form of contract. The proposal seeks to push people into a deal that would change their relationship to this country without their having chosen to do so.
I know that for a fact, because my wife, who could, should she wish, begin the process of citizenship, chooses not to do so. She is—and there is some debate about this—proud to be French. She is—again, there is some debate about this—unwilling to become British. My argument is that becoming British is such a great honour that, even as a French woman, she should appreciate the joys it offers.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
Most of the English aristocracy were French at one time in history. The hon. Gentleman’s wife is not going to be bounced into anything. If European nationals get the right to vote because of residency, there is no compulsion on his wife voting.
Tom Tugendhat
The right hon. Gentleman may say that he is not bouncing anyone into anything, but he is seeking to change the social contract between citizens who have specifically not chosen to be British and citizens who are British. In changing that contract, he would bounce people who have not made that choice into a relationship with the state that they do not wish to have. If he wishes to do so at a regional level—
Peter Grant
Does that mean that those of us on the SNP Benches who never have and never will choose to be British will not be allowed to vote in the referendum?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman makes an entertaining point. The fact hat he was born here and has residency here is what gives him citizenship.
As well as the question of citizenship in the constitutional sense, there is also the issue of the referendum’s legitimacy. It would be wrong if we were suddenly to change the deal to benefit those who have a specific interest in doing so. I refer specifically to the hundreds and thousands of migrant workers who affect various states of the debate. We all know that there were some people who tried to get into this House whose principal argument was based on immigration. If we force ourselves to enfranchise those whom many people would not regard as British, the terms of the debate would be changed halfway through. I argue very strongly that that would be unwise and that it would call into question the legitimacy of the referendum itself. We could find ourselves with hundreds of thousands of European Union citizens who have not made the choice to become British citizens.
Mike Gapes
Is there not a danger that the argument being developed by the hon. Gentleman could also be used to argue against Commonwealth or Republic of Ireland citizens who are resident in this country having a vote?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but we are not making the argument on that basis; we are making it on the basis of the difference between what is normal in a national election and what is normal in a local or regional election. In doing so, we are sticking to the existing rules. In sticking to the existing franchise, we are allowing those who are normally entitled to vote in national elections in our kingdom to exercise that right. It is essential that we maintain that continuity, because if we do not, we leave the door open.
Dr Philippa Whitford
I, too, declare an interest, in that my husband is German. He has been here for 29 years, working as a general practitioner and paying tax, but he does not get to vote in elections to this House, which sets his rate of taxation, and he certainly did not get to vote for me.
Given the argument that the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) is making, is there not a danger that this will become a very nationalistic debate? That accusation was thrown at the SNP when our nationalism was completely civic and open to everyone. Pursuing a genetic-source, where-were-you-born franchise is a dangerous argument to follow.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
I remind the Committee that interventions are intended to be brief. [Interruption.] He’s finished? I’m terribly sorry; I thought that the hon. Lady was intervening.
Hywel Williams
I am glad to speak in support of amendments 18 and 19 and new clause 2, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), other SNP Members, Members from Plaid Cymru and the Green Member.
Usually I do not quote individual cases because there are many dangers in speaking about the individual circumstances of constituents, but in speaking about this matter I will describe briefly two cases that prove the rule, in the proper sense of the phrase. I am aware that hard cases make bad law, but we are talking about 2.3 million cases in total. These are just the cases of a couple of friends of mine.
The first is Swedish and has been resident here for more than 20 years. She is an NHS worker in the tough field of mental health and she pays her taxes. She is Welsh-speaking, English-speaking and Swedish-speaking, and she has two children and a husband who also speak Welsh, English and a bit of Swedish. In my book, she is a Welsh citizen—there is no doubt about that—but if she tried to vote in the referendum, she would be turned away.
The second is a Danish friend who has been resident here for 35 years. She is a university worker who pays her taxes. She is Welsh-speaking, Danish-speaking and English-speaking. She has two children and a husband. Again, in my book, she is a Welsh citizen, but should she try to vote, she would be turned away. That is plainly outrageous.
Those people are not public figures, they are not famous, but they are hard-working members of their communities. They have an equal stake in the collective future of those communities and, in my book, they have an equal right to have their voices heard. In that sense, I fully support the amendment. It would be outrageous if those people were denied the right to vote on a matter of such importance.
Briefly, I will turn to votes at 16. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that the Government’s St David’s day Command Paper on the future of devolution in Wales proposed that the Assembly should decide on the issue of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. There is strong opinion in favour of that move in Wales. In 2008, the Welsh Assembly collectively decided that it was in favour of it. Interestingly, in 2014, the Children’s Commissioner for Wales said that more work had to be done on the issue. He was pressing for the franchise to be extended before the 2015 election, but that did not happen. Opinion in Wales is strongly in favour of votes at 16.
There have been early-day motions and private Members’ Bills in this place on extending the franchise. One of those was introduced by a Welsh Member, others were introduced by Liberal Democrat Members and one was introduced by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), although, given her current status, I do not want to suggest that she is in any way biased on this issue now. There is, however, a great deal of support for votes at 16.
As I said earlier, any speculations that we make about the effect of introducing votes at 16 are trumped by the experience in Scotland. That experience trumps all the counter-arguments. We do not need any fanciful musing from Government Members, because we have the proof in respect of engagement in the debate and in respect of turnout. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon said on Second Reading, one reason why there was engagement in the referendum is that people were talking about a real question, whereas there are doubts about whether the referendum provided for in the Bill will be on a real question. Perhaps that might be explored later.
As I said earlier, if people doubt the value of 16 and 17-year-olds having a vote on this crucial question, that might be thought to throw some doubt on the value of the results of a referendum decided partly by the votes of those aged 16 and 17. I am sure that the opponents of the amendments today are not saying that, but one should make that point.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said and the time it has taken the Welsh Assembly to provide an argument in favour of votes at 16, surely he should oppose the amendments to provide more time for a coherent review of the matter.
Hywel Williams
The hon. Gentleman’s argument, which was also made by the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who is no longer in her place, reminds me of the ancient joke, “Make me holy, but not just yet”. I believe that we need to move quickly on the matter.
Over the years, from my experience in my constituency of visiting sixth-formers during what I suppose we would call civics lessons to talk about my work, they are hugely interested in and committed to voting as soon as possible. They want to know what we do here, and they want to get involved. I have often felt humbled by the sincerity of the opinions that they hold, which can sometimes be compared with the insincerity of some of the opinions that their older peers have.
I also draw the Committee’s attention to my experience during the election campaign, when hustings were held at my local secondary schools. It was a tough experience, and we were questioned hard by young people who were totally engaged in the campaign, some of whom were able to vote. Another experience that humbled me was seeing a large group of young people coming down from school to the polling booth at lunchtime to vote together. They were proud to do so, and I was even more proud to see that they were all voting for me. I cannot say how young people would vote in an EU referendum—I suspect I know, but I cannot guarantee it. However, I trust them, and I believe they have a right to be heard.
James Cartlidge
I want to make two key points about the amendments on voting age, which are what most Members have been talking about. I agree in principle with reducing the voting age to 16 in general elections, but I do not think that that should happen in the referendum. The most important point for me—there is no nice way of saying this—is that the electorate in the UK are top-heavy. In the election campaign, it was striking how issues affecting older voters had greater resonance simply because of the power of older voters. I have tried to put that as apolitically as possible, even though there are obviously political implications to voters’ ages.
I am trying to be as objective as possible in saying that it is in the interests of public policy to extend the vote to 16-year-olds. We would make better policy as a country, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) said in her fantastic speech, there is a growing intergenerational divide. She talked about the one nation idea, and I worry about the situation. We can look at how difficult it is for us to address older people’s benefits—that is a psephological fact. Once those benefits have been handed out, they are hard to claw back, because people will vote accordingly. It might be easier to do something about benefits, public spending and so on for young people, because they do not have a say to the same degree. That is not a cynical point, just an observation on the polity as it is today, and it is my key reason for wishing to lower the voting age to 16.
I know that points are made about bringing adulthood to a younger age, as was mentioned earlier, and I do worry about that. I have four children—my eldest is eight—and I would worry about anything that made young people less innocent, but I do not think that comes into effect when we are talking about public policy.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s arguments. For me, 16 and 17-year-olds have a stronger right to vote in the referendum, because it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Notwithstanding the fact that people sometimes do not like the results of referendums, there might not be another one for 40 years, given that the last one was 40 years ago, whereas a general election is every five years.
James Cartlidge
I will come shortly to my reasoning for not extending the franchise for the referendum, but I want to share one particular experience related to the speech by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who is no longer in her place. She talked of her experience on the campaign trail. In my constituency we had a unique interaction with young people. We had a mock election at the biggest secondary school, Thomas Gainsborough school in Great Cornard, including a question time at lunch time that the whole school attended. It was filmed by ITV Anglia, with the result announced live on the 6.30 regional news, giving it extra credence. Interestingly, UKIP won—
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Was the SNP represented?
James Cartlidge
No, but nationalism was represented and was victorious on the day. The 16 and 17-year-olds took it incredibly seriously. They did not make fluffy, young person’s points: they talked about Europe, the nuclear deterrent and so on, just like anyone else would. We are in danger of being patronising by saying to young people, “You couldn’t possibly understand these big issues.” They want to talk about the big issues and they are especially interested in the issue of Europe.
I would not lower the age limit at this time because there is no mandate for it, and that is an important point. We have just had a general election, in which the Conservative manifesto won the day.
Stephen Gethins
In Scotland, where we were of course in favour of votes at 16, the SNP won an overwhelming mandate, as a look at the Benches behind me will confirm. In the UK as a whole, the Tories got the support of about one in four voters—hardly an overwhelming mandate. Is not this a great opportunity to reach out to the whole of the UK for the benefit of democracy?
James Cartlidge
The mandate is based on the manifesto of the governing party. We are not in coalition, so it does not have to be watered down. Our position was that we would hold an in/out referendum on membership of the EU before the end of 2017. The manifesto did not say that the voting age would be lowered, so the clear tacit understanding is that the referendum will be held on the current franchise. More importantly, the general election was held on that franchise—
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
But does the hon. Gentleman agree that the franchise will be changed for the referendum, because the Government are seeking to allow unelected Members of the Lords to participate?
James Cartlidge
I am always vulnerable to peer pressure and I must admit that I look forward to the answers from the Minister on the point about extending the franchise to Members of the Lords, but—bar a very small number—the franchise will be the same as in the general election.
Mike Wood
Does my hon. Friend agree that the strong constitutional reason for excluding serving peers from parliamentary elections is that they serve in the other House? That is not the case for the referendum, so the normal basis for their disqualification should not apply.
James Cartlidge
I am indebted to my hon. Friend for answering the question superbly.
I made a point earlier about European citizens, and I tried to do so as objectively as possible, but the reason Europe is so high on the political agenda is because of immigration. There is no doubt about that. People across the country are concerned, rightly or wrongly, about the sheer number of people coming into the UK. On the campaign trail, I always made the point that this country is dependent on large numbers of foreign workers—
James Cartlidge
I am not going to give way again, as other very fine hon. Members wish to speak.
We have to recognise that many people in Britain are concerned about the sheer number of people coming into this country. If we extended the franchise to people from the rest of the European Union and if their vote were decisive in keeping us in, that would be inflammatory for those who want to leave because they want to control their borders and would leave a lasting feeling of injustice.
To conclude, I believe in votes at 16, but we should refrain from having that now. We should have a full consultation and, if we decide we want to do it, it should be in our manifesto, so that we can achieve a mandate from the British people to have votes at 16 in elections and referendums thereafter.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I rise to support the amendments 18 and 19 and new clause 2, which are in my name and those of my colleagues on the SNP Benches. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) and commend his excellent opening speech on 16 and 17-year-olds, who demonstrated a supreme ability to participate in the independence referendum.
The hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who is no longer in her place, made some excellent points about why young people should participate in the EU referendum, but went on to say, “Yes, but not now.” What I would say to her is, “But if not now, when?” The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) made the point that Scotland had “made a lot of comments in this debate”. I would like to remind the Committee that we are elected Members of this Parliament, and the House will be hearing a lot from us in this Parliament in the days and weeks to come, because that is why we have been elected. It is also worth reminding the Committee that Scotland did not vote Conservative in the last general election.
Politicians should not pick and choose their electorate. I do not believe that that should happen in the EU referendum either, and the franchise should absolutely be fair. The issues at stake in the referendum are serious and fundamental to the future of the UK and its constituent parts, so it is essential that all those living in the UK who will be affected by these decisions are given an opportunity to vote. With that in mind, we tabled amendment 18, under which EU nationals who live in the UK would be included in this franchise. Foreign nationals from Commonwealth countries who live in the UK will be able to vote, so why not EU nationals?
We have heard that there is already division, unsurprisingly, on the Tory and Labour Benches on this vote. Ruth Davidson, the Tory leader in Scotland, is in favour of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, and a Labour leadership candidate, Kezia Dugdale, is in favour of EU nationals having a vote. I am pleased to see that there has been a slight increase in the number of Labour Members participating in this debate. They were rather thin on the ground—much like the Labour party membership in Scotland, but that is perhaps a debate for another day.
Over and above that, the Bill proposes to extend the franchise to Commonwealth citizens who would be entitled to vote in European elections in Gibraltar. I do not oppose that measure by any means, but surely if the Government agree with the principle of widening the Westminster franchise for the referendum, they should consider including this additional group—EU nationals—who make such an important contribution to our society and economy. By excluding them from the vote, we would be excluding constituents of mine in Ochil and South Perthshire, such as my friend Mireille Pouget, who lives in the village of Glendevon. In a message to me this week, Mireille said:
“I have lived, worked and paid taxes here for nearly 40 years. Staying in the EU is important to me as an EU and French citizen. I should have a voice in this referendum. It’s outrageous that EU citizens cannot vote.”
Hear, hear to that.
It is equally wrong that the Government propose to extend the right to vote to Members of the House of Lords—a place not known for its democratic foundations —without taking measures to ensure that all Members of the Scottish Parliament have the same right. Mention has been made by a number of hon. Members of my colleague Christian Allard, who came to Scotland to open an office in Glasgow for a European seafood logistic group in the 1980s. He subsequently met his wife and moved from Glasgow to the north-east of Scotland, to Aberdeenshire, with his three young daughters 20 years ago. Mr Allard has been chosen—elected—by the people of North East Scotland to represent them in the Scottish Parliament. He has undoubtedly made an enormous contribution to our country and the community that he and his family live in. I believe that he has earned the right to vote in this referendum.
In the Scottish independence referendum last year, the UK Government agreed in principle with the Scottish Government that the franchise for the vote should be as wide as possible. It is clear from the turnout and scale of political engagement across Scotland last year that seeking a wide inclusive franchise was one factor in encouraging a vibrant debate on Scotland’s future. By accepting our amendments, the Government have an opportunity—one that Government Members should not pass up—to use this new referendum to ensure that this wide-ranging inclusive debate is open to all people. It is so important for the UK’s future in Europe.
It would indeed be unfortunate if this Government sought to pick and choose the franchise for this vote, whether for 16 and 17-year-olds or EU nationals, in a way that could be considered as excluding a significant proportion of those who live and work here on the basis of how the Government think they will vote, rather than of taking measures to add depth to the national debate as a whole. I urge the Committee to accept the amendments and to be progressive, if that is what they plan to be.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. It is interesting to follow some of the speeches of hon. Members, and I will start by dealing with why the parliamentary franchise is as it is. Let us be clear. When we first joined in 1972, we did so on the basis of the parliamentary franchise and this House’s sovereignty. We then continued, and only a few weeks back, some were arguing that our membership should continue on the basis of the policies agreed in Parliament, based on those who voted in favour then. It is therefore interesting to see how those who were arguing a few weeks back that the referendum would be disaster or a “reckless gamble”, as one hon. Member said last week, now seem so enthusiastic for everyone to have a go with it.
Put simply, we cannot have a pick and mix on the franchise. The reason for peers having it is that it is decided en masse by Parliament that Members either have a vote in the other place or elect a representative from this House to exercise it on their behalf. That is why it makes sense to allow those who would not be able to exercise their vote in the other place on this decision to vote in the referendum. It also makes sense to extend the franchise to Gibraltar, which is a member of the European Union via the UK’s membership of it, so its citizens should have the ability to vote as if they were resident in the UK itself.
Today’s debates have flagged up a whole range of issues about the franchise, but we do not need to have these debates on individual elections. Given that Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands are so dependent on decisions taken in this Parliament, it is right to reflect on how they can have a voice in future. Again, however, that is not a debate for today. Given that our membership is based on the UK state being part of the European Union, which is not a sovereign state in its own right, it is right to grant the vote to UK citizens on the basis of the parliamentary franchise, plus those who have benefited historically from the extension of the parliamentary franchise in the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland.
On the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds, I am a supporter of votes at 16. Experience where it has happened, as in the Scottish referendum, has been positive. It is not very helpful, however, to bandy around the different ages at which people can do various things. I am not sure how many hon. Members have read the pages on the Government website about learning to drive a tractor. It lists all the different ages that people need to be to drive different things. Anyone wanting to drive a road roller can do so at the ages of 17 to 20, unless it is a steam-powered road roller, for which one needs to be 21, while a mowing machine can be driven at 16. There are all sorts of anomalies in our law, so citing individual ages does not necessarily justify what the franchise should be. I support providing 16-year-olds with the opportunity to vote, but it needs to be done through a substantive debate on the franchise as a whole, not as an amendment tacked on to a Bill.
Mark Durkan
We have heard several Conservative Members argue that they are in favour of votes at 16, but that allowing it in this referendum would somehow be a form of premature emancipation against which they would have to vote. That is not a very convincing argument.
Kevin Foster
It is all about inconsistency. Another referendum is being considered in my constituency about the future of the elected mayoralty of Torbay Council. It would be somewhat bizarre, assuming these amendments are passed, if a 17-year-old could decide on the future of Britain in Europe, but could not decide who is going to run the local council because the franchise remains at 18. That is why I do not support a pick and mix.
Mark Durkan
The Prime Minister has said that he will not opt for a third term. If he resigns before the end of the current term, the Conservative party will, in effect, choose the Prime Minister. What is the age of eligibility for members of the Conservative party to choose the Prime Minister? It is certainly below 18, and it is not confined to United Kingdom nationals either.
Kevin Foster
The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that it is not any particular party that chooses the Prime Minister. It is a question whether the Prime Minister enjoys the confidence of the House of Commons. That is the constitutional position.
I think that we should stick to the present age limit because we should not set a precedent that might be abused by future Governments. We do not want a pick-and-mix franchise. When referendums are held on issues that would normally be decided by Parliament, it makes sense for us to use the parliamentary franchise rules, while also including Members of the other place who currently cannot vote directly because they have the opportunity to elect a representative here. I shall therefore vote against the amendment, although I have some sympathy for—indeed, I strongly support—the idea of 16-year-olds being able to vote. [Interruption.] The heckling from those who want to deny everyone a vote on this matter is laughable. Last week, they walked through the Lobby to vote against the Bill, apart from one Member who seemed to get a bit lost. This week, they are demanding a vote for everyone who could possibly live here.
We keep hearing about residency. What about citizens of the United States of America, one of our oldest allies, who are resident in this country? We know the answer: the system is based on citizenship and on the parliamentary franchise, and it is right for it to continue on that basis. I shall vote against the amendment, but I hope that Front Benchers have been listening to the debate, because the amendment has raised a legitimate point. In the not too distant future, we should have a proper debate about our franchise, so that we can deal with some of the numerous anomalies that we have discussed today. We could then set a franchise for the 21st century, and give Members who are in favour of reducing the age to 16 the chance to vote for such a move.
Mims Davies
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, and to hear so many points made so well by Members in all parts of the House. We have a Bill before us, but I have not heard much about it today. The issue is whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union. Efforts by other parties to pile other issues on to the referendum will only make the question and therefore the result less clear. I believe that we owe the British public something better.
On the doorsteps in my constituency, people were crying out for a say on Europe. It has been too long since we last consulted the people on the very sovereignty of their own Parliament. I am proud that the Government have introduced the Bill and are answering the call from our nation. I do not support votes for under-18s, or, indeed, electronic voting. This referendum is simply too important for that. The question must stand alone, and I reject any attempts to hijack it. Young people should be encouraged to take an interest in politics from an early age, but let us have that debate on another occasion. It should be separate from the huge constitutional question that is before us.
I was very disappointed that the single one of my hustings that was cancelled was the one in which 16 and 17-year-olds were to have taken part. Perhaps they were too busy voting for candidates in “The X Factor” or “The Voice”. However, we already have a youth parliament and mock elections, and they can become involved in those.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The hon. Lady has made an interesting point about her experience in her constituency. In my constituency, I had completely the opposite experience. At Brighton, Hove and Sussex Sixth Form College—known as BHASVIC—people aged 16 and 17 experienced a whole week of democracy. They recalled me there seven times. There were multiple hustings with different Members of Parliament and their candidates. The passion and erudition with which they spoke was inspiring: indeed, it was one of the most inspiring aspects of the general election campaign. Why does the hon. Lady think that Hove is so different from her constituency in that respect?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I know that college, being from Sussex.
I had visitors from my constituency recently, and we were in Westminster Hall. They were 15, and I asked them, “How does it feel to be here? Do you want to be involved in voting?” Lots of people’s eyes glazed over; they were not ready. So let us get people involved in youth parliaments and let us look at the issue more broadly.
I am delighted that Commonwealth citizens will be able to vote in the referendum. The Government are right to use those electoral qualifications. I, as someone with a critical eye towards the EU, am delighted to see the symbolic recognition and involvement of this other greater community of nations—the Commonwealth—but I recognise and respect what happened in the Scottish referendum. We did not agree to or accept the decisions that were made, but they were devolved powers.
On the referendum date and flexibility, the Government’s amendment, whereby the Secretary of State looked at May 5 and ruled it out, showed the care that they are taking over the matter.
I refer to my previous point and the question whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union. That is what we are going to let the people decide, and we need to let the Prime Minister get on with negotiating a better deal for the UK. This is the Prime Minister who delivered a reduction in the EU budget, so I absolutely believe we have the right person to do it.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
On the hon. Lady’s points about 16 and 17-year-olds, if young people in this country are not interested in what is happening in politics, that is a failing not of them, but of everyone else who is involved in politics in this country. It is also rather disingenuous to suggest that they might be watching television programmes, when there are probably more people much older than them doing so. We should give the young people of this country the respect that they deserve—and we can expect them to return that respect to us when they vote positively in this referendum.
Mims Davies
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point—those programmes are wide ranging and many people vote in them—but I return to my earlier point that we should look at the issue in the round. Members will see that we on the Government Benches are happy to consider the matter, but it dilutes the question before us. Ultimately, it is about the sovereignty of this Parliament and about the people being able to decide for themselves about the future of Europe. I believe that 18 is right at the moment, but I am happy to look at the issue more roundly in a separate arena. I believe also that Ministers are listening to us on that.
Celebrating our magnificent Magna Carta highlights just how much our democracy has done for our islands and our nation. By giving the people—all the people—the chance to have their say on their own future and our constitution, we are delivering on our promises and paying tribute to this country’s long record of democracy. I believe that we in this House will go further and look at all the arguments in the round, but I do not believe that diluting this question and franchise—picking and choosing—is the right way to do so.
Huw Merriman
I am very grateful to you, Sir Roger, for squeezing me in towards the end, my having sat here for the past few hours listening to this excellent debate. I am open minded, which is why I have been so delighted to hear the excellent arguments from Members in all parts of the House. I am open minded about the voting age, and I seek to be persuaded by the arguments, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) that listing ages as hooks to hang voting on does not work, because there are so many different ages when one might be seen to be turning into an adult.
I do, however, find myself influenced by international comparisons. The voting age for national elections in EU countries is 18, except for in Austria, where it was reduced to 16 in 2007. Internationally, there are only seven countries where 16 and 17-years-olds are able to vote, and there are considerably more where voting starts later than 18. We should take international comparisons into account—and it is to “international” that I make that reference.
Peter Grant
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether his figures are completely up to date? Does he appreciate that as of midnight tonight another nation will be added to the list of proud nations that allow 16-year-olds to vote?
Huw Merriman
My information has come from the House of Commons Library, so I am sure it is up to date—it goes up to 2013. It does not make reference to Scotland, but it does say that it is international.
I will not rehearse the arguments—
Huw Merriman
If I may, I will make a little more progress. Recent laws have moved more towards having 18 as the start point; I refer not only to smoking, but to the requirement to be in further education. I wish to pick up on the point about the University of Edinburgh study on the participation in the Scottish referendum of 16 and 17-year-olds. That study is persuasive in a way, but it also makes me concerned. If the voting proportions were high for 16 and 17-year-olds and for those above 24, there are younger voters in between who have not been engaged. I am concerned that 16 and 17-year-olds may have been more persuaded by their parents to vote.
I do not say that in a patronising manner, because I could use myself as an example. At 16, coming from a family of trade unionists and socialists, I dare say I would have been following their lead and voting in that way. Thankfully by 18 I had seen the error of my ways, and I now find myself on the Conservative Benches. That point should be considered, because at 16 people are persuaded by family pressure. It is important that when people vote they do so on the basis of their own views and conscience, which they have developed over the years as they mature.
Ben Howlett
I must declare that I am an advocate of 16-year-olds having the vote. I am slightly surprised that Opposition Members have not decided to use the example of Austria, in that it spent a long time going through a proper process and having a proper debate to decide whether votes at 16 or 17 should be considered. I wish they would look at that example and take it on board before coming before this Committee with more amendments.
Huw Merriman
I take that point, which was very well made. I keep my mind open, but I tend towards using 18—
Huw Merriman
If I may, I will make progress because I am conscious of the time.
I tend certainly towards using 18 for the EU referendum, because there is a danger that if we start to change the rules for it, there will be a feeling in this country that there is a taint, with people trying to get a certain outcome. I am so pleased that there is an EU referendum because we can at last lance the boil that is Europe and bring this matter to an end. If we start to change the rules beforehand, certain parties who feel sore from the result will try to make out it has been fixed in a certain way. That is why the status quo should remain.
Let me briefly deal with the matter of voter citizenship, which has somewhat been lost in the debate, albeit it is part of the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins). On that matter, I am not open minded at all: I support the decision to use the general election register as the referendum basis. I recognise that the Scottish referendum was based on a different arrangement, but it was for the Scottish Parliament to form those rules and it did so. This is a matter for this Parliament to form the rules, and I believe the rules set are the right ones. I also take the point about many residents who work and study in this country and contribute greatly, but they are citizens of another country in Europe and their country governs their relationship with Europe.
Huw Merriman
I will not give way because I believe I must end my speech. Changing the rules on which citizens can vote in the referendum would lead certain electors to accuse the House of taint and of trying to fix the outcome one way or the other. The way to get a successful referendum is to leave it as uncontroversial and to leave the rules on voting in place.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)
I thank all Members for yet another constructive, interesting and well-informed debate. Members from all parts of the House have spoken in some depth about the important matter of who can take part in this referendum.
Before I discuss the amendments, let me say a few words about why the general principle, which underpins the Bill, sets out the entitlement to vote. I will try to be brisk, because I want to leave a few moments for the SNP Front-Bench team to have a few words at the end.
Mr McFadden
Is not this the crucial point rather than arguments about ancestry or length of residence? Is it not the case that in any recent referendum on a European question held by a member state—whether that was the Austrian referendum on accession in 1994, the referendums held more recently in France and the Netherlands, or the frequent referendums held in Ireland on various EU treaty changes—residents from elsewhere in the EU have not been given the vote?
John Penrose
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It would be lopsided indeed if we were to take a different approach for our nationals than has been done elsewhere in the EU. As I was saying, British citizens were not entitled to vote in the Dutch or French referendums.
Finally, switching from the parliamentary to the local elections franchise would block British citizens living abroad from voting at all, because they are not entitled to vote at local elections. The net effect of the amendments would be to deny British citizens living abroad the right to vote on their own country’s future while giving that right to other Europeans who are living here but have chosen not to become citizens. That strikes me as fundamentally unfair and inequitable. I hope that the hon. Members will withdraw their amendments when the time comes.
We have also heard about the need to give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds for the first time in a UK-wide poll. There are a number of amendments to that effect, in the names of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the right hon. Member for Gordon and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins). This is a referendum about an issue of huge national significance, and the starting point for determining who is entitled to vote must therefore be the franchise for parliamentary elections. Members will be aware that the voting age for parliamentary elections is set at 18. The voting age was 18 in the 1975 referendum on EC membership and the 2011 alternative vote referendum.
Let us not forget, as a number of Members have pointed out, that the voting age in most democracies, including most member states in the EU, is also 18. Only Austria in the EU currently allows voting at 16, although we have heard that Scotland is now heading in that direction, and that it is just hours away from extending its franchise for Holyrood elections as well, as is their devolved and democratic right. I salute its ability to do that.
Hon. Members have pointed out the precedent of the Scottish independence referendum, which was of course based on the devolved right, as we have heard. It is also right that the decisions about the franchise for elections and referendums that take place throughout the United Kingdom should be taken by this Parliament, in the same way as decisions taken for the franchise for elections to Holyrood are taken by the Holyrood Parliament.
Peter Grant
I recognise that this Parliament will take the decision, but will the Minister explain why he is so keen to follow the example set by other EU countries, which so many of his colleagues want to cut us off from, and why he will not follow the example of a country that his colleagues suggest should stay attached to the United Kingdom?
John Penrose
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). There is a degree of symmetry here and it would be bizarre indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) pointed out, to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote on an issue of such national importance when they cannot vote on their local council and on who collects the bins. This needs to be done on a broader basis, and I shall come on to that point in a minute.
Hon. Members have also said that young people are engaged and politically active. That is absolutely true, but it is also true of many 15-year-olds and not of some 50-year-olds. Political engagement is not a strong enough justification in and of itself for giving or denying the vote. Another argument that we have heard is that people can marry or join the Army at 16, and we have heard of a series of other activities that can or cannot be done at 16, 17, 18 or 21. I think the examples given included driving steam tractors. The important point is that in this country we have always viewed attaining adulthood and majority as a process rather than an event. It is not neat—I do not think it can be—and it varies from person to person and by activity to activity. If we want to compare different activities, the list on the parliamentary website that has been mentioned of things that are allowed at 16, 17, 18 or otherwise includes body piercing and having a tattoo at 18. I do not think that those are necessarily fruitful or relevant comparisons. We need to accept adulthood as a process, not an event, and that it is therefore tricky to deal with.
A number of my colleagues have said that they agree with, or are at least sympathetic to, the principle of votes at 16, but are concerned that it should not be done just for this election. I agree with that point. Many Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), for Colchester (Will Quince), for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Bath (Ben Howlett), felt the same way and said that this is an important decision that needs to be taken for the franchise as a whole rather than for an individual election. I believe that that is right and I do not believe that this Bill is the right place to make significant changes to the franchise.
Alex Salmond
Is it not reasonable to make the case that if the Scottish Parliament, Government and the then First Minister had not legislated to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the Scottish referendum, the current Scottish Administration would not be in a position to legislate for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in next year’s Scottish election? Is it not time to start the process?
John Penrose
I am coming to the timing in a minute, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me.
Although I do not think that this Bill is the right place to make significant changes to the franchise, the debate on the voting age is important. The Prime Minister himself has said that he thinks that it is right that it should take place, but making a change on this scale for a single specific vote will simply invite criticism that we are choosing a franchise that has been deliberately skewed for a low and partisan party political advantage. It is far better to hold the debate when the long-term question of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds at all future elections can be properly and soberly debated, and a moment’s glance at the Conservative party’s election manifesto, something that I am sure is bedtime reading for everybody on the Opposition Benches, will show that there should be opportunities to do just that during the course of this Parliament.
I now come to the amendments proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips)—I am never sure whether that is pronounced “Hickham” or “Hikeham”, and I apologise to his constituents if I have mispronounced it. He asks why the Bill does not enfranchise Irish citizens resident in Gibraltar. It is extremely hard to identify Irish citizens in Gibraltar on the voting register, and it is not something that is done currently. At present, we do not have agreement from the Government of Gibraltar to do that, because it would clearly impose duties and work on them. It is also true that no one is quite sure how many Irish citizens there are in Gibraltar, although most estimates are pretty low. Although I cannot predict the outcome, I promise my hon. and learned Friend that we are already discussing the matter in some depth with the Government of Gibraltar and will continue to do so.
My hon. and learned Friend also asked about the definition of Commonwealth citizens. For the purposes of elections, schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981 sets out the list of relevant countries. Two are not currently members of the Commonwealth, and citizens of those countries would be affected by the amendment. The first is The Gambia, which withdrew from the Commonwealth in October 2013. The Government have not yet removed The Gambia from the list of countries in schedule 3, but will do so at the next suitable opportunity. Once we have made that change, citizens of The Gambia will no longer have Commonwealth voting rights. Crucially, the second is Zimbabwe, which left the Commonwealth in 2003. At the time, the Government decided to maintain Commonwealth rights for Zimbabwean nationals, based on the view that Zimbabwean people should not be punished for the actions of a Government that the UK did not consider democratically elected. Given our serious concerns about the 2013 elections in that country, this view remains.
Amendment 52 deals with votes for life. I think the hon. Member for Ilford South is trying to be helpful by tabling an amendment that is closely in line with my own party’s manifesto, and I thank him for that. I am not sure how his party’s Front Benchers feel about it, but he has not let that stop him and I salute his courage and determination. I am now hoist on my own petard, though, because having made the argument that this is the wrong Bill through which to deal with 16 and 17-year-olds voting, I must abide by my own logic on this point. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman the same assurance as I gave my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who was worried that we were kicking the question of 16 and 17-year-olds voting into the long grass. There will be opportunities in this Session of Parliament to vote on the matter, because we will be introducing our own Bill on votes for life, which will apply to all franchises, to make sure that British citizens who live abroad who are not currently able to vote and exercise their democratic rights, even though they are citizens of this country, are able to do so. I look forward to having the hon. Gentleman’s support, even if not that of those on his Front Bench, on that very important matter.
Stephen Gethins
I thank you, Sir Roger, the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) for making time for me to sum up this good debate on a significant issue. I hope you will not mind my saying that it is good that we are discussing our relationship with Europe on this, the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. We remember those on all sides who fell on that day.
To deal with votes for 16 and 17-year-olds first, a number of Conservative Members, including the hon. Members for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), seemed to be all for 16 and 17-year-olds having the vote—but not just yet. There is overwhelming evidence from the Scottish independence referendum—I presented it, my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) presented it, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) presented it—that extending the franchise to 16-year-olds is a good thing for democratic participation from an early age. As the Electoral Reform Society said: vote early and then vote often throughout life. The University of Edinburgh agrees. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who in an excellent speech made some outstanding points on the contributions made by 16 and 17-year-olds, drawing from her own experience.
We all have a responsibility to try to increase young people’s participation. This is a good place to start. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) made a pertinent point when he said that everyone talks about when we start, but there is no time like the present, folks. We have all been elected here to make decisions, so let us make a decision, tonight, to give young people the opportunity to vote in next year’s referendum, to get involved in the debate and to make their voice heard in that democratic process.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 48, in page 2, line 30, at end insert—
‘(aa) the provision made under subsection (1)(a) shall include making arrangements to allow all those entitled to vote in the referendum to vote by electronic means.”
The amendment would provide for electronic voting in the referendum.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Amendment 3, page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) The referendum shall not be held on the same day as:
(a) elections to the Scottish Parliament;
(b) elections to the National Assembly for Wales;
(c) elections for the Mayor of London; or
(d) local authority elections”.
The amendment would prevent the referendum being held on the same day as Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales, London mayoral or local authority elections.
Amendment 7, page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) The referendum shall not be held on the same day as elections, other than by-elections, that are scheduled to take place for:
(a) the Scottish Parliament;
(b) the National Assembly for Wales;
(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly;
(d) the Gibraltar Parliament;
(e) Police and Crime Commissioners in England and Wales;
(f) the London Assembly and Mayor of London; or
(g) local authorities and mayors in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar.”
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the referendum is not held on the same day as other polls.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 8, in clause 6, page 3, line 37, at end add—
‘(5) Regulations made under this Act or the 2000 Act in respect of the referendum must be made and come into force not less than six months before the start of the referendum period.”
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure the legislative framework for the referendum is clear at least six months before it is required to be implemented or complied with.
Clause 6 stand part.
Clauses 7 to 11 stand part.
John McDonnell
Given the limited time available, I will be brief. I know that other hon. Members wish to speak on the other amendments. I just want to warn the Committee that on subsequent occasions I will bore Members by going on about electronic voting as often as I can. We have been waging a campaign for 15 years to see whether we can update our electoral methods and bring them into the 21st century. For brevity’s sake, I will circulate the notes prepared by the Library for those Members who are interested. I want to thank Isobel White, the researcher, for preparing the notes, which go through the history of electronic voting, including the various pilots that we have undertaken since 2000.
We started the adventure way back in 2000, when we established the first pilots, and we had more in 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007. At each stage we had reports back on the enhancements that electronic voting would bring to our procedures. The background to the attempt to introduce electronic voting is the declining turnout in elections, although the key issue is whether the subject of an election excites the general public, such as in the Scottish referendum. If people feel the issue is important enough, they will turn out and vote, but unfortunately they do not have the same incentive in some elections. Part of the issue, therefore, is ensuring that voting is as easy as it can be, and we have been piloting electronic voting for a long time.
The Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy has explored the issue in the last two years and made several recommendations. The remaining issue to be confronted is the security of online voting, but I do not believe it to be an insuperable problem. The reason for raising the issue in the debate on the Bill—as I will for every other Bill that we consider, including the trade union Bill we are expecting—is to ensure that we force the Government to resolve the issue of security, which seems to be the only thing holding this back.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
This is possibly the first time in 18 years that I have had a slight disagreement with one of my hon. Friends, but my hon. Friend suggests that changing the way we vote will increase turnout. We introduced postal ballots for that reason and we have still seen a big decline in turnout. People do not vote if they see less difference between the parties: if there is a real difference and they have a real choice, they turn out to vote.
John McDonnell
Thank goodness, we are not disagreeing. That is the point that I tried to make earlier, but in a more complicated fashion. The issue about turnout is how people are incentivised to vote, but the minimum we can do is increase the access to voting procedures. We have done that through postal voting, as my hon. Friend says, and we have just introduced electronic registration, to assist in the registration process. It was argued that once we had introduced electronic registration we would revisit online voting, but unfortunately that is not the case in this legislation. I hope that the tabling of the amendment will make the Government go back to the Electoral Commission and ask it to make detailed proposals. Even if we have to pilot electronic voting in some areas in this referendum, we may be able to overcome some of the problems that have been identified.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) speaks good sense, but I fear that the hon. Gentleman has neglected to answer his point, which is that since the advent of postal votes on demand, there has been no demonstrable increase in voter turnout. Indeed, voter turnout since 1997 generally has gone down. Will he address that point?
John McDonnell
There was a slight increase at the last general election. The hon. Gentleman is right, because I can remember turnouts at around 77%. In some areas we went down to 56%, but this time round we went from 60% up to about 65%, so there was a slight increase—a significant increase in some areas—from the introduction of postal voting. If he looks, he will see that where the pilots that were undertaken throughout the 2000s were implemented effectively, turnout was increased significantly. I recommend examination and exploration of the Shrewsbury pilot, which took place in 2005.
I will not delay the Committee any further, but I refer Members not just to the findings of the Electoral Commission, but to the statement by Jenny Watson, chair of the Electoral Commission, that it would return to this issue as its main feature of work in the coming period and report in due course. Again, the Electoral Commission’s argument is simply about bringing our electoral system into line with practices in the rest of society, which is now largely online, and facilitating democracy by the use of online voting in that way. I also refer Members to the executive summary of the report undertaken by WebRoots Democracy—I will circulate it rather than delay the debate—which identifies the ability of online voting not only to increase turnout, but to reduce the cost of balloting procedures.
I raise this issue briefly on an amendment because it is something we need to return to rather than neglect; it has been neglected over the last few years. It is something that many Members will want to explore in a way that facilitates the improvement of democratic processes in our society, but I also give this warning: I will be raising this matter time and again. I mentioned the trade union Bill. We will be tabling amendments to such Bills to ensure that we establish the principle that this House will facilitate access to democracy on every occasion we can. Electronic voting is one mechanism through which we can enhance our society’s democratic processes.
Mr McFadden
I would like to talk to amendment 3, which stands in my name and those of my right hon. Friends. On Tuesday, the Committee agreed amendment 55, which ruled out the possibility of holding the referendum in May next year, when there are other important elections taking place throughout the country. However, amendment 55 did not deal with the potential for a poll held in May 2017 to clash with local elections, which are scheduled in both England and Scotland, and the mayoral elections taking place in some places. Our amendment 3 deals with that, because it would rule out holding the referendum on the same day as local elections, as well as the other elections that are listed in the amendment.
There are two separate reasons why we believe the referendum should be held on a separate day. The first is that a referendum on such a large constitutional issue deserves its own campaign and its own moment of decision. The focus in a competitive election when parties are battling to control a local council or another elected body is different from that in an election on a yes/no constitutional question of this kind. The focus in a local election battle should be on who will run the body that is up for election. In a referendum, the focus is different. Views on the European referendum will cross party lines.
Mr Jackson
I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, but can he confirm that Her Majesty’s Opposition opposed holding the AV referendum in May 2011 on the same day as local authority elections, but that to a certain extent that referendum drove up turnout for those elections, to 42%?
Mr McFadden
If the hon. Gentleman is seriously holding up the AV referendum in 2011 as a model of democratic engagement, I am afraid that, based on my experience, I beg to differ. I really do not think that is a model we should follow.
Andrew Gwynne
In 2017, we will have the inaugural elections for the metro mayor for Greater Manchester. That in itself will pose a challenge for those of us who are politicians in the city region, because it is a new post and we will have a duty to explain what it will be. Is that not another reason why we do not need this added complexity?
Mr McFadden
My hon. Friend makes a good argument. That is an important election and, as I say, the focus will be on who should be that mayor. There will be different candidates standing, and it is a different question from whether or not we remain members of the European Union.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. As part of the complexity of the situation relating to the election, is he aware that elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly will take place on the same day as elections to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales on 5 May 2016? I note that that is not included in the Labour amendment.
Mr McFadden
I take the hon. Lady’s point, but the issue of May 2016 has already been dealt with through amendment 55, and I am focused on May 2017, when local elections are taking place in various parts of the country.
Kelvin Hopkins
I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend that, when we are voting on whether to leave or stay in the European Union, it should not be confused or blurred with party allegiances and so forth; there should be a clear understanding that on that day we are voting on our membership of the European Union and nothing else. No other elections should be held on that day; we want a unique day for that vote.
Mr McFadden
On European matters, it is not always the case that I am in agreement with my hon. Friend, but this time on this point, I am. I entirely agree with his point.
The first reason, then, is that on such a major constitutional question about the country’s future, the focus should be entirely on that question, but there is a second reason why on this occasion it makes sense to separate this poll from other polls, which relates to the discussions we have had about purdah arrangements. Without re-running Tuesday’s debate, the Government’s argument is that there needs to be some qualification of the purdah arrangements that would normally apply. The jury is still out on what the eventual outcome of that argument will be, but we know from Tuesday that the Bill will be amended in one way or another on Report.
However, purdah arrangements also apply to a local election period, so combining the referendum with other elections could mean we had full purdah in place for some things and qualified purdah or no purdah in place for others. In such circumstances, what exactly would the role of Ministers and the civil service be? We could have one set of rules for one poll taking place on that day, and another set of rules for another poll taking place on the same day. We do not need to think long and hard to realise that that is not an ideal arrangement for clarity on the conduct of the poll.
Our point is that the Bill deals with a big constitutional issue, which deserves to be considered by the public on its own merits, not tacked on as an add-on to local elections in various parts of the country. For those reasons, we feel that there is unfinished business from Tuesday. Amendment 55 was not the end of the matter, and our amendment 3 would, if passed, make it clear that this has to be a stand-alone poll and not one combined with other elections—either next May or in May 2017. To conclude, if given an opportunity to do so this afternoon, we intend to press the amendment to the vote.
Peter Grant
Briefly, we intend to support amendment 3. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, only part of the problem was addressed earlier, and a major problem remains if the referendum is held on the date of other elections.
First, on a point of principle, if this is truly—certainly for voters in England—the most important democratic constitutional decision taken for 40 or more years, it is surely worth a day of its own rather than being tacked on to something else. A second, practical point is that some of the elections that are listed—the Scottish local government elections, for example—are run according to a completely different electoral system. Last time the local government elections took place on the same day as a straightforward first-past-the-post election, there were well over 100,000 spoilt ballot papers, because those who were voting in the local government elections did not understand how to vote in a different way. The one thing that we do not want is doubt about the result of the EU referendum caused by a lot of spoilt papers.
I am surprised that we are having to debate the impartiality of broadcasters. Members should be aware that there is a widespread perception in Scotland—I will not comment on whether I share it—that some broadcasters were not impartial during the Scottish referendum. I do not think that that tainted the validity of the result, but it has tainted the reputation of those broadcasters, and it may be a generation before it has been sufficiently restored. We need to send the broadcasters a message, whether through legislation or by some other means. We need to convey to them that this referendum has to be fair, which means that the broadcasters must be impartial and seen to be impartial, not only during the purdah but from today. Otherwise, the impression will be given that the referendum was not fair.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I shall deal first with the arguments about combination advanced by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). I shall then respond to what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said about electronic voting. If time permits, I shall also say something about clause 3 stand part and conduct rules.
Let me begin with combination. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we settled the issue of May 2016 on Tuesday, by means of amendment 55. In practice, what we are discussing today is whether we should also rule out any possibility of May 2017. I am not yet persuaded that the arguments are sufficiently compelling. The principle ought to be that the timing of a referendum concerning our future in or out of the European Union should be determined by the progress of negotiations at EU level. I suspect that once those negotiations have concluded and the Prime Minister is ready with his recommendation, there will be a pretty strong appetite in all parts of the House of Commons—and, I think, an even stronger one among British voters and, indeed, our partners in the European Union—for the issue to be brought to a head and settled as soon as possible, in so far as that is compatible with a campaigning period that is seen to be fair and that allows all the arguments to be set out clearly so that people can make a well-informed and deliberate choice.
Ultimately, it will be for Parliament itself to decide whether to approve the specific date that the Government propose. The Bill includes an order-making power for the Secretary of State to set down the referendum date, and that date must be approved through a statutory instrument, which must be tabled in accordance with the affirmative procedure. I can give an undertaking that the debate, whenever it comes, will take place on the Floor of the House. It will be for the House of Commons as a whole—and, separately, the House of Lords—to decide whether, in all the circumstances of the time, to agree to the date that the Government have proposed. Given the reservations that have been expressed about a hypothetical combination with local elections in May 2017, the Government will need to make a persuasive case at that time.
The right hon. Gentleman advanced his argument with his characteristic courtesy and in a constructive tone, so I shall try to respond in kind. I think that he underestimates the British public: I think that voters will be able to distinguish between the different outcomes that they want.
Mr Jackson
I have not always been too helpful to my right hon. Friend this week, but I hope to be helpful now. He will have noted that the Opposition spokesman did not address my point that there was a constitutionally significant vote in May 2011—whether or not he agreed with its taking place in the first place—and, at the same time, very important local elections. One did not invalidate the other. Also, in terms of purdah, voters were clear about the issues they were deciding on at the time. He did not address that issue in his remarks.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend is quite right. The precedent, from 2011, is that the British public were able to make that distinction perfectly reasonably in their own minds.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
If the Government have accepted the principle that there should be no clash with elections for the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2016, why do they not go a step further, accept the amendment and rule out a referendum in 2017 at the same time as local authority elections?
Mr Lidington
Partly for the reasons that I have given, and also because I think there is a qualitative difference, which we acknowledged when we introduced amendment 55, between elections held for a constituent nation of the United Kingdom and elections held for local government. We accepted that distinction in the amendment we introduced earlier this week.
If we look at the number of occasions when local elections and general elections have been held on exactly the same day, we find plenty of examples where the public have indulged happily in ticket splitting, sending a Member to this House representing one political party and electing a different political party to run their local authority. The public are able to make that distinction perfectly well.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The Minister and I have discussed this issue before, but I want to place on the record that my constituents, across Winchester and Chandler’s Ford, are quite capable of distinguishing between two elections. When they have one piece of paper for a parish election, for a district election or even for a county election, as well as a parliamentary election on the same day, they seem to manage it.
Andrew Gwynne
May I take the Minister back to his earlier answer to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and point out politely that the population of Greater Manchester is greater than that of Northern Ireland and almost as large as that of Wales? We are going to have an inaugural election for a metro mayor, which is a creation of his own Government. Do we not deserve to have that argument separately from the EU referendum?
Mr Lidington
I take the hon. Gentleman back again to 2011, when we had the London mayoral election on the same day as the referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. That did not appear to cause the electorate any great problems.
The other question that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East put to me was about the difficulty of operating different regimes for purdah during overlapping electoral and referendum periods. To some extent, the riposte to that came from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), but given that the Government have this week undertaken to consult all parties on the appropriate framework for purdah in the run-up to the EU referendum, I am happy to take on board the right hon. Gentleman’s points as part of that consideration and future discussion.
There are some technical flaws in the Opposition’s amendment. There is, for example, no carve-out regarding by-elections, so an unanticipated by-election could inadvertently result in an agreed referendum date becoming invalid at short notice. Nor does it capture police and crime commissioner elections, which, if the amendment were agreed to, would still be possible on the same day as the referendum. Even if the right hon. Gentleman had his way, there would need to be some tidying up at a later date.
Kelvin Hopkins
The Minister implies there is more to be discussed and there has been too short a time to have a proper debate about the issue. It should be returned to on Report and, possibly, in another place before the final Bill is approved.
Mr Lidington
As I said earlier, whatever the decision in this House during our progress on the Bill, the House will discuss the timing of the referendum again when the Government table a statutory instrument to designate a date for that.
Mike Gapes
Have the Government considered the fact that if there is a referendum on the same day as local elections, in some wards one candidate for a party will be campaigning for a yes vote and another from the same party will be campaigning for a no vote? That might make it difficult for the political parties to co-ordinate their literature, apart from anything else, if they are going to take a united position.
Mr Lidington
One thing about the European referendum campaign, which I think the public will expect, is that people from both the hon. Gentleman’s party and mine will be campaigning in both the yes and no camps. Both parties are broad churches and we accept that that is a reality. I do not think the British public are incapable of understanding that the European question is one that cuts across normal party political boundaries.
I wish to move on to deal with the amendment on electronic voting tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I do not want to cause him too great a shock in saying that I am not wholly unsympathetic to some of the points he makes. I have been to Estonia and talked to Estonian Ministers about what they have put in place, not only on electronic voting, but in delivering almost all interaction between citizen and government through digital means. Given current advances in IT, I can see how e-voting sounds attractive, but we would have to consider a number of issues carefully and thoroughly before this country committed itself to going down that path.
Most obviously, there are genuine concerns that e-voting is not sufficiently rigorous and could be vulnerable to attack or fraud. The last thing that would serve the interests of Parliament or of democracy in this country would be for us to move swiftly to a system of electronic voting that led to still greater public mistrust in the integrity of our democratic process. Particularly when selecting elected representatives or deciding an issue of national importance in a referendum, it is essential that we have the highest possible security, and I am not convinced that we have the requisite assurance yet. Even in the short exchanges that have taken place on this subject, different views have been expressed about whether or not the pilots in the past have led to a serious increase in turnout. That is another point to be borne in mind.
John McDonnell
Even the Conservative elements of the campaign group have been a problem, too. May I suggest something to the Minister? This referendum will be in two years’ time, the Electoral Commission is focusing its work this year on electronic voting and we will have elections before then. Can we look again at reviving some of the pilots, at least for next year’s local government elections, so that we can learn the lessons and overcome the security issue, which he rightly mentions? Things have moved on from the last pilots and we need a new pilot to give us the confidence that we can then use e-voting more extensively in referendums.
Mr Lidington
I am sure my colleagues in the Cabinet Office, who lead on constitutional matters, will have heard that point. E-voting may be something that the Government will want to consider in the future, but it is not a priority immediately for the legislation to authorise the arrangements for this referendum.
I want to say a few things about the conduct rules more generally. Clause 4 provides that Ministers may make provision about the conduct of the referendum in regulations. The provisions in clause 3 and schedule 3 already set out the key aspects of the conduct of the referendum, and broadly they are concerned with the overall framework. In addition to those general provisions, it will be necessary to set out more detailed rules for conduct. Clause 4 grants Ministers the power to do so by regulation.
Our intention will be to draw on the rules used for the conduct of the parliamentary voting system referendum in 2011 and those used for elections more generally, in particular for our parliamentary elections. We will also take account of recent changes to electoral law to ensure that they also apply for the purposes of this referendum. The clause also requires that Ministers consult the Electoral Commission before making any regulations on these issues.
Kelvin Hopkins
The Minister will know that there have been serious concerns in the European Scrutiny Committee, the Chair of which is in the Chamber at the moment, but there is not the time at this stage to discuss bias in the media on European Union matters. Will there be a time on Report for a more thorough discussion of this, because there are some serious concerns? As he will know, the chair of the BBC Trust and the director-general of the BBC have both been before the European Scrutiny Committee to discuss the matter.
Mr Lidington
Obviously, what we discuss on Report will be in the hands of Members who table amendments. I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for many years, and I know that he is ingenious and creative in finding opportunities for parliamentary debate on subjects that are close to his heart.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
With great respect, may I be ingenious for one moment, as I wish to put amendment 8 on the record? The amendment is supported by the Electoral Commission. Given the time that is available, I just want to say that the Electoral Commission supports the proposal, which is that the detailed regulations required to administer and regulate the referendum
“must be made and come into force not less than six months before the start of the referendum period.”
We do not propose pressing the amendment to a vote, but we would like to return to it on Report. I know that the Minister understands it, and that the Electoral Commission supports it.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend’s amendment proposes that the legislation be put in place at least six months before it is required to be implemented or complied with by campaigners or administrators. Although it is not necessary or appropriate in this specific case to set an arbitrary timeframe in statute, I can offer him some reassurance on the point. The reason for the Electoral Commission’s recommendation, to which he alluded, is that it is important to ensure that the people who are responsible for organising and administering a referendum and the people who will be responsible for accounting for expenditure on behalf of campaign organisations are clear about the rules that apply. To some extent, as I said a few minutes ago, the general framework of those rules is set out in the body of the Bill. The more detailed rules on conduct will be provided for by regulations that the Government will have the power, under the Bill, to table.
I can assure the Committee that it is the Government’s intention to publish the conduct regulations this autumn. That will mean, especially given the decision that the Committee took on Tuesday not to combine the referendum with the devolved local elections in May 2016, that there should be plenty of time for the Electoral Commission, and returning and counting officers and campaigners to familiarise themselves with the detail of the rules under which the referendum will be conducted. We would expect those detailed rules to cover such matters as the referendum timetable and the key stages within that; the provision of polling stations; the appointment of polling and counting agents; the procedure for the issue of ballot papers and for voting at polling stations; the arrangements for the counting of votes and declaration of results; the disposal of ballot papers and other referendum documents; arrangements for absent voters and postal and proxy votes and so on.
There will be a great deal of information, which it is our intention to have publicly available for everybody to see in the autumn of this year, well ahead of the referendum date. I hope that on that basis my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and others who have signed his amendment will be reassured that the Government are fully committed to our declared intention of ensuring that the referendum is conducted in an way that is not only fair but that is seen to be and is accepted as fair by everybody who takes part on both sides.
John McDonnell
I am not convinced that the Government are taking the matter of electronic voting seriously, but I welcome the warm words from the Minister that there could be some movement in the future. Although we might not be able to achieve it for this referendum, I hope that we can encourage the Electoral Commission to undertake pilots again next year that might resolve some of the issues with security. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) The referendum shall not be held on the same day as:
(a) elections to the Scottish Parliament;
(b) elections to the National Assembly for Wales;
(c) elections for the Mayor of London; or
(d) local authority elections”. —(Mr McFadden.)
The amendment would prevent the referendum being held on the same day as Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales, London mayoral or local authority elections.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mrs Laing. For the third time this week the House has taken a position in votes that will be recorded in Hansard and in the official record of the House. Unfortunately shortly after those votes have been taken certain SNP MPs have tweeted out completely the contrary to the result of the votes. That happened on the Scotland Bill on Monday, the European Union Referendum Bill on Tuesday and again this evening. Can you rule on whether that is bringing the House into disrepute and how we stop that happening?
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and he has done well to draw it to the attention of the House and, no doubt, further afield, but he will appreciate that it is not a matter on which I can rule from the Chair at present. One would hope that a reasoned report of what happens in this Chamber will be disseminated widely throughout the country by many means of communication, not just on social media, and that people will always choose which report they wish to believe.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek the advice of the Chair on a matter that has come to my attention concerning the business that has been announced for next Tuesday: consideration of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Instruction (No. 3). As I understand it, that will extend to the Select Committee the power to consider amendments to accommodate the requirements of landowners and occupiers in my constituency, particularly in Little Missenden, the Lee and Great Missenden.
Further, there will be consideration of the amendment to accommodate changes to the design of the works authorised by the Bill in Great Missenden and Little Missenden. The Select Committee scrutinising the hybrid Bill is visiting my constituency on Monday morning at 9.15 to look at the effects of HS2 on an area of outstanding natural beauty. However, I understand that the Government are not planning to publish the additional provisions that would give this House, the Committee and my constituents the information on what additional provisions HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport will make for the Committee’s consideration.
Perhaps you could advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether that is the correct procedure for this House, because it seems to me that my constituents and this House should know about those additional provisions prior to the Committee’s visit, and prior to the business before the House next Tuesday. As I understand it, those additional provisions might not be available until the second week in July. Could the Speaker’s Office and the Chair assist me in any way on that procedure?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The right hon. Lady raises a matter of some concern. If the procedure under which the House is scrutinising that important Bill has not been properly followed, it is indeed a matter of concern. I am quite certain that Mr Speaker will wish to have the procedural elements of the right hon. Lady’s concerns investigated, so I will ensure that such an investigation is undertaken. She has eloquently made clear to the House her concerns, and I am quite sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have taken note of what she has said and that her concerns will be conveyed to the relevant Ministers. If there has been a procedural oversight, one would hope that it will be put right in time.
Mrs Gillan
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for undertaking to investigate the procedure. Would it also be possible for the Chair to investigate whether those details could be made available to the Committee, to me and to my constituents prior to the visit at 9.15 on Monday morning?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Lady for that further point. I am quite sure, in undertaking an investigation, that if matters can be put right, they will be. I am quite sure that if they are not put right, the right hon. Lady will inform the House of it next week. We all look forward to seeing progress on the matter.
Recruitment and Retention of Teachers
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I thank Mr Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate on a critical issue that is of real and growing concern to my constituents and to people across the country, namely whether we are doing enough to recruit, train and retain the teachers who will inspire the next generation to learn and create things that our parents could not even have imagined. During this short debate, I will set out the background, touch on why the problem is of understandable concern to schools and the teaching profession, and suggest a couple of positive ways forward, which would carry the support of the profession, including head teachers, staff and their trade unions.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware that figures have demonstrated for some time that there is a problem with teacher recruitment and retention. Only today, Sir Michael Wilshaw said that the main challenge facing the education system was encouraging people to enter it. He said that one of the solutions was raising the status of teachers, and I could not agree more. I will come back to that point shortly. The Association of School and College Leaders has gone further, describing the crisis in recruitment and retention as a “perfect storm” and attributing the significant decline in postgraduate teacher training and the pool of graduates to the hike in tuition fees.
The impact is being felt in my constituency. One of my first meetings as a newly elected MP was with the head teacher of Newfield secondary school, when I was shocked to learn that after placing a national advert for a science teacher, the school had not received a single application. That matters to the pupils of Newfield, because despite the fact that it is an improving school with dedicated and brilliant staff, it took several rounds of recruitment to fill a teaching position. In a subject as important as science—part of the core subject group of science, technology, engineering and maths, which are so vital to our future—pupils in my constituency should not miss out on the continuity of teaching that is essential to success.
The problem is not peculiar to Sheffield. Vacancies in teaching have doubled during the past year, and a survey for schools weekly found that for the upcoming school year, only 83% of secondary places have been filled. Delve deeper and we find an even more troubling pattern. In the subjects that are vital to the jobs of the future—science, technology, engineering and maths, where we need more than 1 million in training just to keep up with demand—the pool of teachers is chronically under-subscribed. Figures taken from the initial teacher training census in physics and maths reveal a 33% under-subscription. For design and technology, the figure rises to a shocking 56%. One of the leading thinkers in the field, Professor John Howson, has said that the Department for Education “almost certainly” will not meet the recruitment target needed to fill places. Such targets are now being missed year in, year out.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the much vaunted School Direct programme has failed to recruit sufficient numbers of teachers in every single year since its introduction in 2011?
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Government reforms have done little to help in that regard. The Government’s push towards recruiting teachers via School Direct has created a confused and fragmented system, with schools across the country reporting that they are struggling to access the School Direct programme. That will only get worse in the upcoming school year, as 17,000 places formerly allocated to university departments are transferred to School Direct. Since its creation by the former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), the School Direct programme has under-recruited every single year.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware that figures produced by TeachVac show that teacher recruitment is more difficult in this year than it has been at any time for a decade? With something like 800,000 children coming into the system over the next decade or so, a national strategy will be needed to solve this important problem.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is further evidence of more failed ideological experiments from the Tories.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend has highlighted some disturbing issues. Has she managed to obtain from the Minister any details on the current performance of the School Direct programme?
Louise Haigh
The Government have provided figures on the failings of the Teach First programme, which have revealed that we are losing more recruits from Teach First than we are gaining every year. The Government’s management of the Teach First programme has produced very poor results. Even among Teach First ambassadors, over a third left teaching after two years and nearly half after five years. We are now losing more Teach First graduates from secondary education every year than are joining. The Government’s intention to expand recruitment makes little sense if it leads to an ever-higher turnover.
The problem is not that teachers are failing the system but that the system is failing them. These results are no reflection on their commitment to education but must surely be a reflection of their experience of teaching under this Government. How can we possibly hope to rebalance our economy away from its over-reliance on the City of London and the banking sector and towards manufacturing, high-tech industry, IT and engineering if we cannot even find the teachers to teach maths and science?
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a serious problem in parts of London, in particular? In my constituency, house prices average £606,000. That means that even if a teacher can be recruited, keeping them is a real challenge.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend anticipates my next point.
The problem does not start and end with encouraging people to become teachers in the first place. Retaining experienced teachers is better for schools, better for pupils, and of course better financially as it is so much cheaper than recruitment and training.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the reasons people are leaving the profession is work-related stress—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I appreciate that hon. Members are new to the House, but the hon. Lady must address the Chair. You cannot turn your back on the Chair; you are not addressing the hon. Lady.
Rachael Maskell
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Does my hon. Friend recognise that people are leaving the profession due to the high levels of work-related stress? We know that 83% of teachers are experiencing work-related stress and 67% are experiencing mental and physical health problems due to excessive workloads, the target-driven culture, and over-burdening inspection regimes.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point.
The OECD workload diary survey found teachers working a staggering 50 hours per week compared with the average of 38.3 hours across the countries surveyed. It is becoming harder and harder to keep hold of qualified and experienced teachers. Frankly, that is no surprise. Demoralised, overworked and undervalued by a Government who treat the profession as a political football and a group to be taken on and beaten, its dedicated members are doing their best in extremely challenging circumstances.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Teacher workload is often cited as a major reason for the increased problems with teacher retention. Forty-four per cent. of teachers in the Department for Education teachers workload survey said that their time spent on doing unnecessary and bureaucratic tasks has increased under the Conservative Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should investigate what those unnecessary tasks are and what can be done to relieve teachers of them?
Louise Haigh
I could not agree more.
The irony is that the Government’s criticism of teachers comes at a time when teachers are working harder than ever before. It is a scandal that the teaching workload is growing out of control and that, even as they work harder than ever, teachers remain so undervalued. The Government must know that this is happening. Their own figures tell the story of the teacher retention crisis. In the 12 months up to 2013, 50,000 qualified teachers left the state sector, equivalent to one in 12 of the entire profession, and the highest rate for over a decade. Furthermore, 100,000 teachers never even taught despite finishing their training.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I used to be a teacher and I have trained teachers. In my view, the problem is that it is no longer fun, and that teaching, which used to be a wonderful career, is now drudgery. Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister to make teaching more fun, both for the pupil and for the teacher?
Louise Haigh
Absolutely. That is why we are losing so many teachers every single year.
The total wastage rate, or loss of teachers, from the sector is now at over 10%—the highest for over a decade. To make matters worse, the number of teachers taking early retirement has risen to levels not seen since the Conservatives were last in power nearly two decades ago. Is not the Minister concerned that his own Government’s policies have caused a crisis in teaching numbers, the consequences of which will be felt by parents and pupils nationwide?
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware of figures from the Government’s workload challenge which show that the politicisation of Ofsted, and the pressure that teachers are brought under as a result, is one of the most commonly stated reasons for increased workload?
Louise Haigh
I could not agree more. The politicised inspection regime is clearly a major issue, and it is cited by teachers when leaving the profession.
Without working with the teaching profession, including their representatives in the teaching unions, to try to bridge some of the animosity of the past five years, it will be next to impossible to solve the crisis in teaching recruitment and retention. The morale of teachers will continue to decline and they will continue to look for ways out of a profession that feels increasingly undervalued, even as the pressures of work continue to grow.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend also consider the effect that the cost of living crisis is having on teachers? The combination of the high cost of rent and all sorts of other things, as well as the pressures on their time, mean that some see no way of being able to support a family in the future, while others are unable to spend time with their families due to their excessive workload. Either way, the family lives of teachers are suffering.
Louise Haigh
As pay and conditions continue to decrease as the system fragments, the situation will only continue to get worse. Indeed, the profession is now so unattractive that for every 1% the economy grows, applications fall by 5%.
There is, of course, a financial as well as a human cost to this crisis. The past five years have seen a massive increase in the number and cost of agencies supplying teachers to schools, some of which charge up to £1,000 per week per teacher. As much as half of that money goes to the agency and not to the teacher. A survey for the National Union of Teachers found that almost eight in 10 supply teachers found work through such agencies, and only 6.9% were paid according to national pay rates.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals on regional pay for public sector workers would kill recruitment and retention in areas further away from London such as west Cumberland?
Louise Haigh
Absolutely. Increasingly, teachers and supply teachers are being exploited, both by agencies and by certain schools.
It is clear from all the points that have been raised that there is a recruitment crisis as a result of fragmented and confusing pathways into teaching, and a retention crisis caused by a complete collapse in morale. The cost of those crises is being felt in the education budget, through the use of extortionate agencies.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept that in places such as Bradford, where many schools are already full or oversubscribed, it is even more difficult to retain teachers, particularly in the light of the school places crisis?
Louise Haigh
Absolutely. The lack of school places is clearly yet another factor in the issue.
This leaves the Minister with a number of questions to answer. First, will he review the use of supply agencies, particularly in the light of the fact that spending on supply is 5% of the education budget? In the US, where supply teachers are employed directly by school districts, the figure is less than 1%.
Secondly, given the declining pool of teaching graduates, will the Minister consider writing off the annual repayment of student loans to act as an incentive to teach in key subjects?
Thirdly, will the Government bring forward the workload survey planned for spring 2016, given that workload has clearly been identified as one of the key causes of teachers leaving the profession?
Finally, what are the Government doing to ensure that teacher recruitment for science, technology, engineering and maths, which are so chronically under-subscribed, will be filled in time for the new school year?
I hope the Minister will agree that, in order to tackle the crisis in teacher recruitment and retention, we must act to encourage graduates and make it easier for would-be teachers to enter the teaching profession, and do much more to value those already there. The next generation of our constituents deserve nothing less.
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) on securing this Adjournment debate and on attracting so many colleagues to it? I also congratulate her on her maiden speech earlier this month. Her commitment to promoting social justice and greater opportunities for young people is shared by the Government, and her passion for her constituency of Sheffield, Heeley has been very clear in her earlier speeches.
The single most important factor in determining how well a pupil achieves at school is the quality of the teaching they receive. An analysis by Slater, Davies and Burgess in 2009 showed that being taught by a high-quality teacher rather than a less able teacher adds 0.425 of a GCSE point per subject to a pupil. In September 2011, the Sutton Trust found that the difference between a very effective teacher and a poorly performing teacher is large. For example, during one year with a very effective maths teacher, pupils gain 40% more in their educational attainment than they would with a poorly performing maths teacher.
The hon. Lady is right, therefore, to emphasise the importance of recruiting and retaining the best teachers so that all young people receive the high-quality education to which they are entitled. We are fortunate, therefore, that there are more teachers working in our schools than at any previous time, and that today’s teachers are the best qualified generation of teachers ever.
For every year in the last decade, the number of teachers joining the profession has outstripped those leaving. Last year, 50,000 new teachers entered our classrooms, swelling the size of the teaching profession in England to a record 451,000. Newly qualified teachers only account for just over half of those entering the workforce every year. Just under a third enter teaching having delayed entry post-initial teacher training, and just under a fifth are experienced teachers returning to the state sector.
Overall, teaching continues to be a hugely popular career. The latest 2015-16 UCAS figures show that we are on course to meet our postgraduate recruitment target for primary trainee teachers and are making good progress in secondary recruitment. The figures also confirm that we are ahead on acceptances for mathematics, physics, chemistry and design and technology, compared with the corresponding point last year.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Is the Minister confident that the figures he just read out reflect the reality for children in my constituency? A mother told me that eight out of 10 classes her son attended last week were taught by supply teachers, and one of my excellent secondary schools cannot recruit a senior science teacher. Is he confident that the Government are providing a good standard of education for students in Brentford and Isleworth?
Mr Gibb
I will come to the vacancy rate in a moment, but it has remained stable at about 1% of the teaching profession since 2000, so it has been stable for 15 years. No one in the Government underestimates the challenge that having a strong economy presents in professions such as teaching.
Ian Mearns
Does the Minister accept that many head teachers are reporting that they have stopped advertising vacancies, because they do not feel that they have any chance of recruiting and they do not want the unnecessary expense of placing adverts in the national journals?
Mr Gibb
I am aware of those examples, which were set out in the hon. Lady’s speech. There are challenges but, as I said, the vacancy rate is the same this year as it was 15 years ago. It has remained stable across the system at about 1% of the teaching workforce.
To get more high-quality teachers into England’s classrooms, we need to continue to promote teaching as a profession for top graduates. Our recruitment campaign, “Your Future Their Future” is getting results, with registrations on the “Get Into Teaching” website up by about 30% compared with last year. In 2014-15, we recruited 94% of our postgraduate ITT target, at a time when the economy was improving and good graduates had more choices open to them. As I have said, the teacher vacancy rate remains very low, at about 1% of the total number of posts—a figure that has remained steady since 2000.
Contrary to the hon. Lady’s suggestion, retention remains strong. Ninety-one per cent. of teachers who qualify are teaching a year later, and 76% remain in the classroom five years later. More than 50% of teachers who qualified in 1996 were still teaching 17 years later.
Louise Haigh
It is interesting to hear the Minister refute those assertions, given that his own written answer confirmed that 400 Teach First graduates started teaching maths and science in the last school year, but nearly 600 left the profession. Does he agree that the Government’s administration of the Teach First programme is failing on recruitment and retention?
Mr Gibb
On the contrary, Teach First has been a huge success. The purpose of Teach First is to attract people who might not otherwise consider entering teaching and ask them to commit to two years, so there has always been the expectation that a considerable number of the graduates who come into Teach First will leave and go into other careers in the City or elsewhere. The overall retention rate of more than 50% is actually staggeringly successful and reflects just how successful Teach First has been in recruiting high-calibre graduates into teaching.
The strong recruitment and retention figures have not been achieved by lowering our expectations for the quality of those joining the teaching profession. Almost three quarters of teachers now have an upper second or first-class degree, 10% higher than in 2010. A record proportion of teacher trainees—17%—have first-class degrees, and for several years running teaching has remained the most popular career destination for graduates of Oxford University. Teach First has played a huge part in that.
In spite of those successes, we recognise that there are still challenges. As the economy improves and the labour market strengthens, high-performing graduates are being tempted by opportunities in other sectors. Our task is to continue to champion teaching as a career choice for the brightest and the best, and not only to attract those people into our classrooms but to keep them there once they have joined the profession.
Fiona Mactaggart
I thank the Minister. He talks about the 1% vacancy figure with what headteachers in Slough might feel is a degree of complacency. At what point would he think the level of vacancies was unacceptable?
Mr Gibb
It would be a figure considerably higher than 1%. If I may cite another figure, UCAS publishes statistics every month, and they show that acceptances are down by 2% compared with the corresponding period last year. That is an improvement on last month’s figures. We are not complacent, and we understand the challenges that exist, particularly with the strong economy that we have, but being 2% down does not represent the crisis that Opposition Members are intimating.
The Government are responding to the challenges. We have funded the geographical expansion of Teach First into every region of England, and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley’s home city currently has 28 participants completing the two-year programme. A further 21 teachers who have already completed the programme are still teaching in Sheffield schools. The expansion will give Teach First the scope to reach 90% of eligible schools by 2016. That will strengthen the Government’s commitment to recruit more top teachers throughout the country, including in rural, coastal and disadvantaged areas.
Sue Hayman
My constituency is in north-west Cumbria, a rural area far from the centre, and we struggle enormously to recruit and retain in teaching. Can the Minister confirm that the programme will start to do something to change what is happening in west Cumbria?
Mr Gibb
The hon. Lady makes a good point. Despite being among the most beautiful parts of England, such rural areas find problems in recruiting. That was why we wanted to extend Teach First to those areas. We are cognisant of the fact that some parts of England find challenges in recruiting teachers, particularly younger teachers, who like to be in the cities.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
The challenge of recruiting and retaining teachers is not only in rural areas but in some of the more deprived areas, which many of us represent. The challenge for all of us is class sizes and the impact on families and children in our constituencies. I think the Minister is being quite complacent about the impact on families of the challenge of recruiting and retaining teachers.
Mr Gibb
We are not complacent at all. One of the Secretary of State’s objectives is to take action in underperforming areas of the country where schools are not reaching the standard that we would expect of them. We are determined to do so. The national teaching service, for example, is a scheme by which we are encouraging high-performing teachers to second themselves to areas that have had problems in recruiting high-calibre teachers, so that we can raise standards in those areas. We are far from complacent, and we are determined to ensure that we have high-quality schools in every area and that every parent can send their child to a good local school, wherever they are located, including in areas of deprivation, rural areas or the coastal strip.
Of course, as the economy continues to recover and rebalance towards manufacturing, demand for STEM skills is increasing. Since 2010, we have therefore significantly increased the value of bursaries available to top graduates entering teaching in priority subjects. Those bursaries are now worth up to £25,000 tax-free, and we have worked closely with the leading learned societies—the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry and others—to develop prestigious scholarships for specialists in those subjects who want to teach.
Meg Hillier
I wish to bring the Minister back to the issue of housing costs in London. Is he having discussions with other Departments about how we can address the fact that teachers on these salaries are still a long way from being able to rent in London, let alone buy a property?
Mr Gibb
Those challenges face young people in London whatever their chosen profession, and that is why we are committed to addressing the housing shortage and building more houses. London is an attractive place for young teachers to teach, and Teach First and other organisations engaged in placing newly qualified or qualifying teachers into schools find London the least problematic place to place trainee teachers.
Even with generous bursary and scholarship schemes, we know there is still more to do to recruit high-quality mathematics and physics teachers—
Thangam Debbonaire
To return to the point about the recruitment of teachers of physics, I was concerned to hear this week from the Royal Society that in 50% of state-maintained schools, no girls study physics after the age of 16. That is surely a situation that we cannot ignore if we are to recruit from the best possible talent. What will the Minister do to redress the situation?
Mr Gibb
I could not agree more with the hon. Lady and I hope that she will join us in addressing the problem. We have established the Your Life campaign, with leading business people such as Edwina Dunn from Dunnhumby, which is designed to attract more young people into physics and maths at A-level, focusing particularly on young women, because that is where there is considerable scope to attract more young people. It is aimed at young people at about the time they choose their A-level options, and we are determined to increase the numbers taking A-level physics and maths, especially young women. The hon. Lady makes a very good point.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Following up that interesting and important point, surely one of the things that will make a difference is that now most teachers going into primary education have done well in maths and physics and will be able to given children—both boys and girls—the idea that in secondary school they can take those subjects forward. That will contribute to helping to change the current situation, which is frankly unacceptable.
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have made some significant reforms to primary education, including how we teach maths in primary school. We want children to leave primary school after six or seven years fluent in arithmetic, so that they can cope with a more demanding maths curriculum at secondary school. We hope that that confidence will take them through to A-level when they reach sixth form.
We are also addressing the shortage by spending some £67 million over the next five years to train an extra 2,500 mathematics and physics teachers and to improve the knowledge and skills of 15,000 existing teachers. We also established the Maths and Physics Chairs programme to support post-doctoral researchers to train as teachers with the aim of enthusing, engaging and inspiring students to progress to A-level study, to lead subject knowledge development with teachers in local school partnerships and to forge links with business. Very able young PhDs are now working in schools, and it is an inspiring and successful project.
We have given schools the freedom to pay good teachers more. That gives schools more scope to retain their best teachers by offering faster progression up the pay scale. It also allows them to adapt to any local circumstances where recruitment in particular phases or subjects is more challenging.
Since 2010, we have focused on reforming initial teacher training, so that schools have greater choice and influence over the quality of both the training and trainees recruited. School Direct, which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley referred to, is already proving hugely popular with both trainees and schools. Last year, we recruited 9,232 trainees to initial teacher training, an increase of 40% on the previous year. As a result, 35% of the postgraduates training to be teachers are doing so via School Direct. The School Direct salaried route provides an excellent route for career changers to train as teachers. They receive rigorous teacher training, at the same time as working in a school and earning a salary. These new entrants to the profession can bring different, valuable experience from their previous careers in industry. The success of that route is reflected in a substantial increase in the number of places offered by schools.
I am conscious of the time, but I think the hon. Lady and her colleagues are overstating the case. We understand the challenges, but we have engaged in a huge number of initiatives, including very generous bursaries, to address the problem, and I am confident—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The Minister cannot give way and the hon. Lady cannot intervene, because it is half an hour after the debate began. I was hoping that the Minister was going to get his last word in, but the hon. Lady intervened, and I am afraid that we have to go straight to the conclusion of proceedings.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tibet
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Tibet.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am delighted that we have the opportunity so early in this Parliament to debate a subject that is close to my heart and, I know, to the hearts of many Members of the House. When we last debated Tibet in Westminster Hall, about six months ago, it was for an hour and a half. I seem to remember that it was over-subscribed; there were far too many Members who wished to speak and far too little time for them to do so. That is why I asked the Backbench Business Committee, before the end of the last Parliament, for a three-hour debate, and I hope that we will have one now.
This week, as all Members present will know, we celebrated the 800th anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta. Commentators here in Parliament and around the world have been eager to remind us of the importance of our tradition of democracy and the rule of law. Speaking about the anniversary, the Foreign Secretary said:
“The UK will continue to defend the values of the rules-based international system which can trace its origins to this landmark document.”
Addressing the United Nations Human Rights Council on 15 June, just three days ago, the Foreign Office Minister of State, Baroness Anelay, said:
“It is our solemn duty to give voice to those whose rights have been violated and abused, to call for accountability and to work with those who want a different future—a future where universal values are not simply words in a UN treaty but a reality of everyday life… So in this year of anniversaries, eight centuries after Magna Carta, let us give a voice to all those whose views and fears are not heard. Let us ensure that our voice goes beyond words to action. Let us remember that universal values need to be truly universal, for everyone everywhere.”
Those are fine words, and I am sure that every Member in this debate and in Parliament would endorse them fully.
It is timely at the beginning of a Parliament to remind ourselves of the practical applications of those values and to illustrate our commitment by considering closely the position of one group of people whose rights have been violated and abused, and who might expect this Parliament, this country and our Government to speak out for them, to give them the voice that they are systematically denied. They are the people of Tibet.
Many Members present will have had a long involvement in the issue of Tibet, and I have no doubt are well informed about its history and the oppressions suffered by its people since the Chinese invasion in 1951, but many new Members who are just as interested might be less well informed, so I make no apology for giving an overview of the historical situation of Tibet and of the Dalai Lama, who will celebrate his 80th birthday—his 56th in exile—on 6 July, just two and a half weeks from now.
Tibet has had a tumultuous history, during which it has spent long periods functioning as an independent nation. An early example of British involvement in Tibet is the short-lived treaty of Lhasa, signed after a British colonialist excursion into that country under the leadership of Francis Younghusband in 1904. It is worth mentioning as evidence that, at least during that period, Britain regarded Tibet as an independent state with which it was legally possible to treat. That contradicts the view promoted by the Chinese Government that Tibet has never been more than a province or collection of provinces forming part of China. Indeed, Chinese official histories refer to the exchange of envoys between the Tang dynasty, which ruled China between the seventh and 10th centuries, and the Tubo kingdom, the ancient name for Tibet, suggesting that they were separate nations at the time.
What is not in question are Tibet’s unique cultural traditions. Ethnic Tibetans have a four centuries-long allegiance to the Buddhist tradition of which the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is the spiritual leader. In the years before the Communist party came to power in China, Tibet was governed by a priestly caste and was a separate, independent state. When the Communist party came to power, the Chinese army invaded Tibet and attempted, but failed, to force the young Dalai Lama to act as a client ruler. However, after a popular uprising against Chinese rule, the Dalai Lama and his supporters were driven into exile in India following an alleged threat to his life. The Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, welcomed the exiled Tibetans to Dharamshala in Himachal Pradesh, where they established a Parliament and Government in exile.
In May 2011, the Dalai Lama announced his retirement as the political leader of his people, but he will of course always remain the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism. However, that step by the Dalai Lama has in no way diminished the fear and loathing with which the Chinese Government regard His Holiness. They describe him as a separatist, a supporter of terrorism, and—maybe worst of all in the lexicon of communist China—a splittist. Since the 1980s, the Dalai Lama has not pursued the aim of full independence for Tibet, but has sought only what he calls a middle way—full autonomy for the people of Tibet—although many Tibetan activists still believe in the possibility of a truly independent Tibet.
Meanwhile, the Chinese, having created what they describe as the Tibet autonomous region, or TAR, have done everything in their power to undermine that autonomy and to destroy the ethnic and cultural identity of Tibet. They have sought to isolate the Dalai Lama and have used their political and economic influence to bully the Governments and parties that support him. I aim to outline some of the ways in which they have done so and to explain why I believe that we have a moral obligation to support those suffering under the oppression that has resulted from the “Chineseification” of Tibetan culture.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I am grateful to my fellow officer of the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet for giving way. I am sorry that I will not be able to stay for the whole debate and make a full contribution. Is it not ironic that the Chinese constitution recognises the diverse culture and heritage of the various peoples who make up the People’s Republic of China? Whatever arguments we may have about the politics of it, China is clearly failing to recognise and protect the culture, heritage and, indeed, language of the Tibetan people, which is being destroyed at the hands of the Chinese Government.
Fabian Hamilton
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, if I may call him that, and fellow officer of the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet. In May 2006—more than nine years ago—I had occasion to visit Lhasa and the TAR under supervision by the Chinese Government, along with four other members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, to see for myself exactly how much change had taken place.
The Chineseification of Lhasa, through the encouragement of ethnically Han Chinese citizens to settle in Lhasa and other parts of Tibet, was extraordinary. We learned while we were there that Tibetan was not allowed to be the main language in schools in the city of Lhasa. Mandarin had to be spoken first, and Tibetan was, to all intents and purposes, outlawed by the mayor and provincial Government of the TAR. That was sad to see.
Many elements of Tibetan culture were being suppressed by the Administration and the local Communist party. I know that that has continued apace since the opening of the Chengdu to Lhasa railway, which has allowed many more people to travel much more easily to that extremely high city, where those who are there for only a few days suffer from altitude sickness.
I hope to show that events in Tibet have global implications, and that by failing to speak out against the political, environmental and economic oppression in the TAR, we risk allowing a bully to influence world events and undermine our values.
As an example of that bullying process, let us consider that the 14th world summit of Nobel peace laureates was scheduled to convene in South Africa in October 2014 to honour the late Nelson Mandela’s legacy. However, it had to be cancelled when several Nobel peace laureates pulled out after the South African Government failed to issue a visa to one of the laureates, the Dalai Lama. That is just one example of Chinese pressure; in fact, China went on to thank South Africa for not issuing the Dalai Lama a visa. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, said:
“China highly appreciates the support offered by the South African government on issues concerning China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We also believe that South Africa will continue to uphold this correct position and continue to support China in this regard.”
Let us remind ourselves that the Dalai Lama has been in exile since 1959. That a country such as South Africa should be so afraid of losing important Chinese investment that it was willing to renege on the solidarity offered by Nelson Mandela himself when the Dalai Lama visited Cape Town years ago is truly a tragedy.
China has tried such tactics on many Governments, our own included. In May 2012, David Cameron and Nick Clegg privately met the Dalai Lama in London, outside St Paul’s cathedral, where the Dalai Lama was being awarded the Templeton prize for his contribution to human spirituality. The Chinese Government made a formal protest to the British ambassador in Beijing, saying that that meeting had “harmed” China-UK relations and had
“hurt the feelings of the Chinese people”.
In addition, in a public statement, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hong Lei, urged the UK
“to respond to China’s solemn demand and stop conniving and supporting Tibetan separatists”.
The Chinese Government then cancelled the visit to the UK of a top official, Wu Bangguo, Chair of the National People’s Congress.
In April 2013, David Cameron postponed an official trip—
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. I let it go the first time, but I think the hon. Gentleman means either “the Prime Minister” or “the right hon. Member for Witney”, but not “Mr David Cameron”.
Fabian Hamilton
I am so sorry. Thank you for correcting me, Mr Gray. Let me try again.
In April 2013, the Prime Minister postponed an official trip to China after Beijing indicated that senior leaders were unlikely to meet him, yet the Government have been clear on their position. They regard Tibet as
“part of the People’s Republic of China.”
Does that mean that Her Majesty’s Government do not support those Tibetans who call for independence? With their professed support for the right of self-determination and their commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, would it not be more appropriate for the Government explicitly to support the Tibetans’ right to self-determination?
I ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s position on dialogue between Chinese and Tibetan representatives. Without such dialogue, the Dalai Lama’s call for genuine autonomy for Tibet cannot possibly be achieved. The Chinese Government have put obstacles in the path of such dialogue by requiring, in their own latest White Paper on Tibet, that His Holiness the Dalai Lama make a
“public statement that Tibet has been an integral part of China since antiquity”.
In the past, the Chinese maintained that a precondition for talks would be the abandonment by the Dalai Lama of his stance on independence. He has effectively done that, but after every concession made by His Holiness further barriers have been raised by the Chinese Government. I strongly hope that Her Majesty’s Government can and will resist efforts to force the UK to isolate the Dalai Lama.
However, this is not simply a debate about history. The rights of the Tibetan people—both collective rights, and the rights of individuals and families—have been horribly breached. Religious freedoms have been attacked for decades, and religious institutions have been suborned. Along with the call from the political head of the Tibet autonomous region for Buddhist temples to
“become propaganda centres for the ruling Communist Party”,
there are proposed new counter-terrorism laws that will allow sweeping measures to be taken to suppress religious activity. Many rites that are central to the traditional worship of the Tibetan people, such as the lighting of butter candles, will be treated as subversive acts, as they imply support for the Dalai Lama. Have our Government raised concerns about these proposed new counter-terrorism laws, which appear to contravene the protection of religious freedoms enshrined in international and—until now—Chinese law?
The Chinese Government have given themselves the right to interfere in spiritual life and to deny the approval of the reincarnate lamas named by Tibet’s spiritual leaders, all of whom they have forced into exile. A key role of the Dalai Lama is the obligation to select the successor to the Panchen Lama. The selection of His Holiness is Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, who was a six-year-old boy in 1995—20 years ago—when he was hailed as the reincarnation. He was abducted by the Chinese authorities, along with his family. The Chinese authorities will not reveal his whereabouts and say that he is in “protective custody”. The Chinese authorities have decreed that another young man, Gyaltsen Norbu, will be the next Panchen Lama.
If Choekyi Nyima’s custody can be described as protective, he may be much more fortunate than the many other political prisoners being held in Tibet today for a range of offences, from displaying hand-drawn copies of the Tibetan flag to taking part in explicitly religious practices. For example, one monastic leader, Thardoe Gyaltsen, was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment for possessing copies of the Dalai Lama’s religious teachings and another, Geshe Ngawang Jamyang, was beaten to death in jail.
We should also be aware of the case of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, which I have raised with the Minister before. He was sentenced to death for alleged involvement in a bomb plot, for which there was no evidence. His sentence was later commuted to life in jail. He has served seven years and is believed to be in dangerously poor health. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to call for immediate medical parole for him, and to continue to press for answers on the whereabouts and safety of the Panchen Lama.
For these prisoners, as for other political prisoners, justice is very hard to achieve. At present, there are more than 600 known political prisoners in Tibet. Lawyers and human rights campaigners who take up the cases of such prisoners are threatened, and in many cases lose their licence to practise law. How do the Government propose to support their right under international law to a fair trial? Furthermore, with regard to the annual publication of Her Majesty’s Government’s report on human rights, do the Government review their policies in relation to countries of concern? How can the United Kingdom strengthen its policies on Tibet, so as to take a clear stance on the essential issue of human rights?
Tragically, in desperation at their situation, as many as 120 Tibetan activists have sought the ultimate expression of frustration and grief and committed self-immolation. Such actions are certainly not sanctioned by the Dalai Lama, who has spoken of his sadness and questioned the effectiveness of such actions in the face of the Chinese authorities, who treat them as criminal and immoral acts, punish the families of victims and portray such suicides as terrorist acts.
Of course, monks and nuns bear the brunt of Chinese wrath. Many are barred from their monasteries, and almost none can get visas to travel even within their home country. However, it is not only members of religious communities who suffer in Tibet. Other victims of Chinese displeasure include those Tibetans who have worked hard to preserve the country’s linguistic heritage. That falls foul of new regulations issued in many parts of Tibet, such as Rebkong, where new rules criminalising freedom of expression are being reinforced. They include rule No. 4, which prohibits
“establishing illegal organizations… under the pretext of ‘protecting the mother tongue’”
and
“literacy classes”.
Many artists, poets and musicians who have attempted to celebrate ethnic identity are among those who have been arrested, jailed and—in many cases—tortured. Meanwhile, across the world China promotes its own language and culture by interfering with the academic freedoms of universities, in which they have funded so-called Confucius Institutes. Those schools actively undermine western support for Tibet and Taiwan, and control the employment of staff within the institutes, often under employment law that conflicts with that of Europe and the United Kingdom.
What steps will Her Majesty’s Government take to ensure academic freedom and the human rights of staff in those institutes? Although it is hard for western Governments to protect the culture and human rights of minority groups in faraway countries, is it too much to ask that the Government take steps to control the spread of Chinese propaganda in the United Kingdom? The rigid censorship that the Chinese seek to impose on news media and the internet is well known. We must not allow similar restrictions on the freedoms of commentators, educators and students in our own country.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as he always does on this subject. I have made representations to the Home Secretary on this issue, but does he share my concern that His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who is visiting this country at the end of the month and again in September, has been afforded no police protection? During recent visits to other countries people have tried to disrupt his peaceful meetings and conferences, so there is the threat that many of his meetings may have to be abandoned.
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Dalai Lama’s free speech is being put at risk? What message will be sent to the Chinese people if the British Government do not afford him the protection that is normally afforded a dignitary of his stature?
Fabian Hamilton
I will mention that issue at the end of my speech. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am very concerned. People in the Tibetan community, supporters of the Tibetan community in the UK, supporters of the Dalai Lama, and Buddhists and non-Buddhists throughout Britain who love to hear the Dalai Lama’s words are extremely concerned that there is a threat to his personal safety. So far, the Government have offered no security for His Holiness’ visits to the United Kingdom. I thank my hon. Friend for taking up the issue with the Home Secretary. We need to put more pressure on the Government to ensure that the personal security of His Holiness is protected by our security services, especially as it is under threat.
Events in Tibet and our response to them have global implications that cannot be ignored. Many of those who have been shot at, arrested and intimidated in Tibet have been campaigning against the environmental exploitation of and damage to the fragile ecosystem of that beautiful country. That damage must certainly have global consequences. Almost half the world’s population depends on water from Tibet, and about 1.3 billion people directly depend on its major rivers.
The Chinese have increased the number of dams in the Tibetan plateau region, and further planned works will deprive millions of water in the downstream regions. In addition, unchecked mining operations in Tibet have been a major cause of environmental degradation and pollution of the water systems. Tibet’s glaciers are the fastest melting in the world, and many scientists regard Tibet as an environmental barometer. The opening of the Gormo-Lhasa railway, which I mentioned earlier, has not only sped up the Chineseification of Tibet by allowing a massive influx of ethnically Han Chinese, but enabled the swifter and more voracious exploitation of Tibet’s natural resources. Many rare native species of plants and animals will have to take their chances in a landscape that is at serious risk of destruction.
Protests against such pollution, exploitation and destruction—many of them by members of traditional nomadic groups that depend on the country’s grasslands and the purity of its waters—have been among those crushed by the Chinese. Many nomadic groups have been forcibly resettled, as I saw for myself in 2006. The US Special Co-ordinator for Tibetan Issues, Sarah Sewall, has said:
“Tibetans have an inalienable right to be stewards of their own cultural, religious and linguistic heritage”.
Will Her Majesty’s Government add their support to that of the US in encouraging the Chinese to live up to their international obligation to respect that right?
Many will ask what we in the UK can do to help the Tibetans in their attempts to preserve their language and culture, defend their spiritual freedom and traditions, and save their country from physical exploitation and damage. We should not underestimate our authority and resources. In China, a new law—the foreign non-governmental organisation management law—is being drafted, which seeks to restrict the activities of foreign NGOs and give the Chinese police the authority to enter their premises and seize documents and property. Those powers may have a massive impact on the work of groups that are working to promote health education and develop civil society in China as a whole and Tibet in particular. How will Her Majesty’s Government respond to those proposals, and what steps will they take to support the work of NGOs?
Many thousands of Tibetans now live in exile as refugees who depend on the welcome and support of host Governments and of campaigning and fundraising groups. We must continue to work with the groups representing Tibetans abroad. Will the United Kingdom Government continue to explore the possibility of cultural exchanges with Tibetans, whether from within Tibet itself or from the communities living in places such as India and Nepal? Programmes such as the Chevening scholarship, excellent as they are, have only a limited availability to Tibetans living within Tibet and are not available to refugees. If the UK Government were to extend that scheme and help refugees to take up degree and postgraduate courses in Britain, they would be better able to contribute to their host societies and help build civil society on their eventual and much desired return to Tibet.
The promotion and survival of the Tibetan language depend on it continuing to be heard. Will Her Majesty’s Government call on the BBC Trust to consider including Tibetan as one of the languages in which the World Service is broadcast?
The mention of those refugee communities brings me to my final, most topical, point. The terrible earthquakes in Nepal in April and May had a horrific impact on the Nepalese people, who are some of the poorest in the world. In the past, they have extended generous hospitality to their Tibetan neighbours who have continued to flee from the oppression in their homeland. At this time of crisis, it has become more difficult for them to do so. The catastrophe has heavily affected the Tibetan refugees in particular, as they are effectively stateless citizens. Many of them survive by making traditional Tibetan handicrafts, and many of the small factories in which they work have been destroyed.
There is grave concern, as recently expressed by Amnesty International, that the Tibetans’ lack of status within Nepalese society will make it hard for them to access the aid that is being provided by international communities. I recently had a case in my constituency of a British man of Tibetan origin, whose wife and child were made homeless by the earthquake in Kathmandu, but were having serious problems trying to obtain a visa to come to the United Kingdom because my constituent does not earn enough to support them. Meanwhile, over the border inside Tibet, there is some evidence that the Chinese authorities are using the earthquake as a pretext to redevelop parts of Tingri county against the wishes of local people, who are being forcibly relocated.
Finally, will the Government ensure the personal safety of His Holiness the Dalai Lama when he visits the UK at the end of this month to lecture at a Nepalese Buddhist temple? Sadly, one of the world’s foremost proponents of peace and compassion is the subject of threats from groups opposed to what he stands for. It is essential that when His Holiness comes to the UK we guarantee that he will be safe and secure. His message has huge resonance throughout this country and in every country in the world. We should value it more, and stand up more strongly to the bullying tactics of those who continue to oppress the Tibetan people and vilify His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, as I have discovered that you were brought up in my constituency. I did not have a lot of time in my maiden speech to sing my constituency’s praises, and I do not intend to detain hon. Members by doing so today. I note that what was Kelvinside parish church next to your childhood home is now the Òran Mór, a tremendously popular and vibrant cultural venue for the city and the country as a whole. Indeed, it contributes much to the local economy and the wider cultural scene.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on bringing this important debate to the Chamber. I commiserate with him on the result of this morning’s ballot, but wish him every success, should he seek to be a member of the International Development Committee. In contributing briefly to the debate, I would like to offer some perspectives from the Scottish National party, the Scottish Parliament and the country more broadly.
Much as there is a system of all-party groups in Westminster, a system of cross-party groups exists in the Scottish Parliament. My colleague, Linda Fabiani, the Member of the Scottish Parliament for East Kilbride, chairs the cross-party group on Tibet. Much like the all-party parliamentary group here, it has shown considerable cross-party interest in and concern over issues affecting the area. It is supported by Aberdeen University’s Scottish Centre for Himalayan Research and in particular by Dr Martin Mills and Dr Sam May.
It is important to recognise the important work of that institute in promoting and researching issues that affect Tibet and the wider Himalayan area. Some of its current topics include tantric medicine, 17th century Scots in the Himalayas—there are similarities between Scotland and Tibet, and I saw an interesting chart comparing the heights of the mountains of the two areas—plant collecting, spirit categories in Afghanistan, and Tibetan divination, which is relevant to this debate. The cross-party group is active, meets regularly and has campaigned on a range of issues. It called, for example, for a portrait of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to be displayed in Holyrood to mark his 80th birthday. Though the conventions in that place unfortunately did not allow for that, I think the suggestion indicates the respect and affection in which the Dalai Lama is held by parliamentarians in Scotland and the wider public.
Tibet was the subject of a debate in Holyrood, which was led by Maureen Watt, the MSP for Aberdeen South and North Kincardine. The debate focused specifically on immolation. By February of last year, there had been 127 reported incidents, and that number is now up to 137. The way Members’ business debates work is not dissimilar to Westminster Hall, only they are debated on a slightly fuller motion than we would have here. The motion said:
“That the Parliament…understands that these actions are largely acts of protest against restrictions on religion, the Tibetan language, access to employment and the degradation of water resources and grazing lands; expresses concern at what it understands has been the state’s attempts to prevent accurate reports of self-immolations reaching the media; condemns what it considers the criminalisation of family members and sometimes witnesses to the incidents; believes that 11 countries urged China to improve the human rights of Tibetans at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on 22 October 2013”.
That demonstrates the consensus. I and my colleagues in this House share the sentiments expressed and put on record our sadness that such numbers of people have felt the need to resort to such dramatic and desperate gestures. The Scottish Government’s response to that debate very clearly condemned human rights abuses, wherever they occur. The Cabinet Secretary for Cultural and Government Affairs said:
“Upholding basic civil and political rights is a core duty of the state, and individuals must be free to celebrate their cultural traditions and demonstrate their faith in any society.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 4 February 2014; c. 27401.]
The Scottish Government recognise the role that China has to play. On a number of occasions when visiting China, Ministers have raised concerns about freedom of religious expression, transparency and access, and the situation in Tibet. Indeed, the Scottish Government’s overall China engagement strategy has four guiding principles: securing sustainable economic growth by building Scotland’s prosperity by strengthening links to China; understanding the culture, including attaching great importance to learning more about the culture through a memorandum of understanding; increasing the influence we can have; and, most relevantly for the debate, respecting human rights and the rule of law, supporting China’s process of modernisation and internal reform, and the need to balance the demands of economic development with social justice.
In Scotland, we are justly proud of our reputation for ethical business practices, human rights and the rule of law. We want to continue to share our experiences wherever we can. Key to “Scotland’s National Action Plan for Human Rights” is ensuring that we all play a part in building a better world, giving effect to our international obligations at home and abroad. That hopefully demonstrates that many of the broad concerns expressed in today’s debate and elsewhere in the House over the years are being taken seriously and acted on by our colleagues north of the border.
I will finish with some personal reflections. As part of a crowd of some 4,000 people in the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre, I saw the Dalai Lama 11 years ago when he visited Scotland. I was struck by how, even with such a vast crowd, he appeared to be addressing each of us individually. It is important to recognise the importance of spiritual leaders to the world. Today, Pope Francis has released an encyclical that includes a radical and prophetic call for environmental justice and care for creation. That is particularly important when we consider pollution and climate change, particularly in the Himalayan region that the hon. Member for Leeds North East spoke about. My maiden speech was on the theme of justice and peace around the world, and peace must be built on respect for human rights and democracy, whether in Tibet or elsewhere. The dignity of human beings and their fundamental right to be agents of their own destiny are hugely important, and that should be the start and ending point of any such debate.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
The hon. Gentleman was speaking on behalf of the Scottish National party as the third party. Normally, I would now call the spokesman for Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. However, with the leave of the Chamber, I shall call Mr Nic Dakin.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Gray. It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship. You have just demonstrated its great clarity in making that decision. It is also a pleasure to follow the spokesperson for the Scottish National party, who gave us a good picture of what is going on in Scotland, which is replicated across all the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. In this Chamber, we are concerned to look at how the United Kingdom and its Government respond on our behalf on this important matter.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who has been a doughty campaigner on Tibetan rights for many years. We got the full sense of that through the comprehensive way in which he laid out the issues in terms of the international perspective and the UK perspective, as well as issues more germane to our domestic policy.
I want to pick up on the words of Sarah Sewall, the US Government’s Under-Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights, because they capture the essence of the issue. Speaking at an event recently, she said:
“The problem of Tibet is, of course, also a problem for China. For the United States, just as for many countries represented here today, China is a vital strategic partner, and we welcome its participation and leadership in the web of international norms, laws and practices that have helped preserve global stability since the end of World War II. As we look at the past 70 years, one of the key long term lessons is the cost and fragility of the repressive state. Thus, as we look for China to play a growing role in the international community, we also look for it to abide by its international commitments with respect to the human rights of people in Tibet.”
That captures the challenges of the moment and of our time. China is an important strategic partner, and the Chinese people are terribly important to the world’s future, but if China is to be a truly modern state, taking its place in the world and showing the leadership I am sure the Chinese Premier wishes it to, it needs to step up to the plate and behave in a way that recognises the human rights of others.
In a sense, Tibet is symbolic of all that. China will have to get its head around how to respond to Tibet in a 21st century way, so that it does not become or remain a repressive state, because as a repressive state it cannot realise its full potential and take its full place in the world. That is an issue not only for the Tibetan people but for the Chinese people—it is a global issue.
We have an excellent Minister who I am sure will rise to the challenge when he responds. The UK Government, in various manifestations, have a good record on Tibet. That does not mean that they please everyone or that there are not voices saying, “The UK Government should be doing more,” and it is right and proper that the voices in this debate have tested the Government, but they have a good record on Tibet. I am confident and hopeful that, when he responds, the Minister will give us a strong sense of forward direction in friendship and support of both the Tibetan and Chinese peoples, because they are important not only for us, but for the world.
Thank you for allowing me to join the debate rather late, Mr Gray.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this debate. As has already been said, he has done a tremendous amount of work and advocacy in support of the people of Tibet over the years. Having visited Tibet himself and worked with the exiled Tibetan community in Dharamshala, he provides valuable insight. I was present for his speech in the Chamber last year on International Human Rights Day, when he conveyed the profound beauty of Tibet, which too often provides the backdrop for scenes of grotesque suffering. I will return to that.
I should begin by stating that China’s sovereignty is not in question. We recognise Tibet as part of China, but we support genuine autonomy for Tibet and recognise that that is what His Holiness the Dalai Lama is seeking. The Dalai Lama’s middle-way approach is about not independence, but autonomy that respects the rights and culture of Tibet. Of course, they are not currently being protected, as we heard in compelling detail from my hon. Friend. China must recognise that a more authoritarian approach will not strengthen its sovereignty; it will only diminish its moral authority.
The international community must raise concerns about the treatment of Tibet, but we recognise that the issues can be resolved only by meaningful dialogue between the Chinese Government and representatives of the Dalai Lama. Disappointingly, we are now into the fifth year without talks, making it all the more important that both the UK and the EU do everything they can to promote a resumption of dialogue. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are currently doing on that front?
Autonomy is a matter for China and Tibet, but human rights should be a concern for all nations and all peoples. As we have heard, freedom of expression is severely restricted in Tibet: websites are blocked and violence and intimidation are used as means of repression. There have also been worrying signs that the situation is deteriorating, with China expanding its police and military presence. Tibetans’ religion and loyalty to the Dalai Lama is a particular concern to China, and over the past year we have seen greater efforts to restrict religious expression. Photos of the Dalai Lama are banned, and so too are songs praising him; monks are at particular risk of persecution and must seek permission to travel; and nuns have been expelled from their nunnery for refusing to denounce the Dalai Lama.
In March, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief warned that China’s actions are
“really destroying the autonomy of religious communities”.
Tibetans’ cultural identity is also being undermined: their language is under threat, their flag is banned, and last year China announced a programme to help local artists to
“form a correct view of art”—
chilling words. In addition, musicians are being detained on charges of separatism. We have heard about the Chineseification of Tibet, and it is feared that the development of Lhasa and the InterContinental resort will mean that Tibetan culture is further subjugated.
Those deemed to be on the wrong side of the authorities have been subject to excessive force—we have heard about the number of political prisoners, many of whom have died from injuries sustained in prison. Last August, Tibetans protesting against the detention of village leader Dema Wangdak were met with tear gas and live ammunition. Protestors have been injured and jailed for demonstrating against mining, and people have even been jailed for messaging each other about an anti-fur campaign.
There are many other examples—we have heard some from my hon. Friend—but the self-immolations are the most shocking evidence of the extent to which freedom of expression and peaceful protest are restricted in Tibet, as well as of the length to which people will go to try to make their cause heard. Last month, a mother of two children resorted to self-immolation. The Chinese authorities reportedly then arrested a family member and ordered others to lie about her death.
There were at least 10 self-immolations last year, and there have already been five this year, bringing the known total to 140, the majority of whom will have died. As I said in the debate in December last year, self-immolation is a harrowing indictment of human rights in Tibet, and it is shameful that it continues. Criminalising bereaved relatives is not preventing the self-immolations—of course, it would not. The solution is dialogue with the Dalai Lama’s representatives and an end to repressive practices. Since December’s debate, there have been further steps backwards. For example, it has been announced that monks and nuns will come under even greater scrutiny and must “educate themselves in patriotism”, and 20 new rules have been issued to prevent perceived “splittist” behaviour.
My hon. Friend mentioned a number of cases. I remember that last year he highlighted the case of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, whom he mentioned again today, a senior monk whose death sentence on false charges was commuted to life imprisonment. There are serious concerns about his deteriorating health. Last year, the Minister told us that he shared our concerns about Tenzin Delek’s conviction and wellbeing, and said that he had urged the consideration of parole on medical grounds. Last week, the Tibet Society issued an urgent appeal because the parole request has still not been considered. I hope that we hear from the Minister on that.
Over recent months, and indeed years, there has been very little progress, stalled talks and a number of worrying developments. China has even sought to put pressure on other Governments and isolate the Dalai Lama, as we saw after the Prime Minister rightly met the Dalai Lama, and when South Africa denied His Holiness a visa to attend the peace summit for Nobel laureates.
Tibetans have tried to protest their cause peacefully, with dignity and restraint, but China’s failure to engage and steadfast refusal to consider genuine autonomy suggests that it does not recognise such a measured approach. It is a missed opportunity for China to reach a positive agreement that enables Tibetans to live peacefully in accordance with their culture and religion in a stable Chinese Tibet autonomous region. China is also missing the opportunity to demonstrate to the international community that it can engage on human rights, and that it is a genuinely outward-looking, forward-thinking nation with a leading role to play in the international community.
China’s global role is not in doubt. The UK values our bilateral relationship with China. We want a strong partnership, and the Government should look to work constructively with China on a whole range of strategic issues, as is happening in some areas. Nevertheless, we cannot let that work inhibit us when it comes to universal principles of human rights. The Government cannot allow the UK’s message on human rights to be undermined by an inconsistent approach. Of course, it is somewhat difficult for the UK Government to send that message to China when they themselves are threatening to renege on international human right agreements—although perhaps that is a debate for another time.
We heard in the debate in December—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s latest human rights and democracy report also emphasises this—that the Government continue to raise Tibet as part of the UK- China human rights dialogue. That should be an important part of our bilateral relationship, yet the dialogue seemed to be held rather sporadically during the previous Parliament; indeed, my understanding is that China cancelled some sessions. Will the Minister advise us on how effective he thinks the dialogues have been, and on the extent to which he feels China has taken our concerns on board? We know that the Government have urged the Chinese authorities to exercise restraint in Tibet, but does he think that they have done so, and, if so, was that in response to the Government’s urging?
From what we have heard today, it does not seem that the UK has been particularly influential. I appreciate that it is not an easy task, but is the Minister able to tell us what progress he thinks the Government can make during President Xi Jinping’s state visit later this year? Was the decision to invite the President a response to agreement from the Chinese Government on any areas of concern? Encouragingly, the FCO’s human rights and democracy report noted that a UK diplomat had been granted permission to visit the Tibet autonomous region—the first such visit for three years. I would be grateful for any information the Minister has on China’s response to the UK’s request for unrestricted access for international journalists, non-governmental organisations and diplomats. Can he also confirm that the Government have made representations in support of a visit from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who has, we understand, been in discussions with China directly?
My hon. Friend touched on several other issues. During December’s debate, a number of hon. Members expressed concerns about the impact of mining in Tibet, not least following Greenpeace’s report exposing illegal mining on the Tibetan plateau; Tibetans have faced severe punishments for challenging that mining. The Minister had limited time during the last debate and was unable to comment in detail on that, but I am sure that he has enough time now to tell us whether the UK has had any discussions with Chinese authorities or with mining companies on those mining operations.
Tibet was described earlier as an environmental barometer and is sometime called the third pole. Its susceptibility to climate change makes it all the more important that China demonstrates responsible environmental stewardship as part of its welcome international commitments to tackling climate change. With the Paris talks taking place in December, this year is incredibly important for international climate dialogue. China has made some welcome moves towards taking a stronger position in Paris this year, but has Tibet, given its particular environmental sensitivities, formed part of the discussions?
Finally, my hon. Friend mentioned the Nepal earthquake, which also led to people in Tibet losing their lives. The impact on Tibetan refugees in Nepal is important, and I hope that the Minister touches on that.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) both on his re-election—I am sorry that he was not elected to the chairmanship of the Select Committee on International Development—and on securing a second debate on Tibet, maintaining the momentum that followed the debate in Westminster Hall on 10 December last year. I said during that debate that Tibet commands great interest and that such matters should continue to be raised regularly in the House. I am glad that he took me at my word and has given us the opportunity to debate the issue in greater detail this afternoon.
The UK’s relationship with China—I gently remind the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) that the UK or British Government handle relations with overseas countries—is both strong and important. Our co-operation on shared interests and challenges is broadening and deepening by the day. We have a shared interest in a peaceful and prosperous China, which includes Tibet. Let me reaffirm that it is the clear position of the British Government that Tibet is part of the People’s Republic of China, and that we do not support Tibetan independence. The Prime Minister reaffirmed that position during the UK-China summit in June 2014. I am aware that some hon. Members—and indeed some who follow Tibet closely—question the UK’s stance, but the Dalai Lama himself has publicly said that he does not call for independence. I wish to state the Government’s position, and that of the official Opposition, publicly and clearly to avoid any ambiguity.
As the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on 10 June, our relationship with China has never been closer. We engage on a wide range of subjects, both in areas where we work closely together and in others where we may have different views. China is now the UK’s 6th largest export partner, and the UK is Europe’s No. 1 destination for Chinese foreign direct investment. Visa applications are up 20% year on year. 2015 will be a particularly important year; it started with His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge’s visit to China in March, will culminate in President Xi’s state visit to the UK in October, and is punctuated by a range of dialogues. Such high-level visits and dialogues are a key part of our engagement with China. They are underpinned by concrete commitments, activities and shared agendas, all of which help to deliver a partnership for growth, reform and innovation in the interests of shared prosperity and security in the UK, China and the world.
I want to turn to Tibet and human rights, which many hon. Members rightly raised, but before I do, I should like to mention the devastating Nepal earthquake in April. Its effects were felt in the wider region, including in Tibet, where a number of people lost their lives and at least 2,500 people were relocated to temporary settlements. I extend the Government’s deepest condolences to all those who have lost family and loved ones. Like the UK, China has responded quickly to the international effort and has been involved in search-and-rescue attempts and offered medical assistance. Within China, the central Government have also released emergency funds to help reconstruction in Tibet.
Despite the pressures that natural disasters and other challenges may bring, I am pleased to report that rapid economic growth has raised living standards across China and has improved access to a range of social and economic rights. In Tibet, investment in education, healthcare and employment has led to a doubling in life expectancy since the early 1950s. It is essential that that growth across China, including in Tibet, is underpinned by the rule of law and full respect for human rights, as guaranteed by the Chinese constitution. We watched China’s fourth plenum with interest; we welcomed President Xi’s commitment to move to a more independent, transparent and professional legal system, and the further commitment to ensure that China is ruled according to the law, with human rights fully protected, by 2020.
Of course, as the Chinese Government have acknowledged, proper implementation of the announced reforms will be paramount. That is why the UK is sharing with the Chinese authorities its own experiences, many ongoing, of domestic legal reforms, and why we continue to raise cases of alleged human rights violations directly with Chinese officials at all levels, at the United Nations Human Rights Council, and at the annual UK-China human rights dialogue, the 22nd round of which took place in Beijing in April, focusing on judicial reform and identifying common ground for future co-operation.
Specifically on Tibet, the Chinese Government have been clear in their commitment that Tibetans should share the same social and economic rights as the rest of China. Nevertheless, we have specific and long-standing concerns, particularly in three areas, all of which should be protected under the Chinese constitution. First are ethnic minority rights, because everyone must have the right to enjoy their own unique culture and language, wherever they live, without fear of discrimination. Second is freedom of religion or belief, which is one of this Government’s core human rights priorities. Third is freedom of expression.
The hon. Member for Leeds North East mentioned counter-terrorism. We have a regular dialogue with China on such issues, and held the last round of the UK-China counter-terrorism dialogue in London. Through the EU, we have contributed comments on proposed legislation, including non-governmental organisation laws, and we continue to monitor the development of such laws extremely closely.
As in the debate in December, much focus this afternoon has been on freedom of expression. We remain concerned that many individuals are detained for the peaceful expression of their views. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East, mentioned Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, who was discussed during the human rights dialogue in April and who continues to suffer from ill health in detention. We again urge the Chinese authorities to ensure that, while detained, all such people have access to adequate medical care or, in severe cases such as Tenzin’s, are released on medical parole.
Several self-immolations in Tibetan areas have been reported in the past few years. Disproportionate force, sometimes lethal, is also reported to have been used to disrupt peaceful protests. We maintain our belief that the best way to address and resolve the underlying differences between Tibetan communities and the Chinese Government is meaningful dialogue. We have made that point in our discussions with the Chinese Government, including in our annual human rights dialogue. We will continue to work with China for the protection of citizens’ constitutional rights, in line with the international frameworks to which China is a party.
Various hon. Members raised the issue of the Panchen Lama, which we continue to raise with Chinese authorities. We have urged them to ensure that the restrictions on his freedom of movement and communication are lifted, so that he may select the career, education or religious life of his choosing, wherever he is. We continue to support calls by the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child for the relevant authorities to facilitate a meeting between the Panchen Lama and independent international observers.
A number of hon. Members talked about issues to do with the Tibetan plateau. I assure the House that we continue to work closely with the Chinese Government on all environmental issues. As set out in the UK-China joint statement on climate change, our shared objective is agreement of an ambitious global deal from the international negotiations in Paris this year, alongside substantial domestic action to reduce emissions. We also encourage the adoption of better governance in the extractive industries. It is important that high standards are applied throughout China, including in the Tibetan autonomous region, and by Chinese companies operating internationally.
As part of our dialogue and co-operation, we have made it clear that improving understanding through international access to Tibet is important, both for diplomats and for the wider international community, including journalists. We are disappointed that foreign journalists and diplomats are regularly refused access to the Tibetan autonomous region. We regularly visit ethnic minority groups, including in Tibetan areas, and we continue to press for access to the Tibetan autonomous region. As the hon. Member for Bristol East pointed out, a British diplomat was granted access to the TAR in June 2014 for the first time in three years. In answer to her question, we have one request pending and Her Majesty’s ambassador in Beijing is also considering an application.
In answer to the hon. Lady’s other question, three UN special rapporteurs intend to visit China this year, although their schedules remain unknown: the special rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; the special rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation; and the independent expert on the effects of foreign debt. China has also invited the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to visit, but dates are still being agreed.
Finally, I will respond to the points made about the Dalai Lama. Let me reaffirm that the Government regard the Dalai Lama as an important religious figure and esteemed Nobel laureate. He has visited the UK on numerous occasions, and I understand that he is headlining at Glastonbury in the run-up to his 80th birthday in July. As to any protection required by the Dalai Lama or his party, visits of that sort—as the House knows—are subject to a routine threat assessment. We will certainly be keeping this and subsequent visits under review.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is not in the Chamber, raised the issue of the Confucius Institutes and the Chinese cultural centres. We are strongly supportive of links between educational institutions in the UK and China. It is true that we have seen significant growth in student numbers from both sides. Our higher education institutions have a great deal of autonomy and the right to accept funding from where they see fit. That said, a commitment to free speech is at the heart of UK educational philosophy, and the autonomy of educational institutions is extremely important. The Confucius Institutes have been raised with me before. For the record, we are not aware of any evidence to suggest that they are compromising those principles in the UK, but we remain alert to any impropriety or allegations of impropriety.
The hon. Member for Leeds North East spoke about the World Service, and he will be aware of its new arrangements. It will make an assessment of where its funds are best employed and where it can reach the best audiences. I suggest that he approaches the World Service himself; it is for the Foreign Secretary to agree, rather than to initiate, where new World Service broadcasts should be made.
In conclusion, I fundamentally disagree with those who say that we are neglecting the interests of Tibetans. A broad, deep, equal partnership with a strong China is a prerequisite for being able to discuss sensitive issues such as Tibet. We will continue to do that as we deepen our relationship with China—a relationship that is in all our interests. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North East for providing the opportunity to debate this important issue and allowing me to restate the Government’s position. I have a sneaking feeling that this is a subject to which he and other hon. Members will return—quite properly—on a regular basis.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed this afternoon. I thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for her speech and the Minister for his responses to my points and those of other hon. Members.
As the Minister says, the subject will continue to be debated in this place—rightly so. As long as this Parliament is the centre of free speech and debate in our nation, I am absolutely sure that the rights of the Tibetan people will be one of the subjects with which we will be concerned, until any injustices are put right. I thank everyone for this afternoon’s contributions, and I hope that we will be able to debate this subject again in future and see progress on behalf of the Tibetan people.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Tibet.
Written Statements
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Local Planning
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
I am today setting out new considerations to be applied to proposed wind energy development so that local people have the final say on wind farm applications, fulfilling the commitment made in the Conservative election manifesto.
Subject to the transitional provision set out below, these considerations will take effect from 18 June and should be taken into account in planning decisions. I am also making a limited number of consequential changes to planning guidance.
When determining planning applications for wind energy development involving one or more wind turbines, local planning authorities should only grant planning permission if:
the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a local or neighbourhood plan; and
following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing.
In applying these new considerations, suitable areas for wind energy development will need to have been allocated clearly in a local or neighbourhood plan. Maps showing the wind resource as favourable to wind turbines, or similar, will not be sufficient. Whether a proposal has the backing of the affected local community is a planning judgment for the local planning authority.
Where a valid planning application for a wind energy development has already been submitted to a local planning authority and the development plan does not identify suitable sites, the following transitional provision applies. In such instances, local planning authorities can find the proposal acceptable if, following consultation, they are satisfied it has addressed the planning impacts identified by affected local communities and therefore has their backing.
[HCWS42]
Onshore Wind Subsidies
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
The Government are committed to meeting objectives on cutting carbon emissions and the UK’s 2020 renewable energy targets. Onshore wind has deployed successfully to date and is an important part of our energy mix. We now have enough onshore wind in the pipeline, to be subsidised by bill payers through the renewable obligation or contracts for difference, for onshore wind to play a significant part in meeting our renewable energy commitments. The Government were elected with a commitment to end new subsidies for onshore wind and to change the law so that local people have the final say on onshore wind farm applications. We are now giving effect to these changes in full through the introduction of an Energy Bill this Session. The Energy Bill will devolve powers out of Whitehall so that applications for onshore wind farms are considered by democratically elected councils.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is today making a statement on onshore wind development and local planning in England. This will set out new considerations to be applied to proposed wind energy development so that local people have the final say on wind farm applications.
I am now setting out proposals to end new subsidies for onshore wind, specifically in relation to the renewables obligation (RO). Onshore wind is currently subsidised through three schemes: contracts for difference (CfDs) introduced by the last Government, and the renewables obligation and feed-in tariffs introduced previously.
With regard to CfDs, we have the tools available to implement our manifesto commitments on onshore wind and I will set out how I will do so when announcing plans in relation to further CfD allocations. I will also shortly be considering options for continued support for community onshore wind projects through the feed-in tariff (FITs) as part of the review that my Department is conducting this year.
The RO supports the overwhelming majority of current and future onshore wind capacity. Unlike CfDs, which introduce competition for subsidy and therefore drive costs down more quickly, the RO is demand-led and so poses more risk of pressure on consumer bills from increased demand for the subsidy. I am therefore announcing today that we will be introducing primary legislation to close the RO to new onshore wind from 1 April 2016—a year earlier than planned.
My Department’s analysis indicates that, after taking into account an early closure, onshore wind deployment under the RO will be in the region of 11.6 GW. In addition to the 0.75 GW of onshore wind that has secured a CfD, this puts us above the middle of the range set out in the EMR delivery plan, our best estimate of what we would need to meet our 2020 targets. It is therefore appropriate to curtail further deployment of onshore wind, balancing the interests of onshore wind developers with those of the wider public.
To protect investor confidence in the wider renewables sector, I am proposing a grace period which would continue to give access to support under the RO to those projects which, as of today, already have planning consent, a grid connection offer and acceptance, and evidence of land rights for the site on which their project will be built. I believe this draws the line in the right place but I want to hear views from the industry and other stakeholders before framing the terms of the legislation.
I intend that any final proposals are applied across Great Britain and I am in the process of consulting Scottish and Welsh Ministers on this matter. Since energy policy is devolved in Northern Ireland, I am currently in discussions with Ministers there to agree how our commitments on onshore wind will be implemented in Northern Ireland.
[HCWS40]
Palace of Westminster (Restoration and Renewal)
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Paul Beresford
(Representing the House of Commons Commission): An independent appraisal of options for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster is published today. It was requested by the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords House Committee in the last Parliament following a pre-feasibility study and preliminary strategic business case which was published in October 2012. The new study has been carried out by a consortium consisting of Deloitte Real Estate, AECOM and HOK. The IOA (together with two volumes of detailed supporting materials) is available on the Parliament website at: www.restorationand renewal. parliament.uk.
The restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster will be a major challenge facing Parliament in the coming years and is certain to be a matter of public interest. The process to establish a Joint Committee, which will make recommendations to both Houses on how to proceed, is already under way. It will be for the Joint Committee to decide how best to carry out its task.
[HCWS43]
EU Transport Council
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I attended the second Transport Council under the Latvian presidency (the presidency) in Luxembourg on Thursday 11 June.
The Council adopted a general approach on the proposed directive laying down technical standards for inland waterway vessels. There was broad support from member states and the Commission for both the text and the related creation of the European Committee for Inland Navigation Standards (CESNI). The Commission indicated that it would now attempt to capitalise on this success by looking to harmonise other standards in the inland waterway sector, including training for crew.
The presidency appreciated the support of all member states and the Commission in their efforts to reach agreement with the European Parliament on the complex technical pillar of the fourth railway package.
On the market pillar, however, the presidency was clear that more time was needed. I welcomed the improvements to date to address concerns on over-regulation but pressed that more needed to be done to ensure that competition could flourish and rail continued to be an attractive investment. In highlighting the success of the UK’s liberalised and competitive rail market, I invited other member states to visit the UK to learn from our experience. The main point of contention was the nature of possible exemptions from competitive tendering with the Commission supporting an exemption based on performance criteria while some member states called for an exemption based on their share of the EU rail market being less than 1%. I strongly pressed that any exemptions to competitive tendering had to be based on objective criteria and fully justified.
On air passenger rights, the presidency presented its progress report.
I underlined the UK’s strong support for the improvements in air passenger rights while reinforcing our position that the balanced and proportionate trigger points of 5/9/12 hours should be maintained, a view strongly echoed by some member states. I also voiced strong concerns on the proposed inclusion of a compensation scheme for missed connecting flights, highlighting the negative impacts for both passengers and airlines. Two member states called for a lower trigger point of three hours with another suggesting anything other than including three hours in line with interpretative case law from CJEU rulings was a step backwards in passenger rights. There was no discussion on the application of the regulation to Gibraltar airport.
Under any other business, the Commission presented the conclusions of its interim evaluation on road safety, taking stock of progress towards the 50% reduction in fatalities by 2020. With regards to next steps the Commission indicated that it was considering proposing a target for reducing serious injuries.
On the Trans-European Network—Transport (TEN-T) and Connecting Europe facility (CEF), the Christophersen- Bodewig-Secchi report which looks at making the best use of the new EU financial schemes for transport infrastructure projects, was presented. The authors called for urgent action to ensure the success of the European fund for strategic investments (EFSI) for the transport sector and presented 12 recommendations for bringing private capital to the transport sector. The Commissioner invited member state views on these recommendations ahead of the TEN-T days set to take place in Riga on 22 and 23 June.
The presidency presented the outcome of the third Asia-Europe meeting (ASEM) Transport Ministers’ meeting where ASEM member countries made a strong commitment to fostering closer co-operation in the field of transport connectivity.
The Commission updated the Council on the Shift2Rail research and innovation programme. The Commission regretted the delay in the recruitment of the executive director but considered the remainder of the programme was on track. I joined several member states in thanking the Commission for the update and encouraging all efforts to ensure an accelerated deployment of the programme.
The Luxembourg Minister for Sustainable Development and Infrastructure presented the work programme of their upcoming presidency stating their focus would remain on the fourth railway package and achieving a general approach on the market pillar by the October Transport Council. He invited Ministers to an informal Council on 7 October focusing on cycling, followed by the formal Council on 8 October where there would be a policy debate on the Commission’s review of its transport white paper. At the December Council there would be a policy debate on social conditions in road transport.
[HCWS41]
Corruption
Lord Rooker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the level of corruption in the United Kingdom in the light of the recent report of Transparency International UK, Corruption on your Doorstep—How corrupt capital is used to buy property in the UK.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I want to seek the Government’s view on the contents of the report entitled, Corruption on your Doorstep—How corrupt capital is being used to buy property in the UK, published by Transparency International UK in mid-March. This quite remarkable report analysed data from the entire corporate holdings of property in England and Wales at the Land Registry and matched them with the files of the Metropolitan Police’s Proceeds of Corruption Unit. It found that 75% of properties under criminal investigation use offshore corporate “secrecy jurisdictions”. This is where the legal system has a deliberate veil of secrecy that obscures the identity of those arranging corporate structures.
More than £180 million-worth of property in the UK has been brought under criminal investigation as the suspected proceeds of crime since 2004. This is believed to be the tip of the iceberg. Some 40,725 London property titles are held by foreign companies, and they occupy, by the way, 70 million square feet, which is two and a half square miles. Moreover, 89.2% of these are incorporated in a secrecy jurisdiction—some 36,342 properties. Of these, 38% were registered in the Virgin Islands and 16% in Jersey. In 2011 alone, £3.8 billion-worth of UK property was bought by British Virgin Islands-registered companies.
It is crystal clear that UK Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories are the preferred option for concealment for those under investigation. Indeed, by cross-checking the files, the report makes it clear that 100% of overseas trusts and companies that hold titles for UK property under investigation for grand corruption are registered in offshore financial jurisdictions, rather than in major economies. In three London boroughs, an astonishing number of properties are owned by companies in an offshore secrecy jurisdiction. In Westminster, the figure is 9.3%; in Kensington and Chelsea it is 7.3%; and in the City of London it is 4.5%.
The Prime Minister, to his credit, has done more than his predecessors in trying to get to grips with international money laundering. His moral compass is working somewhat better than others’ in this respect. He requested in 2014 that all British Overseas Territories make changes so there is public transparency regarding who owns companies and trusts. None has taken up the request to do this. Two considered it and then said no. We therefore need unilateral action to address the risks posed to the UK.
UK property is a safe haven in an unstable world, but it should not be a safe haven for corrupt capital stolen from around the world, much of it from poor countries, helped by laws that allow UK property to be owned by secret offshore companies. For example, it has been estimated that more than $1 trillion has been taken out of developing countries—poor countries—through a web of corrupt activities, adding to global poverty. The Transparency International report made 10 recommendations, four to the Government direct, four to HMRC and two to the Land Registry. I would like a response to all these in due course, but today I will highlight just four. The first is indeed the key recommendation in the report: that, before completing a purchase on a property, overseas companies should be required to submit to the Land Registry the same details that UK-registered companies must submit to Companies House. This will establish transparency regarding who owns the companies that, in turn, own so much property in the UK.
The second recommendation is that estate agents’ anti-money laundering responsibility should be extended to include due diligence checks on the purchaser, not just the seller. At present, the legal responsibility on estate agents is only to check one side of a property transaction. Of course, in theory purchasers should have been checked by their own legal representatives. However, under Section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, such representatives and advisers do not commit an offence if they fail to report suspicious activities that they learned about in “privileged circumstances”. Of course, many court cases have extended the area of privileged activities. In the last decade there has been an 82% fall in suspicious activity reports from solicitors. This just shows the scale of the problem. I understand the reason for Section 330 but let us require the estate agents to vet both sides. That is the easy and practical solution.
Thirdly, there should be greater co-ordination between the 27 anti-money laundering supervisors in the UK. Some of these have responsibility for parties involved in money laundering through property and the suggestion is that the Treasury should regularly convene a property working group for all the anti-money laundering supervisors with responsibility for property transactions.
I had a brief discussion with Transparency International and these are the three top issues from its report to highlight today. There is a fourth. The Government should consider introducing unexplained wealth orders—UWOs—and explore the feasibility of using this mechanism in the UK. It was not in the original report but Transparency International launched a discussion paper on unexplained wealth orders on 10 June and it was extensively covered in, for example, the Financial Times. Suffice to say, there were 354,186 suspicious activity reports filed in 2014 with the National Crime Agency. These led to 14,155 consent requests effectively to cover the backsides of the companies involved so that if they got caught out later they could say they had consent. Of these, 94 went to the Proceeds of Corruption Unit and only seven got refused.
If we had unexplained wealth orders, failure to respond to such an order or an inadequate response could then be used along with the initial grounds of suspicion in a recovery process against the asset by our law enforcement authorities. It is a serious issue because the director general of the National Crime Agency said in January that,
“the scale of money laundering is a strategic threat to the UK”.
It is clear that the prevalence of UK property holding by companies incorporated in secrecy jurisdictions is a major barrier to law enforcement. Of course, the percentage of properties purchased with illicit money is tiny compared to the market, but the values are huge. The £180 million I mentioned earlier referred to just 120 properties. We are talking about prime London property, not the mainstream property bought by those working here from overseas.
Further, our law enforcement agencies are not helped by the fact that the Land Registry does not record the value of all sales. That is a massive loophole that should be closed pdq. According to KPMG, the United Kingdom attracts the highest foreign investment volumes in European markets. In the first half of 2014 it was £24 billion, ahead of Germany at £16 billion. This is big money. Added to this, the UK has 250 foreign banks—more than any other country in the world. International investment into prime London was more than £7 billion in 2012. Savills’ 2013 report stated that 90% of new-build luxury properties were bought by overseas buyers. After the 2013 G8 summit—where the Prime Minister made his commitments, by the way—the UK was the first national jurisdiction to put forward legislation to enable a public registry of beneficial ownership. The Prime Minister was trying to deliver it via the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act—but even that is being got around. While I was searching the files and reading the papers I saw a report in the Financial Times on 6 June headlined “Transparency rules leave loophole, law firm claims”. The first paragraph read:
“A leading law firm has told wealthy clients they can avoid ‘unwanted public scrutiny’ from the new transparency laws, in a sign of widely criticised loopholes in the legislation championed by David Cameron”.
So there is work to be done in this area. I want to know, as do Transparency International and its supporters, what the Government are going to do. They have moved incredibly well, as I have said. I have paid tribute to the work of the Prime Minister, but the Transparency International report quotes extensively from key, named UK law enforcement officers about the problems that they have in this area. It seems to me that accepting their modest, considered recommendations would be giving our own law enforcement people the tools to do the job. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response in due course.
Lord Graham of Edmonton (Lab)
My Lords, I first congratulate my colleague for his initiative in bringing to our attention aspects which I think deserve to be better treated. I ask you to switch your minds to the other end of the spectrum: from talking about houses that have been built deliberately and sell for many millions of pounds to the right-to-buy sector at the other end of the housing market. It was during the period when I was the Member of Parliament for Edmonton—now 40 years ago—that the idea of selling council houses to tenants emerged. I have no objection to that. The argument then was that people had been there for many years, their families were bedded in and they wanted to live there. That coincided with the then Government’s property-owning democracy, which is what they were telling people it was all about.
In my time in Edmonton, by the time things were sorted out you were offered the occupation and ownership of your house for perhaps £5,000 or £6,000. You had to keep it for five years but then you had the right to sell it, and many people did. The nexus that I want the House to record is what happened after that. The right to sell your own house is certainly, in the year of Magna Carta, a right you are entitled to have. But then what happens to the housing situation? People who were proud and grateful to have a house built by direct labour in Edmonton suddenly found that the house they looked forward to leaving to their children was no longer there because it had been sold. When it was sold it was sold and sold again. A house costing less than £10,000 in the early 1980s is now on the market for many hundreds of thousands of pounds, as are flats. You might say this is marvellous, and along the chain, the people who bought and sold made money. My direct question to the Government is: do they have a mechanism to trace what happens to the properties after they are sold?
A couple who operate in the Ashford area own 1,000 homes, which they rent out. The argument is that there are people who need housing and the people that they house, in the main, are immigrants, families who have difficulty getting on to a housing list and so on. They not only have in their portfolio 1,000 units, but they are preparing their portfolio for sale. In an article that I read—a copy of which I am glad to give to the Minister—they say they have already decided to sell their portfolio, and they have had estimates of £100 million for their property.
I simply say to the Minister that he and his colleagues should think very hard about the fact that these houses were built in order to accommodate poor people who were living in dreadful, overcrowded conditions. Twice in my time as the Member of Parliament for Edmonton, I left my surgery, sat in my car and cried because of the conditions—twice in 10 years. A home, a house, which you can call your own is priceless in that situation.
We need to understand that people are ruthless in lining their own pockets. It is now 30 years since I was the Member of Parliament for Edmonton, and in my time evidence was already growing in the Tottenham, Enfield and Southgate area that what I would call villains were at large and causing mayhem among people who were desperate. The Government should at least be able to tell me that they are monitoring the situation. At one time, there might have been one or two people with a portfolio of 10 or 12 houses, which they were entitled to, but the man from the couple I referred to earlier—I will not give a name—says that if tenants have more than two children, if they are on a zero-hours contract, if granny moves in or if they are on housing benefit and at risk of not paying the rent, then they are going to evict them. Here you have a situation where people are evicted, under the law, from their home, for which they paid rent. We are not talking about a few pounds’ rent: some people pay £200 a week and are assisted by all sorts of government agencies.
One end of this is now being looked at very closely thanks to my noble friend Lord Rooker—Jeff—and then there is the other end of it. One can ask what Labour did in the 13 years that we were in a position to do something about it. I am afraid that housing in this country is in a mess and has been for a very long time. If the Minister wants to make a name for himself, he ought to be telling me and other noble Lords that there is a solution. There is no solution, because it is so difficult, but I wanted to put on record the fact that housing is the greatest single cause of unhappiness in our communities. I rest my case.
Baroness Stern (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who brings a wealth of experience from a lifetime trying to better the conditions of disadvantaged people in this country. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for initiating this very worthwhile debate and for introducing it so effectively.
In my view, corruption is one of the most damaging of the many current ills of the world. I come to this from what I know about the other end of events—those events that lead to corrupt money being used to buy luxury homes in London. I am thinking of a country I know where the people are very poor, and where in the winter, when it gets very cold, they have electricity for just five hours a day, if they are lucky. I am thinking of the woman who opens a little shop to sell embroidered products, and she discovers that 25% of what she makes has to go to someone connected to the President’s family, otherwise—although she is not doing anything wrong—her shop will be closed by the tax authorities.
I was very privileged to be at the founding meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Corruption in 2011, when John Githongo from Kenya spoke about his experiences from 2002 to 2005 as the Permanent Secretary for Governance and Ethics in the Kibaki Government. He explained why he eventually resigned, death threats being one reason; they were presumed to have come from those whose corruption was in danger of being uncovered by his office. Eventually he had to leave his country in a great hurry. He had a very powerful impact on his audience and on me, and subsequently I was privileged to become an officer of that APPG.
This debate provides a very welcome opportunity to thank Transparency International for this excellent report, which was so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. It also provides an opportunity to show appreciation of the excellent organisations that highlight corruption, particularly Global Witness. Last year, the all-party group organised a visit for Members to the City of London Corporation and the City of London Police, and then a tour around the banks in the City led by Stuart McWilliam from Global Witness. We gathered at the entrance of a number of the big banks, one after the other, and he listed for us all the on-the-record actions of each bank that had assisted corruption in other parts of the world. It was an eye-opener.
Central Asia is a part of the world I know quite well, and one sees there all the time the effect of corruption on the people and their everyday lives. That brings me to the core issue of the Transparency International report: houses bought with laundered money, corruptly obtained. Kyrgyzstan became an independent country in 1991. I was very lucky to be there at the second anniversary of that independence, and I remember well the atmosphere of hope and excitement, and the huge enthusiasm for being able to live in a different way. It is therefore very sad to read that their democracy has not had an easy path, and corruption has become a large problem for them.
The case of Maxim Bakiyev, the son of the former Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev, is an illustration. Maxim Bakiyev came to the UK when his father was ousted from government by a popular uprising against the corruption practised by the Government. According to Global Witness in its report, Blood Red Carpet, Maxim Bakiyev arrived in a private jet in June 2010, and in August he took up residence in a new luxury property in Surrey, bought for £3.5 million by a company registered in Belize called Limium Partners Limited. At that time he was apparently under an Interpol red notice because of his role in the corruption case going through the courts in Kyrgyzstan. Apparently he has been living here ever since. Belize is one of the secrecy jurisdictions referred to in Transparency International’s report, so we do not know for sure who, ultimately, owns the company Limium, but Global Witness claims that the evidence that Bakiyev is the beneficial owner is overwhelming and it is highly probable that the money with which the house was bought is linked to the large amounts that left Kyrgyzstan corruptly during the Bakiyev years.
The case of Maxim Bakiyev’s house in Surrey has been exposed. This happens rarely. We know about the Hampstead home of James Ibori, a former state governor from Nigeria, and about Saif Gaddafi’s property, also in Hampstead, which was recovered by the Libyan Transitional Government. We know that 80% of the 76 homes sold in 1 Hyde Park were bought through anonymous companies registered in tax havens. The director of operations of the Metropolitan Police Proceeds of Corruption Unit has said:
“Properties that are purchased with illicit money, which is often stolen from some of the poorest people in the world, are nearly always layered through offshore structures”.
The UK is 14th in Transparency International’s corruption perception index. That is quite high—although we should note that there are 13 countries better than us—but we have to ask ourselves how far what we do in this country adds to the corruption in other countries. The Prime Minister said at the recent G7 meeting:
“Corruption is the cancer at the heart of so many of the problems we face around the world today. … Our efforts to address global poverty are too often undermined by corrupt governments preventing people getting the revenues and benefits of growth that are rightfully theirs”.
Corruption is also a contributor to the disillusion with politics that we now see; a disillusion that can have dangerous consequences. John Githongo, the Kenyan campaigner, talking recently in South Africa, said that it is decades of corruption in Kenya that has prevented Kenya establishing an effective security sector, thus leaving it vulnerable to terrorist attacks. We in this country should be doing everything we can to prevent corruption. We should be making it much more difficult for London to become the place of choice for those with ill-gotten gains to invest, or to come and live in houses bought with ill-gotten gains. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said, we should therefore look very carefully at the thoughtful and detailed recommendations set out in the Transparency International report. I endorse his welcome for what the Government have already done and I hope we shall hear from the Minister that they will do more.
Finally, it is most welcome that DfID funds the Metropolitan Police Proceeds of Corruption Unit, which is shortly to be incorporated into the National Crime Agency. I understand that there are concerns about that. Can the Minister offer reassurance that the reformed Proceeds of Corruption Unit will have enough investigators to pursue corruption cases adequately?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Corruption. We have two debts today that I would like to refer to. One is to Transparency International UK for compiling the report that is the basis of today’s debate, and the second is to my noble friend Lord Rooker for enabling it to have this airing.
I begin with a quotation:
“Corruption is the cancer at the heart of so many of the problems we face around the world today. … Our efforts to address global poverty are too often undermined by corrupt governments preventing people getting the revenues and benefits of growth that are rightfully theirs. Corruption undermines the wider global economy too. Cutting corruption by just 10% could benefit the global economy by $380 billion every year—substantially more than was estimated for the Doha Trade Round”.
Those words were taken from a blog that appeared in the name of David Cameron in the Huffington Post on 6 June. The Prime Minister, whose record of speaking out on this issue I have praised before and whose determination to make meaningful progress in tackling corruption I do not doubt, followed up by highlighting corruption in his speech to the G7 summit in Germany, calling for world leaders to take corruption more seriously, particularly in the wake of the FIFA scandal.
Corruption is a major contributor to global poverty. The opaque way in which companies are structured is more often than not at the heart of how illicit flows of capital are facilitated, either through tax evasion, money laundering or outright corruption. The cost to developing countries of this behaviour is quite staggering. It has been estimated that they may lose as much as $150 billion annually in tax revenue, a figure greater than the entire global aid budget. A World Bank review of 200 big corruption cases from 1980 to 2010 found that more than 70% relied on anonymous shell entities. Company service providers registered in the UK and its Crown dependencies and overseas territories were, to our shame, second on the list in providing these shell entities. The European Commission estimates a cost to EU member states of around €120 billion each year—that figure has some resonance this week because, as talks continue in Brussels to resolve the Greek debt crisis, it is pretty close to what the Greek Government are seeking in debt write-off in return for an agreement on whether their country remains within the euro.
In the UK, the Financial Services Authority estimated two years ago that more than £50 billion was being laundered within and through the UK every year. This figure, allied to the statistics contained in the TI report, illustrates that the Prime Minister needs to focus some of his attention on tackling corruption closer to home. As we have already heard, there is growing evidence that the UK property market has become a safe haven for corrupt money stolen from around the world, facilitated by laws that allow UK property to be owned by the secret offshore companies to which I referred. The Government need to act quickly to interrupt these flows of money and bring to an end the UK’s growing—and surely unwanted—status as the destination of choice for global corruption.
As mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rooker, some relatively simple measures could be taken, such as the Land Registry requiring transparency over who owns companies that own so much UK property. Estate agents’ anti-money laundering responsibility could be extended to include due diligence checks, ensuring that the purchasing company has declared its beneficial owners and that appropriate checks have been carried out on those individuals. I have no doubt that there would be resource issues should such measures be implemented and that estate agents would be keen to hear what the Government had to say about that, but I believe that the Government should be willing to underwrite any additional costs and see them as an investment for greater long-term gain in terms of the country’s reputation.
Another recommendation also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rooker that I believe ought to be considered concerns the introduction of unexplained wealth orders. I find it difficult to understand why there is no power in UK law to require owners of unexplained wealth involved in a suspicious transaction to prove that the source is legitimate. Such legislation would require the owner of unexplained wealth to prove its legitimacy when a questionable transaction was identified. Failure either to respond to such an order or to provide an adequate response, together with the initial grounds for suspicion, could then be used to facilitate a civil recovery process against the asset. If the Minister does not believe that this would assist in the Prime Minister’s clear aim of challenging corruption, I would be interested to hear why. The scale of the problem of corruption and the breadth of the deficiencies in the current anti-money laundering system demand serious consideration of alternatives.
Finally, the Government must demand that the overseas territories and Crown dependencies adopt public registers of the true owners of companies registered in their jurisdictions. This needs to be done as a matter of urgency. I was dismayed to read the response of the Minister earlier this week to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on this subject, in which he stated:
“The UK Government continues to engage actively with the OTs to encourage them to make improvements to their AML and CTF regimes in line with the international standards … However, the OTs are separate jurisdictions with their own democratically elected governments and changes to their regimes will ultimately be a decision for the locally elected government of each Territory”.
That is not an adequate response. It is simply not in the economic interests of the overseas territories to comply with the demands made on them. I understand that but it does not mean that they can be allowed simply to carry on as they have done for many years. Noble Lords may have noticed that three of the overseas territories were named in the US Department of Justice FIFA indictment recently: the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos—all tax havens.
Many of the offshore jurisdictions are theoretically under the influence of the UK Government but no British Overseas Territory has yet accepted the Prime Minister’s call at the G8, two years ago, for public transparency about who owns companies and trusts. Indeed, many have yet to show a genuine attempt to resolve money-laundering risks presented by anonymous owners hiding behind companies registered in their territories. The Labour Party had a commitment in our election manifesto to compel the overseas territories and Crown dependencies to address wider money-laundering risks associated with anonymous companies in the UK. With determination, there are ways in which it can be brought about. I invite the Government to investigate that.
Commitments to take a stronger line on this were certainly given by the Government during debates earlier this year on what became the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act. That legislation requires a public register of the true owners of UK-registered companies and I very much look forward to the register becoming live. It was a welcome and significant step forward for corporate transparency but, as the Transparency International report shows, the UK property market remains vulnerable to the investment of corrupt capital due to the secrecy around the owners of offshore companies.
The Prime Minister has stated that he intends to put corruption at the heart of his agenda at the United Nations in September and at the G20 in Turkey, culminating in a major anti-corruption summit in London next year. The Government have just announced that Sir Eric Pickles will be their new Anti-Corruption Champion. It seems he will have a larger portfolio than his predecessor, especially with that anti-corruption summit in mind. I imagine that he will want to consider the recommendations of the Transparency International UK report in detail. I hope the Minister will confirm that he intends to meet Sir Eric as a matter of priority to consider the report and how he can contribute to the discussions on these crucial matters. The Prime Minister has raised consciousness of the issues surrounding corruption. The Government now need to follow through to bring about meaningful change.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova (Lab)
My Lords, this is a timely and useful debate, prompted by my noble friend Lord Rooker, on the very useful work of Transparency International.
The impact on housing of houses being treated as a store of value—as my noble friend Lord Graham identified—is an important effect. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, significantly refers to the source of corrupt funds, and how it can come down to individual lives, often in places far from the UK such as Kyrgyzstan. My noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie spoke eloquently on the scale of global corruption and its impact on the UK’s reputation. We on this side welcome the Prime Minister’s desire to,
“put fighting corruption at the heart of our international dialogue”,
and,
“do more to … support the investigators and prosecutors who can help bring the perpetrators to justice”.
He is correct to build on the Bribery Act 2010, introduced by the previous Labour Government, which brought issues of bribery and corruption to the fore in the boardrooms of UK plc, and set a global standard in the fight against economic crime. Corruption, by its nature, is insidious, frequently leaving its victims unclear why they have suffered its consequences. Since the perpetrators have a direct interest in secrecy, society can be unaware of the extent of corruption in its midst. In the UK we tend to congratulate ourselves on being relatively free of domestic corruption, but we should recognise that this belief is not always justified.
The various reports of Transparency International identify a range of concerns about UK practices in areas such as prisons, politics and the arms trade. These are matters for concern. Over the last few years, a number of major UK companies have come under investigation by the US and Chinese authorities for practices that are—on any view—plainly corrupt. Corruption knows no borders and the international approach that the Prime Minister commends is correct. He doubtless embraces the anti-money laundering regime introduced by the EU directive. The Government’s intention to strengthen, not gold-plate, our regime with a beneficial ownership register for UK companies is welcome.
Our money-laundering regime is subject to review by the Financial Action Task Force next year. The Transparency International report identifies real vulnerabilities in this regime, as I am sure that the Minister must agree. The UK’s own current review has, one trusts, already identified this and no doubt other areas of concern in our system—perhaps the widespread use of companies incorporated in British Overseas Territories. It would be encouraging if the Minister would share with the House what the review has exposed thus far and what action is being considered. I ask him to please do so. Plainly, the review is not yet complete but some indications of where it is going will be welcome. Anti-money laundering law is a central tool in the fight against corruption.
While no society is safe from corruption, no society finds the reduction, let alone the removal, of corruption an easy task. In the past, the UK rooted out corruption in areas such as the Royal Navy, the judiciary and the Civil Service, but only after years of consistent effort. The task, however, is never finished. The principal tools for the task are political will and resources. There is, of course, no government leader who does not speak out against corruption, whether they are the embodiment of corruption themselves or its most stalwart opponent. Words alone do not suppress corruption. Therefore, action backed up by resources is the test of any Government’s resolve.
Some positive indicators are available. The coalition Government’s anti-corruption plan, which was published in December 2014, ambitiously set out 66 action points. Is the Committee to take it that Her Majesty’s Government remain committed to executing this plan? Is, for example, the proposed offence of corporate failure to prevent economic crime to be implemented? Transparency International’s innovative recommendation of unexplained wealth orders, as referred to by my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lord Watson, has many attractions. Does Her Majesty’s Government agree on the utility of such orders and will they introduce them?
Other questions are: will offshore companies be required to register the acquisition of at least some types of UK assets and their beneficial ownership? Will persons in the regulated sector conduct due diligence on customers? Will they require transactions to be reported to a central body? A reply in the affirmative to these proposals would encourage one to believe that political will is present. If that will is present, there could be no better signal than a commitment to increase substantially the resources for those investigators and prosecutors identified by the Prime Minister as bringing perpetrators to justice.
The Serious Fraud Office, a central agency in the fight against corruption, has seen a dramatic improvement in its effectiveness under David Green as director-general. But its budget in 2008 was £52 million; in 2015, its budget is £35.2 million, with the necessity of having to obtain ad hoc so-called “blockbuster funding” from Her Majesty’s Treasury. Strong management and direction are to be applauded, but is this the best method of funding a principal agency? The National Crime Agency is also said to be lacking resources. Her Majesty’s Treasury may have a view that contradicts this; perhaps the House may hear what it is. Has the notion of combining the Serious Fraud Office with the National Crime Agency been put to sleep or will the uncertainty of reorganisation, with its concomitant and inevitable disruption, continue to hang over these organisations?
In his international dialogue, it is significant that the Prime Minister can put the UK in the vanguard in the fight against corruption. While the UK’s record is by no means spotless, its stance on the rule of law, both historically and to date, has international resonance. Leaving aside the Government’s somewhat illogical antipathy to the Human Rights Act, the UK can be recognised as a real force for good in combating corrupt practices. Talk is cheap. To achieve this goal and to be taken seriously internationally, a well-resourced system of enforcement is essential. May the House have the undertaking from the Minister that his Government are truly committed to providing the necessary resources?
I would also welcome a response to inquiries that have been made by my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord Bach, as shadow Attorney-General, as to whether there is any UK investigation into British involvement in the allegations relating to FIFA. Is any response available, perhaps less gnomic than that provided hitherto, claiming awareness of the issue? I look forward to the responses.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to answer this Question for Short Debate and I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for securing it. I acknowledge the remarks made by him and other noble Lords about the Prime Minister’s efforts in this area of corruption, both in the UK and worldwide.
Corruption, of course, is more than just about property and I would like to make some remarks about the Government’s view on corruption generally. This Government recognise that corruption harms societies, undermines economic development and threatens democracy. As the Prime Minister made clear to the G7 last week, corruption is the cancer at the heart of so many problems we face around the world today, and again the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Watson, mentioned these remarks. The UK has robust anti-corruption structures and legislation in place and we know that the problem of corruption is relatively less serious in the UK than in most other countries, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, did warn about becoming complacent in this regard. The impact of corruption in this country is disproportionate to the level and frequency at which it occurs, and often has serious ramifications in terms of public confidence across the public and private sectors.
Before I address the more specific issues raised in this report, I want to make it clear that the Government are absolutely committed to tackling corruption in all its forms. Our commitments in the Serious and Organised Crime Strategy to tackle criminal finances and improve our anti-corruption systems demonstrate our determination to make the UK a more hostile environment for those trying to launder their illicit money. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, this Government are doing more than ever before to tackle the blight of corruption here in the UK and around the world, the effects of which were elegantly highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. In December last year, we published a cross-government UK Anti-Corruption Plan. It set out for the first time all the UK’s activity against corruption: from preventing corruption in the first instance to taking effective enforcement action when it does occur, as well as increasing the protection of the public and private sectors. As has been mentioned, the Prime Minister recently appointed Sir Eric Pickles as the UK’s Anti-Corruption Champion to lead and co-ordinate all anti-corruption efforts. He will be working across government to ensure that the commitments set out in our anti-corruption plan are fully implemented—an answer, I think, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson—and to make a real difference on some of the points raised today.
We already have some of the most comprehensive anti-bribery legislation in the world, and were recently judged by the OECD to be one of only four countries globally which actively prevent bribery of foreign public officials. Where we have found gaps in the legislation, such as in relation to police corruption and participation in the activities of an organised crime group, we have brought forward new measures to address them.
As a centre of world trade and investment, we have a particular responsibility and incentive to ensure that our financial systems are not a safe haven for the criminal and the corrupt. In the UK’s 2013 G8 action plan we committed to conducting the UK’s first national assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing risk. This national risk assessment—mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson—will be the first systematic assessment of threats and vulnerabilities in the UK. It will provide an evidence base to help the Government assess the effectiveness and proportionality of the current requirements, and we intend to make the findings available soon. We have already committed to producing an Anti-Money Laundering Action Plan to address the threats and vulnerabilities identified in the national risk assessment. We will carefully consider the evidence in Transparency International’s recent reports as we formulate that action plan.
Turning to the specific issue of money laundering through the purchasing of property, we are also committed to ensuring that we maintain a proportionate and robust anti-money laundering regime. All estate agents must be registered under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, and HMRC carries out compliance checks to ensure that estate agents are applying customer due diligence processes. HMRC is also working to educate the sector more and bolster businesses’ understanding of their obligations under the Money Laundering Regulations. All banks, lawyers and estate agents are required by law to report suspicious activity to the National Crime Agency. We do have some concerns that the suspicious activity reports—SARs—regime does not work as well as it should, and think that information sharing between the private sector and law enforcement agencies could be improved. That is why the Government are reviewing the SARs regime in order to increase its effectiveness.
In the Serious Crime Act 2015, we have created a new offence of participating in the activities of an organised crime group, which came into force on 3 May 2015. This new offence targets those who help organised criminals with their criminal enterprises, and would include professional enablers such as estate agents, on whom organised criminals rely. From 2016 all UK companies will have to register their beneficial owners at Companies House. Where a property is owned by a UK company, information on that company’s beneficial ownership will be immediately accessible, online and for free, once submitted in the register of people with significant control.
The Government are continuing proactively to lobby other jurisdictions, notably in the context of the G7 and G20 and through the Financial Action Task Force, to take equally ambitious action on transparency of company beneficial ownership. This applies also to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. I will answer specific questions about those in more detail later. Following UK leadership in the G8 and G20, leaders committed in 2013 to implement fully the international standards for beneficial ownership transparency and to submit action plans to this effect. The standard requires that information is available in a timely fashion for competent authorities. Central or public registries are one means of achieving this standard. The Government continue to encourage international partners to meet their commitments so that where UK property is owned by a non-UK company, information on that company’s beneficial owners could also be quickly and easily obtained.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, asked specifically about overseas territories and Crown dependencies. The point was made that we could do more to make overseas territories and Crown dependencies have beneficial ownership records. We are working closely with the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. We believe that they have made significant progress on tax transparency. They have publicly committed to the transparency of company ownership. We believe that more has been achieved in the past year than over the past 10 years.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
Perhaps the Minister can elaborate a little. He said that the overseas territories have committed to transparency on ownership of companies. I was not aware of that. I wonder if he could let me know—if not now, in writing—because if it is true, that would be welcome news and I am certainly not aware of it.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I will let the noble Lord know in writing. I am relying on my brief on this—I am sure it is true, in that case. But I certainly will write to the noble Lord.
Bermuda already has a private central registry. Gibraltar will implement a central registry under the EU’s fourth money-laundering directive. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he would like a publicly accessible central register of company beneficial ownership to be the new international standard. We would therefore like the overseas territories to match our policy. However, we respect the fact that the overseas territories and Crown dependencies are separate jurisdictions with their own elected governments who are responsible for fiscal matters. We want to continue to work in partnership with overseas territories and Crown dependencies on this important issue.
The noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Watson, also mentioned unexplained wealth orders. We are always interested in proposals for new powers that will help law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to tackle money laundering, and will carefully consider Transparency International’s proposals on unexplained wealth orders as part of the national risk assessment.
On the Government’s response to recommendation 3 in Transparency International’s report for a supervisors’ forum, supervisors already attend forums where cross-cutting issues are discussed. The next meeting of the supervisors’ forum is on 5 November. If customer due diligence cannot be completed as far as recommendation 2 is concerned, including identifying the beneficial owner, then the estate agent cannot do business with the prospective client.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, made some interesting points, mainly about housing policy rather than corruption per se. Buying and selling is legal and is registered with the Land Registry but, of course, if the behaviour breaks the law either corruptly or through intimidation then the full force of the law will be applied and the Government support that. Sir Eric Pickles will bear down heavily on any corrupt activity.
Lord Graham of Edmonton
Can the Minister tell me whether the phenomenon I mentioned of individuals buying up properties and misusing them is monitored by the Government? Can he indicate whether the Government intend to do something in the future?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I will answer that in writing as I have only three minutes left. The noble Lord also talked about the mechanism to trace properties sold under the right to buy. We have a comprehensive anti-money laundering regime. Money laundering through property has been assessed in the UK’s first national risk assessment, which will be published in due course.
Lastly, corruption in foreign countries was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. As noble Lords will know and as I think they have acknowledged, the Prime Minister has urged world leaders at the G7 meeting to tackle the cancer of corruption.
I hope noble Lords will accept that the Government are doing a lot despite the remaining problems. My time has nearly run out, so I am going to have to write to noble Lords in due course on the questions I have not answered.
Opinion Polling
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to regulate the opinion-polling industry.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, to his first debate in the Moses Room. It is a gruelling ordeal that he faces but I am sure he will come through with flying colours.
This is the first of two debates the House will be holding this week on opinion polls. Part two comes tomorrow on the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, providing for the regulation of opinion polling. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will be discussing in particular the polls and general election of 2015. That is a very hot topic and I look forward to contributing to the debate, which has attracted some distinguished and knowledgeable speakers. This afternoon I want to concentrate on something much narrower: the increasing problem of polls conducted by pollsters that are designed to achieve only the results that those who commission them require.
Let me say straight away that many polls commissioned by bodies with an interest are scrupulously conducted. I am sure that that was true of everything done by the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, at Populus. As it happens, on the way in I was looking at a YouGov poll on immigration and it was scrupulous, with absolutely balanced questions. However, alas, other companies will stop at nothing to get the results the commissioner wants. I will concentrate today on one example, on which I wrote to all Peers on 27 March. The company concerned is ComRes and the poll was on mitochondrial transfer. It figured largely in the House’s debate on the subject on 24 February. Replying to that debate, the noble Earl, Lord Howe—for whom the adjective “saintly” might have been invented—was uncharacteristically fierce. This is what he said:
“My noble friend also referred to the ComRes poll and suggested that we had somehow unfairly dismissed it. The ComRes poll was commissioned by the CARE organisation—Christian Action Research and Education—which I understand opposes the introduction of mitochondrial donation. An evaluation of the survey was conducted by Pier Logistics and Gene Rowe Evaluations. The evaluators considered the survey to be a deeply flawed piece of work. They criticised the intentional use of what they described as, ‘sensationalist, inflammatory and misleading language to characterize the debate’. There was also considered to be, ‘An unreasonable degree of selectivity within respondents’ informational options’”—
that means what respondents were told—
“‘and the intimation of an exercise focused on the generation of self-ordained results’”—
in other words, what pollsters wanted.
“The evaluation summary commented that the survey was, ‘a good example of poor public consultation’”.—[Official Report, 24/2/15; col. 1621.]
I agree.
Now, I have some experience of polling. I advised Jim Callaghan on polls. Unfortunately, he did not take my advice to go to the country in 1978—otherwise who knows what might have happened to history since? I commissioned polls for the Sunday Times. I was a member of the advisory committee of NatCen, an academic pollster, and I am co-chair of the All-Party Group on Statistics. I believe in polling. Good polling can contribute to public policy-making in a democracy. But it has to be good polling and this ComRes poll is not good polling. It is polling ruthlessly designed by an organisation driven by faith—that is, CARE—and a polling company driven by greed to get the answers it wanted.
Moreover, ComRes has previous in this field. CARE again asked it to design a poll showing public opposition to the Dignity in Dying campaign and the Bill it was promoting. I remember being involved at the time and, again, twisted questions were shamelessly paraded in a bid to persuade policymakers that the public was opposed to legislative change. This kind of polling is not helpful to anyone. Classically, when I wrote to ComRes to say that I was approaching Peers about its poll, which I have already discussed, its reaction was to threaten me with legal action. That is not how debate should be conducted in a democracy.
So what should we do about this? One thing would be to leave it to the market. ComRes has been well and truly rumbled on this occasion, and its reputation will suffer as a result. I hope that I have had some success in persuading noble Lords not to agree to participate in future ComRes polling—I certainly will not myself after this experience. In any case, any organisation thinking of commissioning the company will think twice, because it will know that, again, it will be a twisted poll and will be the subject of ridicule by Peers, MPs, and even journalists. It is of some consolation to me that the mitochondrial poll, which was much quoted in our debate, received practically no national press publicity. I think that that was because the questions were so blatantly loaded that even without careful study it was obvious that it amounted to nothing. However, I do not think that relying on the market is good enough—not all such crooked polls will be as easily identified, other firms may be tempted down the ComRes route, and propaganda dressed as evidence may become endemic. Therefore, some form of regulation is required.
Unfortunately, existing regulation is inadequate. Faced with the ComRes poll, my first thought was to appeal to the British Polling Council—surely that is what it is for. But it is not. The British Polling Council is a perfectly good organisation—I am thrilled with the inquiry it has set up into the failings of the polls during the general election, so I do not criticise it—but its remit is incredibly tightly restricted. It makes sure that polls publish the questions that they ask—the size of their samples and the techniques they use, which is of course a very good thing—but it does not have any rules that dictate that the questions must be fair and not loaded, and so it is inadequate.
I turn next to the Market Research Society, whose slogan, with which I strongly agree, is “Evidence Matters”. The rules at the MRS are not very specific, but there is a general principle that:
“Researchers shall protect the reputation and integrity of the profession”,
on which I have hung my complaint. However, it must be said that by no means all polling companies are members of the MRS, so I have had to find an individual member within the company I am complaining about, Mr Andrew Hawkins, the chairman—who is a member—and that way I am able to pursue the complaint. I will see how I get on; I do not wish to prejudge that in any way. However, that does not amount to an adequate system of regulation.
One alternative would of course be direct state regulation—it would be easy for people reading the terms of my question to think that I am in favour of that—but despite the wording of the question, I rather hope that the Government are not contemplating statutory regulation, at least for now.
This is about what would be effective. If you put in statutory rules—I know this, having been on the Personal Investment Authority, which has incredible powers; there are papers 12 miles thick—companies then set out to find ways to evade the regulations. Again, as we know, in the area of financial services they have been pretty effective at it. What is needed in the polling industry is a change of culture—or rather the culture that is applied by the best should be applied to the whole industry and not be circumvented by Johnny-come-latelys, those on the make, and so on.
A change of culture is more likely to happen if it is done by self-regulation, where you are judged by a group of your peers, rather than by imposed external regulation. Ideally, therefore, I would like to see a self-regulator modelled on the Advertising Standards Authority, on whose council I was once privileged to sit. I know that my noble friend Lady Hayter has reservations about the ASA; that is because all my complaints are upheld and all hers are turned down, to summarise in shorthand. Seriously, however, it does have the respect of the advertising industry and the public, and I believe that most people have confidence in its rules.
Maybe good will triumph in this, or maybe it will not, with companies such as ComRes willing to stoop low to make a quick buck and continuing to prosper. I do not know why the noble Lord, Lord McColl, says, “disgraceful”. He will get a chance to make his own speech; if he wishes to defend these practices, he can do so then. It would be a sad outcome if companies such as ComRes triumph, and this is where the Minister comes in. As I have said, I do not look to him to promise state regulation—I hope that he will not—but I look to him to express ministerial concern and to urge the industry to consider its own regulation. If the industry had the impression that if it did not act the Government might have to consider doing so, it would be a very good thing and would get the right kind of self-regulation in place.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I think it was generally accepted that the 2015 election was not the pollsters’ finest hour, although I have to admit that I, too, got it wrong: I predicted to my friends a Conservative majority of 20, so I was out by eight seats. The vast majority of companies in the industry predicted the vote shares of most of the parties correctly within the margin of error, and several were within the margin of error on all vote shares.
The British Polling Council and the Market Research Society were exceptionally fast in, first, recognising that things had not gone as well as they should have, and, secondly, setting up a comprehensive review under the auspices of Professor Patrick Sturgis at Southampton University. That review has yet to hear evidence—its first session is actually tomorrow—so we should not prejudge its outcome.
That said, the vast majority of polls during the campaign pointed to a much closer result than we eventually saw and it is right to consider the implications of that variance. Establishing a regulatory authority to regularise question wording and sample design, far from increasing the accuracy of polling, has the potential to compound the problem further. All scientific inquiry relies on a cycle of experiment, evaluation and modulation. Polling firms ought to be encouraged to experiment with novel methods and trial their own question wording and sample design, rather than being prevented from doing so. It is also in their commercial interests to try to out-compete their rivals and develop more accurate methods, and we ought to cheer them on as they do so.
With regard to a ban on publication of opinion polls before elections, we should remember that it is voters, not polls, which change election outcomes. A ban would not prevent such polls from being conducted; rather, it would lead to a small number of wealthy individuals and organisations being the only ones with privileged information, leaving the wider public at a disadvantage. Even if we wished to deny voters access to this type of information, in the 21st century it would be impossible to do so. The internet makes a mockery of enforced censorship. We could try to emulate the practice of North Korea and prevent our own citizens having information which is so freely available throughout the rest of the world, but it simply would not work. Political bloggers such as Guido Fawkes use servers in countries such as Ireland and the United States which the Government could not block even if they wished to. British voters would therefore be left open to the unchecked rumours and misinformation that would result from such a ban.
The idea of a voluntary agreement not to publish is interesting, but I suspect that it would ultimately be doomed to fail. The question of who enters into the agreement is fundamental. Even if all the established members of the British Polling Council agreed not to publish polling in the final week before an election, it would not prevent new entrants and overseas pollsters doing so.
The polling industry may be licking its wounds but I do not doubt its integrity in seeking honest answers from the post-election inquiry. We must be able to hear the results of that and understand what went wrong before leaping for the statute book. We are privileged in this country to have a polling profession which, through the good offices of self-regulatory bodies such the British Polling Council, is clearly committed to transparency. That is quite a rarity. In the United States, for example, voters have access to a far poorer quality and quantity of information about individual polls. The industry here ought to be commended for its transparency. Our role should be to recognise and encourage that and to find ways of enabling more and greater competition to encourage greater accuracy.
I am concerned about what has been said about the ComRes polling for the charity CARE in relation to the proposed three-parent, pronuclear and maternal spindle transfer techniques. In addressing this subject I should declare an interest: I have worked closely with CARE over the years. It has provided me with invaluable assistance, especially in relation to my human trafficking Bill. Criticism of this polling seems to hang very much on a report commissioned by the Wellcome Trust—one of the principal advocates for changing the law to permit the controversial procedures—to critique some of the polling in question. That report is deeply flawed in four respects.
First, and most importantly, the report criticises the polling against benchmarks that would be appropriate only if a deliberative public consultation was being discussed, in which lots of background information could be provided. Both more deliberative public consultation exercises and polling have their place and their respective strengths and weaknesses, but to critique one against the standards of the other is to make a very basic blunder. While deliberative public consultations can contain lots of information and nuance, and can in turn receive lots of information and nuance, polls cannot do so. The questions have to be relatively short, and as long as they can provide a range of responses other than simple yes or no answers, the responses are predetermined.
The CARE poll questions were designed very obviously to measure public opinion on pronuclear and maternal spindle transfer as these were defined in common parlance by the media, which spoke almost universally about “three-parent embryos” and “three-parent children”. Far from it being inappropriate to design questions reflecting that terminology, it would have been illogical and poor research practice not to do so. Moreover, as a matter of scientific fact, the designations “three-parent children” or “three-parent embryos”, while disliked by some, were not inaccurate, in that the resulting children will have DNA from three rather than two parents.
The aim of the questions has also been misrepresented. Their aim was first to track basic attitudes in response to the information gleaned by the public through the media, and, secondly, to test responses to a range of arguments both in favour of and against permitting the procedure. This is basic standard practice in any campaign. The purpose of testing arguments in favour of the procedure is to understand which of one’s opponent’s arguments are the strongest and which are the weakest. The purpose of testing arguments against the procedure is to recognise which arguments are the strongest for CARE itself to deploy. Publishing all the results was not an attempt to distort public discourse but rather to ensure that CARE and ComRes were compliant with the British Polling Council requirement for full transparency.
Secondly, the report objected to the polling on the basis that it had been commissioned by an organisation opposed to the introduction of PNT and MST. I found that rather odd. Most polls are commissioned by organisations that want to test public opinion to see whether it fits with their own position. To suggest that this is somehow inappropriate is to misunderstand polling completely. Indeed, the point has been made that the report commissioned by the Wellcome Trust has been commissioned by a body with a very clear agenda. The irony of its position, however, does not seem to have occurred to it. None of us approaches these things from a position of value neutrality. For the record, as a doctor, I am very much opposed to the use of pronuclear transfer but am more open to the use of maternal spindle transfer. Thirdly, the report seeks to criticise the polling on the basis of an assessment of the press coverage secured, which is entirely irrelevant to the efficacy of the polling in question. Fourthly, the report lays great stress on stakeholder interviews but is entirely lacking in transparency. Parliament has looked at these matters and decided what it has to do.
In conclusion, I state that ComRes did not threaten to sue the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, but the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, pointed out to it that he intended to have a debate in your Lordships’ House, which would, of course, be privileged.
Lord Lipsey
May I just correct the noble Lord? He said that ComRes did not threaten to sue. It said that it was taking legal advice and would take what legal action was recommended to it. If that is not a threat to sue, I don’t know what is.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
It said it would defend its position, which is not quite the same.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I want to look at opinion poll industry regulation in a general way, rather than focusing on a particular case, as the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord McColl, have done.
In the spirit of the Motion I am going to offer an opinion. My first point is about opinion itself. Opinion is, by definition, fragile and changeable. It is lite—that is L-I-T-E, for Hansard—and that is very different from attitudes and prejudices, which are firm and more long-standing. We live in a time of opinion, when people just tweet things without much thought—bang, out goes the view. Very few people now are paid-up members of political parties, unions or churches because they want to live in a freer world of opinion, not of attitudes and prejudices. That means that politicians and churches, but also pollsters, have to work a lot harder at trying to capture what is in our minds, because we live in this world of opinion. It means that opinion polls are inherently inadequate in giving an objective view, because they are not dealing with objective elements in people’s minds. We have to be very careful in trying to regulate something that we cannot control or weigh the expectations of very easily.
I want to look at the 2015 election, which seems to have raised a lot of questions about the polling industry. This illustrates my point about the nature of opinion and how fragile and shifting it always is. I invite noble Lords to think about the difference between being asked to answer a set series of questions and going into a particular context—a booth in a polling station—for a private moment of making a decision with a pencil and a piece of paper. They are very different moments of the mind, of engagement, of thoughtfulness. The attempt to correlate them by the opinion poll industry will therefore always be rough and inexact. We have to be careful about comparing and assuming a necessary correlation between the views expressed when there is a set series of questions and voting and acting privately in a particular moment.
Like religion, politics requires an extended conversation that helps opinion find its place in a bigger scenario. That is why good politics, like good religion, works through conversation. In theology, when we try to interpret the word or words, we practise what we call hermeneutics. Some of your Lordships will know that Hermes was the Greek messenger god—the god of travellers, because there is movement, and also the god of thieves, because there is sometimes destruction and disruption. Real meaning and values in human life come from conversation that is extended, set out and developed, and within which people have opinions. We are influenced by forces that are not easily measurable by one set of answers in any one moment, because we are influenced by our intuitions, feelings, hopes and fears. Those things do not fit into a person’s predetermined set of questions captured in a moment, which we have to answer in a way that is measurable alongside the answers of others. The material that the pollsters are dealing with is inherently unstable, developing and very difficult to capture.
Therefore, it was rather inaccurate when one of the commentators said that,
“the 2015 election was a collective failure for the British polling industry”.
It is enormously self-indulgent to think that. The 2015 national election and the difference from the polling industry was not a collective failure of the British polling industry. It was a victory for voters, free speech and free thinking, and for having the opportunity to be free and to make a decision in a moment that counts, and not being held to account by a predetermined set of questions that some pressure group or interested party has asked the voter to engage with—as the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord McColl, said—for their own advantage and benefit rather than for what the political process is all about. Sometimes we need to wait for freedom to be expressed and to emerge. We cannot capture it when it suits a particular group at a particular moment for a particular set of phone calls.
My opinion is that we should let the polling industry do its best. I would categorise it more in the realm of entertainment than science. It is helpful, people enjoy it and it is useful but we need a sense of proportion. I think it will always be a sideshow to how freedom operates and human beings coming to a mind and collectively expressing that.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, like the right reverend Prelate, I will keep more to the May election. ComRes has been mentioned quite a lot and I read just after the election that it said that it had had been a,
“difficult few days for pollsters”.
They should have tried being in the Labour Party. The nub of the problem is that the pollsters got it wrong, as in 1992 when I experienced the same 10 o’clock shock. I was sitting alongside the then deputy leader of the Labour Party, Roy Hattersley, whose minder I was at the time. I had anticipated him being Home Secretary within a few hours. So I am a bit bitten by this.
While 1992 and 2015 may have been bad for business for the pollsters, it raises bigger issues for the country and for those seeking to run it if the publication of misleading polls alters voting behaviour. Of course, in moments of loss such as I and my noble friend went through that night, we activists feel that blow, and we are reminded of course of Bertolt Brecht’s “Die Lösung”:
“Nach dem Aufstand des 17 Juni”.
Yesterday, therefore, was the anniversary of when the country,
“Had forfeited the confidence of the government”,
making the solution,
“for the government to dissolve the people and elect another”.
The temptation to do that on 7 May was great.
However, the more serious question posed by my noble friend Lord Lipsey is serious, albeit that he has concentrated on a different variety of polling: namely, that commissioned by or for a particular campaign, often with loaded questions. He is, of course, one of the most experienced in the field, having studied, used, commissioned, interpreted and reported on polls since I first worked alongside him in 1970.
The problem we discuss today is an old one: whether our reliance on soothsayers and fortune tellers, or indeed bookies, can affect our actions or policies. Pollsters are not soothsayers, but because of the role that they play in how we as politicians frame our campaigning and even our policies, and in how voters choose to vote, there is a special responsibility on them to raise their game, as there is on the media that report them.
My noble friend brilliantly covered the traps and shortcomings of some polling. While we acknowledge that the polls have often been accurate, today’s debate is about where the sampling, the methodology or the questions failed the industry and the body politic. I would worry about any pre-approving of sampling or other methods, as this could stifle innovation and lead to even more clustering or huddling. I also cannot see that there can be acceptable or, perhaps more importantly, unacceptable questions. However, there is some urgency to improving the industry, especially before we face the first recall ballot for an MP, where, in a single constituency, a vote to trigger a by-election could be heavily influenced by some local—and possibly shoddy or loaded—polling.
However, I wonder whether the industry has the appetite to do more itself. Has enough yet happened in the way of peer reviewing its academic approach in order to raise standards or to guard against the drive for cheap, headline-grabbing polling, undertaken for commercial rather than democratic gain? As my noble friend suggested, I do not perhaps share his faith in the ASA model, but I share with him the desire for improvement and for the industry to take a long, hard look at how it produced its figures.
However, that is only part of the story. As the right reverend Prelate suggested, we also have to look at how polls are reported, not only by newspapers but by radio and TV, which sadly too often take their agenda from the papers and can make the poll a lead story rather than background intelligence. We should also look at how this translates on the doorstep. Part of my own shock at the 10 pm exit poll came from the fact that I had mostly been campaigning in London, where my own experience pretty closely reflected that of the published polls and therefore gave me too much confidence that they were right elsewhere. I would be interested to hear from experienced campaigners outside London whether their feel was different from the published polls and whether voters’ responses appeared influenced by their expectation of the outcome.
The opinion poll inquiry has, I think, been called comprehensive. Sadly, I do not find that. It is very UK-focused, as if we have nothing to learn from elsewhere, and also misses the input of candidates and campaigners; and indeed of journalists, who may have tales to tell of how they were given the data—exactly when, how close to when they had to use them and with what spin. There is also the question of the degree to which news reporting and the polling were so intertwined that there was no independent review between one activity and the other. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, noted, the inquiry will be holding a public meeting tomorrow afternoon, I think at the Royal Statistical Society. I hope that some of those wider questions can be posed there.
The issues raised today are important—perhaps too important to be left to pollsters. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lipsey on initiating the debate and on sharing his considerable expertise. I look forward to the thoughts of the Minister, who—I told the House this last week but some noble Lords may not have been there to hear it—placed a bet 12 months ago on a Conservative majority of 12. Perhaps we should just replace the pollsters with the Minister.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that introduction. Sadly, no one has come to me asking for my services, although my son keeps asking me to partake in the National Lottery each week, as he is sure I can win. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on securing this debate and am very grateful for the other contributions, which were very interesting. Indeed, this has been a very thoughtful debate, although a short one. I am delighted that we have risen above the sterile argument about regulation, good or bad, although I will touch on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has, as the noble Baroness said, extensive experience of polling and psephology, and I certainly cannot claim to rival that. However, he and I do share the honour—I think I am right on this—and probably the scars of having worked in the back rooms of Downing Street, only to be handed our P45s by the British people. My noble friend Lord McColl and I were there in 1997, so we all know what it is like—this could turn into a bit of a group therapy session—when you are desperately hoping that the polls are wrong but they turn out to be right; or, as in this case, not quite so right.
It strikes me that the noble Lord’s speech in this debate has focused on one particular aspect of opinion polling—the methodology—and in particular those polls that are deliberately designed to get the answers wanted by those who commission them. I do not want to get too much into the details around the ComRes issue; if your Lordships do not mind I would rather rise above that and just talk about broad issues.
Let me start by putting the noble Lord’s mind completely at rest by saying that this Government have indeed no plans to regulate opinion polls. I am delighted that there has been an outbreak of consensus on this point. Many of your Lordships would agree that statutory regulation is not the answer to the issue that we are concerned about: accurate opinion polling. There is widespread agreement that opinion polls lubricate political debate. They help to get that debate moving and to air views, and regulation of any form of opinion polling would put us on a slippery slope towards an unwanted intervention in free debate, benefiting only those with deep pockets who could afford their own polls, as my noble friend Lord McColl so rightly said.
Touching on a few of the points that I think we will discuss in tomorrow’s debate on the same issue, the power that a regulator would yield would be entirely disproportionate. It would end up sanctioning research which could then be portrayed as the official point of view. I have no idea how this would work during a general election. Would it be banned? Would the regulator be asked to adjudicate on which questions were permitted, the methodology and so on? Also, what is the scope of this regulator? While those of us within the bubble of Westminster are fixated on political polls, as I am sure your Lordships are aware the vast majority of pollsters’ business is with commercial entities who want to test what consumers think. Just think about this—you would have a cat food television advertisement that would read, “Nine out of 10 say their cats prefer it, as certified by the Consumer Research Authority, Cracom”, or words to that effect. That would be disastrous and a slippery slope. It would be unwanted regulation of business and bad for democracy. Is this necessary? I think not—but no doubt someone can produce an opinion poll to show whether it is.
As regards innovation, a number of your Lordships picked up on what I think is a key point. Regulation would threaten the debate and innovation on which polling depends. Polling is similar to that most dismal of sciences, economics. It was famously asked of the economics profession why it did not see the crash coming. Yet despite this collective failure, no one has yet called for statutory regulation of economists—not that I want to put ideas in your Lordships’ heads. This is because we understand that the technical problems inherent in economic forecasting cannot simply be regulated away. We know that improvement will only come through intensive research, open debate and rethinking of old assumptions. I would argue that it is just the same with the science of public opinion polling—a point that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby spoke eloquently about.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, well knows, this science is a far more complex business than simply phoning up random members of the public and asking what they think. Samples have to be weighted and there is no consensus about the best way to do this, obviously. Surveys have to take account of cognitive bias, and methodologies are constantly being tinkered with and adjusted. Indeed, there is a certain amount of competitive edge that companies have within that. I was particularly struck by the right reverend Prelate saying that asking someone how will they would vote days before a general election can have some bearing on how they actually behave when they enter the polling booth—picking up that little stubby pencil, their hand hovering over the box and then saying, “Actually, I am going to put my cross here”. To compare those two thoughts and those two reactions to the question is very difficult, and this is exactly what I hope the Sturgis inquiry into the last election is going to get to.
This brings me to the question of conflicting polls—one poll suggesting the public support something and another poll suggesting they oppose it. My response is, as a number of your Lordships have been saying, let us interrogate the methodology and debate the issue further, and then let the public decide. This, I would argue, is what freedom of speech and expression is all about. I strongly believe that the public—aided by a free press and vigorous debate in Parliament and elsewhere—can smell a dodgy poll. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said himself, the poll he is concerned about seemed to receive very scant coverage or mention in your Lordships’ House during the debate.
If people discover that a poll is dodgy, there are means of making complaints, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is now following. However, I would further argue that just as frightening from the pollsters’ perspective is the route that ends by being placed in the stocks of public opinion, and the shame of one’s work being lampooned and castigated by the public. Having read the weighty analysis of the poll on the parent embryo survey and what has been said about it, my strong sense is that this remains perhaps the best route to address the noble Lord’s concerns, despite what he says. It is not for me to say whether the self-regulatory bodies should do more, but if I were in their shoes I am sure that, in light of this debate and others about polling, I would want to take note of what the noble Lord is saying.
This brings me to self-regulation. I declare that in the private sector I did not just place bets, as the noble Baroness predicted, on what I thought a company might or might not do; I actually commissioned a number of opinion polls from reputable companies on issues that were of relevance to private companies. In my experience, great care was taken by pollsters to ensure that no question was seen to be leading or partial. Any suggestion from me or anyone else in the organisation I was representing that a question was, and it would be rejected and changed.
I endorse the comment of the noble Lord that the vast majority of opinion-polling companies abide by the rules and standards of the Market Research Society and the British Polling Council. One has to ask why these companies do so. It is clear that there is a simple reason: it is in their interests to ensure that their research observes the letter and, crucially, the spirit of the code of practice, and that they are seen to be asking balanced questions and presenting answers in an impartial way. Only then does their research command the respect of politicians, the media and, in turn, the public.
Furthermore, the industry fully understands that transparency and trust go hand in hand. Members of the British Polling Council must already publish their results in full, with the questions exactly as asked, a description of the sampling methodology, the raw unweighted data and, crucially, the name of the client commissioning the survey.
On the specific point the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has been addressing about the assembling of the questionnaires themselves, if he or anyone else who is interested cannot sleep at night they might to turn to the MRS’s guidelines for questionnaire design. It is a nice, weighty document of about 28 pages, which states:
“Members must take reasonable steps to ensure … that participants”—
that is, those who opinion pollsters are polling—
“are not led towards a particular point of view”.
This applies to the objectives of the research, and to structuring and writing questionnaires. I am sure these guidelines will be taken into account in considering the issue the noble Lord raised; as he himself said, let us see what happens.
Moving on, all this shows that like any other business or service, the polling industry’s prosperity is built on trust. If opinion polls are to be taken seriously, people—be they the public, journalists or your Lordships—must trust them. If opinion polls become a laughing stock, pollsters go out of business. Why would anyone commission research if they feel they cannot trust the results? This is why, as my noble friend Lord McColl and other noble Lords have mentioned, the polling industry is undertaking such a thorough investigation of what happened at the general election. It is in not just our interests but its own that it does this. It is just as concerned as everyone else to get to the nub of what went wrong. As has been mentioned, the inquiry’s first evidence session is tomorrow.
To my mind this is the right response to a poll failure—a transparent review of what went wrong, followed by innovation and experimentation. The methodology has to be, and be seen to be, robust so we all await the result of this autopsy with interest. I trust that the noble Lord will make his voice heard in this inquiry, and that it will be heeded. Furthermore, the noble Baroness made a number of interesting points about the inquiry taking on board experience from other countries.
Government regulation certainly would not solve many of the issues relating to methodology that the noble Lord mentioned. Regulating the industry would simply centralise the debate and decision-making process, with no guarantee that the challenges surrounding sample size, questions and so on would be overcome. A statutory regulator would be too slow and unwieldy to respond to the innovation and change brought about by big data, cognitive psychology and the digital revolution. Indeed, it would be an analogue solution in a digital age. Crucially, such regulation could—and in my view definitely would—stifle the very debate that opinion polls seek to inform. That is why government regulation is the wrong answer to the right question—a question about conduct and methodology. It is a question that the noble Lord has every right to highlight, and the existing self-regulatory bodies have every reason to heed. The Government do not plan to regulate the opinion polling industry. As Walter Bagehot wrote, and I am sure the noble Lord will say:
“The place of nearly everybody depends on the opinion of everyone else”.
Whether the decision not to regulate will have an impact on the place of government, I am not sure; I suspect we would need an opinion poll to find that out.
Environment: Gardens
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Royal Horticultural Society’s report Why we all need Greening Grey Britain, how they will address the impact of the increase in paving over front gardens, and whether they plan to change the regulations and development rights relating to front gardens.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this is one of those problems that individually, or each time it happens, seems almost inconsequential but which, cumulatively, can have the most enormous impact on cities, towns and suburbs. I hope that noble Lords have all read this report by the Royal Horticultural Society, which is—I think quite ungrammatically—entitled Why We All Need Greening Grey Britain. Each front garden that is paved over will increase the potential for disaster when it comes to flooding and various other problems that we already face. We have to ask ourselves whether we can afford the situation where 3 million front gardens in the UK are now paved over, three times more than 10 years ago. The report highlights that trend and explains some ways to put it right.
Yesterday, at mayor’s question time at City Hall, Boris Johnson said that it was a sad phenomenon that so many front gardens are being concreted over. When I asked him to back my call for a comprehensive review of the planning laws relating to front gardens, he said that he was receptive to further discussions. I have no idea what that means but I will try to push it forward. Noble Lords engaged in this debate today will be lobbied, I imagine fairly seriously, by the Royal Horticultural Society, because we should all be concerned about this, particularly as most of us are resident in London at some point in our lives.
The paving over of front gardens has happened because people increasingly want to create a parking space or to cut garden maintenance, as everyone now is short of time and short of energy. However, while they are solving what they perceive to be one set of problems—lack of time or space to park their car—they are creating a multitude of new problems that we, as public servants, have to be aware of and take responsibility for.
It is inadequate planning laws that are allowing this to happen. After the 2007 floods, the Government quite rightly, in 2008, changed planning laws to encourage the use of permeable materials in front gardens to prevent surface water run-off. That was a good idea. However, given that since then half of London’s front gardens have disappeared under paving or tarmac—a 36% increase in 10 years—it is obvious that planning laws are not working. I would argue that they are now increasing the risk of local flooding.
In addition, the general permitted development planning rules for front gardens do not put any value on protecting or supporting wildlife habitats, reducing the urban heat island effect or trapping pollution from roadside vehicles. Plants, particularly trees, hold a lot of the soot—especially that from diesel vehicles—which everyone knows is a real problem in most of our cities and which causes all sorts of concomitant health problems for the general population, particularly for children and adults with any sort of lung problem. This is a missed opportunity. If we do not use plants to improve the quality of our lives or of our urban environments, we are missing opportunities to do that.
We need to tip the balance of legislation to favour front gardens dominated by rain gardens, open deep flower beds, lawns and green open spaces, and to discourage paving of any kind. Any paving we do have ought to be permeable and kept to an absolute minimum, because even permeable paving does not allow for very heavy rainstorms. Having no paving is preferable.
Hard surfaces also contribute to an urban heat island effect. They soak up heat during the day, particularly at this time of year, and release it at night. Increasing the amount of paving means that we are exacerbating that heat island effect. It means that our nights are much warmer and that people do not sleep as well. It also increases heat stress for people and animals. London, for example, is already 10 degrees hotter than the surrounding green belt on summer nights. A lot of the things that I am describing do not seem that bad—we all like warmer temperatures—but it increases problems for people.
Paving over areas is accelerating the loss of wildlife and habitat. It is not only our health and well-being which suffer but animals. Many of us keep domestic pets, but it is also about the insects that we need, the bird life and even the foxes. It is every sort of animal that we care about. As much as 60% of UK wildlife species and natural habitats are already in decline, even before we take into account the impact that we are having. Losing 3 million front gardens to concrete or tarmac means that there are far fewer places for birds to nest and insects to feed. I think that there is a strong case and appetite for change but, until now, the cumulative effects have not been recognised in the way that the report describes.
It is an issue that we can adopt across parties. Every single party could sign up to this, because it is in essence common sense to protect ourselves from future problems. My political party tries to look ahead and solve problems before they happen; that is, not to allow them to happen at all. It is wonderful that an august body such as the Royal Horticultural Society has actually done that. It does not talk about changing the regulations but about practical solutions that people can adopt; for example, using gravel or permeable surfaces. It also suggests some planting ideas. Plants are particularly good at pushing down, so that when the rain hits the earth it can go much deeper.
However, quite honestly, these wonderful ideas for voluntary action are simply not enough, and it is now time the Government of the day took the initiative and simply stopped people using impermeable paving on their gardens.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I declare two non-financial interests: first, as co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Gardening and Horticulture Group and, secondly, as a very long-standing member of the Royal Horticultural Society. It has been on this call for about 10 years to my knowledge, but it has stepped up the campaign in light of the increasing worries which have been so ably set out by the noble Baroness. We owe her a debt of gratitude for raising it at this point and bringing it to the attention of everybody who may read this debate but, above all, that of Ministers, from whom we look for some action.
I am all for planning controls, but we have those already. My worry is whether they are enforced and whether there are the staff to carry out all the detailed inspections that would be necessary. I am not sure what offence might be committed and therefore what penalty would be incurred and whether it would be sufficient.
I looked up one or two statistics and was horrified to discover that in London the loss of front gardens is equivalent to 22 Hyde Parks—Hyde Park is enormous. That gives an idea of the scale of what, as the noble Baroness rightly said, seems very small and inconsequential to the individual householder who thinks that he will do a little bit of concreting-over to place his car there. I gather that in the north-east of England, research carried out by the Horticultural Trades Association and the RHS found that nearly a quarter of gardens had been completely paved over, with the inference that many more were largely paved over. So we certainly have a problem.
I will not rehearse the very fine points made by the noble Baroness in her opening speech, save to say that there are some other worries. One of those, particularly in places such as London where there is a lot of clay soil, is that the temperature-enhancing effect she described causes a problem with subsidence. This was pointed out by the manager of Halifax insurance services, a person who should know that this can cause serious problems. It is a very real worry for householders if anything goes wrong with the stability on which their homes are built. That is yet another reason for being concerned about this.
My own feeling, as a very keen gardener, is that we should be encouraging people to take steps to work in another way so that they have room both for their car—that is the predominant reason for this happening—and for a little bit of garden as well. The Royal Horticultural Society has been very good about describing the various ways in which this could happen. It starts, very sensibly, by suggesting that a person who wants to make hardstanding for a car should look at their garden, decide where the car needs to be and work from there in order to put the hardstanding—ideally with a permeable membrane or surface—where the car’s wheels are actually going to go. This is particularly relevant in very small front gardens. Then they can have ground between and beyond the wheels that will take small plants and make it very much more attractive.
There was a wonderful example of what can be done at this year’s Chelsea Flower Show, where great attention was given to a delightful front garden, complete with space for the car. It used quite a lot of Welsh slate—which allowed water to sink through, which is so important—but with very attractive plantings put here and there where the car was never going to go. It takes some imagination and some thought but if the Royal Horticultural Society and the Government were to approach it from this angle, we would be far more likely to get results than from a simple crackdown, which people may well resent and which may well not be enforced. I hope that anyone in government listening to this will try to suggest this as a co-operative way forward—I sum it up as more carrot than stick.
It is also true that we need to preserve wildlife, particularly the bee population. Those who are interested in agricultural matters will be aware that there are some real problems with declining bee populations, which has a massive impact on crop growing. Gardens, including back gardens, are a massive resource for bees and other pollinating insects. Again, gardeners could be encouraged, by choosing plants carefully, to grow flowers that will last a long period of time so that insects are able to pollinate over a much longer period. They could also choose plants that are simpler in their structure so that it is easy for bees to pollinate. I am not sure my noble friend sitting next to me would agree, because it is always exciting for breeders to develop more and more exotic flowers that are more complicated in their structure, but we know that very simple flowers make it very much easier for the bees to pollinate.
That would be an added bonus. There is also a bonus for householders. There seems to be plenty of evidence that houses with front as well as back gardens, and that look attractive and are in tree-lined streets, are very much more likely to sell at a good price than those that are completely concreted, grey, dreary and altogether miserable. It would certainly influence me, and I think that it influences a lot of people. So I believe that we can sell this to the general public by saying, “You will, in all probability, enhance the value of your property if it is nicely presented”.
I am sure, too, that local authorities, as well as central government, can be of great assistance in this. I looked up on the internet—via the wonderful Google—and saw that Richmond upon Thames Council has some very good advice on how to enhance properties and on what it would look for, in which it sets out good standards rather than just a series of prohibitions. If more town councils were minded to take that attitude, I am sure that it would be for the better. I agree that Richmond is a very salubrious and attractive area, but if that council sees fit to do it, how much more important it is for perhaps less well-endowed towns and cities to do the same.
Last year I went with the All-Party Gardening and Horticulture Group to see how the City of London is dealing with all sorts of odd spaces, as well as the more major ones. It was quite surprising how it had used all sorts of strange little bits of land to put down trees, shrubs, flowers and so forth, making it much more attractive. It had even made a most attractive little park at the side of St Paul’s Cathedral, where there had been a rather gloomy old car park. So it is possible for local councils and city councils of all kinds to set a good example. People tend to follow suit. Just as we find that where people are allowed to litter, more litter goes down, so it works in reverse: if you have good examples all around you and the neighbour down the road is doing very well, it is far more likely that we will get a far better landscape in which people will be far happier living and working.
There is good medical evidence that people’s health and well-being are greatly improved when they are in happy, green surroundings. If that is not enough to convince people that this campaign is well worth pursuing, I shall be very disappointed.
Lord Skelmersdale (Con)
My Lords, follow that, as they say. I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on bringing this report from the Royal Horticultural Society, Why We All Need Greening Grey Britain—the website says simply “GGB”—to our attention so quickly, only a month after its publication; would that everything in politics happened so quickly.
First, I should declare a sort of interest. The first and probably the best investment I ever made was to give myself a present on my 21st birthday. I was already well into my horticultural training by then so I spent £120 on a life membership of the Royal Horticultural Society. When I say that today’s annual subscription is £41.25, I think that your Lordships will agree that that was, and still is, enormous value for money. I also admit that my wife was a trustee for 11 years and is still a member of one of its committees.
That said, I have two regrets today. I mean no disrespect to the Minister, but to me the whole foundation of this report is environmental, not the built environment, for which she is probably partly responsible—certainly today she is. Whether my noble friends Lord Lawson and Lord Ridley are right or wrong when they say that global warming is happening much more slowly than we are told by some—probably most—scientists, there is no doubt in my mind that climate change is very much with us. You need to look only at the precipitous rainfall we have had—and the flooding that has resulted—over the past few years. This brings me to my second regret. At least in part, the report is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted in regard to the impermeable paving of front gardens in our towns, cities and, as the noble Baroness said, suburbs to provide off-street parking for thousands of cars. This is increasing every year, as the extensive Library brief shows.
In the past two days I have seen two very different types of these paved areas. Last night I was in a house in Chelsea Harbour, which, although it had no front garden, had a back yard. This was closely paved with cement between the concrete slabs. Mercifully, at the back, there was a three-foot wide bed, marked with what looked very like coal, through which were growing two cyclads and what appeared to be a phormium. At the back of the bed was a fence, beyond which was a line of horse chestnuts—planted some 20 years or so ago, I would guess from their girth—on the edge of a deep ditch running down to the river. I do not think that the developer thought much about all this but, although not ideal, we can hardly complain.
The evening before, I was entertained at Kew Gardens. Having just been in Copenhagen—visiting, among other things, the longest herbaceous border in Europe—I was interested to see the Broad Walk, as it is known, with its borders on either side. I was told that, when completed, it will be two metres longer than the one in Copenhagen—a sort of horticultural one-upmanship, or perhaps today I might say keeping up with the Joneses. The point of this description is that the very wide and long Broad Walk has just been resurfaced, not with concrete or even tarmac, as it would have been in years gone by, but with the kind of bonded gravel that you see around street trees in London. It is a hard-wearing surface—and, most importantly, permeable—so the run-off will be practically non-existent; it will not wash away the light topsoil of the beds on either side.
As both noble Baronesses have pointed out, it can be done. As I have said, the problem is that far too many front gardens have been concreted over. The report indicates that this practice has escalated dramatically over the past few years—would that we had this report 10, or even five, years ago. It is all very well that permeable covering of front gardens does not need planning permission any more, but does anyone ever check? Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will respond to that point.
I am not critical of the whole report. The title is very apt because many of our towns and cities are indeed grey and the RHS is right to say that there are many things homeowners can do to correct this. A plant or a pot containing plants in the corners where cars cannot reach, or a wall shrub climbing up the house or along the fence, would have two effects: it would not only beautify the site—perhaps even making the house more valuable when it comes to be sold, as my noble friend Lady Fookes said—but, more importantly for all of us, it would lock in the carbon dioxide that we are all so afraid of.
The problem is that there is little the Government can now do. They could continue with their policy of making it the norm to have permeable paving by means of sticking to the current planning regulations but, again, it is all very well to be allowed to do these things but does anyone bother to check when the homeowner does not? I am afraid that this would be too little, too late, although not for the thousands of new gardens that I am sure have been concreted over.
Again in the excellent brief from the Library, I saw that the RAC Foundation has pointed out that almost 7 million front gardens have been concreted over. My noble friend the Minister will talk about all sorts of things—not least, perhaps, the conurbation of Bolton, which is included in the criticism that we have made of concreted-over front gardens—but can she tell the Committee how many of the 7 million will have “concretable”, for want of a better expression, front gardens? Will the Government insist on a planning regime which continues to mandate permeable surfaces? For now, though, I am afraid that the horse has bolted.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for the opportunity to debate this important issue. It has brought a focus to a growing problem which, frankly, might otherwise have passed us by. It may well have passed me by without the opportunity to concentrate on it and understand some of the issues. It reminds us of why such issues matter.
The scale of the problem is covered in the report of the Royal Horticultural Society and has been outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others. We share those concerns. As we have heard, three times as many front gardens are now 100% paved over compared with 10 years ago—a staggering increase; over half the total surface of front gardens is hard surfacing; and one in three front gardens have no plants.
I gently make the point at this juncture that the concept of a decent house with a front and back garden is still not the experience of many in our country. Too many still live in grotty accommodation or languish on waiting lists, with the prospect of a decent home but a dream.
We know that this increase in paving comes with environmental risks, especially increased flash flooding, because there is no grass or soil to soak up the moisture. This means that the moisture and the pollutants it has collected runs off the paving into the drainage system, putting pressure on that system and toxins into the water supply.
We have heard that this is not only an environmental issue but a life issue. Plants and trees not only provide a place for birds to nest and insects to feed but supply oxygen while absorbing carbon dioxide. Grass will absorb noise pollution. There is also the aesthetic aspect.
If we put this in context, a publication from the Committee on Climate Change, included in our Library briefing, reminds us that increased flood risk is the greatest threat to the UK from climate change, a point acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. Flooding on the scale experienced recently has become more likely as a result of the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This raises macro issues of flood management which are largely beyond the scope of this debate. However, it adds to the urgency to seek to reverse the trend we are considering today. We should be mindful of the fact that the serious flooding in 2007 caused an estimated £3 billion-worth of damage.
Whatever the issues, we know that paving over of front gardens is putting pressure on our drainage systems and contributing to the risk of flooding. It is not only flooding: hard surfaces collect vehicle pollution such as oil, petrol and brake dust, which is washed into the drains and hence into our rivers and streams. We know that this is a particular issue for London because of the flash flooding washing sewage into the Thames and the associated health risks. The Thames Tideway Tunnel project seeks to ameliorate the effects of that.
If we are to change the situation, we need to be cognisant of what is causing this trend. It is not rocket science. The causes include an increase in the number of cars on the road—I think there are now more than 38 million vehicles—with the congruent ensuing pressure on parking; the decline of rural bus services, which means that, for some, ownership of a car is essential; multiple car ownership in households, some in neighbourhoods which were built before there was any realisation of the scale of the growth in car ownership; difficulty in parking close to one’s home; and concerns over safety when walking back home late at night. For disabled people, these problems can be compounded, particularly where there is inadequate on-street parking provision for them.
The problems are further compounded by garages attached to houses being converted to living space as a cheaper alternative to moving or trading up—another manifestation of our housing crisis. Of course, then there are the changes to home ownership and the break-up of council estates where failure to manage gardens could have been a tenancy issue. We also have the rise of “generation rent”, with its short-term horizons, which does not inherently encourage the enlightened tending of what gardens may be available.
It is suggested there are other factors as well, such as TV programmes encouraging patios. Perhaps the Minister will let us have the Government’s view on whether they see this as an issue. We would suggest that the reduction in funding for local authorities is also a factor, leading to fewer resources to maintain the cultivation of roundabouts and pockets of public land, as was mentioned earlier; the loss of floral displays, which brighten and encourage communities; and the demise, certainly in some areas, of the “In Bloom” competitions, which were an encouragement to neighbourhoods to plant their front gardens. Not all, of course, have been replaced by community and voluntary effort.
Lack of resources also impacts on the capacity of planning departments to advise on and enforce the planning regime—in particular, the changes to the 2008 permitted development rights, as discussed, under a Labour government, which were a tightening of the regime. This allows new or replacement driveways of any size if permeable surfacing is used; otherwise, the covering of a surface of more than 5 square metres where there is no run-off to a permeable area requires planning permission. Can the Minister help us with any data about compliance with these regulations and, crucially, say whether there are any data on their enforcement?
At a macro level, we hear concerns about underinvestment in flood prevention and the increased risks of avoidable flood damage, and concerns that financial pressures have led to funding provided by Defra to lead local flood authorities being diverted to other council services. Does the Minister have any information for us on this matter and the extent to which it might be happening?
The report of the Committee on Climate Change reminds us that the Environment Agency has 40% fewer staff than in 2010 to advise local authorities and developers on planning applications. For example, 12,000 minor applications in the flood plain did not receive site-specific advice in 2013. The 2014 progress report reminds us that traditional piped-sewer systems cannot readily be adapted to deal with increased rainfall and that sustainable drainage systems can reduce the quantity or speed of the run-off flowing into the sewer systems. Provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act encouraged sustainable drainage systems to be the default option in new developments and redevelopments, but aspects of the Act, particularly on national SuDS, as they are referred to, and connection to public sewers, have been delayed. Can the Minister tell us whether these have now been implemented, and if not, when this will happen?
The briefing material provided for this debate makes it clear that there is not an inevitable contradiction between getting a parking space into the front garden and keeping some greenery. The report to which the noble Baroness referred sets out the variety of ways in which these requirements can be met, including the types of permeable materials which are least harmful. The planning portal also provides helpful guidance. This does not seem to suggest that the legislation needs to change; instead the current planning and building regulations perhaps need to be followed and enforced. However, we are certainly open to suggestions as to how these things might be amended and improved.
Much of this is a matter of individual responsibility, and it seems to me that there is a need for a public information programme which draws attention to what is happening and what might be done about it. There are some natural channels for this communication. For example, it could be done by local authorities when dealing with applications for dropped kerbs and crossovers. Perhaps more could be done via landlords’ associations to raise the profile of the issue. We know that working with contractors can be difficult, given that they tend to be micro-businesses, which come and go, but there are trade associations that may help. There are things we can do that are not being done at the moment, but the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has provided us with food for thought today and we should thank her for that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, but particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. As we all know, she is the fully committed Green voice in the House of Lords, and we thank her for it.
I will go through the various questions and points that noble Lords made. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, started off by talking about the cumulative effects of paving over front gardens—not just the odd one here or there. In fact, in bringing forward local plans now, local authorities should work with water and sewerage companies and other infrastructure providers to assess the quality and capacity of the infrastructure in question to meet the forecast demands.
The Environment Agency produces maps of areas susceptible to flooding—certainly I know a few near myself, for example, in Salford. These maps provide the basis for the strategic flood risk assessment, which local authorities should use in preparing their local plans. Even small development applications in flood risk areas should prepare a flood risk assessment and set out how risks will be managed. It is important that new homes are not brought forward where they would be at risk of flooding, unless they can be made safe and resilient—and without increasing flood risk elsewhere, of course.
Most noble Lords mentioned the balance between the off-street parking demand and the impacts it will have on the local environment; the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, concluded by saying that there does not have to be a conflict between the two. However, on-street parking or parking on pavements can cause congestion, and, as the noble Lord also said, can be a hazard to disabled pavement users, pedestrians and other road users. The permitted development rights allow a householder to make use of their front garden, while at the same time ensuring there is a provision for surface water drainage; that is crucial as regards the flash-flooding events that we have seen so many times over the last few years.
The RHS report complements the permitted development right by offering ways in which the householder can maintain some planting while meeting their parking need. Its advice on paving front gardens supports the requirements of the householder’s permitted development rights for hard surfaces. The RHS suggests that hard surfaces should be made of porous material, which many noble Lords mentioned today, and it gives several pieces of advice on what material might be appropriate. I heard the other day about a moss-type substance, which you can put in place of a hard surface on the drive; after you drive out in the morning it springs back to life again and is not affected too badly by reparking your car on it. So there are some very good suggestions; my noble friend mentioned Welsh slate, as well. However, if the surface is not porous, there should be a run-off to a porous or permeable surface in the garden, which could be a flowerbed, grass, or another greened area.
The Government take the issue of flood risk—which as we all know has been an issue over the last few years—and the idea of sustainable drainage, very seriously. There is strong planning policy and guidance on assessing, avoiding and managing flood risk for new development, as I mentioned earlier.
The noble Baroness challenged us on whether we had read the report. We have all read it, I hope. It is a very practical guide that we could all use. These things are applicable not only to government policy but also to the individual and how we all play our part in helping the environment and mitigating flood risk.
On permitted development rights and the permeable hard surface, if an area is more than five metres square, that hard surface is required to be permeable. The noble Baroness also talked about the heat island effect. Planning guidance on climate change advises local planning authorities, when preparing local plans and taking planning decisions, to pay particular attention to integrating adaptation and mitigation approaches that will support sustainable development: for example, maximising summer cooling through the ventilation of buildings and avoiding solar gain, and by providing multifunctional green infrastructure which can reduce urban heat islands.
My noble friends Lady Fookes and Lord Skelmersdale and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about enforcement by local authorities. Local authorities, of course, are responsible for enforcement and can make householders take up paving and replace it with a permeable surface. I think that it was my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale who asked how effective enforcement is. I do not have figures to hand but if I can get them I will and I will place a copy of the response in the Library as well.
My noble friend Lady Fookes talked about the value of tree-lined streets and the idea of green infrastructure. I could not agree more. There is nothing more off-putting than a grey house without any planting at all. Trees really enhance the economic value of property, both domestic and commercial. You only need to look at places such as New York, which I think is one of the finest green cities—
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My particular interest is trees but I have found this whole debate fascinating. I was once a Member of Parliament for part of Ipswich and most of it has been covered like this. It is very serious. It needs to be stopped somehow and my suggestion might be that we cannot ask local authorities to do too much. We heard from my noble friend Lady Fookes about the Chelsea exhibit, where you can park a car and have the porous surface and cars. Might it be an idea to encourage local authorities just to do one of these—one or two in specific areas—to show what can be done? People love to copy things and if they think it is all happening, they might well do it. That might just be a way forward.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is funny, because the next point I was coming on to make was that my noble friend also said that where there are good examples of what people do, others will follow. Certain local authorities see great value in planting trees and keeping the green environment in a fine state. I think local authorities can lead by example. Coming back to New York, it is one of the finest examples of a green city in the world and yet it is very built up as well—so you can do both. I do not think that we will introduce legislation to force councils to plant trees, but there is no doubt that where trees are planted you enhance the environment and people’s well-being in every way. My noble friend Lady Fookes mentioned the health benefits. They are undeniable.
My noble friend Lady Fookes also mentioned clay soil drying and leading to subsidence. Building regulations now ensure that the design of foundations avoids subsidence problems in clay soil areas and building control bodies often have additional local requirements in this regard. But we need to use these permeable surfaces as run-offs in permitted development rights to help minimise those problems.
My noble friend Lady Fookes talked about biodiversity, which is absolutely right. It goes hand in glove with the health benefits and the whole appeal of an area. Our bee population will not survive in concreted areas. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, talked about the housing crisis. In fact, we have exceeded the target of 260,000 affordable homes and there will be £38 billion of public and private investment to help ensure that 275,000 new affordable homes are build during this Parliament.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale questioned whether this was an environmental debate or a built environment debate. It is probably more of the latter. I am happy to have responded in this debate and if I have left out any questions asked by noble Lords, I shall answer them in due course. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part.
EU: Asylum Seekers
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy regarding possible proposals for co-ordination from other European Union member states regarding the rescue of Middle East and African asylum seekers in Europe.
Lord Dykes (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this important subject at this particular juncture, notwithstanding the fact that the Interior Ministers’ meeting in Luxembourg yesterday finished without a definitive conclusion about what is to be done about this highly complex matter. I imagine, therefore, that the European Council will be following this up next week and the week after. I am particularly grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Bates—the Minister in charge of this debate today—has come to address us at the end. I welcome anything he can say that will give us guidance on what happened in Luxembourg yesterday and what looks likely to be the position in the future. This is an extremely worrying and very important matter.
I am equally glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is the Opposition spokesman. He is the well-known chairman of the British Council All-Party Parliamentary Group and very knowledgeable on this subject. It is a very important subject because there is a drastic danger of a lack of a proper humanitarian response now because of the pressures, which are understandable. It is easy for people to dismiss those pressures—the fears of people in recession and austerity in different countries about their own jobs, families and livelihoods when they think that people are going to come into a country too easily without going through the proper immigration process—but they are entirely understandable.
I was very pleased indeed at Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday when the Chancellor George Osborne—answering because the Prime Minister was abroad dealing with the other negotiations on Europe—and the right honourable gentleman Hilary Benn exchanged views. Mr Benn said,
“as more and more people gather in Libya to try to cross the Mediterranean, HMS Bulwark is doing an extraordinary job in rescuing frightened people. But we learned yesterday that its deployment is under active review”.
In response, Mr Osborne gave an assurance to Mr Benn that despite the fact that we have withdrawn support from Mare Nostrum—a very controversial and unwelcome decision, in my view—a continuing priority would be given to this. I was particularly glad that he said that,
“I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will continue to play our full part in the search and rescue operation in the Mediterranean … Taking people out of the water and rescuing them is essential—we are a humanitarian nation and we need to deal with those issues”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/15; col. 312.]
But it seems worrying that HMS “Bulwark”, which came home only recently and has done a marvellous job rescuing quite a large number of people in a short time, is suddenly now to be taken off for some kind of maintenance. I would like an explanation of that.
Be that as it may, it remains very heartening that in this country a majority of the population questioned in polls and private polls say that they are in favour of us rescuing some of these very unfortunate people, according to a fair share to be worked out in the European Union. It did not help at all that the British Government gave the impression, before and after the election, that they did not want any of these people to come here—any at all. That then made it impossible for the other member states to do anything other than respond to their hard-line, right-wing, anti-immigrant and sometimes racialist parties which were saying that they were also going to be difficult about it.
By the way, I happen to know the Italian ambassador in London, Signor Terracciano—an outstanding ambassador. I deliberately embarrassed him when I met him the week before last by saying that I would very eccentrically be tempted, with other colleagues in this place, to propose that the Italian navy and the Guardia Costiera—the coastguard—should be given the Nobel Peace Prize. I believe that since early 2014 the Italians alone have rescued 190,000 people, which is a fantastic achievement. That needs to be in the background when discussing this miserable matter. If the European Union, one of the wealthiest parts of the world, with 500 million people, cannot take in a relatively small number of genuine refugees—they must be genuine and they are, as far as I can tell, coming out of misery and some dying in the process—that is a very sad state of affairs. There is a danger—which I do not want—of Britain being a bad member of the EU club on this as on other matters. We have far too many opt-outs already, and we should be playing our full part in this and dealing with the other states.
In the mean time, the northern Italian states, bearing in mind their political complexions, are being very difficult about having too many migrants, as they put it. Greece is dealing with its own problem of survival and staying in the eurozone, if it can. If the mighty European Union cannot help a small country such as Greece, that is a matter of shame, in my view. However, that is a different subject. Greece is now having to cope with people arriving on its islands. The numbers are not too large at the moment; none the less, they need help. I pay tribute to the Red Cross for its work both on the Greek islands and in the Italian rescue effort. Since then, there has been an attempt to bring about an agreed European Union solution, but we need to make sure that this is done properly and with great care.
This is a change of subject as it is a reference to immigrants in general. I was very impressed by my good friend Ken Clarke. Before Christmas, when there was a furore about there being too many immigrants and so on in this country, which I think is totally exaggerated and based on fantasy rather than fact, he said, “What’s all this fuss about immigrants? They make British society more exciting”. That is a pretty provocative remark to make when there is so much tension and there are so many reactionary views on this subject, but I entirely agree with him and understand what he means.
Coming back to the refugees, it was very interesting that a German spokesman specifically in charge of the whole crisis said in Berlin the other day, “We actually welcome a lot of the genuine refugees from Syria coming to us because of their skills and qualifications”. Germany’s generosity on numbers, followed by Sweden—a small country and also very generous—makes the numbers that we are proposing to accept a matter of shame for us. Once again, the Government need to apologise for having left the Mare Nostrum set-up, and I ask them to give us a proper answer about what they are going to do in the future to get back on track with the collective European Union effort.
That is the key point. Once member states start taking their own individual lines, refusing to deal with the others and saying, “We’re going to be the bad member of the club. We disagree with this”, the European Union comes under the usual pressures from its members’ own electorates—understandably—and the situation slides down into chaos, with nationalism, chauvinism and all the things that we do not want to see in this country and elsewhere in the European Union. The whole purpose of the European Union is that it is not only humanitarian but inter-national, inter-nation and inter-all the communities of the national, sovereign member states working together. We must get back to that. The United Kingdom has a lot of ground to make up to get back to that position, having trailed behind on so many issues recently, not least the rather bizarre negotiations that are now taking place on changing some of the terms of our membership. It remains to be seen what will be done about that.
The Guardian of 16 June contained the disturbing headline:
“EU states bicker over migrant quotas as thousands keep crossing Mediterranean”.
Of course, it is very difficult for them to get an agreement. Paragraph two of the article says:
“Brussels is struggling to effect a new quota system for sharing refugees, with EU interior ministers due to meet today—
as I said, that was yesterday—
“in Luxembourg … But with tens of thousands pouring across the Mediterranean mainly into Italy, Rome appears outraged at the European infighting and is threatening to retaliate”.
This puts Signor Renzi and his Government in an impossible position. Britain started that process, I am sad to say. It was the first country to say that it did not want to take anybody, and has taken just a small number. That led to the rot setting in regarding the co-operation in this field that is necessary.
The article goes on to say:
“East European states reject the commission proposals, Britain and Denmark are opting out of them, the Germans support them, France and Spain are lukewarm, and Italy is furious that it may be left to deal with the tens of thousands arriving on its southern shores. If no equitable deal is struck to share the refugee burden, warned Matteo Renzi, the Italian prime minister, Rome would start issuing the migrants with temporary visas allowing them to travel elsewhere in Europe and would stop receiving the hundreds of boats arriving from Libya”.
Issuing those visas would be contrary to the Schengen rules and procedures, and that, too, would be a bad mistake for Italy to make. We need to make sure that this is all done in concert, with people working together and restoring the solidarity of the European Union when it deals with crises, and we need to make sure that the United Kingdom reverts to being a good and positive member of the European Union once more.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for securing this debate.
The key phrase he used was “small number”. That is simply not true: we are not talking about small numbers; we are talking about 3 million or 4 million refugees from the present conflict in the Middle East, and potentially millions more—probably half a million—waiting on the Libyan coast to be removed. The situation is wholly unsustainable as it is. It is not surprising that the members of the EU have rejected the EU quota proposals, because they are pure tokenism, pure gesture politics. If we talk about tens of thousands, or 100,000 or 200,000 in total, we are not beginning to scratch the surface. Let us look a little wider and a little more realistically at what has really happened.
The problem is that we have set up a system—absolutely rightly, as we have a moral and international obligation—to rescue people in peril at sea. People are put into small dinghies with outboard motors and enough petrol to get out to sea, and then, following a mobile phone call, HMS “Bulwark” or somebody rescues them. It would be more logical to send HMS “Bulwark” to Tripoli to transfer them. That is not the solution. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we have to break the link between getting on a boat and getting residence in Europe.
I strongly propose that we set up a new holding area somewhere in north Africa. Various countries have been mentioned, including Tunisia and Egypt. I favour Libya, which is already a failing state. We should not just set up a holding area but think a bit more widely and set up something that could one day itself become a state. I would call it Refugia, for want of a better name. It is not an EU problem; it is a UN problem, a world problem. We would need a UN mandate in the form of a Security Council resolution. The Security Council is the fastest legislature in the world; its resolutions have the force of international law. It would have to be negotiated with the appropriate country in north Africa. We would set it up and then it would need military help for its establishment, protection and guarding. That would probably best be done by NATO, again under UN auspices.
There have been many examples in history of democratic states emerging from temporary arrangements where other countries have a mandate to run some territory. This happened after the First World War with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of Syria, Iraq, Palestine and the rest. After the Second World War, Germany and Japan were run by other countries and eventually emerged as fully democratic states.
I suggest, therefore, that we have a holding area which people could be returned to or take refuge in and be properly assessed. Some may well be admitted to countries as economic migrants, refugees or asylum seekers. The main challenge, however, is to do it on a scale that meets the problem, which is enormous. The problem is caused largely by the growth of political Islam, a basically fascist organisation that is having a profoundly destabilising effect on the world. We must have a solution that is relative and relevant to the size of the problem.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, this is a human problem. The huddled masses are desperate individuals striving to escape civil war or to improve their own lives and those of their families. Some camps in north Africa will not solve that aspiration. We should not demonise migrants as if they were like a plague of locusts seeking to reach our shores. There is limited mutual trust and co-operation in the EU as the scale of migration increases, and co-ordination is clearly necessary. The Italian Prime Minister must have told Mr Cameron that it is hardly moral for us to rescue migrants, transfer responsibility for them to Italy and then perhaps in the same breath ask for Italian help on EU reform.
The questions include: can we distinguish those fleeing civil war from those whose sole or main reason is economic? What about those fleeing the environmental pressure of desertification or tyrannical government? How do we deter people setting out in the first place and deal humanely with those within our borders, including unaccompanied minors? It is difficult enough to deal with the symptoms and more difficult to deal with the causes.
On the causes, we can consider what can we do by aid or capacity-building or even, dare I say, by providing markets in Europe for agricultural products, but a comprehensive solution can never be found, as the US has found on its border with Mexico with the aspirations of those who see the good life in el Norte. Many wealth disparities will remain. Poverty will remain. The population explosion, particularly in the Sahel, will drive more migrants, and the Syrian tragedy will be with us for some time.
So far as the symptoms are concerned, dealing with downstream symptoms is marginally less difficult. We can hit the traffickers and their networks in source and transit countries and in the EU, but the trade is lucrative and there are many vested interests in north Africa. We can identify, capture and destroy vehicles, but there are formidable legal problems, and Russia will veto any Security Council resolution. Tackling piracy in the Gulf of Aden shows the versatility of traffickers. We can seek to deter migrants and perhaps establish camps, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, but who can deliver? Libya is now in total chaos, with key parts of the coast in the hands of ISIL. Will we have to provide military personnel to guard the camps? Will permission be given?
I make my final reflection with some hesitation as it can easily be misused. There is a security dimension. At a NATO conference in Rome in April, a new concept was discussed: a new form of hybrid warfare labelled “refugee warfare”. An example is the tactic of infiltration into target cities in Iraq and Syria practised by ISIL. Nine French people have been suicide bombers in Syria and Iraq and that phenomenon could be imported, so I shall ask three questions. Is this new risk factor taken seriously by the European Union? If so, what steps is the European Union taking to co-ordinate a response? What liaison is there with NATO on the subject? We must remember that these are people in need, but we must also recognise that the endeavours of the European Union are likely to lead at best only to a partial reduction in the number of migrants.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dykes for this debate. A commentator at Carnegie Europe recently said:
“The refugee crisis is just a part of a complex and massive public policy failure by the EU and its member states in the field of migration”.
It is hard to disagree. The symptoms are highly visible. The most obvious are the tragic deaths at sea, Hungary’s plan to erect a barbed-wire fence on its border with Serbia and migrants breaking into lorries at Calais. On that point, will the Minister say why those lorries are still not in secure lorry parks? We also see that the so-called European common asylum system is dysfunctional. It is not working. Can the record be improved in the short term through ideas such as the hot-spot approach of having EASO—the European Asylum Support Office—FRONTEX and Europol working on the ground with front-line states, or any other ideas for increasing reception-processing capacity?
In any case, the problem needs to be tackled much farther back in the chain. I am glad that efforts, not least in this House, to keep the UK a participant in Europol, Eurojust and a range of policing and criminal justice measures, succeeded. Will the Minister tell us what EU action is being taken, and what law enforcement action the UK is involved in against criminal gangs and smuggling networks? I think we all agree that action needs to be taken at source on the root causes. In the long term, tackling the sources of conflict, poverty and war will bear fruit. The UNHCR has today said that 60 million people are currently displaced by war. I am very glad that Parliament committed to a 0.7% target for international aid. That is not only altruistic, it is also self-interest. But this is a longer-term strategy and does not deal with the immediate crisis.
I believe that we cannot see trapping people in Libya as a viable plan. They would be subject to all sorts of human rights abuses. We need safe and legal alternative routes for displaced and vulnerable people in need of protection to reach Europe. The UNHCR target is to ask the EU to have 20,000 people a year settled through resettlement by 2020. The alternative is to issue humanitarian or asylum visas in the home country. The UK is resettling only 750 refugees a year through the gateway protection programme and has resettled only 187 Syrian refugees. I cannot believe that the public would object to these people being directly resettled. Will the Government give more support to an EU resettlement scheme than they are able or willing to give to an EU relocation scheme for people who have already arrived in the EU? Will they at least give intellectual support, even as a non-participant, to the development of a rational, coherent EU policy on legal migration, given that the EU as a whole—if not this country—is in demographic decline?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, like other noble Lords I shall speak briefly about the long-term and the short-term questions. Surely, the gravity of the situation is underlined by the speeches we have already heard during the debate, but by the statistics as well. Some 3,500 people have already been fished from the sea dead, with 1,800 corpses reclaimed in this year alone.
On Monday, I raised the situation in Eritrea. Last year, Eritrea and Syria accounted for 46% of all those fleeing over the Mediterranean. As the noble Baroness said, we have to tackle this problem at source but that is a long-term issue. What do we do in the mean time? I find it impossible to justify the 187 places for resettlement in the UK, as was just referred to, against Germany’s 30,000, the Lebanon’s 1.2 million, Turkey’s 1.8 million and Jordan’s 600,000. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will respond to the comments made by Sir Peter Sutherland, the United Nations special representative of the Secretary-General, who at the weekend rebuked us for not taking our “fair share” of refugees. I hope he will say whether he has considered the requests of the Refugee Council to consider legal avenues for refugees, such as humanitarian or asylum visas, and to look at ways to reunite families. I also wonder whether we have consulted with other Commonwealth countries about a more coherent international response. So yes, the European Union should be involved but the Commonwealth and the international community of the United Nations clearly should be involved as well.
At Prime Minister’s Questions on 3 June, the Government said that “the vast majority” of Mediterranean migrants “are not asylum seekers” to give some justification for our not taking part in the EU quota system, but that is simply not so. Are we seriously saying that the UNHCR is wrong in insisting that those escaping from Eritrea or Syria are not internationally recognised refugees? Those escaping from Eritrea are leaving a country which was designated by a United Nations commission of inquiry only a week ago as a country likely to be susceptible to crimes against humanity. Let us contemplate the fate of the Yazidis, the Assyrian Christians and those who have been abducted by ISIS in Libya as they have tried to escape and were beheaded, with another group having been abducted in the last few days alone.
In April, along with 12 other Peers drawn from across the divide, I signed a letter to the Daily Telegraph. We argued that creating internationally policed safe havens—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in north Africa and the Middle East—would reduce dangerous sailings. Asylum applications could be assessed and repatriation organised where appropriate. We said that it was an urgent priority. It still is. The Government said that such safe havens would create magnets to encourage more people to flee from war, persecution or grinding poverty. But what is the alternative strategy? What exactly is our policy? Should we tell them to stay and be killed, raped, or persecuted; tell them that they can illegally board boats that will be blown out of the sea; tell them that if they reach Italy or Greece we will then slam our doors on them; or tell them we have no internationally agreed strategy for dealing with the immediate crisis or for resolving the conflicts which have driven them from their homes in the first place? That is not moral or legal and it is not worthy of our nation.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, let me move on from what people have said. I do not think that it matters very much whether we call them refugees, asylum seekers, or whatever. A lot of people want to migrate from where they are to where the economic prosperity is. That is not just a problem of Europe, where people are coming across from Africa or the Middle East; it is a global problem. There is the Rohingya problem; they are leaving Myanmar and ending up in Indonesia and Malaysia without any guarantee that they will be settled. If this is a global problem, it needs a global solution. It has to be tackled by the UN Security Council and the G20, because this flow of migrants will not cease. Even if we now share them equally and fairly, there will be the next share of a next wave of migrants because the world is very unstable, in both Africa and the Middle East, and people want to better their lives. They want to go where the prosperity is. The European Union should use its powers, especially the UK and France as Security Council members, to ask the United Nations to help us reach a global solution. There are countries that are sparsely populated—for example, Mongolia has only 2 million people. It could take 8 million and go up to 10 million. We should give them an economic incentive to accept refugees, because they are relatively less crowded countries. We have the problem that many people want to come here. It is a global and long-term problem that needs a global and long-term solution. The way we should do it is to make arrangements for people to be safely moved to countries that have agreed to accept them, and the countries that have agreed to accept them will get suitable aid. We can work on the short-term problems of adjustment, because these people are going to cost us a lot of money anyway, so we may as well transfer that money to Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, Outer Mongolia and Mongolia and so on. We can look at the map of horrendously sparsely populated regions. Even Australia has only about 20 million people—less than Mumbai—so you can imagine how sparsely populated Australia is. I know that Australia makes a lot of trouble about this issue. But we need to sit down and think of solutions in which the entire world takes part in solving this problem. It is not just a European problem, although it happens to be European because Europe is nearer to North Africa. But that is no reason why Europe should bear the burden of all these problems. I suggest that the Minister goes off and proposes this scheme, and maybe the Prime Minister can take a lead and we can get a global solution.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, Britain generally has a very good record on helping asylum seekers. I suddenly realised this morning that I am the only survivor of a three-man Cabinet committee which eventually persuaded the Government to accept the entry of Kenyan Asians who were being persecuted under Mr Amin. I must say that it was an extremely successful exercise because they have integrated in an extraordinary way. However, our record is not without some flaws. It was quite late that I discovered that, when war broke out in 1939, not only were Jewish refugees arrested and interned but the Treasury confiscated any assets that they had. It was decades later before I managed to persuade Margaret Beckett, who was very good on this, to get the Treasury to do something to try to repay the heirs and successors of those who had suffered in this way.
It is very important indeed that we maintain our good record on asylum seekers, but we have to face the fact that we now have an enormous problem compared with any previous situation that one can recall. It is not simply individual asylum seekers who are being persecuted, or identifiable groups, but a whole tranche of people who are being persecuted because war is taking place on their territory, and they are nowadays better able to move than they were before.
I am a little puzzled as to why this is a Home Office matter and why my noble friend is replying, since many aspects of it are clearly international. I am sure that he can assure us that there is adequate co-operation between departments. Essentially, the Home Secretary sought to set out a programme. The question I have is: are we making any progress whatsoever on the various proposals that she made? She said first that,
“separating the current essential search and rescue work from the process of gaining permission to stay”,
in the UK is essential. We should then seek to establish a safe landing area where we can separate economic migrants from genuine refugees. Have we made any progress in international negotiations in getting that done?
The crucial problem that we face is that the more we do to try to help the desperate people in danger in the Mediterranean, the more we are likely to encourage them to come. We have to face this crucial problem. If they thought that, although they would be rescued, that does not mean that they then have free access to achieve the travel that they were trying to carry out; that is another matter. The two things are very much linked. It has to be: what do we do with those who are not genuine refugees and what do we do as far as that is concerned?
I have to say to my noble friend that I am not the least bit clear, given the Home Office’s policy, what orders are given to our naval ships and so on as to where they should disembark the people who they rescue. There seems to be some contradiction as far as that is concerned.
Overall, the policy that the Government are putting forward is right. We must try to support it. There are a number of other ways that we can help. In particular, we need to take stronger action against traffickers. Have we managed to arrest any traffickers? Have any of them been prosecuted? What penalties have been imposed on them? One’s impression is that that this has been a totally futile exercise and that there does not seem to have been any attempt whatever, when traffickers accompany or begin to accompany and then desert those who seek to travel, to segregate traffickers from the remaining people in the boats.
These are immensely difficult problems. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for initiating the debate, but it is clearly so important that we ought to have a debate on the Floor of the House at a very early date.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for giving us the opportunity to debate this vital subject, I join with him unreservedly in saying that the Italians should have the widest possible and most strongly expressed tribute from us all for the magnificent part that they have played on behalf of Europe and us all in the situation that confronts us.
Similarly—I say this with some joy, as a former Navy Minister—the Navy has behaved with outstanding sensitivity. In watching the interviews the humanity of the people doing the rescuing shines through; it just cannot be suppressed. That is Britain at its best. However, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was right to remind us to have a global perspective on the response to refugee problems. When we look at the burden being carried by Jordan and by Lebanon and see what this is doing to the economy and the pressure that this is putting on local people in their situation, our record, which we love to talk about in terms of our humanity and outward-looking attitude in our past towards refugees, is in danger of being totally eclipsed by the generosity of countries such as those. We had better remind ourselves that we have to live up to our traditions if we are not to be eclipsed by those countries.
What do we do about it? The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was absolutely right: this is just a symptom of an accumulating global problem. What we are faced with now is likely to become child’s play by comparison with what is going to develop. So far as I recollect, we have not yet mentioned this afternoon that climate change is going to accentuate the movement of people. We will have not just conflict and economic pressures but climatic pressures leading to same thing. All this makes it obvious that we have to find international global solutions; we cannot find solutions on our own. By constantly trying to put a finger in the dyke, we are just destroying our chance for influence and leadership in finding international solutions. We are increasingly seen—I do not like saying this, but it is true for any of us who are involved in international affairs—as a mean, defensive, neurotic little country that is concerned only with keeping people out and is not positively engaged and playing a part in finding the solutions that are necessary. That is a tremendous challenge to us all.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, allowed himself to digress, as he put it, because whenever we debate subjects such as this we should always have a refrain which we repeat: that if we look at our medicine, our science, our literature, our technology, our industry, our public services and our cultural life, we see that refugees have been a rich investment in the quality, the character and the standing of Britain in our history.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I agree with virtually everything said in this debate. The one thing that worries me is the argument that a pull factor could, undesirably, encourage further people to cross the sea. It seems to me that the overriding responsibility is to pull out of the sea the people who are out there. I do not believe that more people go out because they think there is a chance of being rescued.
This debate does the House great credit, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for introducing it. When the Minister comes to respond to it, I would like him to reflect on Lord Mansfield’s judgment in the Somerset case of 1772, where it was established in the law of this country that a runaway slave facing persecution or death was free the moment he was on board a British ship. It is wonderful that “Bulwark” is there and I am sure that it is doing wonderful work. Although I am worried to read in the press that it may be about to be withdrawn, I am sure that it will be replaced. But if it is the case that we would not replace “Bulwark” unless the Italians agreed to take entire responsibility for anybody whom the Royal Navy rescued from the sea, it would be completely inconsistent with the spirit of the Mansfield judgment, which is the spirit of this country.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, on his debate—we always say that such debates are timely; this time, we really mean it—and I thank all others who have spoken in this too short discussion. It is an extremely difficult issue for the world and in particular for EU countries. It is then made more difficult, as any answer to it is bound up with developments in the Middle East and Africa that we have at present little or no control over.
The Opposition want to support Her Majesty’s Government, working with the EU, to find solutions that both are practical and do not result in more deaths but which are also in line with the British traditions that have been talked about in this debate of generosity and humanity. However, it has to be said, and I am afraid said clearly, that along with the other EU countries the then British coalition Government share the blame for what we, among many others, said in the autumn of last year was the appalling decision to replace the Italian Mare Nostrum search and rescue operation with the EU Triton operation, with vessels no longer searching the wider Mediterranean but confined to 30 miles off the Italian shore. Has there ever been a more catastrophic odyssey, based on the totally mistaken proposition that making rescue much less likely and drowning much more likely would lessen the pull factor as far as desperate people are concerned? Only the terrible losses and deaths in an incident in April made Europe and the United Kingdom Government think again. Now, of course, with HMS “Bulwark” and other vessels and helicopters doing brilliant work as always, and the Triton operation abandoned, thank goodness, more lives are being saved.
Triton spent one-third of the amount that the Italians, who I agree deserve praise, spent on Mare Nostrum. The International Organization for Migration estimates that deaths at sea have risen ninefold since the end of Mare Nostrum. It was a tragic error by us and the EU, and as a Government we should not have supported it. It is deeply ironic to read the language of the Minister in another place, repeated in this House by the Minister on 30 October last, in respect of Mare Nostrum:
“It is of course vital that this phasing out is well managed and well publicised to mitigate the risk of further deaths”.
Those further deaths were well foreseen by noble Lords in this House. My noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon said:
“Leaving them to drown instead is shocking and inhumane. It is not the British way of doing things. Does the Minister really believe that this needless loss of life will ever act as a deterrent to criminals and desperate people? How many will drown before the Government reconsider this policy?”.—[Official Report, 30/10/14; cols. 1310-11.]
To his credit, the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, asked why the Government’s policy seemed to support measures that could have only one result, which would be that more refugees would drown in the Mediterranean, rather than a policy whose aim was to lock up more people traffickers. Can we have an assurance from the Minister today that we will not make that mistake again?
The situation today is very grave. We believe that the Government are to some extent selling our country’s humanitarian tradition and spirit of generosity short by not taking in more Syrian refugees. The figure of 187 is disgracefully small on its own, let alone when compared to our European partners. What are Her Majesty’s Government’s intentions? We appreciate just how sensitive and difficult this issue is and as the Opposition we will support the Government in their new stance whenever we can, but not—I repeat, not—if they sign up to the naive and unthinking proposals that they did last year.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a powerful debate and a difficult one to listen to for any Minister with a degree of responsibility for the situation that we find ourselves in. In response to the point made by my noble friend Lord Higgins about why the Home Office is responding to the debate, essentially three departments look after the area. Had the Question been phrased in a slightly different way so that it talked about just the crisis itself, clearly my noble friend Lady Anelay would have responded on behalf of the Foreign Office. Had it been about the situations in the countries which are driving the refugees, my noble friend Lady Verma would have responded on behalf of the Department for International Development. However, it refers to the proposals on asylum currently before the EU, which is a matter that rests with the Home Office. It is also one that the Prime Minister is taking a deep personal interest in as he prepares for the European Council next week.
I undertake to meet with my noble friends Lady Anelay and Lady Verma to share with them the contributions which have been made to this debate, so that we can discuss what more can be done and how we can best serve the House in ensuring that colleagues are kept up to date. The best thing I can probably do with my contribution now, given that time is limited, is to update the Committee on the current situation as we see it and on what is happening. As I go through, I will seek to address some of the points made by noble Lords, although obviously, I may not be able to address all of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that when you hear your words repeated back to you, it is a real challenge to reflect on what we were saying then and what we are saying now. Clearly, the position has changed. However, the UK Government have a proud record, which we have to build upon. We have resettled more refugees since 2008 than any other EU member state other than Sweden. We contribute more in overseas aid than any of the other major economies of the EU, certainly to Syria in particular, as I will come to later. Of course, the decision that was taken last year to stop Mare Nostrum was taken by EU member states as a whole. We were not the ones pushing or calling for it—it was taken through EU Council meetings and was a unanimous decision.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, that this situation is highly complex. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, referred to it as “grave”, and they are both correct. First, we want to continue to do all that we can to save lives. Everything that Britain can do as a moral and upstanding nation to save lives, we will do, and we should be proud of what we are doing.
The Royal Navy’s flagship, HMS “Bulwark”, has directly saved over 3,000 lives since deployment in early May. It is correct that HMS “Bulwark” is being withdrawn for essential maintenance, which I understand is quite normal in a naval context. However, I reiterate what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday, as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, did at the beginning: we will continue to play our full part in search and rescue operations. I also underscore the words of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who talked about sensitivity. When the captain of HMS “Bulwark” was being interviewed, I thought his sensitivity, along with the compassion displayed by naval officers deployed there, was quite outstanding and in the best traditions of our country.
Three Merlin helicopters and two Border Force cutters are also contributing to our efforts, and a number of specialist police officers are at work with their EU counterparts. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to some figures. The latest figures we have are from January this year. There are two crossing areas: the central Mediterranean—
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Can the noble Lord say what will replace HMS “Bulwark”?
Lord Bates
It will be for the Navy to decide the precise vessel and how it will be deployed, and I understand that that decision has not yet been taken. However, the commitment Her Majesty’s Government have made will continue. The mission will continue and will not be disrupted. We will deliver on it. Announcements on that will come forward shortly.
Some 47,000 took the central Mediterranean crossing; of those, 10,000 were from Eritrea, 8,000 from sub-Saharan Africa and 5,000 from Somalia. So far this year, the eastern Mediterranean route was taken by 48,000; 27,000 of those were from Syria, 11,000 from Afghanistan and 3,000 from Pakistan.
We acknowledge that these operations only address the symptoms of a far greater problem. The causes of migration do not start on the Mediterranean; for some it begins when they are forced to leave their home countries because of war or persecution. However, others are economic migrants who have no right to evade the legitimate immigration controls of this country and of the European Union. That is why the Government have always said that the search and rescue operations must only ever be part of a much wider, comprehensive and long-term solution. In recognition of the importance and seriousness of this issue, and the need to address the causes of this extraordinary migration, the Government have been working closely with international partners, both bilaterally and through the EU.
At the G6 meeting on 1 and 2 June, the Home Secretary sought agreement from her European counterparts that we need to tackle the smugglers and traffickers and to address the reasons why people get on boats in the first place. I take on board the reprimand from several noble Lords that so far there seems to be little evidence that we are managing to capture the people who are desperately exploiting these people’s suffering and placing them in such dire harm.
The Home Secretary was also clear that there was an awful lot we agreed on but that the UK cannot support mandatory relocation proposals because these do not, we believe, tackle the underlying issues. We must, instead, break the link between getting on a boat and achieving residence in Europe. That link continues to play into the hands of the criminal gangs which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, referred to, so it is vital that those not requiring protection are stopped at the EU’s external border and returned. They cannot be allowed to continue to enter illegally and then move with impunity across Europe. One area of contention here is that we would like to see that when migrants are landed in Italy they are properly registered, fingerprinted and identified so that they can be properly processed and that information can be shared across the EU. We need Governments in the region who we can work with to intercept illegal economic migrants before they reach the EU and to return them to their country of origin.
The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on Monday next week. Just this week, on Monday and Tuesday at the Justice and Home Affairs Council, the Home Secretary continued to press European partners for a sustainable response to the crisis. It was clear that longer-term efforts are essential. We need to do more to help the countries where these people come from to reduce push factors, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said. We need to build stability in the region and enable people to have creative livelihoods so they can live secure and fulfilling lives in their home countries. We must also do more at source and in transit countries to pursue the criminal gangs and shut down the trafficking networks that callously trade in human suffering. This was something that we covered in the Serious Crime Act and the Modern Slavery Act, which we passed in the last Session. Increased intelligence gathering is a critical part of what we need to do to destroy their vessels before they are used.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked what we are doing to work with our European partners. The UK is supporting Europol’s joint operation to tackle these gangs, focusing on vessels and subsequent secondary movements. The UK is a long-term supporter of solidarity across the EU in asylum matters, but we are also clear that solidarity is best demonstrated through practical co-operation with those front-line member states whose borders and asylum systems are under pressure. As the Committee will be aware, the Prime Minister yesterday met the Prime Minister of Italy. To underline our commitment to providing real, practical support to EU countries facing real pressures, the Prime Minister has offered to deploy six British officers from the National Crime Agency to Europol’s intelligence cell which aims to disrupt trafficking.
The UK also fully supports the European Asylum Support Office in co-ordinating practical, operational co-operation to address emerging migration pressures. The EU aims to build longer-term capacity in the member states most affected. To make clear our level of commitment, in the last three years the UK has contributed more resource to EASO than any other member state, contributing more than 1,000 expert working days to missions in Greece, Italy, Bulgaria and Cyprus. My noble friend Lord Marlesford and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, talked about this being a UN problem. It is. We recognise that and are working with the UNHCR on this and are seeking to address wider concerns. The situation in Syria is particularly concerning.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the words of chastisement from Sir Peter Sutherland. Given that he is such a senior international statesman, we will look very carefully at what he said and reflect on it. The fact is that 187 refugees have been resettled in the UK under the vulnerable persons programme in just over a year, and more arrive each month. In addition, we need to remember that more than 4,200 Syrians have been granted protection in the UK under our normal asylum rules since the crisis began, and that there has been additional foreign aid.
The situation is rapidly changing and our engagement with international partners continues apace. The Foreign Secretary is expected to discuss the crisis at the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday, and the Prime Minister will continue to push hard for a sustainable solution at the European Council on 24 and 25 June. I will, of course, be glad to write to update colleagues on the latest developments. I will also, as I have said, discuss this with my colleagues.
There are no easy answers to the tragic situation in the Mediterranean, but the Government remain firm in their belief that the only sustainable response to the scale of the situation is to tackle the root causes of these dangerous journeys and the organised criminal gangs behind them. The UK contribution stands comparison, we believe, to any in the world in that regard.
Devolution: Wales and Scotland
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wigley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the powers promised to Wales and Scotland will operate within new, balanced United Kingdom governmental structures.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am very grateful for being afforded this Question for Short Debate and to the Minister and other colleagues for being here to consider what will surely be a dominating issue in this Parliament: namely, how the powers already promised to Wales and Scotland, together with the further powers being broached, will operate in a balanced governmental structure. That includes powers needed for England to take its own decisions on English matters. We are standing at an important crossroads but with a Government appearing unable to respond to the urgency of the moment or give any meaningful coherent lead. There is an urgent need to decide on the direction of travel, otherwise events—the piecemeal unfolding of legislation in the two Chambers at Westminster; the EU referendum; the outcome of the elections next May to the devolved legislatures; and the fleshing out of the cities Bill—will lead to a situation in which Westminster seems like a boat with no tiller or engine, and whose captain has no charts to see the way forward.
I shall make clear from where I come on these matters. I want to see my native Wales—my nation—have the greatest possible degree of independence but that does not mean absolute independence, as UKIP defines the term. We live as part of a community of nations, in European and British terms. Plaid Cymru does not want Wales to cut itself off from such relationships; rather, it wants Wales to be a full partner in its own right within such structures. We believe that Wales, like Scotland or Northern Ireland—or indeed England—has the right to independence, something which was accepted in the recent Scottish referendum. It was immensely to the UK’s credit that this was recognised. The principle has already been accepted long ago for Northern Ireland, as it underpinned the peace process, and more than one Prime Minister has accepted that Wales, too, has that basic right.
We are de facto living in a confederal union, in which the constituent parts have the right to go their own ways. There is therefore a question as to whether the citizens of each nation wish to exercise that right. My party, Plaid Cymru, fought the recent election on a manifesto calling for home rule for our constitutional objectives in this Parliament. Home rule is not a new term: 130 years ago, the Irish parliamentary party won 85 out of 103 Irish seats on a home rule manifesto. Had that been delivered, we probably would not have witnessed the Easter Rising of 1916, but despite Gladstone’s efforts it was denied and the UK, as then constituted, broke up in acrimony.
Are we any wiser today? Are the parties at Westminster going to respond to the Scottish situation in a positive, inclusive manner or are we going to see intransigence, with all that that implies? Let us remember how we got here. Gordon Brown, apparently speaking on behalf of all three of the then UK party leaders a week before the referendum, launched his famous vow. He referred to it as home rule—a devo-max type settlement which the Scots could secure if they voted no to independence. Scotland voted no and some who would have voted yes to devo-max, had that been on the ballot paper, were undoubtedly influenced to vote no because of that pledge. So what happened?
On 19 September, we had the Prime Minister unwisely trying to jump the gun at 7 am, linking in the same breath the Smith commission and English votes for English laws. Yes, we had the Smith commission, and while many of its proposals were, and are, worthwhile steps forward they certainly did not add up to home rule. The three UK parties fought the general election on implementing Smith. The SNP, accepting that the referendum had ruled out independence in the immediate future, advocated home rule as a practical next step, deliverable in this Parliament. The outcome of the election in Scotland was unmistakable. The three UK parties, placing their trust in the Smith proposals, got three MPs between them; the SNP, advocating home rule, got 56 seats. There is no mistaking an elephant when it sits on your doorstep. It is high time that the three UK parties accepted that it is home rule that the Scots endorsed on 7 May.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, summed it up last week when he said that,
“the Smith commission proposals are clearly not going to meet the aspirations of the Scottish people”.—[Official Report, 8/6/15; col. 626.]
I also draw the Minister’s attention to the words of the Conservative MP, Bernard Jenkin. Speaking at Second Reading of the Scotland Bill, he said:
“I am bound to ask … whether this Bill is really ‘it’ for the future of Scotland. Is this the full and final settlement that will stabilise the Union of the United Kingdom? I hae ma doots”,
if I interpret the accent correctly. He added:
“We need … to start building up a consensus on what a full and final settlement for the whole United Kingdom might look like … we need a new, 21st-century Act of Union”,
which,
“would aim to provide a balanced and equal settlement of powers across the four parts of the United Kingdom … and a mechanism such as a new council for the Union for distributing UK tax resources on the basis of need and unanimous agreement”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/15; cols. 941-43.]
In the same debate, the SNP leader Angus Robertson MP stated:
“There is no doubt whatever that this Bill does not match the pledges of the campaign or the spirit and letter of the Smith deal”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/15; col. 946.]
Labour’s shadow Scottish Secretary, Ian Murray MP, stated:
“This might be a Scotland Bill, but it has implications for other parts of the UK”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/15; col. 938.]
However, he did not commit to home rule all round, which I hoped would be forthcoming.
What do we mean by home rule? Putting it crudely, it means Westminster retaining sovereignty over defence, foreign affairs, the monarch and the pound with the Scottish Parliament having sovereignty over everything else in Scotland, and likewise in Wales, Northern Ireland and England. Of course, it is not that simple. It implies a quasifederal or confederal constitution. It implies some federal taxes and some non-federal taxes, which is a model towards which we are already moving. It implies, one way or another, an English Chamber dealing with non-federal matters.
Here I come to the heart of the matter as far as we in Wales are concerned. The key question for us is whether Scotland is to have a Scotland-only solution, a separatist constitutional settlement separate from the rest of the UK, or whether we are to have a balanced UK-wide settlement in which new constitutional provision is made not just for Scotland but for Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, England. In other words, are we going to get a coherent, thought-out structure of government which has a reasonable chance of standing the test of time or are we going to have a knee-jerk, ad hoc settlement responding to the most recent kicking suffered by the Government, which certainly will not endure?
In my final remarks, I shall put forward some positive ideas by drawing attention to a keynote speech made on 20 May by Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood AM, a name, face and voice familiar to many colleagues from the election television debates. She proposed that,
“all responsibilities except for those over defence, foreign affairs, the Crown and the currency, should be transferable to any one or all devolved governments, provided a majority vote in favour of such a transfer in the respective national legislatures”.
She added:
“This flexible approach allows for each nation to build a constitutional framework that is in the specific interest of the nation, but guarantees … the consent of the people at all times”.
She also called for a strong council of Ministers at UK level to replace the present joint ministerial committee, a principle which the Smith commission has also endorsed. Those three elements—a council of Ministers, a clear devolution process and a mandate from the national legislatures—would, in her words,
“serve all the nations and peoples in these islands far better than the current web of complexities”.
She described this model as,
“a proposal for a Confederal UK”,
and I strongly endorse this approach. I appeal to the Minister to give an assurance that such a new constitutional model has not been ruled out. Much work would need to be done on the detail, perhaps by a convention, provided that it had a strict 12-month working time limit to deliver its recommendations, which could then be legislated upon within two years and brought into effect prior to the 2020 election. As such, this proposal has the seeds of a way forward which respects the aspirations of all four nations within a framework of co-operation.
The United Kingdom as currently constituted is drinking in its last chance saloon. A new constructive partnership between the nations of these islands is still possible if leadership and vision are forthcoming, but it will not happen unless there is a new realisation in this Chamber and the other place of the urgency of the situation. Will the Minister please ponder on these matters and keep the House informed as ideas progress, giving us every opportunity to debate the unfolding Scottish settlement in the context of a new deal for all the nations of these islands and, in particular, for Wales?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for providing us with the opportunity to debate this important topic. I find myself in agreement with a number of the points that he made, although our political philosophies are very different.
Those of us who are campaigners for constitutional reform have experienced a lifetime of frustration at the glacial pace of change and the fact that it seems to come only grudgingly, with the offer of only the minimum of what is acceptable, and that all too often it is a response to a crisis rather than a logical, well-thought-out programme of reform. This principle has applied to our devolution efforts as well as to cross-constitutional reform in general.
The Labour Party—not the most devolutionary of parties—was brought back to devolution in 1997 by the determination not to be shut out of government again throughout the whole of the UK for another 18 years. Even if the Tories won at Westminster—so the thinking went—the Labour Party was at least assured of Labour Governments in Scotland and Wales. That did not quite work to plan, but the rise of the SNP is one of a series of political changes that was not then foreseen. However, the model of devolution designed for Wales was at that time underpowered and unworkable. It was quite literally the minimum—a minnow—and was designed to leave as much power as possible with Westminster and Whitehall. Of course, as soon as AMs got their feet under the table in Cardiff Bay, they realised this and started asking for more and, grudgingly, more was given. Some noble Lords may remember legislative competence orders, where MPs sort of double-checked the homework of Assembly Members and decided whether it was good enough to go forward as legislation.
We are in a very different world now. The pace of change has quickened considerably. Thanks to the coalition Government, who enabled the referendum in 2011, the Assembly now has primary legislative powers. It has more and wider powers. In fact, the pace of change has become so brisk that Wales Bills have been effectively queueing up on the runway. The Silk 1 report was not finally embedded in legislation before the Silk 2 recommendations were drafted into a new Bill, which, crucially, will deal with the uncertainties of the conferred powers model as well as giving the Assembly more powers, some of which were not even within the remit of the Silk commission to consider when it was established. I was delighted to see that the Wales Bill was mentioned in the gracious Speech. Will the Minister confirm that the scope of the Bill remains much as was envisaged in the St David’s Day agreement, in which I know he was very much involved?
The coalition Government were admirably responsive to pressure for more devolution in both Wales and Scotland, but—this is where I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—sometimes responsiveness is not enough and rapid responses can be contradictory and inconsistent. There were many differences between the devolution settlements of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and many of these exist for good reasons of history and geography, although there needs to be consistency. However, other differences were included by chance or for reasons of political pragmatism, neither of which is a good basis for constitutional development.
My party has long argued that we need a constitutional convention to take a comprehensive look at the constitution throughout the UK. That does not mean that in the mean time all change must stop and that we should be frozen in time until the constitutional convention reports. However, it does mean that the constitutional convention should look thoroughly at the situation from all angles. The title of the noble Lord’s debate suggests that there needs to be balance in this area, not slavish duplication. One devolved body should not simply be the clone of others. I and my party believe that the sensible answer lies in federalism, which would allow for balanced differences between the constitutional settlements in each country. The noble Lord quoted from a speech made in May by the leader of Plaid Cymru. I will forbear to quote from a speech made by Lloyd George on much the same lines.
Any convention must reflect well beyond the narrow interests of the political classes. It must be a people’s convention, not a politician’s convention. It was suggested in the news today that the Welsh First Minister would be an ideal chair of that convention. That suggestion illustrates that the Labour Party has failed to grasp even the shadow of the dangerous and unstable constitutional position that we are in as a United Kingdom. Any leader of a convention must command confidence across Britain and across political parties.
Our dangerous position is made worse by the highly divisive EU referendum now appearing over the horizon and by the distortions of our electoral system, which have magnified the political differences between the four nations to the point where the political balance is dramatically different from one nation to another. The noble Lord cited the SNP’s success in the election. It is important to remember that the SNP got 95% of the seats on just over 50% of the vote. That is one of the problems with our electoral system.
I now want to return to the title of the noble Lord’s debate and the issue of balance. A crucial factor in that balance is the funding formula—the Barnett formula. Of course, it is not a proper formula; it simply takes what Ministers decide to spend in England and applies it to the other three nations in percentage terms, based on historical spending decisions made way back in the 1970s. I recognise the pledge made to Scotland in the referendum campaign, which means that whatever its limitations the Barnett formula will stay for some time. However, the situation in relation to Wales is quite simply unsustainable. In the early years of devolution—Labour’s high spending years—the formula led to a massive gap developing between funding for Wales and funding for Scotland. The Holtham commission calculated that Wales was underfunded by £300 million a year. Wales was, and remains, the poorest part of the UK. Indeed, figures out today show that 15 years of devolution have not made even a dent on poverty levels in Wales.
One of the foibles of the Barnett formula has been that, as the coalition Government cut back on public spending, the relative underfunding in Wales became much smaller. Indeed, it seems likely that Wales is not actually underfunded relative to the rest of the UK at this time. However, when and if public spending rises again, the problem will return and we need to prepare for it now. I am pleased that the Government have agreed to introduce a funding floor, but we need more than that and we need it very soon. I am disappointed that the Government do not agree to an update to Holtham’s calculations. I refer here to an Answer given by the Secretary of State for Wales yesterday in Welsh Questions, in which he said in relation to the Holtham calculations:
“The work has been done and we need to crack on with introducing the fair funding floor”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/15; col. 303.]
I should like some clarity on what the Secretary of State was referring to. Has Holtham updated his work? If not, how can the funding floor be embedded at a fair level without further calculations? Does the Minister accept that the perceived funding unfairness, which may or may not exist, simply magnifies a sense of grievance? Does he agree that the issue should be prioritised? He will be aware of Plaid Cymru’s call for Wales to be funded at the same level as Scotland. We all know why Scotland’s funding will remain; we are also aware that it is extremely generous. Maybe the Minister would like to comment on the realities of this situation. Is this fantasy economics? If so, I suggest to him that the Government need to get a grip on the funding issue before the sense of grievance in Wales escalates further.
Finally, I recommend to noble Lords an excellent book written about a decade ago by a Conservative Assembly Member, David Melding, now the Deputy Presiding Officer of the Assembly. It posed the question: will Britain survive beyond 2020? It seemed an astonishing question then. Now, it is not astonishing at all. Funding powers, voting patterns and political power—all these are pulling our union apart. England has at last found its voice in this debate and the fear is that it will simply be the loudest. I am sorry to use another metaphor—the noble Lord talked about the last chance saloon, whereas mine concerns a ship. The ship is being steered by a motley crew and if the Government are sensible they will take the helm before it hits the rocks. The Government should establish a convention that will bring order, restore confidence and, I hope, encourage further change.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, when my noble friend Lady Randerson referred to the glacial pace of reform, I was taken back to an evening at Rhyl Town Hall in 1964, when I addressed for the first time, in my first election, the voters of the West Flintshire constituency. I called for a parliament for Wales, with proportional representation. I also called for the abolition of the hereditary principle in the House of Lords, if the noble Earls will forgive me. I was very young then.
I was starting off on a long road towards devolution. I cherished a belief then that, given significant power over the decisions that affect their lives, the people of Wales would make innovative, better-informed and targeted decisions. The question was what structure of devolution would provide that result. I led for my party on the 1998 Bill and on the subsequent Wales Bill. It is quite apparent, however, that the structure is not working. A motley crew is indeed in charge, as my noble friend said.
Today—my noble friend referred to the report out today—the Welsh Assembly’s Communities, Equality and Local Government Committee’s inquiry into tackling poverty in Wales has been scathing about the Welsh Labour Government’s ineffective efforts to get to grips with the issue. The committee says that it is,
“deeply concerned by the Welsh Government’s lack of progress in reducing poverty, particularly given its long-term commitment and investment in the issue”.
Poverty rates in Wales have barely changed since the beginning of this century. The number of people who rely on food banks has doubled within a year; 23% of the Welsh population live in poverty, compared to 17% of the United Kingdom population as a whole. The position has remained static despite the fact that the Welsh Government have a Minister specifically responsible for targeting poverty. It happens to be the Assembly Member for my home town of Wrexham. Today she helplessly held up her hands and said that,
“we have to be very honest about what we can achieve. I think that we have to recognise that there are a lot of factors that are outside our control. I do believe that our policies and programmes are making a difference”.
It is very interesting that the excuse is that,
“there are a lot of factors that are outside our control”.
That brings the framework of devolution into question.
It is quite apparent, however, that the policies and programmes are not making a difference. On unemployment, Wales stagnates, with 99,000 people out of work. While the United Kingdom rate of joblessness steadily declines, the Welsh figures remain completely static. There was a year-on-year decline of 0.01% last year, compared to Scotland’s 0.5% and England’s 1.4%, according to the Office for National Statistics.
In the Welsh Government’s annual report, it is claimed that 48 of their 49 commitments relating to education either have been delivered or are on target. That is too much guff. The claim to achievement contrasts sharply with the PISA international rankings and the Estyn annual report, which both point to serious concerns about schools. The Welsh school inspectorate says that standards in our primary schools are slipping; PISA results show that Wales is behind every other part of the United Kingdom; compared with the top-performing countries in the world, we have very few high achievers; and children in every corner of Wales are not being helped to achieve their full potential. The only bright side is the introduction of the pupil deprivation grant—pupil premium—which was achieved by Welsh Liberal Democrats in return for agreeing to allow the Labour Government’s overall Budget through, which is helping to close the attainment gap.
The Wales Audit Office reported earlier this month on the four regional education consortia which are responsible for school improvement. It said:
“The governance of regional consortia is developing but we found progress was hindered by limited capacity, incomplete management structures, inadequate scrutiny of overall consortia arrangements, weaknesses in financial and performance management and insufficient openness and transparency”.
Estyn said that all regional consortia had struggled to fill senior posts, which,
“adversely affected their capacity to direct and manage work and highlights the lack of a national strategic approach to develop senior leaders.”
In my part of the world, many bright pupils, including my own grandson, are voting with their feet and going over the border for their sixth-form studies after they have completed their GCSE examinations.
The record on health is dire. The hospital which serves Wrexham, where I live, is part of the Betsi Cadwaladr group, which last week was put into special measures. I understand that the police are investigating. It has been given Welsh Government cash of £20.6 million to help pay its bills. The chief executive has been suspended. This week, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board is reported to have overspent by £21.4 million and Hywel Dda University Health Board by £7.5 million. On 5 June, the Royal College of Physicians, representing 1,100 doctors in Wales, said that there could be an “unprecedented” funding gap of £2.5 billion within the NHS in Wales by 2025-26. It has launched an action plan calling for more investment, a patient-centred and clinically led approach to change, a national medical workforce and training plan, and leadership on improving public health.
I am still an optimist and do not believe that the principle of devolution has failed, but for the last 15 years we have been landed with a Labour Government of one sort or another—sometimes in coalition but now on their own. In my view, they are by now an exhausted animal, totally devoid of energy and ideas, and utterly incapable of tackling the problems which they are facing.
I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for securing this debate and I am very happy to discuss with him comparisons with Scotland, the extent of powers and funding, the Barnett formula, the d’Hondt system of proportional representation, the ideal number of AMs and scrutiny committees. Indeed, federal constitutions are my bread and butter. As chairman of the Lloyd George Society, I was very disappointed that my noble friend did not read out a quotation from that great man, who demanded home rule all round in the 1910s. I would prefer to join the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in a movement to sweep the Labour incumbents out of power. We missed our chance with the rainbow coalition. Two of the three are here—the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, is not at the Dispatch Box, unhappily—but we have to get rid of them. Labour lost in Scotland and it is time it lost in Wales.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
That is a pretty good challenge. We can always rely on the noble Lord to talk down Wales, but I think that there is a point: we need to do better in Wales. We have to remember that we have a long and difficult tradition of deindustrialisation that we need to compensate for. We start from a very low base, but there are some good news stories in Wales as well. We have to remember that inward investment has improved dramatically in recent years. Export levels have improved. Educational attainment is getting better. There are issues with the health service, but that is at least partly because of the massive cuts that we have had to endure from—if the noble Lord does not mind me saying—the coalition Government, of which his party was a part. He has paid the price for that, but it is important that we understand that there is work to be done. The Welsh Government are getting on with that work.
I now go back to the point that I wanted to make, which is to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for putting this issue on the agenda and to welcome the new Minister to his post. We know that the dust is beginning to settle after the Scottish referendum and the general election, but we have to be in no doubt whatever that the structure of governance in the UK is on the march. This hotchpotch, ad hoc, knee-jerk reaction to the making of a new constitution and to building political systems is no way to plan a country as complicated as ours. That is what is happening at the moment. We should be looking at the devolved organisation of this country as a whole, not responding to crisis after crisis, which, if we are not careful, will lead to the break-up of the union. It is only when we have a settled position that we will have settled people and a settled country.
The Scotland Bill was guaranteed by all parties in the run-up to the referendum. It guaranteed that, no matter the outcome of the referendum, all parties were agreed that a fundamental change had taken place in Scottish society. All parties were committed to bringing forward legislation that reflected that. A no vote was not a vote for no change. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I argue that the Labour Party has always been a party of devolution. There have been shades within the party—that is true—but there has always been a strong contingent of people in the Labour Party who are pro-devolution. We have delivered on that time and time again in recent years. We recognise that devolution is a journey, but that the journey must not lead to disaster and the break-up of Britain.
The Scotland Bill will make the Scottish Parliament one of the strongest devolved Administrations in the world, being able to raise more than 40% of their own tax revenues, while being responsible for more than 60% of spending decisions. It shows the real steps that the Scottish Parliament is taking to be a fully responsible Parliament, so that the debate in Scotland can move on from “who holds power” to “how can Scotland best use that power”. I hope that this will see the Scottish Government take real steps to address the current crisis in schools and hospitals across Scotland.
However, these issues do not affect only Scotland. It is worth making clear that where Scotland leads, Wales will not and should not always follow. It is true that enthusiasm for the devolution project has increased significantly in Wales in recent years, but there is no groundswell of support for nationalism in Wales. There does not seem to be any significant demand in Wales for further powers beyond those recommended by Silk. The First Minister of Wales has talked about the need to follow a path in the UK set out by the Swiss socialist Andreas Gross: a path that enables, “unity while guaranteeing diversity”. That is probably something that we should all take into account.
More needs to be done to strengthen and to raise awareness of the ties that bind us. We need to turn the debate on its head and ask: what is the union for? What are the essential elements that we need to retain at the UK government level, without which the constant nagging attempt by Scottish Nationalists to demand more and more will inevitably lead to the break-up of Britain? That debate has to involve all parts of the UK: Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England.
There are some obvious starting points such as defence and foreign affairs, but I would go much further than the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and go beyond them. A lot of these are listed in annexe B of the St David’s Day agreement and whether we agree with them all is something that is worth discussing. We need to discuss how much money needs to be collected at the centre to pay for an NHS free at the point of delivery, and for free schooling for all across the whole of the UK. At what point does the NHS stop being a truly national health service? We should have a hard-headed discussion on these issues and we need to ask what else needs to be added to that list of powers held in the centre.
That exercise to develop the reserved powers model of governance is currently being undertaken by the Welsh Office, but again it is being done in isolation without thinking what else is going on. It is essential that the Governments at both the UK level and the Welsh level are involved in agreeing what should be included in that list of reserved powers. Can the Minister clarify exactly what level of discussion has so far taken place between the UK and Welsh Governments on the proposed list of reserved powers? What will be the criteria on which Whitehall departments will be able to argue that they can retain responsibilities?
I also ask the Minister for a categorical assurance that there will be no attempt to limit the National Assembly’s existing legislative competence. I want to give an example of my concerns here. There are aspects of equality legislation that are currently devolved under the conferred model of government, but others are not. In annexe B of the St David’s Day agreement, civil law and procedure is a subject that has been listed as a reserved matter—but the Human Transplantation Act is a piece of legislation which has amended civil law, so what is being suggested here? Is the suggestion that the Government intend to repeal this Welsh law and take it back to the centre? What is meant by that? Where are these lines going to be drawn? Can we have a categorical assurance that there will no attempt to claw back power from the Assembly on this or other areas already devolved under the conferred model?
The St David’s Day agreement lists several areas that should be reserved at the UK level but we should remember, as the document states, that it is only an illustrative list. So we have got to be very vigilant here. If the reserved powers model were to be based on the example given in annexe C of the agreement, there would be page after page of things that the Assembly could not do. Can the Minister clarify how many issues so far, and covering how many pages, have been suggested as areas that should be retained? Can the Minister also say whether the principle of subsidiarity will be respected when considering what should be retained at the UK level?
The Scottish First Minister has argued for full fiscal autonomy. Let me be clear—this is not a position which is supported by the Labour Party. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has outlined, these plans would leave Scotland with a £7.6 billion black hole in its finances which could only possibly be filled by further spending cuts or tax rises over and above the current Conservative plans. Full fiscal autonomy holds no interest for the Welsh people. We are anxious to share the burden and responsibility across the whole of the UK. We all need to contribute and to restore benefits, ideally in a way that is based on need, in particular in terms of provision of services and benefits. We should be aware of an attempt by an ideologically driven Conservative Party, intent on reducing the size of the state, to devolve responsibility for raising taxes to a devolved level, and with it to devolve blame and wash their hands of the poorest parts of the union.
There is a danger, however, that we will get hung up on these constitutional discussions. It is the bread and butter issues that people are really concerned with. We need not just a rebalancing of powers but economic rebalancing across the UK, and that needs a proper industrial and regional strategy and improvements in productivity. It needs the UK Government to work constructively with the Welsh Government to generate investment and jobs. Devolution should not just lead in one direction; it must be shared outwards across the country and downwards into the hands of local communities.
Let me conclude by coming back to the constitutional issue. The failure of the coalition Government to respond to Carwyn Jones’s long and timely request to establish a constitution convention is one reason why we are in such a mess today. It makes sense for us all to collectively and democratically work out the right balance of powers and responsibilities throughout this United Kingdom—and let us not forget that the United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland, which has not had much attention in this debate. We need to see a pooling and sharing of resources and the social solidarity that makes this country what it is—a great place to be.
When the Prime Minister in the aftermath of the Scottish referendum linked what was a nationalist battle to the campaign for English votes for English laws he created the potential for serious divisions within our country—where every nation and region would concern itself only with its interest rather than the interests of collective society. We must once again refocus our constitutional agenda on our ability to co-operate as a family of nations, rather than add to the chorus of divisive grudge and grievance policies that we have today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for bringing this Question to the House. I know that he brings considerable knowledge and experience to this important subject. The debate on how powers promised to Wales and Scotland will operate within new, balanced United Kingdom governmental structures has covered a wide range of issues. Although the Question mentions Wales and Scotland, I cannot help but notice that the speakers list has a distinctly Welsh flavour. I hope that, as a Scotland Office Minister, I can do justice to the Welsh aspects of the Question. I congratulate all noble Lords who have spoken so well and demonstrated their considerable expertise in the issues before us. I am grateful for the opportunity to close the debate and will endeavour to respond to as many of the substantive points raised as possible. If there is a specific point to which I am unable to respond, I will happily write to noble Lords.
Since 1998, the devolution of powers and responsibilities to the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly has fundamentally changed the constitutional make-up of the UK. Today’s debate is timely as the Government have made a commitment to implement the St David’s Day agreement for Wales and have introduced the Scotland Bill to implement the Smith commission agreement for Scotland.
The Government have announced 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 country are treated with respect. Governing with respect means recognising that the different nations of our United Kingdom have their own Governments, as well as the United Kingdom Government. Both are important and with our plans, the Parliaments and Governments of these nations will become more powerful, with wider responsibilities. No constitutional settlement could be complete if it did not also offer fairness for England.
The Government’s plans for constitutional reform set out in this Parliament build on the record of the last Government, who delivered one of the most extensive programmes of devolution of any government, including the largest devolution of fiscal powers to Scotland in over 300 years, a referendum to give the Welsh Assembly for the first time primary law-making powers, and legislation to give the Welsh Assembly for the first time tax and borrowing powers. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who played such a distinguished part in helping to deliver that programme.
The Government’s constitutional proposals for this Parliament also build on a substantial body of detailed work undertaken by constitutional experts in a range of forums. The Smith agreement was informed by the significant analysis undertaken by the Calman commission and the individual commissions established by Scotland’s political parties, such as the Strathclyde commission. The St David’s Day agreement takes forward the work of the Silk commission. Similarly, the English proposals are an evolution of the work of the McKay commission, among others.
The Government are taking forward these proposals because it is the right thing to do. There is consistency in our approach. We believe in devolving decision-making closer to the people who are affected by those decisions, and in increasing the responsibility of the devolved Administrations to the people who elect them. One of the weaknesses of the original devolution settlements was that, while the devolved Administrations had significant powers to spend money, they had little or no responsibility for raising it. The Government are rectifying that imbalance.
The Scotland Bill will increase the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament. To respond to one of the points raised earlier, it meets both the spirit and the letter of the Smith agreement. For similar reasons, we look forward to the Welsh Government holding a referendum on devolving income tax powers. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke of the need for Wales to have the greatest degree of independence. However, the Government believe that it is important to strike a balance between giving the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly more control over domestic affairs, and preserving the strengths of being part of the larger UK family. The noble Lord also questioned whether the proposals for Scotland go far enough or are ambitious enough. I think that, as was rightly pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, after these powers are delivered the Scottish Parliament will be one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world.
In taking forward this programme, the Government recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned federalism. I can think of no examples of a successful federal state in which one of the constituent parts represents 85% the whole. The individual devolution settlements reflect the distinct histories, circumstances and geographies of the different parts of the United Kingdom. The appetite for devolution in Wales is different from that in Scotland. What the First Minister of Wales said in a recent speech was echoed here today by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. He said:
“I have said in the past that whatever proposals for further devolution to Scotland should be offered also to Wales. But I do not subscribe to the notion that whatever Scotland has, Wales must have too, without properly considering the implications. The devolution of welfare programmes to Wales, for example, is not something that we consider to be in the best interests of Wales”.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, suggests that it should be for the legislatures of the UK nations to decide which areas of responsibility they wish to have transferred from Westminster. Let me emphasise that devolution across the UK has been taken forward to suit the particular needs of each nation, and on the basis of cross-party consensus. Both the Smith agreement and the St David’s Day agreement reflect those aspects on which there is cross-party consensus in both Scotland and Wales. This is the foundation on which our legislative proposals are and will be based.
Let me say a little more about Wales. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that the scope of the new Wales Bill will be as envisaged in the St David’s Day agreement. The Wales Bill will provide a robust package that will make the Welsh devolution settlement clear, sustainable and stable for the future. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, asked about the reserved powers model. The Government intend to discuss an early draft of the reserved powers model we are preparing with the Welsh Government in the coming months, and we want to engage the Welsh Government and hear the views of Welsh Ministers before publishing a draft Wales Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in the autumn. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions.
The St David’s Day agreement also said that we will consider other non-fiscal elements of the Smith agreement to decide whether they should be implemented in Wales. That is being done right now, although, as I previously noted, what is right for Scotland is not necessarily right for Wales.
The issue of intergovernmental working was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who spoke of his desire to see the joint ministerial committee replaced by a UK council of Ministers. While I recognise that existing joint ministerial committee structures can be improved, it is a forum that has long supported the changing devolution settlements and it would not be appropriate to replace it altogether. A process is in place across the four Administrations to review the memorandum of understanding that establishes the joint ministerial committee. Any changes will need to be agreed between the four Administrations and will consider the interests of the whole of the UK.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Morgan, raised the issue of a constitutional convention to deliberate on the broad shape and nature of the United Kingdom. I respectfully suggest that this should not be our priority. Our priority is to deliver on the constitutional commitments we have made. All our constitutional proposals draw on the values and traditions of our United Kingdom. The British constitution is characterised by pragmatism and an ability to evolve and adapt to changing circumstances. Our unique constitutional arrangements enable agility and responsiveness to the needs and wishes of our citizens. Those wishes are surely clear: a desire to be part of a strong and successful union, but one that recognises and values the unique nature of and arrangements in each of our nations.
On the issue of funding, which has already been mentioned, the Government have made it clear that Barnett formula will continue to be used as the basis for calculating the block grant. By moving to greater self-funding, and thus greater accountability, we are delivering mature and enduring settlements that provide strong incentives for economic growth, which will help to address the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. The Barnett formula will therefore become less important as the Scottish Government become responsible for raising more of their own funding following the devolution of further tax powers.
Lord Wigley
I grant that those changes may happen in Scotland. However, does the Minister accept that unless there is a radical change to the funding in Wales, putting in a floor does not make up for the 15 years of underfunding and the position we are in? What specific proposals will the Government bring forward to put this right, for the sake of whoever is governing in Cardiff?
Lord Dunlop
It is important that any settlement is fair to Wales. The Government are very conscious of the need to address the issue of fair funding for Wales. I note—I think it has already been mentioned—that according to the Holtham criteria Wales is not currently underfunded, and it is also important that the Welsh Government become responsible for raising more of the money they spend. That is why we will introduce a floor in the level of funding provided to the Welsh Government, and 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.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised the issue of Holtham. It is worth saying that the Secretary of State for Wales has held discussions with Professor Holtham and others with regard to a floor, and the Government consider that the work of the Holtham commission still has resonance today. There are no plans to recommission Professor Holtham to undertake any further analysis.
Before we conclude our deliberations for the day, I thank your Lordships once again for the insight and knowledge demonstrated during today’s debate. We have ranged over a wide area of subject matter, and as I said at the outset, the Government will govern with respect and honour our promises to improve governance for all parts of our United Kingdom. We have begun to bring forward legislation to secure a strong, fair and enduring constitutional settlement. Bringing together the four nations of our United Kingdom is an important task and a chief priority of this Government, and I know that your Lordships will play a full part in that task.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Burma: Ethnic Minorities
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Government of Burma concerning the persecution and trafficking of the Rohingya Muslims and ethnic minorities in Burma.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom raises the problems in Rakhine with the Government of Burma at every opportunity. The Minister of State for Asia Pacific called the Burmese ambassador to the FCO on 18 May to express concern, calling for an urgent humanitarian response and regional co-ordination. In parallel, our ambassador in Rangoon delivered the same message, with the EU and US, in a démarche to Burmese Ministers and again bilaterally on 4 June.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Approximately 90,000 Rohingya Muslims have been trafficked this year alone. Laws are now proposed to restrict religious conversion and to make it punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment should a Buddhist marry a non-Buddhist, and Rohingya Muslims have been stripped of their right to vote. The root cause of this is militant Buddhist nationalism, which seeks to link Myanmar’s identity to that of being a Buddhist. What representations have Her Majesty’s Government made about the recent case of Htin Lin Oo, a Buddhist, who was sentenced to two years in prison earlier this month after being charged under the penal code with insulting Buddhism simply because he tried to argue that the conduct of extremist Buddhist nationalists, who were preaching hatred and inciting violence, was contrary to the teaching of Buddhism?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, first, I recognise the work that my noble friend does so well for all of us as co-chair of the All-Party Group on International Freedom of Religion or Belief. We are extremely concerned about the approach of the Burmese Government to those who wish to express their own religious identity. We are one of the most outspoken countries in the world about not only freedom of religion and belief but freedoms generally. The Burmese Government are left in no doubt. As to those who are prisoners of the regime, we make it clear that there should be proper treatment of prisoners and proper judicial process. It is wrong around the world if people are inhibited from practising their own belief.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
To be credible we have to be consistent, as the noble Baroness and her committee have always been. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom puts Burma in the worst category and states that its Government are wholly unwilling to investigate and prosecute those who are guilty of abuses against Muslims. The US puts Burma in its “country of particular concern” category. I am pleased that the Government and the EU are making representations with the US, but is it normal to make this joint démarche when, to be powerful and credible, we always ensure that we work with the EU and the US?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Indeed, yes. We work with both the EU and the US on these matters. With UK support, the issue of Rakhine was discussed at a briefing of the UN Security Council on 28 May, where I raised the matter of Burma with Prince Zeid, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in Geneva on Monday. I will continue to do so. Later this morning, I meet the US Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom and I will discuss the matter with him personally.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, as one in five Rohingya has now fled since 2011, does the Minister agree that hate speech is a key issue here and that many admirable Buddhist monks and civil society actors are speaking out against this? Can we not do more to help them in what they are doing? Will she also say a word about Kachin state, which is covered by this Question on ethnic minorities, where some 100,000 people have been displaced and more than 200 villages have now been burned to the ground?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, with regard to freedoms—or lack of freedoms—in Burma, we have made it clear that it is essential for Burma to address the dire situation not only of the Rohingya community, but of other persecuted communities, regardless of the region. We want to see improved humanitarian access, greater security and accountability and a sustainable solution on citizenship applying country-wide.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, can the noble Baroness say something about the critical engagement we have with the current Burmese Government? For example, I understand that we are training Burmese military. How much leverage does the closeness of our relationship with the Burmese Government give us to make constructive criticism of this sort?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the noble Lord is right in his assumption that this relationship gives us more leverage. It is not merely a matter of providing technical training to the military so that they know the proper way to behave within the confines of reacting to what they may consider to be public disorder. We are also providing technical support in advance of the November elections so that they may be carried out in a proper manner.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the allegations of sexual violence perpetrated by the Burmese army against a number of ethnic minorities during this conflict? I congratulate her on her new role as the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. What specific work do she and the Foreign Office intend to do in this area?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I am grateful to my noble friend. It was an honour to be appointed last week by the Prime Minister as his special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. When I had meetings in Geneva, it became clear that colleagues—not only in the United Nations but in countries and NGOs around the world—are ready and willing to work with the UK on these matters. As to what happens next in practical terms, I assure my noble friend that I have already identified countries where specific action can be taken by me and those around the world with whom I am working. Burma is clearly at the top of the list, as are Syria and Iraq.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, the Minister is clearly aware that the new protection of race and religion laws in Burma will make life much harder for Burmese minorities to marry, start a family or change religion. Do the Government agree with Burma’s Cardinal Charles Bo that these laws represent an unacceptable and regrettable erosion of religious freedom?
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recent disenfranchisement of the Rohingya by the withdrawal of their ID cards is a further, outrageous attack on an already severely persecuted group? Does she accept that the forthcoming elections in Burma cannot possibly be free and fair when hundreds of thousands of people are being denied the right to vote and while the military maintains its 27% stake in the Burmese Parliament?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the withdrawal of what are known as the white cards from the Rohingya was an improper act. This is the politest phrase I can think of in the circumstances. It severely imperils the appropriateness of the election results. However, we must recognise that Burma is on the cusp of having the opportunity to elect a civilian Government for the first time. This does not prevent our remaining outspoken about the fact that the Rohingya should not have had their ability to vote withdrawn.
Economic and Social Inequality
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howarth of Newport
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they will prioritise to reduce economic and social inequality in a One Nation Britain.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the Government believe that the best way to reduce inequality is by delivering full employment and reducing the number of workless households. By restoring growth to the economy, low-income households will become more likely to enter work, and households will reap the benefits of a growing economy. More people are in work now than ever before, and since 2010 the number of children in workless households has fallen by around 390,000.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, while the Prime Minister sloganises about the Government’s one-nation approach and as the Chancellor forswears any tax increases on the well off and remains bent on hitting the poorest again with a further £12 billion of cuts in social security, is it not inevitable that inequality will worsen, with its associated pathologies of ill health, underperforming education, poor productivity, slow economic growth—as the IMF pointed out this week—and, whatever tokenistic legislation they pass, a budget surplus continuing to recede beyond the horizon?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. Income inequality in the UK has actually come down, and this is reflected in household incomes since 2007-08. The annual average disposable income of the poorest fifth of households has risen by £100 in real terms, while over the same period the largest fall has been in income for the richest fifth of households, which has reduced by £3,000 per year. The way to address inequalities, both social and economic, is to get people into work so that they can reap the benefits of full employment.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that much social inequality is caused by the acute shortage of affordable housing? Will the Government put their fullest energy into bringing forward surplus government and local authority land and brownfield sites so that the gap in provision of new affordable housing can be met?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, housing is of course extremely important. The effect on low-income families for housing is particularly acute so, as we all know, the Government are working on this. But the most important thing is that people in whatever kind of housing it may be are able to work and produce benefits for their families.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, is not the main cause of inequality in fact inequality of wealth, which was not dealt with in the Answer? No Chancellor has attempted to deal with it since David Lloyd George quite a long time ago. However, have not the present Government made matters significantly worse by failing to tackle inheritance fairly and by failing to set proper taxation on wealthier property? Is it not appropriate to consider the Government’s policy on equality on Waterloo Day?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, the facts do not bear out the noble Lord’s question. I accept that wealth inequality is higher than income inequality—although he is shaking his head—and that is the case both in the UK and across the OECD. However, it has not changed since records began in 2006. Internationally, the level of wealth inequality in the UK remains below the OECD average and significantly lower than that seen in the US.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, we have not yet heard from anyone from either the Liberal Democrat Benches or the Conservative Benches, but because we have so far had some contributions from the Opposition Benches, perhaps I may suggest that we start with my noble friend Lord Lang and then go to the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece.
Lord Lang of Monkton
My Lords, in addition to the excellent answers already given by my noble friend to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, should he not also draw attention to the fact that raising the tax threshold has also been an enormous advantage to those at the lower end of the social equality scale? This, together with the other excellent points he has made, completely confounds the arguments coming from the Benches opposite.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My noble friend is absolutely correct. Since 2007-08, the annual average disposable income of the poorest 20% of households has risen by £100 in real terms, while the average annual income since 2007-08 of the richest 20% has fallen by £3,000.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, the Minister talked about people who can work and should work, but he has not mentioned the inequality of those families which are headed by someone with a physical or mental disability who cannot work. Children in such families are increasingly living in poverty, and inequality is rising. Can the Minister say how these cuts to welfare, which can only be described as ideological, will impact on those families? Will he tell us whether the Government will undertake to do an impact assessment to ensure that inequality does not get worse for those families?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right, and we do want to pay attention to those who are not able to work. She is completely right on that. I will not undertake to do an impact assessment, but I will pass that on.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Howarth mentioned the IMF report. The report rejects the trickle-down effect, rejects the idea that increased inequality makes economies more dynamic and counsels that the best way to stimulate economies is to support the worst-off 20% in any country, and—wait for it—the other aspect would be to increase the strength of trade unions. What is the ministerial response to this report?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
We think that the best way to help the lower—the poorest—in this country is to enable them to get to work. That is why having a record number of people in work is a good thing.
Prisons: Secure Colleges
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ramsbotham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what contracts have been let for the proposed secure college.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, contracts for the construction and operation of the secure college pathfinder have not been signed. We are now considering the next steps.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, and I am very glad to note that there is a pause. What the troubled young people concerned need more than anything else is long-term contact with a responsible adult. This is being denied to them, and becomes less likely the larger the establishment. This need has been recognised by both the Department of Health, in particular its children and young people’s mental health and well-being taskforce, and by the Department for Education, which has legislated for local home authorities to be responsible for the delivery of health and social care and education plans for those with learning difficulties. Could the Minister please encourage his Secretary of State to take advantage of the Chancellor’s budget cuts, ditch this whole proposal and listen to the advice which is already being acted on by other ministries?
Lord Faulks
As the noble Lord and the House will know, there is a new Secretary of State. He is looking at the whole question of the custodial estate, in particular the youth custodial estate. He will of course consider all the factors which featured in the debate about secure colleges. At this stage, I can say that a considerable focus of his attention will be on education, which lies at the heart of secure colleges. It is very important that these young men—and they are mostly young men—have proper access to good education.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister’s reply is matched for opacity only by the very similar reply given yesterday by his colleague Mr Selous to my honourable friend Dan Jarvis. That reply said that:
“The Coalition government legislated for secure colleges and we are now considering the next steps. We remain clear that education should be at the very heart of youth custody”.
What next steps are the Government contemplating? Is it a possibility that the Government will resile from their ill-informed and ill-advised policy of establishing a massive secure college on the Glen Parva site in Leicestershire?
Lord Faulks
The difficulties that exist with youth custody are well known, such as reoffending. Of course, as the House will be aware, the good news is that the number of those in youth custody has reduced from 3,000 to 1,000. This means that those in various forms of youth custody present real problems and real challenges. The secure college pathfinder was a solution favoured by the last Government. We have not ruled out using a secure college. It has not yet received approval at Treasury level, but all of the ideas which it incorporated have not been abandoned. They contain many sound approaches to providing the right answer to this difficult problem.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, when my noble friend makes his recommendations to his Secretary of State, will he emphasise the importance of treating young prisoners as human beings and not as statistics? By that I mean that after they come out of education they have to go back into education seamlessly, which means very close correlation between the local education authority and the prison. Therefore, if you have only one gigantic one you hugely increase the distances to be dealt with, which in itself is a handicap in delivering a good programme.
Lord Faulks
My noble friend makes an important point about the continuity in respect of educational gains which can be attained by secure colleges. He will of course be aware that one of the difficulties with this particular cohort is that they very rarely had any continuity in their education before they went into a youth custody institution. One hopes that not only the habits they will acquire in youth custody but the appetite to learn can be consolidated by the sorts of links he describes.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind the very pertinent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham? Whatever the structure, a key element in combating recidivism is the relationship between the young offender and another more mature mentor. In many cases, this can assist in killing two birds with one stone. Some of the people who have proved to be very adept and effective at this are themselves ex-offenders, or indeed, ex-members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, both of which groups find it very difficult to get jobs when they come out of prison or the Armed Forces. It is good for the young people, but it is also an opportunity to provide employment for two groups of people who find it particularly difficult to be employed.
Lord Faulks
The noble Lord makes a valuable point. The use of appropriate mentors and role models is extremely important, particularly in a cohort that has very often lacked such role models and mentors in the past.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, following the theme of the importance of continuity of relationships for these young people, is the Minister aware that the policy of the Children’s Minister in the other place, Edward Timpson MP, has been to restrain the removal of children in local authority care from their local authority area and local family community to a children’s home perhaps hundreds of miles away? That is his policy; can the Minister reconcile it with this policy, which, given that about 50% of these young people will have experienced care, will mean that many will have to be placed a long way away from their local authority, community and family if this plan is proceeded with?
Lord Faulks
Of course I understand the noble Earl’s concern. He has been a consistent supporter of those at this level of challenge to the community. Of course, there are challenges with the limited number of people who are now in custody because, by definition, there will not be a suitable secure children’s home or secure children’s training centre in every part of the United Kingdom. However, it is a principle that will be very much borne in mind.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, the House is aware of my interest as chairman of the YJB. Is the Minister aware of how grateful YJB staff are for the widespread support in this House for the work that they do? Is he also aware that, as indicated by the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, there is increasing and welcome co-operation among Whitehall departments —health, education and justice—to make sure that young people who receive education while in custody continue to get education, training or job opportunities once they go through the gate?
Lord Faulks
I am very happy to acknowledge the joined-up thinking to which the noble Lord refers. I pay tribute to him as the chair of the Youth Justice Board for all the valuable work that the Youth Justice Board and he do in helping with these great difficulties that confront the Government. I think that the YJB is joining in with a stocktake generally of the youth offending teams. I know that education is a major concern across government, and it is something that the Secretary of State will have very much in mind.
Employment: Elite Professions
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to implement the recommendations of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission report on non-educational barriers to elite professions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that the recommendations of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission are for employers rather than the Government. Recruitment practices are also a matter for employers. Clearly, participation in higher education is one of the key factors in improving social mobility and we now have record levels of disadvantaged students entering higher education.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
Does the noble Baroness agree that it is outrageous and ridiculous to make any suggestion that client expectation is a barrier to elite professions doing more to break down non-educational barriers to entry? Elite professions need to do much more to improve the diversity of the people that they employ and to ensure that, no matter where you went to school and where you grew up, if you have made the grade and got the talent you get a fair chance of getting the job.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, there has been a lot of hot air over this report, but what really matters for social mobility is education, getting people into work and working with employers, which we have been doing through the social mobility business compact. It has been focusing on work in schools to raise aspiration, providing fair work experience and inclusive recruitment practices, which picks up what the noble Lord said.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
Would my noble friend agree with me that the best way of improving social mobility is the creation of jobs? Could she perhaps tell the House how the Government are performing on their target of 1,000 jobs per day?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I very much agree with my noble friend that having a job is key. This is a Government for working people. To come back to the first point, we know that families with working members have much better outcomes than those with only non-working members. This Government are about education for others, employment and better apprenticeships and we are making great progress.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Does the noble Baroness agree with me, drawing on my experience as a tutor for admissions, that certain government and coalition policies have actually made social mobility more difficult? First, certain potential students cannot afford to leave home and go to better universities; they are forced to stay at home because they cannot afford the maintenance. The Government have not tackled that. I appreciate that tuition fees are not a barrier, but maintenance is. Secondly, the removal of legal aid and the cutting of lawyers’ fees has made enormous difficulty for young, poor people from disadvantaged backgrounds wanting to join the legal profession. It is much worse than it was before.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I do not entirely agree with the noble Baroness. In England I believe that we have a sustainable and fair higher education system based on affordable student loans. That is despite dire predictions in this House and elsewhere. I defer to my noble friend Lord Faulks on legal aid. There are opportunities in the professions and the legal and professional firms are really making some progress in trying to widen things. We must encourage them to do that rather than complaining about it.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister, who seems to be an expert on hot air, aware of the report just a couple of days ago on this matter in the Financial Times—not noted for its hot air—which reports that one of the employers on this very question of bias in recruitment said, “Some of these people did not go to public schools, so they would not understand our public school jokes”? Well, they wouldn’t, would they?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am not clear what question I am supposed to be responding to. You have to remember that it is not surprising that leading professions and companies seek to recruit from top universities as well as other universities—they are doing both. I speak as a businesswoman when I say that companies need students and candidates with social skills, persistence, know-how and brain power. As I said in reply to the Question, it is very good news that we now have a record level of disadvantaged students entering higher education. This cannot be a one-sided debate.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
The Minister referred to social skills. Does she agree that one reason often quoted by employers for the lack of access to good jobs for young people is insufficient emphasis in the national curriculum in state schools on those softer skills that prepare young people for the world of work? Would she undertake to discuss that issue with colleagues from the Department for Education?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The noble Baroness makes an excellent point. I would of course be happy to discuss that with my colleagues in the Department for Education. Graduates need to leave university with a range of skills so that people can succeed in the professions or wherever they choose to go. This is also an important part of the work to which BIS can contribute.
Business of the House
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That the debate on the motion in the name of Lord Flight set down for today shall be limited to two hours and that in the name of Baroness Wheatcroft to three hours.
Pensions: Reforms
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Flight
That this House takes note of recent and proposed reforms to the state and private pensions, including the triple lock, the introduction of a single tier pension and increased pensions freedom.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I start, if I may, by declaring my interest and congratulating Dr Altmann—my noble Friend Lady Altmann—on her appointment. I can think of no one better to do the job that she is doing. She is enormously respected in the industry and I look forward to her being a powerhouse in further reforms of pensions and retirement saving. I have been involved in the management of pension funds for 45 years. I am still a trustee of my company’s old pension scheme and have advised the industry body TISA on its major pension reform project.
The first point I would like to make is that I think it is desirable, if possible, for pension reform to have cross-party consensus. This was broadly achieved with the auto-enrolment scheme. For individuals, pension and retirement saving is long term and the one thing that is not desirable is too many changes with changes of government.
I congratulate both the last Government and this one on the reforms that are now being implemented. We have had the most significant reforms to pension saving for a generation.
I have long supported abolishing the obligation to buy an annuity. Indeed, I recollect that I had a Private Member’s Bill on this in the other place. The crucial point is that people are at the mercy of the interest rate cycle. If someone buys an annuity when interest rates are extremely low, they will get a bad deal for the long term. Those are the present circumstances.
With regard to the ability to withdraw money from pension savings subject to an income tax charge, I think that is ultimately desirable and a good thing. One of the big disincentives to saving was that people could not withdraw money if they really needed it for other purposes.
We all heard the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday, and read about it in our papers, with regard to issues around people not being able to withdraw money and charges. I make the point that there are two sides to the story, and a number of regulatory requirements were introduced at the very last minute that need to be dealt with. The fundamental point is that if there is a substantial withdrawal, the life company is obliged to make sure that the individual has had advice on the steps that they are taking, which is quite difficult to organise. I know that the number of inquiries that the industry has had to deal with in the last few weeks has been huge. I am hopeful that in a co-operative way the Government can get together with the industry and sort out these problems so that people can freely withdraw cash and are not overcharged when they do so.
Similarly, I have strongly supported the single-tier principle. The great problem with pension tax credits was that they discouraged people from saving. I hope that it will end up as a complete single tier, as under the present arrangements some people will get more, some less, than they were otherwise going to get. Some issues still need addressing, such as the fact that a wife who has relied on her husband’s pension contributions for her state pension will not be able to do so, yet has not really had time to make alternative provisions.
The triple lock is generous, and there are questions as to whether this will be affordable long term: already 46% of adults are over 50. However, it must be borne in mind that pensioners typically have a higher rate of inflation as a result of energy costs going up than the official inflation figure, so there is a fundamental case for the relative generosity. As noble Lords will be aware, the triple lock means that pensions will go up by whichever is the greatest: inflation, 2.5%, or earnings.
Happily, auto-enrolment is up and running but it is still very modest, at 1% contributions. By 2018, these are to increase to 3% from the employee and 4% from the employer, and effectively 1% is expected from the Government. I make the point that this really is still not enough even under the assessment by the DWP, which has recommended that contributions need to be in the order of 15% of earnings per annum. Still, I think that auto-enrolment is going to be crucial. I am hopeful that, as we have seen so far, the number of people opting out will be very modest.
Areas still to be looked at are the relationship between pension saving and care providers. There have been some useful suggestions that pension accumulation could go straight to care providers without a tax charge where there is the need. In a sense, it is robbing Peter to pay Paul that the Government might otherwise have to pay through other channels, so it is a question of making that easier. I am also a strong supporter of the passing on of residual pension savings to children. This could be a very powerful savings incentive, just as owning a house was very much driven by the attraction of parents being able to pass something on to their children.
A crucial point is that retirement savings are not just about pensions. Different routes have come up. I particularly support the Government’s measures with regard to ISAs, both increasing the maximum and allowing the surviving spouse to inherit the full tax benefits of ISAs on the death of their spouse. This was a very fair and necessary reform. The figures are extremely impressive. ISA totals at the end of the last tax year stood at £470 billion. They are likely to be in the order of £530 billion now, with some 13 million ISA savers. Interestingly, the total volumes of cash ISAs versus security ISAs are roughly the same; the amount going forward is greater with cash ISAs but the total accumulated is roughly the same. ISA saving is running at something like seven times individual money-purchase pot saving, and it is equal to some 60% of total contributions into pension schemes, of whatever sort, by employers and employees. Its great virtue is that it is simple, and in my experience large numbers of the self-employed are using ISA saving for their retirement provisioning.
Many in their 30s and 40s have opted to go into the buy-to-let market as an alternative, largely because property returns have been superior to equity returns. I am amazed to note that there has been such an increase in the number of private sector landlords over the past seven years, making a total of some 3 million landlords, a lot of whom are likely to be individuals in the buy-to-let market. For a lot of people it is the appreciation in value of their owner-occupied house that they will look to as some source of retirement income. There is a need for properly regulated property equity release schemes.
My biggest point is that retirement is an out-of-date concept born of an age when many men did hard physical work and really had to retire. In my experience most people want to work longer, partly for the money but substantially for the companionship. Look at this very House, where I believe the average age is now 71. I greatly welcome the reforms and more reforms and incentives for people to work longer. It is inevitable that in due course the retirement age will rise to 70. It is a function of longevity. Indeed, 70 today is a lot younger than 65 was 40 or 50 years ago in terms of people’s health and life expectancy.
However, people are still not saving enough to provide for their retirement years or in an economic sense. About a third of the population has less than £250 in savings and two-thirds are still not saving at all for retirement. Even allowing for the fact that a lot of people have more than one pension pot, the average pension pot saving per saver is still only £55,000, whereas the DWP target is for people to have a non-state pension income of £8,500 per annum. At a macro level, our savings rate has been too low for too long. The cumulative current account deficit of the last 15 years is some £700 billion and has been financed by selling businesses, property, and in a sense the family silver. It is a major reason for low investment and poor productivity growth. Our economy needs a savings rate closer to 10% than its present much lower rate. I am pleased to note that the Government are committed to addressing the savings gap.
Some issues still need to be considered and resolved, such as the pot follows member versus aggregation debate—I personally think that pot follows member makes more sense—and the need for full and meaningful transparency of cost disclosure. There is also a huge need to get pension savings better managed. I much welcome what the Mayor of London has initiated with regard to small local-authority pension schemes.
Most people with money purchase pensions go for the default option. That is actually not a bad decision, as they are often quite sensible funds, but some 90%—even 92%—are NEST savers, which is particularly illustrative of the fact that people really do not understand the territory. As regards pension direct-contribution savings of all sorts, I am concerned that as people get over 50 a lot is shifted into bonds for investment. Bonds may be safe in the short term but are highly dangerous in the long term if you get a burst of inflation with much higher interest rates. Those over 50 are increasingly having too much of their pension savings automatically placed into bonds under what are known as lifestyle arrangements.
It is a tragedy that RDR has resulted in a massive contraction of pension advice. More than 70% of the population has no source of advice. The Government’s arrangements for advice on the principles are all very good but leave people hanging in mid air when finding out what product to select. It is a tragedy that defined benefit saving has virtually collapsed over the last 15 years. A major cause has been IFRS17, which requires the calculation of the pension liability to be related to gilts, and therefore an artificially low interest rate in the long term.
The reality is that pension schemes that appear to be in deficit are going to be in huge surplus as and when bond interest rates return to normal. The main reason why companies have wanted to close their defined benefits schemes is because of the risk of deficits which they are required to make good. We want to encourage savings and the limits need to be reviewed. My own view is that it would be sensible on the contributions side to limit the tax credit to 20% for everybody and to have a maximum of £50,000. I would also abolish the overall lifetime limit, which is often quite complicated to arrive at.
On 29 June, there will be a seminar in Room 3 to present the proposals of the industry group that has worked with TISA on what other things might be done for the pensions industry. Two of its best suggestions are, first, for everyone to have a digital passport, which would make anti-money laundering requirements much easier to deal with and provide individuals with easier access to information by product, for transfers and to enable them to review their pension and other savings. In a sense, it would be a pension dashboard that people could tap into. The second suggestion is that there should be a much more powerful Minister for Savings and Pensions within the Treasury to co-ordinate, develop and implement savings policy.
The real need is to make pension saving easier. Even among your Lordships, when I have asked people what their attitude is many not surprisingly find it far too difficult and are turned off by it. I believe that is even more true of the country as a whole and that the further reforms that we ought to be looking at over the next five years should involve measures to make retirement saving much easier for people. It is staring us in the face that that is one of the reasons why ISA saving has been so successful.
Lord Hutton of Furness (Lab)
My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Flight, of Arundel. He brings tremendous expertise and knowledge to our proceedings on pensions and in a sense, although I hate to say this, has made my speech pretty well redundant because I want to echo everything that he said. He made some very important points but that will obviously not stop me, as a former politician, making my own speech in my own way. I hope to avoid repeating all the things that he said but he has done the House a great service. I say that because pensions and retirement saving will be one of the most important issues facing Parliament for the next few years, and the reasons why are self-evident.
Britain is changing; we are getting older and the demographic forces at work will literally change the face of our society in our own lifetime. It is therefore absolutely obvious—I think it has been to us all for a long time—that if we are to manage the effects of that change sensibly and avoid the calamity of the next generation of pensioners finding themselves living a life of poverty, which has been the curse of just about every previous generation of pensioners, then we have to take matters into our own hands. In simple terms this primarily means that, as individuals, we all have to accept more direct personal responsibility for ensuring that we have adequate means in our retirement years to sustain and afford the lifestyle that we want.
This is also a critical point in understanding the reforms of the last 10 years and making sure that they work because, as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said, we have the best chance of managing this demographic change effectively if we can try to maintain and sustain the consensus about retirement savings and pensions that has existed since the noble Lord, Lord Turner, and his fellow commissioners produced their ground-breaking report in 2005. Sometimes in politics, consensus is not a good thing and you need someone to stand up and say something difficult to change things. That in fact was what the noble Lord and his fellow commissioners did. In the process of producing their report, they established a new common ground between all the main parties. This is one area where we should all strive to sustain that consensus—and, to their credit, the previous Government did that. They took forward auto-enrolment, which is a fundamental pillar of encouraging greater personal financial responsibility for retirement, and implemented those significant reforms. They also took forward a very necessary change to the social security state pension in the United Kingdom. The new single-tier flat-rate pension is an excellent idea. There have been and there probably will continue to be disagreements about aspects and details of those policies. I do not think, however, that there is anyone left standing who does not think that those reforms are some of the essential things that we need to do to encourage more people to save more for their retirement. That is the holy grail that we now have to pursue.
The last thing any of us should want to encourage is a return to the decades of disagreement and division that were the hallmarks of the previous 20 years of pension policy. It will not help us build for the long term, and that is fundamental if we are to encourage more people to save more for their retirement years. A constant chop and change will, by definition, undermine any policy designed to encourage long-term saving. We have to sustain the consensus. We have to maintain it; we have to work at it if Britain is to be a nation of savers. As the noble Lord said, we have an awfully long way to go if we want to be a nation of savers. Our savings rate at the moment is a matter of dispute among economists as to how to best calculate it, but it is probably about 6%. Once automatic enrolment and the reforms that the Turner commission recommended have matured fully, we know that people will be saving around 8% or 9% in the defined contribution schemes in their workplaces. The simple truth is that that will not be enough. It is not going to give people sufficient retirement income for the extra decade or more that they can now expect to live.
I will talk primarily about workplace savings and pensions because these are absolutely fundamental. As I said, we are going to have to take more personal responsibility for our income in retirement, and that is clearly the logic behind the reforms to the basic state pension. The fundamental question that is inevitably going to arise during the course of this Parliament, particularly when we get to 2017-18, when automatic enrolment has matured, is “Are people saving enough?”. It has been a success so far: we have 2 million new people saving in workplace retirement accounts, and opt-out rates have been very low. However, of course people are contributing only about 1% of their salaries today. I do not think many people will notice that coming out of their pay packets. When that starts to creep up to 3% or 4%, people are definitely going to know. Will that increase the rate at which people opt out of these new savings plans? Probably. I think we can expect the opt-out rates to start rising. Therefore, there is going to be a pretty obvious moment in this Parliament when we are going to have to stop and ask ourselves, “Will the current course be sufficient to equip people with the income they need for their retirement?”. I do not think it will be. The question is not “Do we have to look at this issue again?” but “When will we have to look at this again?”. Of course, there are two aspects of this equation—how much people are putting in, and how many are opting out. At some point, we will have to look at both issues.
I welcome the Minister to her place on the Front Bench. As the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said, she is a lady of tremendous status and knowledge of pensions, and we look forward to her time as Pensions Minister with great excitement. To encourage her a little bit, I do not think she needs to start digging around in the undergrowth just yet. It will be important to see what happens in 2017-18, when we get to the point where people are contributing the maximum amount envisaged under the legislation. That moment is going to come during this Parliament. There are some cases of public policy of which we can say, “We tried to encourage people, but they did not take up our incentives. They just went on in the way that they were doing before”. We could do that on this occasion. We could shrug our shoulders and say, “It is all too difficult. We have had 10 years of legislation. We tried to encourage people to save, but they did not”. I do not think we can ignore any evidence that is emerging that people are not saving, or that their savings are not sufficient. We are going to have to do something.
Obviously the question then is “What are we going to do?”, because making people save—removing the right to opt out—is a very big policy step to take. So, too, would be increasing the contributions into these pension plans because, of course, legislation restricts the amount that employers can contribute to 3%. That is a very big step to take. If we get anywhere near that, I would strongly suggest to the Minister that she ought to have another look at the Work and Pensions Committee’s report from the last Parliament and its recommendation that the Government set up an independent pensions commission. I was the Secretary of State who decided not to do that in 2005, so I am holding my hands up and saying, “I am guilty”, but I think that we now need to have another look at this, at the 10-year mark since the noble Lord, Lord Turner, produced his report. We are at this critical juncture, and we may well face some important decisions in the next couple of years about going further, and probably faster, in encouraging more people to save. If we are to take the noble Lord’s advice and maintain the consensus, as I think we should, we must also ask: who and how? What is the best way in which to maintain that cross-party consensus? Would it be best served by the Minister coming to this House and making an announcement, or by bringing together people with knowledge and experience of the industry and the changes that are taking place in society and asking them to report to Parliament on the next steps? There is a precedent, in that we did that a few years ago with the independent Committee on Climate Change, to try to take as much of the politics as we could out of it. There is a useful precedent that the Minister might want to follow. The adequacy of savings will be a major issue in this Parliament and we have to address that before we go any further.
The issue of adequacy can also be tackled from the other end of the telescope. There is the question of what we do with the legislation on auto-enrolment, but there is another debate that the previous Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, opened, which was long overdue, on the adequacy of defined contribution as a savings platform. I think that DC is a good thing and an inevitable thing, as the noble Lord said, because employers were leaving DB and they are not going to come back. There has to be a better savings platform for people in the workplace, and defined contribution will do all the heavy lifting in the decades to come. But it is pretty clear that the track record of defined contribution has been pretty patchy, and there are a lot of concerns about whether it can do all that heavy lifting. The debate that the former Minister opened up on defined ambition pensions is a very worthy one, which I hope that the Minister will find it within herself to prosecute.
I am particularly not a fan of collective defined contribution schemes, not because I have anything in principle against them but because I do not think that they can be grafted on very neatly to the UK pensions savings system. I hope that I am wrong, but I do not think that I will be. Employers are not really showing any signs that they want to share more of their longevity or interest-rate risk with their employees. I do not think that that is going to happen. But there is a lot to be said for the writings of the leading US pensions thinker, Robert Merton, and I hope that the Minister has had the opportunity to read them, or will have shortly. Robert Merton won the Nobel Prize for economics with his work on financial instruments. He has a very clear view of the inadequacy of DC and the fact that it is focused on the wrong risk. We are managing volatile assets and trying to focus on that, and we look at the pension pot and try to grow that, but there is no one really managing the risk that the income that the saver might have when retiring on a DC plan is going to be inadequate. Of course, the wonderful thing about defined benefit plans is that you will know pretty well all the way along what your retirement income is going to be; it will be expressed as a fraction of your earnings, whether it is a career average or final salary. So you will know what your retirement income is and you can plan accordingly. That is a great comfort and peace of mind to savers. Unfortunately, in the switch from defined benefit to defined contribution, we have completely lost the fundamental and important language of income. We talk about assets and the value of those assets, but no one can really talk about income to someone saving on a DC plan: “What is the retirement income that I can expect to see?”. I hope that that will be looked at in the department and, if the Minister is so minded, the department will task a new independent pensions commission with responsibility for looking at it. This is an issue that needs to be explored more fully—a fundamental, almost do-or-die issue. If defined contribution is going to do the heavy lifting, we must keep our focus on DC as a savings platform, in addition to being concerned about whether people are saving enough or at all.
The noble Lord also drew our attention to the other significant reform of the last Parliament—the change to the rules about annuitisation. It is absolutely right that in today’s times people should have more control over their money. We do not want to be treated like idiots or children. At a time when annuities do not look like a good deal for a lot of savers because of the historically low rates of interest, it is right that they have more choice. That is particularly true if that saver also has the benefit of some legacy DB in their savings plan, as they might have accumulated a few defined contributions pots because their jobs have moved and they have changed.
So I have no objection in principle to the reforms, but it is important that the Government are doing something to monitor this and make sure that they know what is going on in the marketplace. They must know what people are doing. I do not see that they have any means at their disposal at the moment for collecting that information. and they need them. They need to bang heads. One can disagree with a policy—people can think it is a good or a bad thing—but, it having been legislated for, it is unacceptable for financial service providers to block people’s access to their pension pots if they want to cash them. If that is what is going on, Ministers need to act.
The Minister has an enormous agenda. I wish her the very best. She has the good will of everyone in this House behind her in tackling some of the enormous responsibilities that she has been charged with.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Flight, for introducing this debate. He is well known for his commitment to savings. Reflecting on the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, I must say this is unlikely to be a debate in which there will be a great deal of controversy, but it is a debate in which there will be some need and desire to predict what we might do in the future and to take that step forward.
I congratulate the new Pensions Minister, who has a long and tremendous record as a campaigner and advocate and latterly as the champion for older people. I shall start by quoting her words in the Sunday Times on 31 May 2015. She said:
“I also want to continue the pensions revolution that my predecessor, Steve Webb, so ambitiously started ... we have seen some important changes that will alter the pensions landscape for generations to come”.
I hope she will not mind if I spend a few moments paying tribute to her predecessor Steve Webb who, I understand, was the longest-serving Pensions Minister, certainly in my lifetime—perhaps someone will correct that, but I think that is the case. He recognised that society owes a debt of gratitude to older people for the contribution they have made to making our country a better place through their hard work during their lives. He brought in a pensions revolution addressing some key issues by the legislation he oversaw.
The three factors in that revolution were: preparing people for their retirement; getting people to save more; and making adequate state pension provision—that is so important for lower-income workers and women who depend so much on the state pension. It is worth recognising that the level of the state pension moved, in purchasing terms, from the lowest it had been for almost 30 years in 2008 to the new promised single state pension, which is likely to be more than £150 a week and will be supported by the triple lock. As the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, said, this ambition was shared across parties, but the big changes occurred under the previous Government on Steve Webb’s watch. We on these Benches pay tribute to his knowledge, understanding and drive.
Now we move on—it is time for implementation and to learn lessons, changing and adapting as we move forward putting these ideas and this legislation into practice. I take the point about a savings revolution being needed, so first among all these must be raising awareness and understanding, which the noble Lord, Lord Flight, mentioned. Financial education should start in school. Saving for a pension is not something which crosses your mind when you are getting that all-important first job, but it is important that it does. Later in life, understanding how to make your savings work best for you is a critical judgment, so there is plenty of work for the new Minister, and we on these Benches wish her well with the challenge.
I want to touch on some of the issues that the Government now face. I recognise that in some ways I will be reiterating some of the contributions that have already been made, but perhaps I will be treating them in a slightly different way. On the triple lock, the Government like the concept and have agreed to keep it for the full five-year term of this Parliament. If it is good for the foreseeable future, why not enshrine its use in legislation so that it would take another Act of Parliament to change it? We on these Benches believe that is right, just and a fair answer to raising the state pension. It is a true buffer against a Government making real-terms reductions for a group of our people who can make no alternative arrangements if and when that happens. That is why we would not just keep it but legislate for it.
Auto-enrolment has been a big success so far in the number of people who have been brought into saving. Its rollout to deal with inertia in pension saving has been a success story, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, said, it has some challenges ahead. With millions of new pension savers now enrolled in a pension scheme, the most encouraging feature so far has been the small number who have voluntarily withdrawn from pension saving. But the most challenging group of companies and people to be auto-enrolled is yet to come, as the self-employed and micro-businesses are brought within the ambit of the legislation. In her response, can the Minister tell us in what ways the Government intend to help this group of people with the bureaucracy that they will face? Will the Government be on hand to help this most difficult segment of our working population into saving?
So far, we have seen no real evidence of companies reducing pay in order to make the employer contributions that the legislation requires. However, as the levels of contribution have to be ramped up, and as wage increases so far have been fairly low, it will take some time to see whether this is happening on any scale and whether there will be a reduction in pay awards in order to make those employer contributions. Yesterday we were told that wage increases are now running at 2.7%, so there is beginning to be a greater possibility that some of that increase may be foregone in order to meet the costs of the employer contributions. We need to be wise to that fact and look out for it.
This issue is closely tied to the increase in contribution levels envisaged in the legislation, and to where we need to go beyond the current legislation. As others have said in this debate, people need to save more for their pensions, and companies will have to match that increase in their contributions. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what studies of these effects are currently under way and when meaningful results will become available.
A further issue is that of exclusion from saving for lower-paid workers. As the thresholds have risen —now in the £10,000 range, with further rises promised—there is a danger that the earnings trigger will exclude a number of workers from saving who would benefit from being in a pension scheme. Is the Minister contemplating lowering the earnings trigger, so that it brings more lower-paid people into pensions saving?
During the coming months and years, we on these Benches will want to examine tax exemptions on pension contributions. In particular, we will want to consider whether there should be a single rate of tax relief on pension savings—which the noble Lord, Lord Flight, alluded to. We do not want simply to make changes that might create cliff-edges in the way that government investment might work. For example, by simply reducing the tax relief on those earning more than £150,000, you create a cliff-edge immediately.
The issue of charges and fees on pension savings has already been raised in Questions in this Session. We on these Benches will want to examine the Government’s intentions in this matter—not just fee and charge caps but also transparency. In the savings journey travelled between the pension saver and the pension investor, and then back again as savings are withdrawn, there are many tiers of influence, each with the potential to make a charge to the next tier. Savers deserve to know what is happening to their money in each of these tiers, and many of the charges are hidden and not known, so transparency and fee caps will be very much on the agenda for my noble friends on these Benches.
The defined ambition schemes introduced in the last Parliament, providing more certainty of pension outcome than defined contribution schemes, were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. There needs to be a genuine debate and examination of the way in which these schemes can be progressed and the take-up of the principle that is outlined within them.
The early evidence on pensions freedom should be available to us fairly soon. We are told that 60,000 people have now withdrawn some of their pension pots, so some early evidence will be available on how the work of this scheme has been for them, particularly their relationship with the Pension Wise scheme. The particular evidence that we want to see includes the inclusion of housing wealth in the assessment, which was, again, something raised by the noble Lord, Lord Flight. With housing wealth being sometimes 10 times the average pension pot of an individual, it is an important factor. We need to assess how important a factor that has been in people’s decision-making about their new freedom and whether that has been fully taken on board in the advice and guidance given by both financial advisers and Pension Wise.
Secondly, has appropriate consideration been taken of making appropriate savings for future retirement? We will also want to examine in depth the effectiveness of the second line of defence recently put in place by the FCA. We need to know what the pensions industry is doing to adapt to all of these changes. It has to adapt because more flexible approaches are demanded by savers as they seek to draw down their money. There is a whole host of new ways in which people take their retirement, and the circumstances in which they do this will also vary. The use of these flexibilities will increase, not decrease.
We are in a new world. Retirement dates are not fixed and people will make choices as they see their future in differing ways. It may be that we will need to consider a more regulated market in this decumulation phase in order properly to protect consumers’ interests. We want to see the evidence of the market and what it is doing. Is it offering appropriate new financial products? We need to examine the early evidence of what the market is offering, and deal with restrictions placed by some companies on people being able to access their money. Also, can and should NEST step in where there are gaps in the market offering?
The Government may have some money in hand in order to support some of these matters because they expect to get tax receipts as the pension freedoms kick in. Tax paid at the marginal rate on the average £17,000 draw-down, reduced to tax on under £12,000 after the 25% tax-free sum is deducted, will not meet the extra £12 billion-worth savings in welfare that the Government are looking for, so they should put some of this extra tax into supporting a better savings culture in our country—an enhanced savings strategy. Noble Lords may wish to consider how that is to be determined during the course of this Parliament, but it is, as both of the previous contributors have said, a significant factor in the way that we need to move forward.
This has been a bit of a canter around the pensions landscape; each item is worthy of a debate on its own. To return to my opening remarks, the legislative foundations are in place, but there is a need to examine the many points of implementation. We look forward to working with the Minister on these matters, and where necessary challenging the Government on their approach. But that is for the future. We wish the Minister well today. I am sure that she recognises the challenges ahead of her. We look forward to her maiden speech and to working with her in the coming years.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register as a trustee of the Telefónica/O2 and Santander schemes and as a member of the boards of the Pensions Advisory Service and the Pension Quality Mark. I begin by congratulating the Minister on her appointment; I look forward to debating with her in this Chamber. She has certainly assumed responsibility for pensions at a time of radical change, but I have no doubt that she is more than capable of embracing it.
Commenting on the freedom of choice agenda is made difficult when the Government’s strategic objectives for the long term remain unclear. People now have open access to their savings, but when the state has auto-enrolled workers into schemes, compelled employers to contribute and invested billions in tax relief, there is a public policy interest in knowing what the Government’s intended long-term outcomes are. As the noble Lord, Lord Flight, conceded in opening this welcome debate, we no longer have a private pension system; rather, we have a long-term saving system. We no longer talk about desirable replacement incomes, because people are no longer required to secure an income. What is the desirable savings pot size for the median earner that policies should be targeting? What is the Government’s aspiration for contribution rates and how will they achieve them? What is the intended balance between individual freedom and societal outcome? As my noble friend Lord Hutton indicated, these are matters of some significance, on which society requires the political system to come to a consensus position.
Let us take employers, for example. Their workplace pensions are key to delivering savings. The Government’s pension proposition has to be attractive to the senior managers who decide on their company’s pension arrangements if we are to avoid a drift to simple minimum compliance. Employers’ disengagement from pensions was, after all, a major reason for the decline in savings that led to auto-enrolment and employer compulsion. Yet their behavioural response to the freedom agenda has attracted very little analysis. There are more changes to come—tax relief, lifetime allowance, annual allowance, salary sacrifice—but what is the impact of policy decisions on the level of employers’ engagement with pension saving? Saving for retirement is a 40-year project and policies must work not only for today’s older workers who have been able to save but also for younger people who are still to save if they are to get to retirement and have a reasonable existence.
There is clearly benefit in giving greater freedom to the saver, but the impact of the extent of the freedoms, the speed of their introduction, the response of the market, the shift of the risk to the individual and the impacts on employers were never fully considered. The Government are dependent on the market to deliver the choice agenda, yet we know that there are features of the pensions market that hinder the proper functioning of competition—complexity, consumer inertia, asymmetry of knowledge—and that legitimise more state intervention than would otherwise be the case.
We see problems emerging that were raised in this House only days ago, in particular by my noble friend Lord Bradley. It was therefore welcome to hear the Chancellor acknowledge that there are concerns that some companies are not doing their part to make those freedoms accessible and that the Government are now considering a cap on charges and have asked the FCA to investigate. Yet the FCA warned some months ago, in its interim report on the retirement income market, that consumers were poorly placed to drive effective competition and that the introduction of greater choice and more complex products would reduce consumer confidence and weaken the competitive pressure on employers to provide good value.
What of the requirement on the independent governance committees to report on draw-down products? Will the Minister be asking them to give the matter priority? The Chancellor advised that he wants to make sure that savers are treated fairly, but the FCA’s rules on treating customers fairly contain no explicit requirement on providers to act in the best interests of savers. They rely on effective competition to deliver for the saver, yet time and time again experience shows that competition is not able to deal with conflicts of interest and the failure to deliver value for money. The Government need to find a sustained resolution to the dysfunctions in this market. We cannot go on endlessly dealing only with the symptoms.
What is required is not an alignment of interests but a hierarchy of interests, where conflicts of interest are resolved in favour of the saver. Providers have to be able to make a profit but only on products which are designed and operated in the saver’s interest and which provide value for money. Now, we face an urgent need for substantive data so that regulators and the Government can identify early and respond quickly to emerging problems. It would be helpful to know from the Minister how the Government intend to meet this need.
New freedoms come with new inefficiencies, which undermine value for money. These include some providers’ restrictive processes for accessing the freedoms, their charges for advice, for transfer out and for transfer in, charges for looking after your money, charges for accessing your money, embedded commission and other charges, which need to be addressed.
There is a danger in the current debate that the message simply becomes, “Everyone must be free to make a dash for the cash and no barriers must be put in their way”, but of course that cannot be right either, and we need a measured debate on this matter. The Government are right to require individuals to take advice in certain circumstances, such as when seeking to transfer substantial defined benefits or protected rights into cash. The risk from pension scams is growing.
It is right that people take time to consider their options, because choices taken can be irreversible. We want providers to behave more responsibly. It is difficult to compel providers to provide certain products, and one would not want to compel the inefficient ones simply because of the debate that is currently taking place. We know that some employers and trustees are reluctant to provide access to choice through their workplace schemes. They are concerned about their own liability. Some fear associating with poor decision-making by savers or assisting access to products in case there is a mis-selling scandal. They are waiting to see how the market evolves.
Providers are setting their own access processes and requirements for customers wanting flexible access. Some face problems. As Martin Wheatley at the FCA observed, the timescale for delivering the freedoms and design products was challenging, and providers struggled to complete due diligence testing on their products. Many have had to significantly change their business model, systems and procedures. For some, that remains a big challenge. Some providers may also be cautious because they fear the risk of mis-selling. When advice should or should not be required is an example of the struggle between public policy and what the market feels it wants as its operating model.
The issue of the ease and cost of transferring from one scheme to another so that people can access their freedoms becomes of increasing importance, as the Government are now discovering. However, we know that there are real inefficiencies in facilitating ease of transfer between one pension scheme and another.
Much of the recent debate is focused on the post-55s, significant numbers of whom were in good occupational schemes. They may not be reliant solely on their DC pots; they may have other incomes, such as from DB schemes, but over time this will change. The savings of future generations may all be DC. Greater freedom and irrevocable decisions put more risk and responsibility on to the individual.
The Minister wishes to promote greater financial awareness and understanding, and the decision to provide guaranteed guidance was a welcome step in that direction. However, the need for guidance over a working life will grow as the personal responsibility to make provision for retirement and other needs increases. Access to advice at a cost that is reasonable, particularly for those on moderate incomes, will not be readily available. People will be left with limited support if there is no source of independent and impartial guidance. People need guidance from a trusted source, delivered by an entity that has no commercial interest in the customer’s next steps. This allows the guidance to be personalised and gets closer to the boundary of the advice—without stepping over it—that can be delivered by a commercial organisation that has a vested interest.
Guidance should be offered at the main life event touch points, such as student loans, childcare costs, changing employment and starting to save. If the future is greater personal responsibility, the provision of support and guidance needs to be more radical. The noble Baroness has been radical in the past and I am sure that she will be so in the future.
Perhaps I may conclude by making a personal plea to the Minister: could she please pay full regard to the position of women in pension reforms? We now face a situation where a little over one in three of the people who are auto-enrolled are women. In part, the problem has evolved because of the earnings trigger—the level of earnings that you have to achieve before your employer is obliged to auto-enrol you into a pension scheme. Fortunately, after several years of argument, the Government have frozen the value of the earnings trigger rather than relentlessly tracking the income tax threshold. I fear that there is a loss of focus on the need for the private pension system to work for women as much as for men. At the moment, two in every three of the people being auto-enrolled are men. I hope that the sororal commitments of the Minister, which have been ably and warmly demonstrated in the past, are not diminished by ministerial office.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. She is an expert and the House is lucky to have access to her experience. I support most of what she has said, but I would underscore her last point about the importance of the entitlement of women in the past and in the future. It was one of the issues that Steve Webb dealt with best, and my noble friend Lord German has paid a substantial and appropriate tribute to him. We are all agreed that we need to be solicitous of women’s rights and entitlements in the country’s future pension provision policy.
I declare an interest. I am the chairman of the General Medical Council’s superannuation DB scheme. It has been a source of education for me on some of the complexities of investment policy and will inform some of the things I have to say. I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Flight, not only for the debate today but for the keen interest he takes in this issue. We are on different sides of the park on some of the economic arguments but no one can take away from him the fact that he has been dedicated to trying to get people to consider a savings policy. He, too, has great knowledge from which we benefit.
I welcome again—I will keep welcoming her for a long time to come—the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to her ministerial role. I am going to offer her some quite gratuitous advice: she should refuse to resign. If over the next five years she is threatened with a ministerial reshuffle, I hope she will promise to come and tell some of her friends on all sides of the House that that is a possibility because we know where the Prime Minister lives and how to give people a really hard time. It is stark-staringly obvious why I say that. One of the reasons Steve Webb was a successful Minister is that he was not one of 14—he was in place for five years. If the noble Baroness is given a full term, I am confident that she will make a positive contribution. If the ministerial role is chopped and changed it will be to no one’s advantage. We will be solidly behind her when she refuses to resign. I hope she will take that piece of advice.
I would also advise the Minister to do nothing, take no steps and make no changes until she is absolutely sure that the department has given her the full brief on winners and losers in both the long and short terms. I do not need to tell her that. It is important that we recognise the significance of some of the changes that may be made for ordinary people and the political ramifications of those changes.
As a Scot, perhaps I may remind her that quite a bit of the industry is based in Edinburgh. There is quite a lot of politics going on in Scotland at the moment as well. If she were kind enough to visit Edinburgh, I would personally organise the pipe band. There is a serious point to be made about the other parts of the United Kingdom as well because this is a UK-wide policy area. A lot of it is—and should be—based in the City but there are other parts of the kingdom furth of London. I do not think I need to tell her that, either.
This has been a very good debate which will repay careful study. I want to support some of the things that other noble Lords have said. I am sure the Minister knows already that the game has changed. Thinking about pensions needs to be done entirely differently in the future. I was encouraged that, in his important remarks, my noble friend Lord German referred to the need to look after low-paid households and low-paid members of schemes—particularly DC schemes. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, said about the significance of DC schemes and the decisions we will have to take about them. I support—well, half support—what he said about the need for a new commission.
Will the Minister go back to the department and ask for the papers about the Pension Provision Group to be dug out? The group was set up by Harriet Harman in about 1992, and a splendid Scot called Tom Ross chaired it. The group was independent and had access to specialist departmental support staff. It did an analysis of the waterfront and came up with the recommendation that eventually led to the Pensions Commission. That valuable contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Turner of Ecchinswell, was therefore spawned by the work done by Tom Ross’s group.
The plea from the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, to have a full-blown rerun of the commission—which I would support—falls on deaf ears because it is too complicated or would take too long. Perhaps I may recommend an alternative. It is not as good, but it would do. It could be done within 18 months and would produce a SWOT analysis which I think the Minister would find very useful. This would be a small, independent group which would look at where the gaps are. As other noble Lords have said, all the reforms that have been put into place have rightly been made with all-party support. We are grateful to be in this position. We should also be grateful for the quality of the industry that we have behind us. We are global leaders in this area.
Although the situation is urgent and needs attention, we should not forget the industry in our deliberations. I think it was really fed up and ticked off by the announcement in Budget 2014 that all these changes would happen “just like that”. I understand why that was done. Some information is market sensitive and some things have to be announced in ways that protect it. However, we must give the industry an honest chance to participate in some of our thinking about the future. We need to be looking at how the pieces of the jigsaw fit together. There are gaps and I think that the Minister will be driven to address them. It would be better if she anticipated them and started thinking about them before they happened.
A total savings culture change is necessary, and I was very interested to see that Mr Martin Wheatley of the FCA said the other day:
“You can no more live in modern society without finance than you could without housing or water”.
Coming from the chairman of the FCA, that is a pretty powerful statement, and I absolutely agree with it. It is the sort of thinking that should underlie all of our policies in the future. In the long term the culture will change, and I am sure that the Minister’s experience will serve her well in driving the agenda.
I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Flight, when he says that we should promote the Minister to a senior role in the Treasury. If my experience is anything to go by, she will find that the ideas she may have in the future will be blocked by people along the road. This agenda needs to be driven by someone who is in the middle of the spider’s web. I know that she will be in the middle of her own spider’s web, but she needs a bigger web. She needs Treasury support to do what she needs to do, and I think she probably knows that.
In the short term, running repairs are necessary, as is identifying the gaps. A Pension Provision Group analysis would help in that. I concur entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, in what he said about occupational schemes. Come 2018, we will need to be vigilant about what is happening to these schemes. I am very worried about this. If I have read the data from the auto-enrolment declaration of compliance report correctly, at the moment there are as many people—5.2 million to 5.3 million—outside auto-enrolment as are inside, and that is only looking at bigger employers. The next phase of auto-enrolment will involve smaller employers. The effect of earnings of £10,000 triggering access along with job definition and self-employment restrictions means that we are leaving a whole lot of people outside the scheme, and that is even before we get to the version of the problems described by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. He is right to remind us about that. Indeed, he made a powerful speech in the debate on the Queen’s Speech which I read with interest; he has persuaded me about this.
I shall make a quick point about the triple lock. My noble friend Lord German said that there are some savings to be made, and he is correct. Her Majesty’s Government are making huge savings over a 50-year or 60-year schedule, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, by suppressing the accrued rights of S2P from maturing in the future. They are also making huge changes in terms of extending the state pension age. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Flight, that within reason it is a sensible thing to do, but people need time to plan for it. So any attack on the triple lock, certainly in this Parliament, should not happen. Colleagues should remember that the triple lock can still exist and be cheaper because all you need to do is change the definition of earnings or reduce the increase from 2.5% to 2%. Those are the factors. I would not put it past the Treasury to do this if things get tough later on, but if it happens, I can tell the noble Baroness that she will meet stout resistance from, I suspect, all sides of the House. If the Government do try to do that, we will start to look seriously at the savings they will be making over the long term in terms of SPA and abolishing S2P rights. She will have a fight on her hands if that is tried, so I am warning her of it right now. I will say it only once, because it is important.
Finally, I think that the Pension Wise service is wholly correct, but wholly inadequate. I said earlier that I learn an enormous amount as the chairman of a defined benefit scheme. It is a struggle, although it has a really supportive sponsoring employer who could not do more to support the trustees in trying to defend the interests of the scheme members. It is now fantastically complicated trying to stay ahead of the curve, given the volatility of the asset market and gilts. The noble Lord, Lord Flight, knows more about those than I do. Investment rates and contribution rates over a 40-year period are nearly impossible for individuals to work out, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. It is almost impossible for ordinary people to comprehend during a 40-minute Pension Wise interview. They need continuous help.
As the chair of a small superannuation fund, I get fortnightly briefings about the state of the market to try to stay ahead of the game. If ordinary people who know nothing more about the pensions industry than the man in the street do not get enough help, then I am not surprised that they get into ISAs. Maybe we should be thinking more carefully about that, which is another important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Flight. Right now, I am certain that while the guidance guarantee was correct, it is inadequate. It really needs to be substantially beefed up if it is to be safe.
In conclusion, I say to the Minister that I wish her well. I am sure that she will be successful and that she will be in her role for five years, because if she is not there will be more to-do about it, in my view. She is part of a one-nation Government who are contemplating £12,000 million of cuts, if the Chancellor is to be believed. We will also be looking to her to fight the good fight within government, to make sure that low-income families in particular, who are trying to save and to make proper provision for an adequate retirement income, are properly protected by this one-nation Government over the course of these cuts. I wish the Minister well.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Flight, on initiating this debate and on his remarks. I have known him for nearly 50 years, and I can honestly say that I have never agreed more with one of his speeches than the one he made today. I also join in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and I look forward to her maiden speech, particularly given her experience at the consumer interface. I hope that one of the things she will concentrate on as the new Minister is that area of pension policy. I and my colleagues on these Benches, my noble friends Lord German and Lord Kirkwood, saw the legislation through the coalition Government from these Benches. It is good to see that this was actually one of the most successful parts of the coalition Government.
I join in thanking Steve Webb today for all the work that he did in the coalition. That team effort was built on his very successful working with Iain Duncan Smith and the noble Lord, Lord Freud. This produced reforms that in my view would not have happened with a single-party Government. It built—and this is another lesson for pension policy—on the reforms initiated by the previous Government and the foundations prepared by the Turner commission, whose membership included the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. Turner’s vision was of a simple state pension that adjusted to life-expectancy improvements, with automatic enrolment into private pension savings and with the full back-up of the state-sponsored scheme that is now NEST. The coalition’s achievement was really to review and then reform the structure of pension policy, which is now simpler and more coherent. However, as has been raised in this debate, we still need to cope with how to raise the actual level of saving.
Steve Webb brought huge experience of pensions and expertise into government. I was very proud to have been associated with Steve in the pension review which our own party carried out in 2003-04, which set out the case for a citizen pension. This has effectively become the higher state pension and is set at the level of pension credit. It was in our manifestos in 2005 and 2010, and it included a commitment to the triple lock. Despite the restraints on public spending that we had in the last Government, it is good that both those measures—the triple lock and the introduction of the higher single state pension—were supported.
Steve Webb had to fight hard in government to get that, particularly the single state pension, especially in the middle of the Government between 2012 and 2013, and it is right that he should be proud of that legacy. He has effectively restored the Beveridge commitments that there should be a basic state pension approaching 20% of average earnings to provide a minimum standard of living while at the same time acting as a platform on which private pension savings would be built. The triple lock stops the withering away of the relative value of that state pension, which has been going on since 1981.
A couple of other reforms were important in the coalition Government. We undertook a review of public pensions, which was conducted very thoroughly by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. It has not been mentioned in the debate. It was not a popular thing to do, but it had to be done. The coalition, and the consensus that that report helped to introduce, helped the introduction of those reforms, which are ongoing.
Although auto-enrolment had been envisaged by the previous Labour Government, it was reviewed by the coalition. It has been well introduced and we have had success so far, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, warned us, there are issues that we will need to follow up. I hope that the Minister will give us some of the latest figures on auto-enrolment, as the figures that I have seen have not been updated since last year. Contributions are still too low, but the introduction of auto-enrolment has to be phased in. It is a start, and what we need now is stability of policy-making.
Two other reforms were introduced by the previous Government. Steve Webb was always concerned about charging. He imposed a cap on the auto-enrolment schemes, which was welcomed. The Government then got into the issue, which again I support, of providing choice and the ability for people to use their pension funds more flexibly. That was almost inevitable once people began to question the returns they were getting from annuities, as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said. We need to encourage more saving. Frankly, if people feel restrained and do not have that choice, that in itself will be a deterrent to saving.
Looking to the future, there are a number of priorities that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, could look at. As people have said in the debate, there is a need for stability: people need certainty that these policies will now be bedded down and continued with. I think Steve Webb mentioned this recently: if there is one area where the Government could have done more it is improving communication and education. People need to save more, and if they are to be encouraged to do that they have to have a better understanding of and confidence in the policy, which needs greater stability.
I hope that we will use the digital facilities to help them. I will give one example. In the previous Government we tried to have better communication with people who were about to take their state pension, because there is very little communication with them. I suspect that this is the experience of others: every year I get a letter about my winter fuel allowance, telling me that it has been paid into my bank account. Frankly, that money and that communication should be used to prompt people either when they are undercontributing or when their pensions are not adequate to meet the requirements of their retirement. Just as endowment policy companies have been forced to write to people where their policies clearly were not delivering what they were meant to deliver, we should look at improving communication with regard to state pensions. It can be done more easily and cheaply digitally than by a letter through the mail, which I still get for my winter fuel allowance.
Now that the structure is in place for policy, clearly we have to look at other means of improving better saving. I support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, that we must look at the defined contribution alternatives and particularly the defined ambition schemes as a way of widening the debate to deal with the issues and people’s concern as they look at their savings and the poor returns that they could be getting from their defined contribution schemes.
Providers will be the key in the future. The confidence which consumers and potential pensioners have in the providers of their pensions is essential. There is still a lot of distrust over charges, because they are misunderstood and often hidden. If we are going to get into the whole issue of freeing up draw-down options, we must deal with the fact that every time we have had a reform in pensions and financial services, it has provided an opportunity for further fraud and mis-selling. If we introduce these things too quickly and before proper regulation is in place, we will have difficulties, and that will undermine confidence in savings. If there was a criticism, it is probably fair to say that the opening up has been done too quickly, which leads to the possibility that we will have more problems in the future.
We could have done with a few more years of Steve Webb in charge. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness will contribute to the ongoing debate in this important area, and I know that Steve Webb will be contributing to the debate outside Parliament. We on these Benches salute Steve Webb’s achievements in government and we hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, will defend and develop his legacy and that of the coalition in government.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Flight, on initiating this wide-ranging and thoughtful debate. I was particularly struck by his statistic on the average age of the House. Having recently reached state retirement age, I am pleased that I still fall below the average age in this House. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to her new position as Pensions Minister and, like all noble Lords, I look forward to her maiden speech at the conclusion of this debate. As has been rightly said, we know that she has tremendous expertise in this area, which everyone in this House will benefit from. She is warmly welcomed.
In the limited time available to me, I will concentrate on the issue that I believe is currently foremost in the public’s mind—that is, how the pension freedoms flowing from the Taxation of Pensions Act and the Pension Schemes Act, which came into force in April of this year, are being implemented and how they are impacting on customers. I said at Third Reading of these Acts that implementation was barely nine weeks away, that I remained deeply concerned at the speed at which changes were being introduced and that the issue,
“will be closely scrutinised both inside and outside this House to ensure that the public’s interests are properly and fully thought through and protected”.—[Official Report, 5/2/15; col. 797.]
It is clear that this remains our number one priority, although I recognise from the very thoughtful contributions to this debate that there are a number of other important issues, such as the single-tier pension, the triple lock and auto-enrolment, which we must return to in future debates.
Let me be clear again that Labour supports the introduction of greater flexibilities in how people access their defined contribution pensions, as we believe that it is right for people to choose how to use the money that they have saved. However, we have said that there are three tests for the reforms. The advice test—is there robust advice for people providing for their retirement and measures to prevent mis-selling? The fairness test—the new system must be fair, with those on middle and low incomes still being able to access the products that give them the certainty in retirement that they want, and the billions that we spend on pension tax relief must be available across the board. The cost test—the Government must ensure that this does not result in extra costs to the state, either through social care or pensioners falling back on means-tested benefits, such as housing benefit. We will continue to monitor the implementation of the reforms against these tests.
In the run-up to the introduction of the reforms, we called for the FCA to introduce a second line of defence, requiring providers to give information to those looking to access their pension pots. We were pleased that during the passage of the Bill the Government accepted that call from this side of the House.
We also called for the Government to consult on developing a charge cap for income draw-down products, with a focus on those offered by a saver’s own pension provider, on the assumption that these customers may have taken the least active approach to choosing a new product. At that time we highlighted the research from Which?, and I quote from it again:
“Based on a scenario of someone with the typical pension pot of £36,000, drawing down £2,000 a year, we calculate that a cap of 0.5% would leave someone in our scenario around £10,300 better off than with charges at 2.75%. A 0.75% cap would mean that they have a total of around £8,800 more over their retirement and a 1% cap would give them around £7,500 more”.
So obviously it is pleasing that the Government are now consulting, through the FCA, on these caps. As we have heard in the debate, though, these charges and the consultation must be transparent, and we must come to a sound but quick conclusion to ensure that customers do not continue to be ripped off by high charges.
During the implementation phase, in the wake of consistent concern about fraud, we asked the Government to take action to give savers greater protection. We suggested that a Labour Government would introduce a new cross-government task force on tackling fraud and scams, overseen by the Pensions Minister. We also suggested a new kitemark so that savers could recognise regulated pension products, and a cooling-off period so that savers had the time to make a final decision about their pension pot to protect them from handing over a lifetime’s savings to potential fraudsters. I am sure that the new Pensions Minister will want to reflect on those proposals in her new role.
Let us consider a little further what has happened in the three months since the introduction of the flexibilities. Already, in the wake of their introduction, many concerns have been reported about fraud and, as my noble friend Lord Hutton mentioned, restrictions on the public’s access to their savings. First, I turn to fraud again—I think it is a very important matter. There remain persistent concerns that companies offering fraudulent or poor-value products will use the reforms as an opportunity to persuade savers to part with their cash. The Daily Mail reported on 23 May this year that:
“Pension savers are being warned to be on their guard against fraudsters who pass themselves off as working for Pension Wise, the Government-backed pension guidance service—but whose aim is to con you out of your savings”.
Research from the consumer group Which?, published six weeks after the pension reforms came into effect, found that one-third of over-55s who are not yet retired have already been contacted by someone looking to sell them a potentially poor product. The Minister has suggested that tackling this kind of fraud is one of her priorities in her new role as Pensions Minister. What action are the Government taking now to monitor the levels of potential fraud in the market, and how are they ensuring that, alongside the prevention of fraudulent products, savers are protected from products that may offer a higher degree of risk than they realise they are taking on without full knowledge?
Secondly, there is the difficulty of accessing savings. The Daily Telegraph has been running a campaign highlighting the difficulties that some savers face in accessing their pension savings in the way that they want to. There are two main issues: first, providers do not yet offer the type of income draw-down products, or options for taking some of their savings as cash, that the savers actually want. The ABI has been robust in defending pension providers’ behaviour in this context and highlights the fact that these reforms have been introduced at speed. A Financial Times report on 13 June quoted Huw Evans, chief executive of the ABI, who said that the industry said that it had been set an unrealistic timetable to implement the changes announced by the coalition Government in the 2014 Budget. He went on to say:
“So much has been done at the last minute … The first thing we need is absolute regulatory certainty about what providers can do and what they can’t do”.
I would be grateful if the Government would comment further on what they are doing to look at that issue.
The third issue that I want to highlight is advice, which several noble Lords have mentioned, and which is a crucial part of public confidence in the new system. Let us consider providers requiring savers to access advice before accessing their pension pot. Several providers require savers to access advice before taking out their pensions as cash or in an income draw-down scheme. This highlights two problems. First, some providers see a lack of regulatory clarity around their responsibility if savers take up options that prove not to be of best value, or indeed detrimental to their finances. The FCA has published guidance to providers but says that it will review it this summer. Providers argue that this could be seen as a consequence of the rushed nature of the reforms. Secondly, there is a lack of affordable advice to those with smaller pension pots. Pension Wise can offer only guidance, not regulated advice. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify the circumstances in which the Government believe that people should take advice before accessing their pension pot, and set out what they are doing to ensure that affordable services are there for all those who need them.
Most importantly on the question of advice, what action are the Government taking to monitor the take-up of Pension Wise and advice from citizens advice bureaux, and the level of customer satisfaction with the service? I put down some Parliamentary Questions on this matter but, unfortunately, to date they have not been answered—otherwise, I might not have had to press the Minister on those points today. There also appears to be an absence of any plans for the collection and publication of data on Pension Wise usage. This would be an important measure, providing basic user feedback on the service itself, its quality and whether it was helping people to navigate the new pension freedoms.
What action are the Government taking to monitor the type of products that people are accessing, and the implications of this for access to means-tested benefits and further cost to the Government as a consequence? What current assessment have they made of whether the increase in tax revenue that they were predicting in 2014 from the freedoms will be realised? Are the Government enabling people to sell annuities that they have already purchased in exchange for a cash sum? What progress are they making on that reform?
As I said, time is very limited and these are extremely important issues for us to debate. I commend all the contributions that have been made. I am sure that all of us across the House seek to ensure that the consumer’s interests are always protected and that the public remain confident that the new freedoms being rolled out are in their best interest. I know that we will receive a very thoughtful response in the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to all the issues raised in the debate. I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am proud and honoured to stand here today as a Member of this House and thank my noble friend Lord Flight for initiating this debate and for the many important and interesting points he raises, which I look forward to discussing with him. I also thank other noble Lords for their kind words. I must say that I am finding this such a friendly place. I am enormously grateful to my two supporters, my noble friends Lady Wheatcroft and Lord Freud, and to the doorkeepers and all the wonderful people who make this great House work so well.
I am particularly pleased to be among so many notable experts—especially all the noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently today—who have a deep knowledge of the UK pensions system. As someone who has studied and advised on pensions policies independently, I am excited to have joined the Government, with the opportunity it gives me to work inside this House to try to deliver the important pension reforms already under way, and initiated by my esteemed predecessor Steve Webb.
In the past 15 years or so, I have worked really hard to help ordinary pension savers. I have been involved in a number of campaigns trying to achieve justice for those who have lost out in our pension system, and it has been a privilege to have been able to make a difference to so many people’s lives. That is what motivates me. I earnestly hope that, in my new role, I will be able to help many more—time will tell. I thank the many noble Lords who have already shown me such warmth, kindness, support and friendship since arriving in the House.
As this is my maiden speech, I hope I may share with noble Lords a few words about my background. My mother, a wonderful woman, well liked by everyone, tells me that I always had a strong sense of social justice, helping others wherever I could. Even at school I would stand up for those who were bullied. I remember my parents being proud of me for defending my friend one day and telling me, “Don’t stand by, stand up, stand strong”. I often think of those words.
My parents and their families were refugees from eastern Europe who arrived here with nothing. All my grandparents were so grateful for the freedoms and opportunities they enjoyed in this wonderful country of ours. I have been asked why I chose Tottenham as my “place”, and can assure noble Lords that this is not because I have a hidden talent for playing football. Actually, my father’s parents lived at their small shop in Tottenham—the Hale Bargain Store. I have many fond memories of serving in the shop and then walking to football at White Hart Lane, holding hands with my father and granddad in the Tottenham Hotspur glory days. As I am the last member of my family of Altmanns, I have chosen Tottenham as my “place” as it holds so many special memories of my time there.
Sadly, my father passed away in his 50s and never reached retirement. This is quite poignant for me given that my career has focused on helping people prepare for, and enjoy, retirement. After reading economics and studying at Harvard, I completed a PhD on pensions and later-life poverty at the London School of Economics. I then worked in the City and spent many interesting years managing institutional assets, mostly pension funds.
I took time out after having my third child and then returned to corporate life as an independent consultant, working on pensions and investment policy. I advised the Treasury and the No. 10 Policy Unit, while also working with many top international firms on pension investment, risk management and member security. That work led to public recognition as a pensions expert and consumer champion, which is ultimately why I am here today, among such distinguished company.
Turning to the subject of today’s debate, I first express my gratitude for the important work done by the Pensions Commission in generating the momentum that has brought us to the point we have now reached. The commission’s excellent analysis showed that any system of private pension saving needs to be considered against the background of the state pension and, rightly in my view, concluded that means-testing must be reduced; state pensions should be flat-rate with the widest possible coverage and should rise in line with earnings; and that private saving must be facilitated. That is why the delivery of the new state pension, rolling out auto-enrolment to all employers and ensuring that customers are treated fairly in the new pensions landscape will be major priorities for me as I do my utmost for the pensioners of today and the future.
The reforms put in place so dedicatedly by my predecessor in the last Government—I echo the many tributes paid to Steve Webb—are now reaching a critical stage. I am well aware that the real tests for success are still to come, notwithstanding the encouraging trends so far. I am also actively aware that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, mentioned, maintaining a consensus is vital. I think there is broad agreement that a base level of state pension is essential. The value of the basic state pension as a proportion of earnings had been in almost constant decline since 1978. However, with the introduction of the triple lock, the previous Government helped to ensure that today’s pensioners now receive the highest share of basic state pension relative to earnings in two decades, so that pensioners are protected even in tough times. I repeat the Prime Minister’s commitment that this triple lock will be maintained during this Parliament.
As many noble Lords have said, the current state pension system is one of the most complex in the world. State pension provision has undermined private pension saving as too many pensioners just ended up on means-tested benefits that penalised their private income. The new state pension introduced by my predecessor—I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, in that regard—will significantly reduce pensioner means-testing. People therefore have a better chance of knowing what to expect from the state pension, so they can plan any additional personal retirement income they may want or need on top. Unfortunately, the new state pension has not yet been properly understood. This is mainly because of the complexity of contracting out, and we need to communicate this more clearly. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, about the importance of communication. This is an area on which I have already spent an enormous amount of time in my new role. I reassure my noble friend Lord Kirkwood that among the plethora of briefings that I have requested from my team, I have already asked for submissions on winners and losers and will now add to that ever-growing list a request regarding the Pension Provision Group. I should also let him know that I hope to be in Edinburgh in the middle of July and look forward to the band.
Rising longevity means that successive generations are spending longer and longer in retirement. This is, of course, pretty good news. However, we all know that there are also huge cost implications for state pensions, which is why we will have an independent review of the state pension age by 2017. I want the review to consider not only rising life expectancy but wider social, occupational and gender factors. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that I am acutely aware of the disadvantages faced by women in our pension system.
Let me now address the pension freedoms. There are some who say that the financial industry or the Government know best what people should do with their private pensions and that most people cannot make sensible decisions for themselves. I disagree. Yes, some may be reckless and most will certainly need protection, guidance and even advice but the new pension freedoms are right, in my view. I have long been an advocate of trusting people with their own money. I was acutely aware of how the one-size-fits-all approach of the past meant that too many people—unless they had very large pension funds—were forced to buy annuities that were often not suitable for their needs. I am most grateful for the support for the new pension freedoms, in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Bradley.
The previous system most benefited the wealthy but we have now offered more choice and flexibility for the majority of savers as well. I should like to stress an important point: the reforms are particularly helpful in that they use the tax system to incentivise people to keep money in their pensions into later life. By taxing lump sum withdrawals, removing the 55% tax on death and allowing pension savings to pass to the next generation free of inheritance tax, there are strong reasons for people to keep pensions rather than spend them too soon. Most importantly, these reforms will also encourage more people to save in pensions in the first place.
Of course, we must also make sure that customers have good value options to choose from. The pensions industry needs to help individuals to act as they would like to and as the law now allows but, so far, too many firms are not offering many of the new options to their customers, or they are imposing hefty charges, lengthy delays or exit penalties on those wishing to transfer to other providers. This is most disappointing.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced yesterday in another place—this was welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake—that we will be launching a consultation next month, asking the industry, consumer groups, media and individuals to submit evidence of the reality facing customers in this new landscape. We need the evidence to inform any action that might be required to ensure that the market works as intended and customers are treated fairly. We must not allow consumer rights to play second fiddle to the interests of large financial firms. So far, it is clear that competition has not always addressed consumer detriment but, ultimately, it is in the interests of providers to look after their customers well. Their long-term success requires a new approach, and I assure noble Lords that I am at least as concerned about this as they are. I intend to take action to drive fair treatment of customers. I am also concerned about the transparency of all fees and charges for pensions and savings products. The noble Lord, Lord German, rightly mentioned this. I share the sense of urgency expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and I reassure him that I will reflect on his other remarks.
It is also important that the pension freedoms have been accompanied by the creation of Pension Wise. I am grateful for the support of many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for this service. Pension Wise has already been used by thousands of people. Its free and impartial guidance helps pension savers understand the options available to them and the risks and costs associated with each. People also need to be alive to the risk of scams and we must keep working hard to raise awareness of this important issue. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, that I have also already had conversations with the FCA about this issue, financial advice and the difficulties faced by advisers and their customers in accessing affordable advice. In addition, we need to improve financial education, as the noble Lord, Lord German, rightly said. Public understanding of the long-term savings and investment market is currently inadequate.
As well as problems with pensions, I have, for many years, been concerned about the looming crisis in social care funding. The ageing population means that there will be an enormous surge in the numbers needing to rely on care in coming years, and there is simply no money set aside to pay for this. There is still much more to be done to incentivise saving for later-life care, whether as part of pension provision, separate care savings plans, a widespread insurance system or a combination of all these.
Turning to auto-enrolment, the coverage and adequacy of pension saving had been in rapid decline for many years. Unfortunately, the rising costs and risks of defined benefit pension provision led, as we have heard today, to employers closing traditional defined benefit schemes. I have great sympathy with the many employers who have been struggling with ever-increasing pension liabilities in the current, exceptionally low interest rate environment. Pension provision is clearly moving towards defined contribution, which employers are using to replace defined benefit. It is encouraging, however, that automatic enrolment has so far been successful and that opt-out rates have been really low, especially among young people, so that coverage of workplace pensions is once again increasing.
I can inform the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, that as of last week 5.25 million people have been automatically enrolled, 44,757 employers have met their automatic enrolment duties and the number of eligible employees participating in workplace pensions has increased by 900,000, to 11.7 million. But we must not be complacent: half of all employees have been automatically enrolled but this accounts for only 4% of employers and contributions are low, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, rightly remarked. The hardest work is just starting, as there will be many challenges in ensuring that the huge numbers of remaining employers manage the auto-enrolment process. In particular, I am conscious of the situation of micro-employers and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord German, that I am actively engaged in ensuring that auto-enrolment for the smallest employers is successful and that they are given an easier way to manage this issue. I have already had many meetings on this topic.
Of course, a major factor in people’s retirement income is how much and for how long they save into a pension but, as life expectancy keeps rising, it is also imperative to help people stay in the labour market in later life, including beyond the state pension age if they choose to do so. As my noble friend Lord Flight rightly said, we need to retire the traditional concept of retirement. In that vein, I was amused by and grateful for the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, about my possible retirement from my new ministerial role, even before I have made my maiden speech.
In conclusion, my aim as Pensions Minister is to try to make pensions work better for people. As I explained to your Lordships at the start of this speech, I have been involved in all aspects of pensions for my entire career. In this work I have always believed that pensions are not just about money. Ultimately, they are about people. We all hope to have a pension one day to help us enjoy our later life. Pensions are precious and need to be nurtured. So many of us have taken them for granted. As the Prime Minister announced to the press when asking me to join his Government:
“What we are doing is taking the country’s leading expert on pensions, on savings, on financial education, and … she will be at the heart of Government, making sure we complete this great revolution where we are giving people much more power to save, to access their pension, to pass their pension on to their children, because we want to create a real savings culture in our country for everybody”.
I realise that my new role in government and as part of this House is a huge responsibility. There is much to do. I have had the privilege of working with a large number of noble Lords from all sides of this House over the years, and I hope I can count many as friends. I would like to get to know and work with more of your Lordships in a spirit of co-operation and consensus rather than confrontation.
These are national and social imperatives in which we all have an interest, and I will try my best to make policy work better for people from all walks of life. With that in mind, I look forward to working with the House on the challenges ahead.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Altmann on her speech, which was very helpfully down to earth and displays that she has already got her feet more than under the table in dealing with a lot of what must be dealt with. I am sure we all wish her success.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, for his kind remarks and for what he has contributed, particularly his work on the changes to public sector pensions. This was difficult and sensitive territory, and a workable compromise emerged. I just make the point—which I think the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, was perhaps making—that it concerns me that the gap between the pensions available to those working in the public sector and those working in the private sector is wider than I wish it were. There is a somewhat miserly DC arrangement left in the private sector, and there is the DB arrangement left in the public sector. I am not quite sure what the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, was recommending, but he asked: is just DC pension provisioning sufficient? I have a rather unthought-out vision of whether there could be a pooling arrangement that amounted to more of a DB scheme and where longer-term risks could therefore be taken in the way investments are made. There is a need, certainly in large organisations, for employer co-operation. It is very sad that we had the best pension system in the world with our DB system, which was able to function because it could take a long-term view of the management of its assets.
Whenever I have asked the Government why they do not do something about IFRS 17, which has made a mockery of DB pension liabilities, the answer I have always received was, “This is for the profession, and not the Government”. I am aware, however, that when the same issue arose in the US, Congress rightly did not stand for such nonsense, and used its power to stop an accounting standard damaging pension arrangements.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his kind remarks. He made some very useful points, to which my noble friend Lady Altmann responded. The question of what tax relief should be is important, and, strangely perhaps, we are in agreement that it should really be set at a universal level.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for her very well thought-out contribution to this debate. She raised a lot of sound intellectual questions about what needs to be looked at. My only concern about more involvement by the FCA is that it creates yet more complexity. As many noble Lords will be aware, the whole issue of why the industry is perceived as not having responded adequately to the changes has been largely the result of what it is obliged to do under FCA requirements.
There is not time to go through other contributions, but this has been an extremely valuable debate, with many very constructive contributions made across the House. I find it very encouraging that the spirit of consensus is here and looks as though it is staying.
Economy: Creative Industries
Baroness Wheatcroft
That this House take note of the contribution of the creative industries to the United Kingdom economy.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, it gives me genuine pleasure to introduce this debate on the economic importance of the creative industries. It should not be so much a debate as a celebration, because our creative industries are thriving. The latest government figures show that the creative industries together were worth almost £77 billion to the economy in 2013, and they have grown considerably since then. They are on a roll: they have been growing at three times the rate of the UK economy as a whole for several years. They are creating jobs at a remarkable pace. Between 1997 and 2013, job creation in the sector grew by 3.9% a year; the economy as a whole managed just 0.6%—much better than many countries, but the creative industries show just what can be done. There are now 1.71 million people employed in the creative industries.
But statistics tell only part of the story. We all know that the creative industries do not generate just money and employment; they bring joy and enlightenment—they improve life for everyone. At the Globe Theatre, Shakespeare has been brought to life for children who never thought they could enjoy it. Some of our modern novelists are opening doors to the imagination for people who never thought beyond the reality that for them was really quite mundane. Harry Potter turned a generation of youngsters into readers when their parents had almost given up hope.
Whether it be music or film, theatre or museums, art or books, the UK is delivering quality, variety and innovation. On Wednesday evening America’s First Lady, Michelle Obama, dropped in to see the Victoria and Albert’s magnificent exhibition—ground-breaking in its use of technology and imagery—of Alexander McQueen, under the title “Savage Beauty”. If she had had a little longer to spare, there are many other things that she could have taken in. I particularly would have liked her to take a look at what the British Museum has on now, as I am deputy chairman there. She could have seen a fantastic exhibition of Greek sculpture, “Defining beauty”, and indeed it is beautiful.
There are so many other cultural delights to savour in this country, and there is no doubt that our arts and culture bring visitors to the UK in droves. Tourism is now the UK’s fifth-largest industry. I am glad to say that in this year’s election campaign, unlike the previous one, every one of the main parties had tourism in its manifesto, a recognition of how important it is. Our arts, our culture and our heritage strongly influence the decision of people to visit the UK. According to the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions—I declare an interest, as a director of the association—the number of visits to the country’s top museums, parks and heritage sites rose by a remarkable 6.5% last year. Most of those visits are from people who are going to bring more money into the economy and go away happy rather than feeling robbed—and you cannot say that for every industry.
Our creative talents are flourishing in every sector. Our theatres and orchestras attract culture-hungry visitors to the UK and, of course, are significant earners overseas. We are currently very successfully exporting Her Majesty the Queen, in the shape of Helen Mirren and “The Audience”, which is playing to an ecstatic audience on Broadway. We are excelling in a way that other countries envy. I was delighted to learn, courtesy of the Arts Council, that its money is being spent in part on the Hip Hop Foundation, without whose benefit we would not now be enjoying what Rizzle Kicks brings to the audience. We have talent on a grand scale. I am still bemused why “Britain’s Got Talent” has to resort to giving the first prize to a dog that cannot even do its own stunts—we have people who can do their own stunts.
In the creative industries, this House boasts representatives of virtually every aspect of the sector, from composing to broadcasting to writing and film producing, and I am much looking forward to hearing from so many experts here today. Only this week, I was able to shake hands with Lionel Richie in the Peers’ Dining Room. Sadly, he was eating rather than doing the cabaret, but it was good to see him here. This House welcomes talent from the creative industries.
Government has played a part in fostering the creative industries, of course. In times of austerity—and we have certainly been living through them—there are inevitably going to be cuts. Budgets have to be rationed, but the investment in the creative industries has continued to be something that the Government have taken very seriously. Particularly noticeable are the tax reliefs for the film industry, introduced in 1997 by a Conservative Government and built on by successive Administrations. I cannot deny that another very creative industry has grown up around those tax reliefs, but let us not get involved in that niggle, as steps are being taken to deal with that. Let us concentrate on how successful the actual tax reliefs have been.
In 2008, the total spend on making feature films in the UK was £723.1 million, and by last year that figure had more than doubled. Inward investment into the industry has trebled over the same period, to reach more than £1.2 billion by last year. This is money that could easily have gone elsewhere, for there are other countries just as keen as we are to bring the film industry and big blockbuster movies into their economies. That is why the tax reliefs make a difference, and why they are staying. For every pound that the Treasury puts into the film industry, it is getting £12 back. That does not sound like a bad deal to me.
And the film industry is making winning products that we all enjoy. The Oscars are flowing in our direction, the film industry is a success and, of course, it nurtures so many skills and businesses around it. It needs wig-makers and set builders, for instance, as well as make-up artists, sound engineers and catering—and I now know that that means hot food available at any time, or it gets dangerous. Pinewood, where my noble friend Lord Grade is chairman—although, sadly, he could not be with us today—runs apprenticeship schemes, as do other film-makers, and has links into many local schools, explaining to the children the career possibilities that the industry has to offer. Those highly effective tax reliefs are being extended into high-end television programmes, animation programmes and video games, which will all flourish with the new regime. The UK has proven expertise in these sectors and is a major exporter. In highly competitive markets, it makes sense for the Government to bolster the chances of success.
The nurturing of these industries is crucial, and not just because of their own earning capacity. Let us not overlook the pleasure that they generate, although I gather that your Lordships’ House comes under some threat in the new James Bond movie. The skills that these industries nurture are important too, because they feed into other industries. The design and engineering skills that are crucial to the creative industries now feed into every sort of manufacturing, from fast-moving consumer goods to cars and heavy engineering. Successful marketing, an industry in which the UK has long excelled, needs the slickest design and the best video production techniques. Design is what gives mundane products the edge and opens up international markets to them.
The London Olympics provided a fantastic demonstration not just of our sporting prowess but of our ability to put on a show. Here I raise an issue which continues to concern me about some of the smaller companies involved in the 2012 extravaganza. I have mentioned it in this House before, because it smacks of unnecessary bullying by the big commercial operators and hurts the smaller firms. Having been involved in the 2012 Olympics is a fantastic calling card for a small company. It should enable them to win new contracts, particularly if they are interested in working on the next Olympics. But the fierce rules of the International Olympic Committee, drawn up to protect the major sponsors, still prevent many of those small companies from boasting of their achievements. I know that the Government have looked at this before, but I do urge them to look again and see whether there is no room for manoeuvre here. Of course, I would draw no parallels with FIFA, but it looks to me as if the smaller companies need a degree of protection rather than allowing the big companies to trample over them.
One thing that would make a huge difference to the economy in this country is improving productivity by finding a way in which to lift those small companies up more quickly into becoming bigger companies. “Scaling up” was the phrase used at a conference that I attended this week, run by the Enterprise Research Centre. It made much of the fact that, in the US in particular, they are far more effective at scaling up their businesses than we are. There are lessons to be learnt by listening to companies that want to grow about what is holding them back. It is not access to finance or red tape and regulation—with the exception of planning, of course, but that is a problem still for so many businesses. My noble friend Lord Grade is eloquent on the issue of the nearly 10 years that it took to get permission for Pinewood to extend its development. So much was put in jeopardy over that 10-year period. In the end, Pinewood got the sensible solution—it was allowed to go ahead, but after 10 years of agony.
What would really help those small companies, many of them in the creative industries, to benefit in negotiating new markets? They want help in finding their way into export markets. PLASA, the trade association which represents companies in the entertainment and technology field—I should say that it stands for Professional Lighting and Sound Association, in case, like me, noble Lords are a bit of a nerd when it comes to acronyms—finds that its members have difficulty in negotiating the numerous government schemes around to help companies. I know that the Government are moving to simplify the system, and BIS is at work, but anything that could be done to make it easier for smaller companies to access the help that already exists would be important. One thing would be to get them on more trade missions, as creative companies do not dominate them at the moment, and they would really be useful contributors. That would help—and it would help, too, if we could persuade our bigger companies to nurture and mentor the smaller companies. It happens a bit in manufacturing, where Unilever is doing it; there is no reason why it should not happen in the creative industries more than it does.
The creative industries are so diverse and so exciting that I could far outlast my allotted time in talking about them. I am conscious that there are many aspects of the creative world that I have not touched on, but I shall rely on others to do justice to our brilliant creators of books, music and television. If the creative industries are to continue to flourish, it is important that our schools nurture the creative urge in children from the earliest age but do not stop when they leave primary school. We all have the ability to be creative in one way or another, and it would be to the country’s benefit if that ability were fostered. In today’s digital world, people need to have mastered the basics of education, but if we are to continue to build a world-beating creative sector and industry generally, we need people who can think creatively. Where would Apple be without the benefits of a talented British designer? An appreciation of arts and culture fosters the creative instinct. Let us ensure that our children are given the chance to enjoy the rich variety of delight that the creative arts have to offer.
Lord Bragg (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for securing this debate. It is most important and most timely. Unfortunately—when I say “unfortunately”, I mean it with complimentary intent—her speech was so comprehensive and brilliant that I could spend most of the rest of my speech saying “as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said”. She has enabled me to cross out several pages of what I was going to say, which will be a relief for everybody in this House—but then I thought, “Well, repetition has its place”. It had better have. We remember:
“A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!”—
one of Shakespeare’s best lines; or in “Macbeth”—
“Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow”—
another good line; so I am going in behind those two. My next remark is exactly like the noble Baroness’s, so I am going to stop this and get on with it.
The creative industry in this country is a beacon. It has high skills of a world-class order, a phrase which I shall use time and again. That can be proved but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, we do not have the time. It is niche-rich in the crafts and arts of film-making; in everything to do with stagecraft and the people who appear on stage; and in the performing arts. One of its great practitioners and exemplars, my friend the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, is in his place today, and I am very pleased to see him here. He has proved that bringing talents together in this city can topple what was thought to be an unassailable fact, that only Americans can do musical theatre. That went for a burton some time ago.
The creative arts in this country are also extraordinarily efficient. There is still a lingering idea that these are long-haired—I am sorry about that—people drooping around the place who cannot really knit. In fact, if you look at plays, exhibitions, films, programmes and concerts, you find that they open when they say they will, they run for as long as they say will, and they almost all come out making some sort of profit and give great delight and hurt not. They also produce massive returns for a little investment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, also said. For £1 of state investment £2, £12 or £16 comes back. It is an extraordinary economic feat and, again, despite being put to the fore in the opening speech, that fact is often obscured. We somehow do not like to think that the arts make money. We think it is art for art’s sake, meaning they will get on with it and we need not bother about it.
We have to bother about it now because of the power that the arts are bringing to us all over the place. Reputationally, they have become our cultural world service. Wherever you go, people know about British writers, British theatre, British actors—and on and on it goes. This is a benign influence. It not only brings money back to the country but shines the right sort of light on this country and brings the right sort of prestige in area after area. I compare what is going on in the arts with what is going on in scientific research in this country. We have less than 1% of the world’s population yet we publish more than 16% of the research documents in science. We are second only to America. We punch way above our weight, and we do almost precisely the same in the arts.
We also are provenly dynamic in bringing together and cohering communities that have almost fallen apart and in enlightening those which have been lying quiet for some time. A small example is in the county of Cumbria, where a grant to the Kendal Brewery Arts Centre will give it a place in the cultural rural economy of the Lake District which will undoubtedly enhance it. The word “subsidy” should be made redundant. I think it should be banned because it is nothing like a subsidy. It is an investment and “investment” has a positive and decent ring to it. That investment in Kendal will create more jobs and activity and bring what the Lake District desperately needs, which is a coherence of the cultural possibilities in that area. We see the same in Manchester, Gateshead and cities and towns all over the country. We have more than 350 literary festivals and almost as many music festivals, art festivals, dance festivals and documentary film festivals. There is nothing like it anywhere else in the world. They are bringing not only pleasure to people like us—me, everybody here, and everybody else—but a feeling that there is something that can be done with that which we thought was just a side issue, and on it goes.
The popularity of the arts is astounding. Who would have thought 15 or 20 years ago that the British Museum would be the greatest visitor attraction in this country? Who would have thought 10 or 15 years ago that more people would go to Tate Modern than to Arsenal? Who would have thought that you could scarcely get a ticket for the RSC or the National Theatre or for the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, or all over the West End? Whether it is a straight play or musical theatre or whatever, the venues are packed out and people are piling in to see these creations in the arts which are coming from the people who live here.
We have such resources when we decide to put them together. We are working towards something that has ceased to be a small matter or something we can ignore. Take the BBC, for instance. It is a unique cultural institution. It is the biggest institution of its kind in this country and probably in the world. It is a great force for the arts. The Proms are about to start. Radio 4 is the biggest commissioner of drama in the world. We have had “Wolf Hall”, and we have arts programmes. Then, there are arts on ITV and Channel 4, and Sky Arts commissions new drama and new arts programmes and is rolling along. That conglomeration in one place makes this city, as well as Manchester, Glasgow and, to a certain extent, Cardiff, a whirlpool of interconnecting talents and possibilities which brings together people who are creating an industry which is worth calling and treating like an industry. I have not even mentioned the great schools of drama, music and dance which bear comparison with—and, in fact, exceed—most in the rest of the world.
So why are we slashing and tampering with key investments when the arts are in such a strong state? It makes no sense to me. State intervention in various areas can seem risky, but it is not at all risky in the arts, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, pointed out. There does not seem to be a single risk-taker. All over the place, small amounts are being put in and huge amounts are coming back, but in many cases it depends on a key contribution from the state or local authorities. It is almost like a virtuous triangle: the state puts in something which is almost like a key—it unlocks, it is an enabler; then sponsors come in; and then the box office comes in and the thing will roll. Why do you need the key in the lock in the first place? It is because quite a lot of what happens in the arts has to happen with no money coming in. It is called research, preparation or rehearsal. Nothing is coming in at all. That happened, for example, with “Matilda”. The amount of time that took to research could not be paid for by box office or sponsors, because there were none; it was not being performed. It had to have something to keep it going. Now it is cascading money into this country from performances all over the world. The key question is: why do the Government not feed what is patently so successful and works across the social waterfront? What is to be gained by starving it? It is baffling.
Look at what the Government do with their money elsewhere. Look at Defra, whose antics seem directed at laming the farming industry. That gets money all over the place and wasted all over the place, and nobody seems to bother very much. Look at our defence procurement, which is ridiculous and scandalous—these ships that have not been built for planes that have not arrived, or pilots whom we cannot train. What has that to do with any sense? But we go along with it, we bear it, and we think it is for some common good. I do. I wish they would move faster and that our defence was better, but there you go; we put up with it. It gets masses of money compared with what is given to the arts. And so it goes on. The amount that we spend on law, sometimes on cases that last more than 30 years, has gone beyond ridicule. It is a disgrace. It is silly. Noble Lords, I am sure, will be interested to know that in Athens, where the sort of law that we approve of started, every case took one day and took place in the marketplace. We could learn a little from that, but we need not go that far. We could learn something from all the money that is spent and squandered in those ways.
So why are the creative arts penalised—as they are at the moment—when they should be not only celebrated but encouraged to grow? It is a thriving sector; it is not, as people think, an add-on. William Morris wrote:
“I do not want art for a few, any more than education for a few, or freedom for a few”.
What we want is as many people as possible to be awakened to the possibilities of art. As we have said, it is to do with comprehensive and compulsory teaching in schools, letting people use their imaginations and following through people’s imaginations. We know that children are very imaginative and what they can do, and then it stops, not because of some biological clock-stopping but because it is not given opportunities and cultivated. But if we have a layer of possible creativity from the very beginning, there is very little that we cannot achieve in this country.
We have a fair chance of catching up with the mineral-rich countries, the population-rich countries and the industry-rich countries if we follow this line in our economy, if we release, as it were, the dark matter in more and more people—still too few, as William Morris said. We should let loose ideas and liberate people who can come forward—as many have done increasingly, but not enough—to challenge, to change and to make things glow, whether in science or the arts, and create an economy that feels completely different. It will have to be, because this is the century, in my view, in which all the prizes will go to the most creative. We have all the building blocks in place. What we need is enlightenment from the centre.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, those are two very hard acts to follow, but I will try. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for bringing this debate. Back in 2007, I brought a similar debate. In those days, “creative industries” was a relatively unused term that was rather resented by the cultural community, but I think it was wrong. The fact is that the creative sector, alongside being central to the well-being of society as well as individuals, also means well-being for the economy, as we have already heard. The Victorians understood this. They created a department of science and art and invested in what was to become the V&A in order to develop skills needed to feed British industry—and the creative industries sector emphatically means well-being for this country’s economy.
As the House of Lords Committee on Soft Power recognised in a report last year, the UK’s cultural collections, institutions, industries and media continue to create powerful channels of communication that help us to increase the UK’s profile, forge links internationally and widen our sphere of influence. I am fortunate enough to be the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Mexico and have seen this at work first hand. I have also seen how these cultural and creative elements increase our prosperity by fostering trade and investment.
The year 2015 is the year of the UK in Mexico and of Mexico in the UK. It is a celebration of cultural, educational and business exchange, but at its heart is culture. But it is not just about the likes of the wonderful Mayas exhibition, which opens tomorrow at Tate Liverpool. This weekend there will be a V&A sponsored event called “Digital Futures”. Workshops and events happening in Mexico City and Dundee will be linked via the web, and the two communities will be able to develop and design projects together. That is creativity and industry.
Before the election, we Liberal Democrats published a strategy paper, The Power of Creativity, to which the chair of Arts Council England, Sir Peter Bazalgette, contributed this thought:
“There’s a new political agenda for the arts in addition to their intrinsic value. It features the importance of the rapidly growing creative industries and the way the arts supply them with vital talent”.
Artists have long been intrigued by discoveries of science and technology. All those who saw Mike Leigh’s wonderful film about Turner will have seen how he was inspired by the scientific research of colleagues in the Royal Academy. Increasingly, inventors are recognising the value of creative skills in maximising the potential of their products, and are working in ever closer collaboration with those who possess those skills.
Notions of “us” and “them”, a perceived opposition between those who practise science and those who practise art, and between those who are creative and those who pursue commerce, are being proved obsolete. To ensure that our next generation is a generation of creators, schools need to be encouraged to promote not just science or art but the art-science crossover. The success of those in the creative industries lies in the fusion of technology and creative skills. Yesterday I was at a British Council event where the brilliant, and if I may say so very handsome, Thomas Heatherwick was present. He is the creator, among other things, of the Olympic cauldron, a wonderful example of the fusion of technology and creativity.
We have a skills shortage in the creative industries, and yet they offer such vibrant, exciting, rewarding careers for our young people. I know this, having worked for many years in the television industry. To enhance access to these skills and careers, we must address our education system. Does the Minister not agree that Ofsted should be asked to monitor the curriculum so that no school can easily drop subjects such as music, art or drama; that the rollout of new high-status GCSEs in creative subjects should be completed as soon as possible; and—I cannot believe that I am still asking this—that Darren Henley’s national plan for cultural education should finally be fully implemented?
Then there is the careers advice that is on offer, or the lack of it. I welcome initiatives that are helping young people, such as First Story, a charity run by Katie Waldegrave and William Fiennes. They nurture creative talent and help to build communication skills through providing creative-writing workshops in state secondary schools. The National Art & Design Saturday Club, run by the Sorrell Foundation, founded by Sir John and Lady Frances Sorrell, similarly provides schoolchildren with the environment in which to learn from industry experts, for free, in colleges and universities across the country. The club helps young people to gain qualifications and gives them an understanding of careers in the creative industries. Does the Minister not agree that we need more institutions and businesses from the creative industries collaborating with schools in this way to provide high-quality careers advice? We also need more schools coming on board to show what a career in the creative industries can mean.
Then there is the problem of the lack of diversity across the creative industries. It is essential that they reflect 21st-century UK—our vibrant, creative, multicultural country—but they do not. That means that so much potential is being excluded. As the now well-deserved “Sir” Lenny Henry drew attention to in his BAFTA TV lecture last year, between 2006 and 2012 the number of BMEs working in the UK TV industry declined by 30.9%. Creative Skillset conducted a census that showed quite clearly that black and Asian minority ethnic representation in the creative industries in 2012 was just 5.4%—the lowest rate since it started taking a census—and it is not getting better.
The then DCMS Minister of State, Ed Vaizey, who I am glad to say is still the Minister of State, responded and established a round table that was cross-party—it included me as a member—and included representatives from across the industry to address the issue. Will the Minister confirm that it will continue to meet—I hope that I can say “we”—and will push for actions and results? It cannot be yet another talking shop.
To pick up on something that the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said, support for culture and the arts feeds into the economy at regional level. It is of great concern that in certain parts of the country disproportionate cuts have been inflicted by local government. It is also, as he said, short-sighted. We know that putting money into culture is an investment rather than simply a subsidy—I agree that we should get rid of that word—in that it revitalises local economies and regenerates neighbourhoods that have seen traditional industries decline. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Lowry in Salford, which is a prime example. This place of culture has been a resounding success as a catalyst for the regeneration of Salford Quays, the development there of Media City and the consequent expansion of the local economy. Does the Minister agree that it would be a good idea for local authorities to be required to publish their spending per head on culture and the arts?
As I mentioned earlier, I had a career in television before politics. Charter renewal is upon us and I hope the Minister will agree that the BBC, funded by the licence fee, should be protected and celebrated, and that Channel 4 should remain in public ownership, because as well as showcasing British culture and creativity at home and abroad, the broadcast media also function as an important stimulus for the creative industry as a whole and as such are a major contributor to our creative economy. We are a creative nation living in a rapidly changing world driven by young people and young technologies. The creative industries, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, are on a roll. We are ahead of the game. Let us make sure that we stay there.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I cannot disagree with a single word that I have heard so far. In fact, when the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, mentioned repetition in:
“A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!”,
I felt that the only retort I could make would be a vocalisation of the opening of Beethoven’s fifth symphony—ba ba ba bom, ba ba ba bom! Those notes were a great beacon to the civilised world in the Second World War. Everything that we create has repetition and variation. It is a synthesis of what has passed. That is why it is so important. In looking forwards, we look backwards and we educate.
I congratulate the Government on honouring their manifesto pledge to empower local people and councils to have more say in the siting of onshore wind farms. This does indeed affect the economy and culture of areas such as mid-Wales, where national monuments such as Offa’s Dyke and Repton’s Stanage Park, which is grade-1 listed, have been under threat of visual blight.
It is in many ways a privilege to stand here in your Lordships’ House as one of several representatives of the creative industry of this country, because the artistic achievements, the sheer talent and the rewards that this part of our society generates are nothing short of magnificent. As we have heard, those rewards are so diverse: they bring £76.9 billion into our economy by the Government’s own figures. They entertain and amuse us and they shine a light on to what it is to be a human being.
Schopenhauer said that because of its non-representational nature and being independent of natural phenomena, music is able to reveal truths about the essence of things, of life indeed, and we know that it can often communicate where words fail. That civilising quality is not restricted to paying audiences or to congregations worshipping in some of the most glorious churches and cathedrals anywhere in the world, or listening to great choirs singing the masterly polyphony of our past—Byrd, Tallis, Gibbons—and now the living work of my colleagues such as James MacMillan, newly knighted, to whom I offer many congratulations. Yet he would be the first to tell you—and he did when he came and performed here at Parliament—that this rich and, for the moment, thriving community must be restocked, as he was clearly doing with the schoolchildren he brought to play to us. Far too many children get little or no music or exposure to the other arts, as the pianist and animateur James Rhodes also told us recently. Yet we know that through music and the arts children thrive and have an emotional outlet and, as with sport, learn to listen and co-ordinate as part of a group.
Let me take an extreme example of the conundrum that we find ourselves in. The news that Sir Simon Rattle is to return to these shores has been welcomed by many, but his desire to see a new concert hall has met with rather more divided enthusiasm. Yet we do not have an orchestral venue in London that can compete with the Wigmore Hall’s acoustics for chamber music, or those of Kings Place. Some say that having a new hall that would be the equal of the Musikverein in Vienna or the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam cannot be contemplated while music education is so underfunded and could really do with the several hundred million pounds being talked about for the new hall. However, Sir Simon Rattle, when he went to the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, was the catalyst for the building of the wonderful Symphony Hall, Birmingham, and I have no doubt that his commitment, charm, celebrity and talent will galvanise some of the wealthy businessmen in the City of London—in other words, tap funds that would probably not anyway be going to music education.
Were that to be successful, we would gain a brilliant new hall without compromising the essential work in schools that we all value so highly. So here is a very practical suggestion for the Minister—one that will cost nothing. Act as an enabler and a motivator to still further the pre-eminence of this country’s standing in the cultural world by giving the capital a hall worthy of those not only abroad but in Birmingham or Manchester.
This issue is interrelated to education, as Sir Simon Rattle would be the first to tell you, because there is not much point in building a fabulous hall if we are no longer getting the young players coming through to refresh our orchestras and ensembles for the future. That includes the hugely successful musicals by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, and the whole of the pop industry as well—this is not an elitist plea. Great musicians work in different areas. Indeed, I have done that during my life and have found it most enriching.
This is an area that is ripe for research and development, yet as we have heard—unlike for the film industry, for example—no funds are available. That is another area that the Government might look at. Additionally, there are no funds at present for librettists to work up a scenario before the exquisitely expensive undertaking of mounting a new opera or musical begins—and so too late in the day something that might have been ironed out at a developmental stage remains to spoil the end product. We all say, “If only, if only”. I know, of course, that money is scarce. I am deliberately trying to assist the Government with ideas that are possibly doable. I accept that the music hubs are a very good development but I really would like to see the Minister from the DCMS holding hands with the Education Minister—we are, after all, talking about the arts community. To further improve music in schools is, I think, the most crucial matter.
That takes me, in a roundabout way, to the BBC and its future. So many artistic achievements are initiated and brought to a wider audience—to those who of course pay for them and the BBC—by the corporation, which is doing a job that we perhaps take for granted. In declaring an interest here as both a composer and a broadcaster, I must say that many guests, especially those from less-privileged backgrounds, who have appeared on my programme “Private Passions” describe the ray of light that was the BBC Third Programme, now Radio 3. The playwright Alan Plater, for example, said that he owed his entire music education completely to the BBC. If I may say so, “In Our Time” on Radio 4 is a quite remarkable tool of enlightenment and education.
Finally, on intellectual property, if the Government wish to safeguard this thriving economy, as they say they do, then they must be alive to the difficulties that all creators face in how to protect their rights, given the avalanche of new technology. Of course, we all embrace the wonders of the internet and the ability to share and spread ideas but, if it is allowed to castrate our recording and publishing industries, we and the Exchequer will suffer grievously. I am not entirely satisfied that the Government have fully got to grips with our—the creators’, and hence the economy’s—needs in this respect. There is so much to celebrate but also much to nurture and reinvest in. As we have heard, many small companies are in desperate straits, but the facts are there: investment in this section of our society reaps incredible rewards.
Lord Lloyd-Webber (Con)
My Lords, first, I wish to apologise to my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft. I have been working in America and I am afraid that, because of my timing, I missed the first couple of minutes—I am so sorry. I congratulate her hugely on bringing this debate. How thrilling it is to hear the word “investment” rather than “subsidy”. As I am sure all noble Lords know, the creative industries grew, according to the DCMS figures, by 10% in 2013, which is three times greater than for the wider economy. We employ 1.7 million in the creative industries—or we did in 2013—which is 5.6% of total employment in the UK. The speakers preceding me have dealt with the various issues that I wanted to talk about so eloquently that I will now restrict myself to talking about the world of theatre and music.
Once again, I have boring statistics, but they are interesting—the West End received 14.7 million visitors last year and paid nearly £104 million in VAT. Others, I am sure, will work out how much of that came back to the arts but I am afraid that I do not have those figures. Broadway lagged a little behind with 13 million visitors but its gross paid admission for last year was a staggering $1.36 billion. That makes one realise how extraordinary it is—and how lucky I am—to be working in live entertainment, which of course you cannot pirate. Therefore, I completely support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, about how we must protect all forms of intellectual copyright. Luckily, in theatre, that is not so much of an issue.
As I have been working in America now for the past few months, I thought that I would remind the House of our representation on Broadway. I quickly note—I apologise if I leave any out—that we have “Les Misérables” running on Broadway, “Matilda”, “The Audience”, “Skylight”, “Wolf Hall”, “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time”, “Mamma Mia!” and some musical about a bloke in a mask. I was really interested to see how the Tony awards went this year. The award for best play went to “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time” and best musical went to a musical called “Fun Home”. Next year—much to my chagrin I am afraid, as I have a musical coming to Broadway next year—I know that it will be won by a musical called “Hamilton”, which has already been tried out at the Public Theater in New York and is, in my view, a ground-changing musical that will change many people’s attitude about what the musical can achieve. I mention that because all these shows have something in common. “Fun Home”, “Hamilton” and “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time” all started in publicly supported, or subsidised—or I should say “invested in”—theatres. The Public Theater and the Circle in the Square Theatre, where the two American shows started, are somewhat dissimilar to our system because, although there is some public finance available, support comes, on the whole, from philanthropists.
This is all by way of saying that it is absolutely vital that we realise the importance of the investment that we have in the arts. Five of the eight British musicals and plays being staged in New York came from either the Royal Shakespeare Company or the National Theatre. We have to consider, as other noble Lords have said, that every pound we spend will come back over and over again.
That brings one to education, because music in education is something that I feel extremely passionate about. I have seen the amazing impact that music has had on students at Highbury Grove School in Islington where, as I am sure many noble Lords know, every child is, in their first term, given a free violin. Through music, that school, which was considered to be pretty much at the bottom of the heap a few years ago, has now turned around and had its first child enter Oxford, which is a pretty extraordinary achievement. It is now a school that everybody wishes to attend. Music in education is absolutely vital. It concerns me that, when I was a junior at the Royal College of Music, it was free, but now you have to pay.
That leads me to my real concern—on which I ask the House to support me—that we must make sure that our young people have access to the training that they need in music and theatre and all areas of the creative industries. It is extremely worrying that, to go to a stage school or theatre college, you now have to pay such an enormous amount of money that it is being left to foundations and others to fill the funding gap with scholarships. It concerns me how many people may be slipping through the gap. The other night, in New York, an extremely well-known film director—I will not mention his name, although the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, will probably be able to guess; he is of the same political persuasion as the noble Lord—said to me that he was worried that the best stage school in Britain was Eton. We must address the fact that funding is vital now for young people in all the performing arts.
Finally, picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, about the concert hall in Britain, I use the opportunity to remind noble Lords that one of the difficulties that we face in the West End is that many of our theatres were built in the Victorian era. A very positive thing that the Government could do would be to look at perhaps relaxing the guidelines on the listing of these buildings to make them more appropriate to today’s use. As I said, there are difficulties when you consider that many of our theatres have galleries, with separate entrances for those galleries. However, they are not really fit for modern performances, and that is an issue that one day will have to be grappled with in a major way.
In conclusion, once more I say passionately that the word “investment” should be substituted for “subsidy”.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a BBC producer. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, on her continued support for the creative industries.
This debate comes at a very important time for the broadcast industry in which I work. There are great British success stories from across the independent media production sector. Not only have there been increasing numbers of commissions from foreign broadcasters but the global streaming giants, such as Netflix and Amazon, are also investing in original content from the UK. My former colleague Alastair Fothergill, who runs Silverback Films in Bristol, has just completed a multimillion-pound deal with Netflix to produce an eight-part landmark natural history series called “Our Planet”, which will be a follow-up to “Planet Earth”, and there is serious talk that Jeremy Clarkson could set up a production company to start making programmes for Netflix.
British independent TV, radio and digital production companies are riding the wave of this new economy. The sector has in 10 years gone from a small cottage industry to making £3.1 billion last year. A third of that content is being provided for foreign, internet and broadcast channels. However, two-thirds is still being made for UK channels. This country is still the most important market by far for the independents. In fact, almost all the production in certain genres, such as output for children, religion and high-end science, history and arts, is made for the British market, and the BBC is one of the most important clients. It spent 46% of it content investment last year with independents, generating nearly half a billion pounds in revenue. BBC Worldwide is also the largest distributor of television content outside the United States, and so sells on the independents’ work across the globe.
However, I fear that the Government are putting this great success at serious risk. Their manifesto commitment to freeze the BBC licence fee is threatening one of our great success stories, and I am told that a freeze would be a good outcome. There is a possibility that the licence fee will be reduced, as well as being top sliced for non-broadcast services, which is what is happening under the present charter agreement. If the freeze goes ahead, by 2020 the BBC will have shrunk by half—maybe more—compared with the previous decade. Of course, there are strenuous efforts to generate funds from elsewhere—BBC Worldwide generates £1 billion in revenue—but the licence fee remains at the core of its funding.
The role of the BBC is crucial in supporting the independent production market across the whole of the British television industry. A reduction in its spending is mirrored by a reduction in spending by other public service broadcasters. What Ofcom said in its latest report is interesting. It stated that,
“ITV may be incentivised to invest only to the degree required to compete effectively for share. It mainly competes with BBC One, given the comparative reach and share of the two channels ... The level of BBC (and especially BBC One) investment in first-run original programmes therefore appears to be a contributory factor in stimulating ITV to spend more through competition”.
Indeed, the figures for investment by the two channels bear out the extent to which they shadow each other. The Ofcom report shows that in 2008 the BBC spent nearly £1 billion on original output, while ITV spent almost the same amount. By 2013, BBC1 was down to £747 million and ITV to £794 million. I fear that a freezing of the BBC licence fee will see spending by UK public service broadcast channels reduce further over the next charter period.
A reduction in public funding will affect the upfront revenue for production companies and will threaten what is becoming one of their most important sources of revenue: intellectual property, to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred—that is, the rights paid for reuse of the original content. Under the Communications Act 2003, the PSBs in this country are mandated to let independent production companies keep much of their intellectual property, once the original programme has been shown a number of times and for a certain length of time on digital catch-up services. For instance, when BBC Store is set up later this year to allow audiences to buy their favourite programmes, independent producers will be able to negotiate an extra fee for their content. In a world in which more and more programme content is watched at different times on the internet, there are all sorts of opportunities for independent producers to exploit this IP.
However, the ability of producers to exploit their intellectual property is not mandated for contracts outside those of the public service broadcasters in this country. It does not apply to Netflix, Amazon or a host of foreign markets, which are buying content from this country. Most of the producers are simply paid a one-off fee to make the programme and all the subsequent rights are held by the company which commissioned it. The producers do not have the right to exploit their content or to reuse it in ever more imaginative ways. A reduction in BBC funding would obviously inhibit the growth in extra IP revenue for independent producers and it would not be easily replaced by the contracts negotiated with foreign-based buyers.
I know that the Government want a smaller BBC but a smaller BBC will have wider ramifications for the whole media economy in this country. It is the bedrock of one of our most dynamic industries. I should like to ask the Minister whether he is concerned that a reduction in the BBC licence fee would adversely affect the economic success of this great British success story. After all, is not this Government the champion of business—small business and entrepreneurs?
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, I have just spent a few wonderful days at an example of the creative economy at work. I have just come back from the Aldeburgh music festival. Aldeburgh is a charming seaside town in an area of outstanding natural beauty, but music has transformed it into a world-class cultural and learning centre—a centre of excellence. Last year, 25,000 tickets were sold to audiences from more than 20 countries. This is the tourism referred to by the noble Baroness. However, that does not reflect all the work that goes on. Master classes for promising musicians are given by world-famous artists. These same world-famous musicians give free outreach performances to develop new audiences, given during the day in a bandstand on the beach or in a car park in Ipswich—“restocking”, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, put it.
Then there are the new commissions and first performances, activities which continue throughout the year. Last year, 100,000 tickets were sold to people who demand a good infrastructure of places to stay, places to eat, places to shop, galleries to visit, walks to take and bicycles to ride, as well as to hear music, make music, develop talent and create new music.
Aldeburgh may be a charming town but it is away from the amenities of London or any other major city, so it has little creative infrastructure to sustain it. It is a clear example of the creative economy creating and working, showing that something can be done, as my noble friend Lord Bragg put it.
I use the phrase “creative economy” because I am a little wary of the words “creative industry”. I am wary because these broad classifications can be misleading. I know that the City likes them and they can be used to produce impressive numbers—the noble Baroness gave us some, as did other noble Lords—but I learnt to be wary of broad classification very early on. I trained as a textile engineer and started work just at the time when the industry lost its quota and tariff protection and was obviously in trouble. The word was that there was no future in textiles, but some of us were not put off by that broad classification. Some created the fashion industry. I went into the aircraft industry and started creating fabrics that met the stringent requirements of the Air Registration Board, designed to suit the airlines. Others went into the health industry, with fabrics that deterred bugs but were designed to suit the hospital decor. You see, we were not going to be categorised.
That is why, when the DCMS produced its list of creative industries, I was a little wary. You can have creative industries such as film and video or television and radio, but large parts of these industries are not creative, such as managing the buildings, managing the studios and supplying the equipment. Software and computer services is deemed to be a creative industry, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, that it is as creative to write software for a milling machine or a 3D printer in the engineering industry as it is to write software for a computer game. We even have technology and algorithms to create augmented reality, so where does creativity begin and where does it end? It is essential that the DCMS has a clear view on this because it is the activity that is important to investment—the investment to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, referred—and not just the industry. Arts may set the agenda but technology and engineering deliver it. You have to differentiate.
This is why I am in favour of the innovation index created by NESTA, which tries to measure the activity rather than the industry. What is the current thinking at DCMS about this? What is now on its list of creative activities? Designing and making a piece of jewellery is certainly creative, but what about selling it? Does not that distort the picture? The problem is that these creative activities are intangible—difficult to measure and difficult to separate.
However, the Office for National Statistics made a move towards this when it modified its way of measuring GDP last September and tried to include some of these intangible activities. It was right to do so because we need a more accurate and up-to-date picture. Creative activities are changing all the time and we have to be aware of this to ensure that the creative infrastructure is in place.
The Minister will know that at present the most important infrastructure for the creative industries is broadband. Every time he goes to a meeting or has a discussion, I am sure that this is the one issue that comes up again and again: the quality, width, availability and security of broadband. Can the Minister assure the House that the concerns of the creative sector are being taken into account when installing broadband? The impression that you get is that it is not. Now that we have the internet of things, the creative economy will need to be even better served.
Another infrastructure concern of the creative community is what I can refer to only as the creative ecology. By that I mean the carefully balanced mix of ownership, finance and control. In TV and radio, in theatre, in heritage, in art, we have a mix of ownership and finance—of publicly owned and financed, socially funded, and privately funded and owned. This mix has grown up over the years and there is a balance that seems to work for our creative sector, particularly as the arts move between them. The mix seems to support and stimulate each other and helps the arts make money, as my noble friend Lord Bragg said. Does the Minister’s department plan to maintain this balance or to alter it—for example, by changing the BBC licensing arrangements or the way in which public arts activities become private or commercial? Many noble Lords are very concerned about the BBC. This is a very delicate balance and I hope the Government will be very careful if they come to tamper with it.
I thank the noble Baroness for this debate. It is important to hear the views and experiences of noble Lords because the creative economy is not only wonderful days at Aldeburgh but an important part of developing every sector of our economy in surprising ways and surprising places. The noble Baroness spoke of scaling. She is right. High-value and high-growth areas of the economy, whatever the industry, benefit from creativity. It is part of the knowledge transfer network—the science and the arts together, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, put it.
I declare an interest as honorary president of one of these knowledge transfer networks. It was in this capacity that I heard that point made very strongly at the Graphene Show 2015, which was held in Manchester in April—I am sorry the Minister was not there—to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the discovery of graphene. The development of such a product requires the arts and industry to come together. If noble Lords want to see it in action, I hope they will come to the Cholmondeley Room on Tuesday, at 6.30 pm, where I am hosting an event to demonstrate it. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
The creative economy is built on the skills, talent and imagination of the many. The notion of the exceptional is dispelled by a sector that, as we have already heard, provides 1.7 million jobs. While it is quite right to celebrate it, it is far from clear how new skills, talent and imagination are to be nurtured in order that we fulfil the promise of this vibrant sector.
My interests in this area are many. I am a working film director, I run a small production company, I am married to a playwright, I am a president of Voluntary Arts and a trustee of several organisations that have arts and education at their core. Rather than pointing out my own overcommitted schedule, I am just trying to make clear that I am embedded in the communities of which I wish to speak.
Her Majesty’s Government and the coalition before them supported the creative industries handsomely, with tax credits, loan schemes, enterprise guarantees and innovation funds, but these welcome investments do not automatically ensure exponential growth. Like any supply chain, it is only as good as its weakest link. So while the Government and the Treasury have been fair to the creative industries at this end of the chain, to make good on this investment we must look more carefully at the supply side.
For my generation of artists and creators, going to university was free, as were art school, film school and adult learning. There was a commitment to the arts as a tool of social mobility. Many of us remember commedia dell’arte and Brecht in primary school, mountains of clay and the help of the local potter, free recorders and violins—all standard interventions in perfectly unexceptional state schools. When we left our family homes, often much younger than 25, we lived in cheap flats or unwanted social housing on housing benefit. Small enterprise grants, schemes from the local council or a lowly industry job for which you were paid kept us going. We were not lazy or disaffected; we were writing, painting, imagining and making work while modestly receiving investment—I believe that is the word—from the state. It was an unintended consequence of our fervent activity that the faces that fill our screens, play our concert halls, represent us at the Venice Biennale, claim their BAFTAs, Tonys or Oscars and write our national stories are now proud contributors to the £76 billion that the creative industries contribute to the creative economy.
I do not want to misrepresent my community. There is a great deal of interest in making money and creating wealth, but there is a very indirect line between investment in the creators and the actual creation of that wealth. It is a delicate ecosystem that is not obedient to the laws of economics that one might reasonably apply to manufacturing or to more tangible services. Nevertheless, it is one that delivers very real economic results.
Our current pre-eminence on the world stage in the arts and creative industries is the result of multiple routes, many pockets of support and a fair amount of public tolerance that allowed a diverse population to develop its talent, skill and imagination. From this rosy past, we might consider the context for today’s young people. It is simply a tragedy that successive Education Ministers have devalued the arts in a structural way within the curriculum and by successive public utterances that suggest that studying science is the only way to job security and well-rewarded employment. This simply is not so. Our creative industries are burgeoning. We have an impending skills gap of at least 750,000 in digital alone—a sector that repeatedly cries out for those with maths and art, which is actively discouraged by our school system. Outside the creative industries lie another 950,000 creative jobs; that is one in 12 jobs in the UK.
What about student debt that has sucked the less privileged out of the humanities, arts and performing arts as they listen to the mood music and take a more cautious approach to their education or bypass further education altogether, or the proposal in front of us to deny housing benefit to the under-25s? These are the same under-25s who are routinely working for months on end as interns for no money in order to build their CVs, which automatically excludes the less well-off and those whose family homes are not in the few urban centres that house the creative industries. My concern is not about any single policy but a matrix of policies, of which these are but a few, creating insurmountable obstacles to the talented youngsters who might otherwise have been our next generation of creatives.
The Government may not feel that they have the resources to tackle all aspects of this environment, but they can give everyone a fair start. STEAM not STEM is what we need in our schools. STEAM not STEM is what the Commons CMS report, Supporting the Creative Economy, recommended. So do the CBI and an increasing number of mainstream employers who bemoan the lack of critical thinking and creative skills in our graduates. So too do Professor Ian Livingstone and Alex Hope, who worked on the computer curriculum, Sir Ken Robinson, teachers and head teachers and, indeed, noble Lords on all sides of this House.
I ask the Minister: when are we going to see arts, technology and science presented as an equal and interconnected whole, both in the curriculum and with the right mood music to accompany it? Without this commitment from government, I fear that the next generation will be a pale, posh shadow of the current one.
I turn from schools to our broader community. There is a tendency when talking about creativity to insist on the notion of the individual genius. I have been lucky enough to know a number of artistic geniuses. Even the more narcissistic and self-regarding of them would say that great art is made by groups of people and not by individuals, schools of thought, traditions of practice and active participation of colleagues; that their own practice is made possible by reflecting other people’s creativity, both past and present. This misconception is important, because the powerful notion that creativity is the realm of the exceptional individual casts a shadow over the creative ecosystem. People voluntarily coming together in groups is often seen as secondary to the real thing.
As president of Voluntary Arts, I recently attended the Epic Awards. One went to a music studio in Kirriemuir in Scotland that gives expression and skills to dozens of young people living in isolated villages across the valleys. Another went to two women from County Donegal who designed tiny micro-libraries, each no bigger than a bollard, open 24 hours a day, working on an honour system and situated in places of natural beauty. The local community walks or cycles to borrow a book, exercising the mind and body simultaneously. A third award went to the inspirational woman who, from her home in Birmingham, co-ordinates 170 other devoted knitters to knit prosthetics for women who cannot have, or who are waiting for, reconstructive breast surgery.
These outposts of creativity do more than simply charm. They are part of our national narrative of what it is to be an engaged citizen. From this great pool of an estimated 10 million UK citizens who pursue voluntary cultural activity emerge inventors, designers, small companies, creative services and individual artists. They are participants and wealth makers in our creative economy. I therefore ask the Minister to make a meaningful commitment to this important and much-overlooked group by protecting arts provision and the spaces to convene at local level. This is best done by ring-fencing arts budgets in the local authority settlements, or we will lose the fragile infrastructure upon which these communities depend.
I end by mentioning someone who is both an artist and a scientist. My friend of many years, Sir Antony Gormley, has an artistic practice that starts with the extraordinary task of wrapping himself in cling film and making a cast of his own body from which he then makes his sculpture, often on a monumental scale. There is no rational explanation for why this process should result in work of such meaning for populations as diverse as Gateshead, Aboriginal communities in Australia and the inhabitants of New York or St Petersburg. However, I have seen first hand how his work electrifies and moves people all over the planet. Sir Antony is a net contributor to tourism, our GVA, our soft power and our national identity. He employs artists and engineers, he works with foundries and galleries worldwide. No government policy could engineer such an endeavour as his—it is beyond reason; it is art—but government policy has the power to invite all our citizens to take their creativity seriously, and at the very least it should attempt to do no harm.
In a conversation last week, Professor Brian Cox said, “Physics has taught us that there was a beginning and that there will be an end, but it is art that will help us understand how to spend the vast time in between”. Without the next generation of creative children, without creative communities up and down the country, without the freedom to invent new artistic practice that is neither measurable nor sensible, we threaten the future growth of our creative industries and by extension its contribution to the economy. Perhaps more importantly still we may find that we have an inadequate supply of artists to imagine how we might spend the vast time that Professor Cox informs us we shall have to fill between the beginning and the end.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, what we have heard in the Chamber this afternoon, since my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft initiated this debate, proves that it is axiomatic that the creative activities of this country are central to our economic well-being. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, this has been enhanced by the applications of digital technology
Having started there, I think that the next question we need to ask is: what are we, as a society, going to do about that? While it is very easy to talk about creativity, it is sometimes perhaps a bit less obvious exactly what we mean by it. In my assessment, it entails two elements —an imaginative and interesting mind, coupled with an ability to express what that mind wants to convey. The question we then have to ask ourselves is this: is our education system achieving that for the next generation? I am no expert on education, which has never been a political topic on which I have any great expertise, but it is my impression—and, regrettably, this has been confirmed by someone in your Lordships’ House who knows a lot about it—that increasingly there is a tick-in-the-box, results-led framework around what is happening. It seems that the ghost of Mr Gradgrind is fingering the collar of successive Secretaries of State, and I believe that that is bad for creativity.
Another instance of the kind of thing that concerns me is the teaching of history. As far as I can see, history is increasingly being presented to the children of this country as being a combination of the Romans and the Holocaust. If one tries to imagine one’s perspective of the wider world based principally on those two points, a very strange picture emerges.
In the context of a discussion on creativity and the creative industries, one of the absolutely central things is to appreciate that failure is both inevitable and important. Second chances are especially important. We have simply got to avoid being too hidebound by formal qualifications in response to some kind of actual or moral audit that may surround in particular the early stages of these activities. Ability and potential are far more important than the qualifications which have been acquired. What matters is the potential to achieve something interesting and great and valuable for the future.
That being the case, the culture of the society we live in is important. Is it the case that we British people collectively value the attributes which are the seedbed of creativity in our society? I am afraid that if we look at society’s general attitude towards museums, concert halls, art galleries, architecture and landscape, we probably do not. Yet, if we listen to the evidence presented to us by my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft or read the essays published recently by Sir Peter Bazalgette of the Arts Council, it is increasingly clear that these things really do matter. But so frequently what is often reflected in various parts of the press is the fact that we Brits pride ourselves on being plain people who know what we like, and we do not like that fancy stuff. That is a very bad context for encouraging creativity more widely. While I would never stand up in your Lordships’ House and commend the French way of managing the economy, I do think that the French attitude to culture is one that we could emulate to our advantage in this country.
Potentially for the economy, it is just as important for people to go to art and drama colleges and music schools as it is for them to train to be accountants. After all, we should remember that when Dr Johnson was looking at Thrale’s brewery before it was to be sold, he commented that you were not simply looking at vats and furnaces, but at,
“the potentiality of growing rich beyond the dreams of avarice”.
Are we as a society training people properly for the creative industries? My guess is that we are not.
I want to touch on one particular instance which arose earlier in the debate: the discussions on the future of the BBC. Over the past few years I have done quite a lot of work in and around television and the media, and there is a wide range of opinion about the role and place of the BBC in the creative economy. What is interesting is that I have never heard anyone demur from the proposition that the BBC fills a very important role in training people in the sector who then go on to do great things in the non-public areas of television and broadcasting. If the BBC is demolished for whatever reason, that training function will be lost unless it is specifically reinstated, and it is self-evident that that is not in the national interest.
What else could be potentially damaging to the creative industries? We need to be on our guard against the pernicious influence of conventional wisdom and political correctness, because they can and do get in the way of imagination and important contributions. I am thinking about this in the context of the present furore surrounding the remarks of Sir Tim Hunt, a man I have never met and know nothing about, and I do not think I understand what his great achievement was. However, it reminds me of the debate when Galileo suggested that the universe was not organised in quite the way the Roman Catholic Church would have us believe. Against that background, Sir Tim Hunt is a Nobel prize winner. Is there anyone in your Lordships’ House who would not swap their peerage for a Nobel prize? Is there anyone sitting in this Chamber who has not on occasion said something silly or done something that perhaps they would rather they had not? I do not think so. What Sir Tim Hunt did was to say something silly and foolish, which I am sure on a moment’s reflection he regrets deeply, but is the response of University College London and the Royal Society right? The peccadillo he committed is far less than the peccadillo they have committed, and I hope personally that he will be reinstated to the positions he held before. In this House we are quite rightly concerned to look at our rules of self-regulation and we exclude those who have served prison sentences, but there is no suggestion that those who commit parking offences should be expelled. We must be on our guard against political correctness and conventional wisdom.
It has also been mentioned that people in the creative world are often rather difficult. I am sure that that is right. Here in Parliament we live in a world where the whips exercise great influence and power. Almost by definition, the people who are some of the greatest contributors to the creative world are those who are the most difficult and whose way of life perhaps might be criticised by, to pluck an example, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Were Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud, to name just two, people whose other activities made them easy to deal with? The answer is no, and while not every difficult person is a great artist, nevertheless sometimes we have to accept that that is the way God made us all.
Finally, let us remember that a vast amount of the output of the creative industries is, let us be clear about it, pretty good rubbish, but that is the price we pay for works of genius. There is a process of sifting and elimination, and we should not criticise because a certain amount of what is made by the creators in our society is either not to our taste or, frankly, pretty meretricious. If you do not have all that, you will not get the gems either.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, touched on the fact that it is important that those who achieve something get the rewards to which they are entitled. I should comment in parenthesis that my wife is a retired photographer, so I have a slight first-hand experience of this. It is important that the rules on intellectual property should reward properly those who have made a contribution.
In a completely different way, I should declare that I am involved in hill farming, I am the chairman of the Cumbria Local Nature Partnership and president of the Uplands Alliance. My home area, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, has been nominated by this country to UNESCO to be recognised as a world heritage site because of its importance as a cultural landscape. That is self-evident because it is difficult to conceive of the Romantic poets without the Lake District. As we speak, some farms in the heads of the dales are closing down and going out of business because the returns are simply such that people are not prepared to go on. If we want a creative industry, we have to make sure that the people who are doing things that matter and make a contribution can make a livelihood from so doing.
In a world where the underlying economic approach to government seems to be dominated by 19th century concepts of political economy, I have always been slightly amused—I was a junior Minister in the Department of National Heritage some 20 years ago—by the relationship between politicians and artists. It is a rather uncomfortable one and it has always brought up a wry smile in me because they are not natural bedfellows. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that wealth in this country and in the contemporary world is not calibrated simply in pounds and pence, rather it is that if you approach these matters in a slightly more relaxed way, you end up creating a lot more money than otherwise you would have done, for the benefit of everyone.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I want to focus on the arts, education and the BBC. As many have already pointed out, the creative industries as a whole are becoming increasingly successful. Yet because the current definition of this group is wide, these industries are also dizzyingly various in character. The successes of some are not necessarily the successes of others, and the problems of some are not necessarily the problems of others, although—as I will come to—there are significant overlaps. It is becoming all too easy for some of the so-described creative industries to get lost in the mix. I cite in particular the arts and cultural sector as an area which, in contrast to some others, has been neglected of late.
The arts and cultural sector is of course important in its own right for its intrinsic value, for its contribution to what we might term an all-important cultural economy. I will return to this, but the arts and arts education also have another value within the context of this debate as part of the engine which drives many of the creative industries. We neglect that engine at our peril. For example, Jo Twist, the chief executive officer of UKIE—the UK Interactive Entertainment Association, the trade body of the UK’s games industry—has said that what the games industry is crying out for most is people from the arts: fine artists, musicians and film-makers. The industry has to go abroad to find these people, which is a crazy situation. As Jo Twist says, the reason for this is that:
“In all parts of creative industries there is not often as much crossover as you’d like to see”.
The Arts and Humanities Research Council analysis called the Brighton Fuse project, which was carried out in the Brighton and Hove area, looked at 500 new digital businesses. It discovered that those businesses containing a good balance between employees with backgrounds in arts and backgrounds in technology were growing three times faster than those without this balance. All the evidence points to the importance of the arts to the new digital and tech industries, but our arts education in schools and universities does not reflect this reality. Instead it is suffering from the cuts in general, which in schools have particularly affected arts departments. Moreover, too many arts departments, despite the dedication of arts teachers, are treated as isolated outposts within schools.
Ofsted needs to report on the quality and presence of the arts within schools. It is crucial that STEM becomes STEAM, so that we will grow an education culture which protects the integrity of science and art subjects but also allows them to talk closely to each other. Each must understand the relevance of the other in order to allow that cross-over to take place which Jo Twist advocates. This imbalance has also dragged down design and technology, which should be a bridge between sciences and the arts, and which is another significant subject of relevance to the digital industries. However, in the past 10 years there has been a 50% fall in the number of students studying it at GCSE level.
Sciences and the arts must have parity as subjects within schools, and all performance measures must be reformed to reflect this. The Education Secretary is wrong—yet again—when she said this week that the EBacc, whose core subjects exclude arts but include a science,
“sets every child up for life”.
If any kind of education is to set up a child for life, if indeed one believes in such a thing, then it ought at the very least to be a rounded education.
Rohan Silva, who was involved in the early stages of the development of Tech City, made the case in the Evening Standard this week for a new campus in east London to service the new tech companies, like the one that is planned for New York. This is an interesting idea, but a trick is missed if it is only about computer science and engineering. If it were to happen, it should be a campus for computer science, engineering, art and design, with each getting equal billing. Then we really would have the edge. In some ways this would be no different to what I understand is now happening in China, where new art and design colleges are being located near to a town’s manufacturing centre.
The arts and culture sector of the creative industries is important in its own right, both for its commercial return but also, I think more importantly, for its inherent value and its contribution to the cultural economy. Because of their particular character the tech industries have needed tax breaks to get going, while the arts, through their very different character, often need public subsidies or public investment. I do not mind which term is used, but they need most particularly that core funding which enables day-to-day maintenance. That is the very money that is being denied to them, although the influx of additional Lottery money is of course welcome.
I have never understood the argument that the DCMS has had to do its share of cutting, perhaps because it is quite simply wrong. The Arts Council has said that £1 of public money invested in the arts will give a return of at least double that, because the multiplier effect is greater than for any other industry. The more the arts are funded, the more will be given back to the country. I am whole-heartedly anti-austerity, not just for the arts, and I believe that cuts to the arts should be reversed. It is curious that in Germany, which is the arch-architect of austerity, subsidies to the arts have continued to increase year by year. There has been none of this false heroism or this idea of the department doing its bit by cutting. This has happened in Germany for two reasons. First, Germany has a strong belief—it seems to be much stronger than we currently have here—in the democratic value of the arts, or in other words in its cultural economy. Secondly, people in Germany are aware of the degree to which the arts help their financial economy.
In the UK those who are suffering most are those on the front line: those artists, writers, musicians and theatre companies, for example, who now struggle to survive. They can less easily afford to produce new and innovative work which, within what should be a balanced ecology, feeds into the established commercial arts. Individual artists, writers and musicians, while themselves on decreasing incomes, are now more and more being asked to work for free. This is an unacceptable pressure.
In terms of the regions, we desperately need cuts to local authorities as well as to the Arts Council to be reversed. In the longer term, if real power is given to the regions—the idea of the northern powerhouse is a step in the right direction—and cities gain tax-raising powers, this would tremendously boost our creative industries. However, what worries me in the longer term are not just the cuts themselves—which are bad enough, and any further cuts of whatever size will be bad news—but the more deep-seated and possibly less easily reversible changes that are taking place.
I have always been a supporter of our museums, and I am glad that we have free admission to national museums in this country. They are great institutions with marvellous collections—which we own—which also put on exhibitions which are often wonderful. However, it is in the interests of our cultural economy that the dedicated staff of the National Gallery should be supported in their strikes against the privatisation of gallery staff. I support the reinstatement of Candy Udwin. Gabriele Finaldi should step in to ensure that staff are not privatised. Such privatisation would diminish the National Gallery as a public space, notwithstanding that this has already happened elsewhere, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, has pointed out previously. It is still a creeping privatisation of our national museums.
The other thing I want to say about the national museums is that the kind of issues that partnerships with Shell and BP have thrown up are not going to go away. That is the reality, whatever one may think, and there are respected artists among others who defend these sponsorships. I think it is worth future Governments bearing in mind that public funding is neutral and not tainted.
Yesterday morning, while sitting down to breakfast and listening to the “Today” programme, as quite a few of us do, I heard a discussion about the planned memorial for Philip Larkin in Poets’ Corner. “Who is Philip Larkin?” asked my 10 year-old daughter, which set off a discussion about whether Larkin would in fact have approved of such a thing as a memorial in Poets’ Corner. This is just one moment among millions across the country that the BBC enables. If there is one single entity which has had a massive influence or even the greatest influence throughout its existence on the creative economy, on the culture of this country, on literature, drama, poetry and music of all kinds and on the visual arts, then that entity is the BBC. It continues to have that influence to the good of the whole country in big and seemingly little ways. It has done so because of its unique structure, its set of ethics and its particular commitment to quality through its internal production teams. I hope very much that there is not a significant hollowing out of the corporation in that respect.
It is because of this ongoing contribution to our cultural economy in the broadest terms, for the good of all, that I think that the introduction of a German-style household broadcast levy is a good idea. A subscription fee would be the end of the BBC because it would destroy its essential universality. If, heaven forbid, we lost the BBC, we would have a much less diverse and significantly poorer broadcasting culture. I would also add that I suspect that television in its traditional format—in the home, as a big screen in the corner of the sitting room, however the programmes get to it—will be around longer than perhaps some people think. Watching television will remain for some—indeed, on certain occasions, for all—a communal experience. That is precisely why cinemas and concert-going have survived, in the face of earlier doubts about both.
Whereas one can have optimism for the creative industries in general, I fear for the arts, which are in danger of being subsumed into a wider grouping that is now being treated as essentially, if not wholly, commercial in character and which seem to be travelling in a BIS direction. I fear also for the existence of an arts or culture department that has traditionally and rightly been there to protect and develop a necessary cultural economy. If the arts are to survive and thrive, these trends must be reversed. That would be good for the rest of the creative industries, too.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I also express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for introducing this well-timed debate. It is not at all surprising that we have heard a great deal today about the extraordinary growth of the creative industries and their impact around the world, but it is by any standard a hugely impressive performance and it deserves our recognition. As we have heard, not only is it one of the most rapidly growing parts of the economy, it is also a global success story. It provides an enormous number of jobs and inspires and entertains millions of people.
Of course, it is a huge and varied sector that covers a wide variety of activities. My main contact with the creative industries has been in music and broadcasting. I was chairman of the Royal Academy of Music for more than 10 years and saw the extraordinary flow of talented students engaged in all types of music, almost all of whom go on to be employed in music or in the creative industries more widely. I was also chairman of the Monteverdi Trust, the funding arm of Sir John Eliot Gardiner’s world-class Monteverdi Choir and Orchestras, whose performances are wonderful. They will be on at Aldeburgh next weekend, I think, with two or three concerts. Sadly, their activity is disproportionately overseas because of financial necessity.
In broadcasting, I was an adviser to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for the BBC charter review 10 years ago. As the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, reminded us, the BBC is one of the most cultural and creative organisations in the world. I have also been chairman of Channel 4 for more than five years. I declare that interest, although I do not intend to address it in much detail.
I begin by saying that in none of these activities was I involved with the creative output. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I neither played nor composed any music and unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, I did not make or commission any television programmes. My role has been rather different. In the creative industries there is usually a need to balance at least two objectives: one is to produce great creative quality; the other is to ensure that the relevant creative organisation is financially stable. In my relationship with these organisations, I learnt at an early point that creative organisations that become overinfluenced by their financial objectives find the creative spirit being squeezed and success difficult to maintain. On the other hand, when those involved with the creative side try to escape the financial realities of life, problems emerge through a different and often more immediate route. With these organisations I have, by and large, played the role of trying to balance the objectives of creative success and financial stability in an uncertain and risky world. I would argue that one of the important aspects of the success of the creative industries in the United Kingdom is that they have managed this balancing act extremely well. Today, my focus is on what we can do to protect and sustain this success.
First, I think everyone who has spoken today has agreed that we must focus on how we nurture creative skills and performance among young people. I am in little doubt that that is achieved by giving the widest number of young people the opportunity to sample creative and cultural activities and to provide opportunities for those who demonstrate talent to take it on to the highest level. Talent inevitably lies in many unexpected places and we must give it the best opportunity to flourish. As many noble Lords have said, this has clear implications for schools and the opportunities that are made available outside school. The narrower the curriculum and the fewer the opportunities for young people to be exposed to these activities inside and outside school, the less chance there is of uncovering real talent. Certainly, as far as music is concerned, there are some worrying trends in that direction.
Secondly, one of the components of the UK’s success has been having a varied and competitive environment. It is very good that we have many outstanding music conservatoires, several great drama and dance schools and many world-class orchestras. Similarly, we have been very fortunate in having a competitive broadcasting ecology with public service broadcasting at its core, which offers enormous opportunities for making the high-quality television programmes that have been spoken about and supports the British film industry. Clearly, organisations that have demonstrated success should be encouraged, but plurality of providers gives the best opportunity for continuous innovation. We have been fortunate in this country in the way that the broadcasting industry has been organised.
I also stress the importance of the many talented people involved in the management, administration and technical tasks of all kinds of creative organisations, both large and small. The truly creative part of the creative industries is often merely the tip of the iceberg. None of it would get anywhere without the long chains of people who take these creative ideas to audiences and customers and present them in an attractive and enticing way. Above all they ensure that the creative organisations are managed efficiently. Creative organisations, like any other organisation, have to be efficient if they are to survive. When they need financial support they must be prepared to explain the basis on which that support is justified.
Clearly, there is a need to develop great performance skills, as well as the capacity to write new material and to curate new productions. That is true for both music and broadcasting. But by their nature many creative industries are risky and unpredictable. Success requires long time horizons, willingness to experiment and to innovate, and an ability to manage the risks involved. Above all, we must recognise that in the creative industries financial success is likely to be the result of creative success, rather than an ambition for financial success on its own.
As we have heard, because of those risks, there is a natural temptation for creative industries to look for security of finance. Often, this means turning to the Government. Of course, the Government must be an important player, as they are with many cultural and creative organisations. However—as a former Treasury official, noble Lords would expect me to say this—we should be cautious about asking them to do too much. In my experience, both music and broadcasting have been very fortunate to have multiple sources of revenue. The box office or its equivalent has to play its part and is often crucial to the long-term sustainability of an organisation. Often this is not enough, but we have been able to look to trusts, private benefactors and long-term private sector investors, as well as government support. That has been a very healthy part of the United Kingdom creative industries. It can be a great struggle, even for the most gifted of performers and even for those who excel on a worldwide stage, but I suspect that it will always be like that. The competing priorities for public money, and indeed for private money, are stark, as always.
Finally, we must never lose sight of the fact that our creative industries are competing in a global marketplace. This has huge advantages because, as in many other sectors, scale is very important in creative industries. The additional cost of multiple performances, DVDs or streaming of performances and programmes is very small relative to the initial investment. The opportunity to get back the R&D, including failures or rehearsal time, by playing to a worldwide audience is critical. At the same time, we must recognise that competing in a global marketplace also means that there are many overseas creative organisations standing ready to step into our domestic market and compete with domestic industries here. This is a ferociously competitive sector and we can never be complacent about our success. I am optimistic but, as we have heard, there could be many obstacles in the future.
In short, I support other noble Lords in arguing that we must cultivate our creative talent, and encourage the outstanding managers, administrative staff and technical experts who bring us so many great experiences and those who are willing to bring financial support and long-term support to the creative industries. It is an industry that can succeed only if we take a long-term approach.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is an exception that two hours seem to have flown by enormously quickly in this House today. This has been a very life-enhancing debate, and we have been blessed with some passionate speeches from a great number of noble Lords who are immersed in the worlds of the arts and creativity. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for having instituted the debate and for her superb opening. I could emulate the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, by saying that I agree with everything that everybody has said during the course of the debate and sit down, but of course I have no intention of doing that and will put my own gloss on the proceedings. The only question, really, is how Hansard will report on the introduction from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I do not know whether they will put something in square brackets that says “[Opening bars of Beethoven’s Ninth]” or something like that—it will be a challenge, I suspect, but one which Hansard will be well up to meeting.
This has been a celebration, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, described it. However, of course, one of the persistent themes of this debate has been the need not to rest on our laurels but to nurture all those different elements, whether they be intellectual property, skills, education, finance or broad creative impulse, across the board. I will go through some of those elements, but I think that one of the most important factors to come up in this debate is that we are united on the fact that this is not purely about economics; it is about the pleasure that the arts and creative industries deliver and the importance of creativity for its own sake.
I was very much taken by the quotation from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, when she talked about “the vast time in between”. I thought about filling in the gaps by talking about the vast time in between House of Lords debates on the creative industries. However, perhaps we are filling it with proper arts and culture ourselves.
During the last Government, significant policies benefiting the creative industries were developed. Just a few of these include the setting up of the Creative Industries Council—and the resulting Create UK action plan—established at the beginning of the last Parliament, which has the DCMS Secretary of State and the BIS Secretary of State sitting on it. We on these Benches think that the Secretary of State for Education should also be involved in that process, for reasons which many noble Lords have enunciated during the course of the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, emphasised, we take a very broad view of the definition of creativity. We believe that the nurturing of creativity should be taken in that spirit right across the tech and creative industries.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, mentioned the tax reliefs that have been so important for all the various sides of the industry—not just the film tax credit, but also high-end television, animation, orchestra, regional theatre and other tax reliefs.
A great many noble Lords talked about the linkages between sciences and the arts, starting with my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter. So many of the creative industries are interconnected and have great economic impact on each other. The CEBR report for the Arts Council last year demonstrated that the creative talent in arts and culture plays an important role in supporting commercial creative industries. The Arts Council itself plays an important role in supporting apprenticeships.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, talked about the importance of public financial support. I entirely agree that we should not regard this as subsidy; it is an investment in the future and in creativity. I agree with my noble friend that we should ensure that local authorities publish what they are spending on the arts in their areas. I was very much taken by what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, had to say about the successful productions in New York and the fact that five out of eight had received public funding because they were National or RSC productions. That is a very important point.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter that in the digital economy there is increasing convergence—symbiosis, really—between platform and content, between the tech sector and the creative industries and the skills that are needed in those sectors.
There is cross-over with tourism, too. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, talked about the galleries, museums and theatres that attract tourists: the Tate, the National Gallery, the British Museum and so on. The recent UK Music report Wish You Were Here reveals the fact that the number of music tourists in the UK has increased by 34% between 2011 and 2014. That is a very important sector as well. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, described the importance of the Aldeburgh Festival. BALPPA members assert the increasing importance of UK creative content and licensing for attractions.
We want to see creative businesses continue to thrive across the country, not just in London, so that our economy can continue to reap the benefits. It is vital that we nurture that. Clustering is of great importance. We have seen how clusters have arisen over the last few years, often specialising in a number of discrete areas, such as Brighton’s Silicon Beach for video games or special effects in Dundee. I declare an interest as a Barbican trustee, and I have a particular interest in the City’s culture cluster. Like the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, whom I am delighted to see is so supportive, I am very keen to see a world-class music centre in London and I very much hope that that feasibility study comes to a good conclusion. With my antecedents in Kendal, I was delighted by what the noble Lords, Lord Bragg and Lord Inglewood, had to say about the importance of the investment in Kendal.
There are so many sectors that we could cover today and many noble Lords have covered them, but by exception we have not mentioned publishing. That is another great international success. It is a £4 billion industry in a whole range of genres, including teaching materials. I am concerned about the future of some of our authors. The median income of our authors has been falling over the years, with the rise of the digital economy. One of the areas where I would like to see movement is the law of unfair contracts which currently is not able to govern their contracts because it does not cover intellectual property.
We have had a wonderful description of the power and value of music—and also a reference to Lionel Richie, although whether the two can be taken together I am not sure—from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I was very inspired by that. The music sector is another sector of huge importance to us. We are the second largest exporter of music after the United States. We have heard about the setting up of music hubs, which is a very important development. Our live grass-roots music venues are under threat due to perverse planning consents. That is a matter of concern because they are the seedcorn of our music industry. I would like to see action taken on, and reform of, some of our planning legislation for that very reason. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, on the whole issue of the fabric of our theatres, which is a matter of considerable concern.
Many noble Lords talked about broadcasting—the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, the noble Lords, Lord Bragg and Lord Haskel, and my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter—and particularly the role of the BBC, the coming charter and the importance of the BBC in the whole creative landscape. The BBC has a massive role in this area and we must make sure that any changes made to the charter, whether they involve freezing the licence fee or decriminalising its non-payment, protect the future of the BBC.
I entirely agree about the future of linear TV. It is by no means dead and our public service broadcasters have a continuing role to play. In that context the future of Channel 4 is extremely important. It has a unique and important role. It describes itself in its annual report as a “creative greenhouse”. In some respects that probably undersells its role. The success of Film4, for instance, is legendary. I need only mention “Mr Turner” and “12 Years a Slave”. That channel is engaging with younger audiences, increasingly via the internet, and plays a very important role in that respect. The multichannel sector should not be forgotten either. The scale of its investment is growing and is also extremely important. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, mentioned the “must carry” aspects, which are very important. We need to get rid of some of the trammels on our public service broadcasters in that respect.
Many noble Lords talked about the overseas markets. I have a particular interest in China, and the film co-production treaty with China that the BFI has led. I was delighted to see that Amanda Nevill was awarded a CBE in the Birthday Honours List for all her work with the BFI, and Pinewood is not only investing in the UK but also entering into joint ventures with major Chinese companies, which is terrific.
Education is one of the themes that came through very powerfully in the debate. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, when she said that the supply chain is only as good as the weakest link. Many of us are very concerned about the EBacc and the fact that we do not have STEAM but still have STEM. We really must get to grips with this over the coming years. There should be no disjunct between technical and creative skills and between the sciences and the arts. We need to make sure that the core subjects cover both; otherwise, we will not equip ourselves for the new age. As my noble friend said, we need to implement the findings of Darren Henley’s review.
There are many other areas of great concern. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, talked about access to stage school and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, talked about disincentives to study the arts and humanities at universities. However, we must keep the “steam” up on apprenticeships, which are extremely important.
I will not deal with incentives and finance. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, had it spot on when he talked about balancing creative success with financial stability. A number of initiatives were taken by the previous Government and I very much hope that we will build on them.
I will be uncharacteristically brief in talking about intellectual property, which involves many big issues. The biggest problem coming down the road concerns the EU’s digital European economy proposals to make it impossible to split licensing by territory. That could have a fundamental effect on the financing of creative properties and I hope that the Government have taken that on board. I have always felt that you should have a mixture of education and enforcement. That is very important. Education is important but I hope that the Government will continue their work on enforcement. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Baroness King of Bow (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, on securing this debate and draw the attention of the House to the fact that I work for a public service broadcaster— Channel 4.
A generation ago, in 1998, the Labour Government defined the creative industries as comprising any business with the potential to generate,
“wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property”.
It seems strange now that, in the fairly recent past, the Blair Government became the first in the world to recognise the creative industries as an industrial sector in their own right. The Creative Industries Mapping Document published by former Secretary of State, Chris Smith—now the noble Lord, Lord Smith—set out for the first time to measure and map the impact of the creative industries on the rest of the economy. He wrote in the foreword to the document:
“The most successful economies and societies in the twenty-first century will be creative ones. Creativity will make the difference—to businesses seeking a competitive edge, to societies looking for new ways to … improve the quality of life. This offers the UK enormous opportunities. We have a well-deserved reputation for creativity; we can draw on both a strong historical base and vibrant contemporary developments”.
It is worth touching on the historical base that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, mentioned because it puts the future potential of our creative industries in context. It is incredible to recall that, at its height, the British Empire was the largest ever in history and held sway over one-fifth of the world’s population. The BBC Empire Service began in 1932 and is today, of course, known as the BBC World Service. The global footprint of the World Service is the widest reaching of any broadcaster or country and it is the most trusted news source in the world. The BBC news reaches more than 230 million weekly users. If you add our news to our other intellectual property exports—music, film, TV, games, digital content, publishing, architecture and so on—it is clear that Britain has done something truly remarkable. We have lost an empire but won the battle for global cultural pre-eminence. That pre-eminence now showers us with revenue and is the real venture capital of our economy.
As John Woodward wrote in his excellent review of the creative industries, published recently in March,
“the UK has risen to become the pre-eminent global hub and talent magnet for investors seeking creativity, innovation, world-class skills and cutting-edge engagement with the new digitally-led creative economy”.
One of the purposes of this debate, and what noble Lords have done in it, is to ask: how did this happen and how we can ensure that it continues to happen? Tellingly, Mr Woodward’s explanation of how it happened is:
“Over the past 40 years a combination of natural talent, education, training, and crucially, the provision of state-funded access to a broad range of cultural activity, have all contributed to the UK becoming a global powerhouse for the creative industries”,
but that,
“the recent public spending cuts to arts bodies and to regional economic support structures now risk eroding the national DNA that originally propelled the UK to the top of the global creativity league”.
If we want to secure our future, we must secure our creative industries. As my noble friend Lord Bragg said, this calls for enlightenment from the centre. I liked his comments on repetition, such as:
“A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!”.
A couple of us have requoted this. I like a bit of repetition as much as anyone else but there are too many arts organisations crying, “A grant! a grant! my kingdom for a grant!”. Our kingdom’s cultural hegemony was built on state-funded access to a multiplicity of cultural goods but the scale of cuts to state-funded arts projects and institutions now risks critically undermining not just our collective creativity, our creative industries and our cultural heritage but the life-blood of Britain’s economy. That is why this debate is so important, and why it is so important that we see clearly the risks ahead.
What are the risks? The first is that we do not protect our PSBs and the extraordinarily innovative yet fragile creative ecology that they have spawned. Virtually every Peer speaking today has referred to our creative infrastructure. Secondly, there is the risk that through excessive funding cuts, as I have said, we fatally undermine access to arts and culture for all British kids, not just a lucky few. This was articulated by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, my noble friends Lord Haskel and Lord Bragg and many others. Third, there is an enormous risk that our education system does not do enough to promote creativity, as was outlined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter, Lady Kidron and Lady Wheatcroft, and by the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Clement-Jones, and others. Fourthly, there is the risk that we do not secure the digital economy or its infrastructure adequately, for example in broadband.
The fifth risk is that the creative economy is limited to London and the south-east, and that we fail to introduce the regional structures required to hardwire creativity throughout Britain. We have not touched on that enough in this debate but I am sure we would all agree that we need to pursue that incredibly important strategy. Sixthly, there is the risk that we fail to respond adequately to regulatory challenges as they emerge, particularly those that require a constructive relationship with the EU. Seventhly, and following on from that, we need our IP regime to promote innovation and not stifle it, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned. I encourage the Government to think harder about how we effect that difficult balance between the incentive to innovate and ensuring that we have appropriate returns from copyright. There will be instances, and the digital world throws up many of them, where the current situation is not as we would wish it to be.
Eighthly, there is diversity, which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, for raising. I should flag up that, as I mentioned at the beginning, I am a diversity executive for the broadcaster Channel 4. It was really instructive of the noble Baroness to have highlighted the role that Lenny Henry has played and the link with talent. Let us remember that this is about talent. Lenny Henry highlighted the fact that BAME talent has left, or been pushed out of, the television industry. Too often, people greet the diversity initiatives that are set up to deal with this sort of issue by whispering complaints—let me be blunt here—that they are just about getting black people jobs, that they lower the bar, that they undermine meritocracy and that they prevent the best person getting the job. So let me put the record straight and explain why intelligent diversity strategies grow our talent pool and our economy.
I will do this by way of an example that I never tire of repeating—please forgive me, those who have heard me say this before. It relates to the legendary former head of Film4, Tessa Ross, who was a great advocate for diversity. She was concerned that, despite Channel 4 having a remit to push diversity and find hidden talent, she could not find any black film directors. Tessa looked and looked. She asked her people to look. The cry went out across the land: “Black film directors—where are they?”. The response came, “Oh no, there aren’t any. Well, there aren’t any of note”. You know how it is: you want to employ black people and women and disabled people and working-class white boys from Scunthorpe, but you just cannot find any who have the right experience or the right qualifications. It is even a bit like this round here in the House of Lords, isn’t it? How else do you explain that 77% of the Lords are men? Obviously we do not discriminate against women, and we are not in favour of men over women. It’s just that women are not as experienced as men, or they have not risen up through the ranks, or they are not the experts in their field, or they cry in the lab. You know how it is. Honestly, what a load of nonsense.
Back to the head of Film4 searching for a black film director—she knew there must be black people out there who had the talent to be film directors but just had not had the opportunity. She decided to widen the recruitment field, to change the qualifications required. I say to any person in any industry, in any business: if you want to improve things, do that. Widen your recruitment base. She turned to somebody who had no experience as a film director. He was a visual artist. As we all know, Steve McQueen did not get the Oscar for best film due to political correctness. He got it because he is one of the most talented film directors in the world, because Channel 4 had an innovative approach to diversity and because Channel 4 had—and has—a strategy to go out and find the talent without qualifications, rather than let that talent be lost for ever.
The TV industry is currently working hard to promote diversity, and the Creative Diversity Network, which I work with, has done just that. I know that the Minister in the other place is well acquainted with the issues that the Creative Diversity Network is pursuing, so I ask the Minister: what will the Government do to spread the best practice identified by the Creative Diversity Network for the TV and film industries further afield to related creative fields such as radio, the music industry, publishing and theatre?
While I am on the subject of diversity, it is imperative to point out the huge diversity of the creative industries themselves. We have heard about fashion design, architecture, film, video, special effects, software, music, publishing, theatre, TV, tourism —the list goes on and on. Yes, these are disparate fields, but, as the Creative Industries Mapping Document pointed out all those years ago for the first time, these are the areas that make up the knowledge economy on which our future rests.
I end by turning to the BBC. As so many have pointed out, the BBC goes to the very heart of what it is to be British. I have already quoted my noble friend Lord Bragg, who said in this Chamber:
“The BBC is not so much the family silver as the family itself”.—[Official Report, 3/6/15; col. 432.]
I will be frank. Many are worried that the Government want, with ideological zeal, to cut the BBC down to size, to something far less than it is at the moment. I am sure many of us will urge the Government not to use the BBC’s charter renewal as an inadvertent exercise in cultural vandalism. I quote an article that said:
“Proverbially, when the bombs rain down, the captain of the last nuclear submarine will judge Britain ended when Radio 4 ceases to sound”.
The cultural industries have given Britain a sense of itself, and none more so than the BBC. Those industries will protect our future and, as such, they could hardly make a greater contribution to the United Kingdom’s economy.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend for securing this debate, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions in this very far-reaching debate on the creative industries.
The interest shown this afternoon is a testament to the essential role played by our creative industries in our national life. As my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft said in her opening remarks, and as many other noble Lords have said, the official figures published in January confirmed the leading role played by the creative industries in our economic recovery. The sector contributed £76.9 billion to the UK economy in 2013, 5% of the total UK economy. The year-on-year growth, from 2012 to 2013, was a staggering 9.9%, three times that of the economy as a whole, and higher than for any other Blue Book sector. In that year, the sector accounted for 171,000 more jobs, 5.6% of total UK jobs, and a 1.4% increase on the previous year. Over the longer term, there has been a 3.9% rise in the number of jobs in the creative industries each year between 1997 and 2013, compared with 0.6% in the UK economy as a whole.
Lord Haskel
Do the Minister’s figures include the non-creative part of the work that went on in those industries?
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, mentioned having to define the creative industries in his speech, and the noble Baroness, Lady King of Bow, also read out a long list of creative industries. It is very difficult to compare the creative industries as I understand it, and I shall have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, on that issue.
The sector is also leading the way on exports. The value of services exported by the creative industries in 2012 was £17.3 billion, which is 8.8% of total UK service exports, and an incredible increase of 11.3% over 2011, compared with 2.8% for total UK service exports. As with the sector’s domestic performance, creative industries’ exports are playing a key role in our export drive. While the sector is showing impressive growth here in the UK, however, we do not exist in isolation, and cannot be complacent. Our global competitors are working hard, too. The Government are fully committed to helping the sector as it implements its strategy to maintain its global competitiveness, including through allowing the use of the Treasury building for the filming of the latest Bond film, as my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft said.
Over the past five years, the Government have showed their commitment to the sector through setting up the Creative Industries Council, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said. It will provide a strategic focus for industry and government. We also put in place a range of generic and sector-specific financing and fiscal measures, such as the creative content tax reliefs, as noble Lords have said. The film tax relief alone has generated over £7.8 billion of production spend in the UK, supporting over 1,200 films. We have expanded the original scope of the tax reliefs to cover the high-end TV, animation, video games, children’s TV and commercial theatre production sectors, with a new relief for orchestras due to come into force next year. We provide funding for agencies such as Arts Council England, the British Film Institute, Creative England and Innovate UK to invest in and support the creative industries. Arts Council England invested £1.4 billion of public money in arts organisations and cultural programmes between 2011 and 2015, and the BFI is investing nearly £500 million between 2012 and 2017 to help the film industry grow, build audiences and stimulate a vibrant film culture in the UK. Through the British Business Bank established by the Government, creative businesses have received more than £80 million of equity finance since May 2010, and through UKTI, in the financial year 2014-15 the Government have helped provide export support to around 13,000 creative companies, one-quarter of all companies assisted by UKTI, and delivered £467 million-worth of business wins.
On the education and skills front, we have supported the sector with over £400 million in our music and cultural education programmes, with a further £109 million available in 2015-16; £20 million co-investment funding in Channel 4/Creative Skillset’s industrial partnership; our co-investment in Creative Skillset’s skills investment fund, including a further £2 million each year in 2015-16 and 2016-17; and a new curriculum for IT in schools. Our £1.7 billion public investment in broadband infrastructure, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, will greatly help creative businesses to set up in the regions and enable them to reach new customers around the UK and the globe. We are also committed to a fair and robust IP enforcement regime, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, with funding for the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit up to 2017, backed up by a strong programme of consumer education, including £3.5 million for an education campaign to run alongside Creative Content UK.
As my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft said, we intend to build on this solid programme of support over the next five years. Our manifesto gave commitments to continue the existing creative content tax reliefs and expand them when possible; to back plans for the Factory in Manchester and a modern world-class concert hall for London; to continue to require ISPs to block sites that carry large amounts of illegal content; to build on progress made under voluntary anti-piracy projects to warn internet users when they breach copyright; and, through our review of the BBC’s royal charter, to recognise the important role played by the corporation in supporting our creative industries.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of IP in relation to the digital single market. Last month, the European Commission published its strategy for developing the digital single market. This will involve some reform of the EU copyright framework with legislation expected at the end of the year. The Commission’s strategy document is at a high level and, of course, the detail will be all important. It is proposing not a full rewrite of the entire framework but targeted harmonisation measures that will still be of significant impact. Among these are measures to make it easier for businesses to provide portable services that people can access when they are travelling or on holiday and for people to buy copyright content across borders; to harmonise rules on the use of copyright material for specific purposes, such as research; and to clarify the rules on intermediaries using copyright content to ensure there is a level playing field. Proposals will also be made to modernise copyright enforcement focusing on commercial-scale infringement. In July last year, the European Commission announced a new action plan to tackle IP infringement. We fully support the plan. It provides a good mix of voluntary initiatives and awareness-raising activities and focuses on tackling commercial-scale infringement which causes the most harm to our economies. The digital single market package overall represents an important and timely opportunity to ensure that Europe is in the best possible position to take advantage of the digital revolution.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the importance of safeguarding IP. The Government recognise the challenges and importance of safeguarding intellectual property here and abroad. It is essential that rights can be enforced effectively, and we are taking a range of actions to address this. As I mentioned, in September 2013 we launched an online IP crime unit dedicated to tackling serious and organised online piracy and counterfeiting and protecting legitimate UK businesses. The unit has so far made 52 arrests and has also diverted more than 11 million views from copyright-infringing websites to an official police warning page since July last year.
Overseas IP regimes can be difficult for businesses to navigate and successfully enforce, so we provide specialist IP attachés to help UK businesses in some of the more important and challenging international markets: China, India, Brazil and south-east Asia. During a visit to China in 2014, the UK facilitated a landmark agreement between the China-Britain Business Council and Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba that will help address the tens of millions of pounds lost to Chinese counterfeiting and piracy via the online platform each year. In June last year, the Government and the European Commission hosted the inaugural international IP enforcement summit in London, with great success. It was attended by experts from Governments, enforcement authorities and multinational businesses around the world. The summit discussions clearly demonstrated the unremitting desire of all those who attended to work together to overcome the challenges that we face around the world in tackling IP crime, whether by reducing the flow of funds to criminals, better customs enforcement at external borders or ensuring that IP rights work in the interest of employment and economic growth.
Several noble Lords mentioned issues relating to the status of the arts and education, and I will deal individually with as many of those as I can in the time that I have left. The Government have created a number of new programmes that give children the enriching experiences they need at a young age, such as music education hubs, a national youth dance company and the British Film Institute Film Academy. Such programmes develop the creative thinking that is powering the UK’s world-beating creative industries and spark a love of the arts that can last a lifetime.
My noble friend Lady Wheatcroft mentioned the supplier recognition scheme in relation to the Olympic site. The SRS is a first for the Olympic movement; it is the first time that the IOC has allowed such a scheme. More than 780 companies have benefited under the scheme. Some categories of companies, which my noble friend mentioned, were excluded from the scheme, but I am afraid that there is no scope for changing those categories. They are not dictated by the Government but relate to contracts between the IOC and the major international companies.
My noble friend also mentioned the difficulty for creative SMEs in the export environment. UKTI provides tremendous support for creative businesses. Some 13,000 creative companies were helped in 2014-15—a quarter of all companies helped—and some £467 million of business was secured. UKTI set up a sector advisory group to gather creative industries together to advise it on prioritising export markets and exploiting inward investment opportunities.
My noble friend also mentioned cultural education, which concerned a number of noble Lords. As part of the Government’s plan for education, all pupils will experience a broad and balanced curriculum. The arts are a key part of this. Art and design and music are compulsory for five to 14 year-olds. In 2015-16, the Government will provide more than £109 million to support art and cultural education projects, an increase of £17 million from last year.
The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, mentioned his concern about the cuts in funding for the arts and creative industries, as did many other noble Lords. We absolutely recognise the intrinsic social and economic value of the arts to people of all backgrounds. Nevertheless, we all need to play our part in contributing to government savings—I know that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and I will not have a meeting of minds on this issue. We are working with arts organisations to ensure that they have a broad funding base that incorporates public and private funding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, mentioned the need for more links between creative businesses and schools, and with careers advice, which I think the noble Viscount also mentioned. We agree that liaison between industry and education is important and welcome the recommendations in the Create UK strategy, which has been developed by industry members of the Creative Industries Council. This includes extending the role of the National Careers Service last year, which should help with the work. The new Careers and Enterprise Company will also strengthen links between employers and schools.
The noble Baroness also mentioned her diversity round table with the Minister in the department. The Minister for Culture, Media and Sport has taken an active interest in this issue, and I will speak to him about his plans to continue this group.
The noble Baroness also mentioned STEAM, not STEM. I realise that this area has concerned a number of noble Lords. The Government are strongly committed to arts and STEM subjects. Young people should have the opportunity to study arts subjects alongside an academic curriculum. Between 2012 and 2014, the number of pupils taking music and art and design GCSEs rose by 4% and 7.5% respectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the new London concert hall, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The Government and the GLA are jointly funding a feasibility study into the case for a new concert hall for London. The study will examine how the hall might be funded.
My noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber mentioned equality of opportunity in arts training. The organisations in the Arts Council’s 2015 to 2018 portfolio have committed to ensuring that their workforces are diverse. The creative employment programme will continue to offer the opportunity for paid internships in cultural organisations so that young people have a fair chance at opportunities, regardless of background.
The noble Viscount asked whether Netflix and similar services should be covered by rules to ensure fair payment for creators. Services such as Netflix and Spotify are very popular and have done much to encourage the lawful use of creative content on the internet, but the way these firms pay creators and copyright owners is highly debated, as I am sure he is aware. The European Commission has said that it will consider fair remuneration for creators in its review of EU copyright. The Government look forward to hearing the Commission’s proposals on the digital single market. The noble Viscount also mentioned the importance of SMEs and start-ups, and I could not agree more with what he said.
Time has caught up with me. I have not been able to answer a number of questions, for which I apologise, but I will write to noble Lords and place copies in the Library.
The Government are committed to continuing to support the UK’s creative industries at home and abroad. The UK’s creative industries are tremendous ambassadors for the wealth of creativity that exists on these islands. From One Direction to 007, from Sam Smith to Stella McCartney, “Game of Thrones” to Grayson Perry, these icons are known all over the world, and that is what makes Britain’s creative talent known and loved around the world. The Government are committed to helping the creative industries to make sure that they continue to be the envy of the world.
Baroness Wheatcroft
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response, which was detailed and positive. I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this afternoon. It has been upbeat, with fascinating speeches from all sides of the House, and it has demonstrated that it is wrong to think that you have to be Labour to be a luvvie. It has been a positive debate. I had hoped for a celebration and it has very much been a celebration, with a few qualms as well. I thank noble Lords again and I beg to move.