House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I have agreed that questions to the Secretary of State for Wales should be postponed from this Wednesday until the following week, Wednesday 16 September, to allow the House to mark the occasion on which Her Majesty the Queen will become our longest-serving monarch. Prime Minister’s questions will take place, as usual, afterwards at 12 noon. The Table Office will announce consequential changes to the questions rota shortly.
In addition, before we proceed to oral questions may I remind Members that there is a change in the alphabetical groupings in the Division Lobbies? Members with surnames beginning with G should give their name at the new A to G desk—[Interruption]—and will need to do so for the next two weeks at least. The appreciation of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) is not always sought, but it is acknowledged.
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
1. What information his Department holds on the number of people in the work-related activity group who have long-term deteriorating health conditions.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
There is no common medical definition as to what constitutes a long-term deteriorating health condition so no data on this are held within Government. The Department will be publishing data on the number of claimants on employment and support allowance with progressive conditions on Thursday.
Emily Thornberry
The answer is, according to the Work and Pensions Committee, about 8,000.
Ministers seem to have discovered remarkable healing powers over the summer break. They believe cutting benefits will help people in the work-related group who have been assessed and deemed as being unable to work to suddenly find work. It will give them an incentive, we are told. These are people who have deteriorating conditions such as Parkinson’s and MS which medical experts have said mean they will never be able to work. Which medical condition would the Minister deem might be cured by cutting benefits by £30 a week?
Priti Patel
On the contrary, this Government believe in supporting people who are able to work to get back closer to the labour market, and the Government spend about £350 million a year on employment support for those with conditions, in particular disability. I think all Members will be pleased to know that the Budget has also provided new funding from April 2017 for additional support for claimants with limited capability for work, but importantly the principle here is that those who can work and are able to work are supported by this Government in getting closer to the labour market, and we are supporting them through our jobcentres and the initiatives we have across government.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that deteriorating health conditions can be treated by a large number of complementary therapies, including homeopathy, herbal medicine and acupuncture, and will she look at them?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and, as he mentions alternative therapies, I should add that this Government place great emphasis on supporting benefit claimants with a range of conditions and that support can come in the form of treatment such as talking therapies as well as valuable support for those with mental health conditions. It is important to continue to provide support for those who need help, and that is the objective of this Government.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I wrote to the Secretary of State over the summer following the news that his Department has been publishing fake quotes which it attributed to benefit claimants who had been sanctioned. As I am yet to receive a response, perhaps the Secretary of State or his team could answer one of my questions today. Has this practice of fabricating people and quotes been used by his Department in other instances? If so, can he provide details of when, and, if not, will he apologise to the British public for misleading them and commit to ensuring the practice is never undertaken again?
Priti Patel
The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is very clear: that issue has been addressed and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made some very clear statements. I bring the hon. Lady back to the overall question, which is about people with deteriorating health conditions. This Government are committed to supporting the vulnerable and have put in place a great deal of support to help those with deteriorating health conditions manage their conditions and, where they can, get back into work.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Deteriorating health is one of the main reasons why people are unable to work, but we now know that about 90 people every month over the past three years have died within a short time after having been assessed as fit for work and losing their social security benefits. Does the Minister accept that the assessment process for determining whether someone is fit for work is simply not fit for purpose?
Priti Patel
Let me be clear that the Department recently published fully quality-assured age-standardised mortality statistics, in line with Office for National Statistics requirements and to national statistics standard. It is wrong to state that people have died while claiming an out-of-work benefit and, for the record, it is impossible and completely wrong to draw any causality from the statistics. Any attempt to extrapolate anything beyond those figures is wrong, and two national newspapers that tried to do that have just published an apology for their incorrect reporting of the statistics.
Dr Whiteford
I do think Ministers need to take their head out of the sand, because it is clear that they are abdicating responsibility for very sick people. It has also emerged over the summer that almost half the people appealing against sanction decisions—more than 285,000 people—have been successful. I suspect that a large proportion of those people have serious health problems. Will the Minister finally listen to the cross-party calls for a full-scale review of the sanctions regime and commit to that review this afternoon?
Priti Patel
We have already had a review. Specifically with regard to the statistics, the trend is that the number of people dying, as a proportion of the population, is going down. I bring the House back to my point that any attempt to extrapolate anything beyond the figures is completely wrong.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
On Second Reading of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, the Secretary of State said that if someone is in the work-related activity group, they should be
“capable of doing some work very soon.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1260.]
But in July 2014, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions said that 80,000 people had been placed in the WRAG with a prognosis that a change in their condition was unlikely in the long term. Does the Minister agree that those people should not be in the WRAG?
Priti Patel
Of course, all claimants in the WRAG are assessed, and that assessment determines that they should be in that group. Importantly, people in that group who need more support to prepare for work receive employment and support allowance. I emphasise that that support helps them to prepare to go back to work, whether in the short or medium term. Importantly, claimants are asked to participate in activities that are both appropriate and reasonable for each individual claimant.
Kate Green
But 80,000 people who are not expected to get better have been placed in the WRAG, including 8,000 with degenerative conditions, which by definition mean they will become less well. Cutting £30 a week from such people’s benefit will not make them better or help them work; surely it will just make them poorer.
Priti Patel
I reiterate what has been said previously: no one will lose out in financial support. [Interruption.] This is for those who are already on the benefit. Importantly, those in the WRAG will be given support to prepare for a return to work in the short or medium term. It is wrong to assume that their condition will automatically deteriorate. Everyone who participates in that group will have the appropriate support, and the expectation on them is both appropriate and reasonable for the individual claimant, with their circumstances taken into account.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
3. What progress the Government have made on reducing the rate of unemployment.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
5. What progress the Government have made on reducing the rate of unemployment.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
13. What progress the Government have made on reducing the rate of unemployment.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Under this Government, unemployment has fallen by more than 650,000 and the unemployment rate has been cut from 8% to 5.6% of the labour force.
Chris Skidmore
Last month’s figures showed that the number of people in Kingswood claiming jobseeker’s allowance had fallen by 23% since July 2014. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows that the Government’s welfare reforms are helping people back into work, and that the Conservatives are now the true workers’ party thanks to our long-term economic plan?
Mr Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend is, of course, right. People should remember what we inherited, which was a collapsing economy and huge levels of unemployment. Under this Government, some 1,000 more people are in work each day and employment is up by more than 350,000 to more than 31 million. Really importantly, 14.5 million women are in work, which is a record high that the last Labour Government never, ever achieved.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
May I thank the Secretary of State for all his work in reducing unemployment in my constituency? South East Cornwall is a beautiful area, attracting many tourists, especially during the summer. What action have the Government taken to assist those coming out of seasonal work, to help stop them becoming unemployed again?
Mr Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend does a huge amount of work in her constituency to help people in those kinds of jobs and represents them very well here. Jobcentres in her area are tasked with and focused on helping people who do periodic work, which is the nature of a lot of the employment there, and they are trained to do that. As universal credit arrives next year, my hon. Friend will find that a huge number of her constituents will benefit, because instead of losing their way by having to come off jobseeker’s allowance and on to tax credits, they will stay on universal credit and with the jobcentre. That will help those who have work that is not always permanent.
David Morris
Does my right hon. Friend welcome the fact that the number of people in Morecambe and Lunesdale claiming jobseeker’s allowance for 12 months or more fell by more than 30% over the past 12 months? Is not it a key part of any long-term economic plan to help the long-term unemployed back into the dignity of work?
Mr Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend has been assiduous in his work with the jobcentre and those who have been unemployed. Across the country, long-term unemployment is down by more than a fifth, falling to about 165,000 over the past year, and the number of people unemployed for more than 24 months is falling. The latest figures are down by a fifth, which is a remarkable position, given what we took over from the last Government.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
22. What assessment is being made by the Department for Work and Pensions of the impact of cuts to the teaching of English as a second language on over 50-year-olds who are seeking employment?
Mr Duncan Smith
As the hon. Lady should know, we offer support and help to those who attend jobcentres. If they do not speak English correctly, we send them on and support them through language courses. That process helps them obtain jobs and improve their circumstances.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Is the Secretary of State confident that the rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland would be reduced if, perchance, the Northern Ireland Executive were not to agree welfare reform and the powers were taken back by Westminster?
Mr Duncan Smith
Obviously, this is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but what I will say is that we have been in constant discussions and negotiations with politicians in Northern Ireland about implementing welfare reform. Even though there was agreement, they have now decided not to agree. I simply say to all involved that they now need to start thinking about how they can address the issue; otherwise, they will not benefit the people they serve who will lose out because they will lose money.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
My constituent, Mr Colin Fraser, has degenerative Parkinson’s disease. He came to see me at my constituency surgery just over a week ago in a very shaken and devastated state after having had the mobility component of his personal independent payment reviewed. According to the Department’s own guidelines—[Interruption.] This is an important issue. The guidelines state that cases involving claimants with severe neurological conditions such as motor neurone disease, dementia and Parkinson’s should be “paper based” and not subject to interview. My constituent was subjected to very intimidating behaviour and I would like the Secretary of State to look very carefully at his case and, in a wider context, how people are dealt with in such situations.
Mr Duncan Smith
We do conduct reviews and I would be very happy to review that particular case, if the hon. Lady wants to take it up with me. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), has already met Parkinson’s UK to discuss how we can improve and modify the system so that it helps people much better. We are always looking for ways to improve it, and I and my hon. Friend would be very happy to speak to the hon. Lady about this particular case.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I know that the Secretary of State and his team are absolutely committed to helping 1 million people with disabilities back into work. Last week, I met representatives of an access-to-work contractor, Pluss, which is very active in Gloucester. It told me some remarkable stories of people being helped into jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that specialist providers have a real role to play in helping his Department to achieve this important goal?
Mr Duncan Smith
Yes. That is one of the objectives of this Government. We have made huge strides in getting more people with disabilities back into work—I think the figure is now over 220,000, which I believe is the highest figure since records began, in proportionate terms—but the most important point is that we are looking to get that up to the level of normal, non-disabled people who are back in work. Those with disabilities have every right and every reason to expect exactly the same support into work that everybody else gets.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Unemployment went up last month. The Government’s commission on employment and skills pointed out earlier this year that although we currently have German levels of adult unemployment, we have eurozone levels of youth unemployment, which went up in July and in August. Does the Secretary of State accept that much more needs to be done to give young people the chance of a decent start?
Mr Duncan Smith
Of course we are focused on youth unemployment, but it has actually been falling from what we inherited. It has fallen by more than 200,000 since we took over, and the claimant count has fallen every month in the past three and a half years. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the figures going up, and in a sense I am not surprised, because they cover the period leading up to the last election. Given what the Opposition were saying, and looking at the polls that some businesses carried out, it is no surprise to me that they might have held back. If he looks at the vacancies, he will see that there are 735,000 vacancies in the jobcentres every week, which is more than he managed.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
4. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on ensuring that people accessing new pensions freedoms receive appropriate advice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
Ministers in this Department have met and continue to meet the Chancellor and Treasury Ministers to discuss this and other matters. My Department works closely with the Treasury, as well as with the Financial Conduct Authority, to ensure that the requirement for individuals to take independent financial advice works as intended.
Ian Blackford
Has the Minister read the report from the Strategic Society Centre which points out a link between guaranteed retirement income and wellbeing? I am deeply concerned that we are not offering adequate protection to pensioners, given the choices that they face, and I ask the Government to look again at the question of promoting guaranteed income in retirement and to accept their responsibility to protect pensioners.
Mr Vara
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that we are not taking our responsibility seriously. He will be aware that Pension Wise offers free impartial guidance that can be given by telephone, online or in face-to-face meetings, and that the Money Advice Service provides a free directory with more than 2,250 firms registered on it. That equates to more than 6,000 individuals who can give advice. In Scotland, there are 162 firms that can give such advice to people, so there are plenty of people out there, but if the hon. Gentleman knows of individual cases, I would be happy to hear from him.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Is the Minister aware that certain savers who have old, with-profits policies are being forced to pay for financial advice and to get a sign-off, sometimes on an insistent client basis? It can often cost them a lot of money to access their money under the new freedoms. Would the Minister be prepared to look at this matter again, in order to strike the right balance between providing the right advice and not pricing people out of the market?
Mr Vara
My Department is keen to ensure that the consumer does not miss out, and we are working closely with the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that the rules and regulations are fit and proper. If my hon. Friend would like to bring any particular cases to my attention, I would be happy to look at them.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Will the Minister tell us when the Government are going to publish the information on the take-up of the Pension Wise service, and what action they are taking to combat the scammers, who have scammed £4.7 million out of people in the first month of the new scheme?
Mr Vara
If the hon. Lady has any specific information on that, I would be happy to receive it from her. We will be publishing the figures on the take-up of the Pension Wise service in due course, but I do not have them at the moment. It is a relatively new operation, and we need to give it some time. In relation to dealing with scams, we are working with the Financial Conduct Authority and we are seeking to stem these scams and any others that there might be.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
6. What assessment he has made of the effect of Government policies on the number of children living in poverty.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
16. What representations he has received on changing the Government’s child poverty targets.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
This Government are committed to working to eliminate child poverty and improve the life chances of children. Our approach is to focus on the root causes of poverty and not just on the symptoms, which will deliver the best improvement in children’s life chances. Our consultation on child poverty measurement in 2013 received more than 250 responses, capturing views across the spectrum from local authorities, charities, academics and members of the public.
Clive Efford
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but children growing up in households where the parents are on the national minimum wage will see their household income cut next year by up to a maximum of £1,426. He punched the air when the announcement was made in the House in the Budget in July. Was he being incompetent or just callous when he did that? What is he going to do to deal with this cut in household incomes?
Mr Duncan Smith
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not notice that at the time of the Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced one of the biggest rises in the living wage. I make no apology for punching the air, because that was a huge announcement. This is the whole point: as we get people back to work, they should be earning more in work—rather than being paid for by taxpayers, they should be paid for by their businesses.
Jo Stevens
Can the Secretary of State explain why the Government are scrapping all child poverty targets?
Mr Duncan Smith
We are not scrapping all the child poverty targets; what we have said is that we are going to look at all the life chances measures. We want to know what they are doing and how well they are performing. Alongside that, we are still publishing income measures; HBAI statistics—households below average income—will still be published. The hon. Lady is therefore wrong in what she says. What we are doing is focusing on what we can actually do to help families get out of poverty, rather than rotating them around a 60% median income line, as the last Labour Government did. That did not make any sense and cost a huge amount of money.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that an important indicator of a child’s prospects in this country is whether they live in a workless household, and that it is right for the Government to take account of that when assessing child poverty?
Mr Duncan Smith
Absolutely; that is exactly right. This is about the measures we take that keep people out of poverty in a sustained way. I have talked already about the rise in the national living wage, but we are also doubling free childcare to 30 hours a week; raising educational standards; and expanding successfully the troubled families programme to a further 400,000 families. In addition, the early years pupil premium is hugely important in helping the most troubled families.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What has happened to the number of workless households since my right hon. Friend became Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?
Mr Duncan Smith
We inherited a situation where nearly one in five households in Britain had nobody in work at all. It is far more likely for someone who is out of work to be in poverty and for their children to be in poverty. We have pretty nearly halved that level and have the lowest number of workless households since records began.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Until a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State told us that he was committed to the targets in the Child Poverty Act 2010, but now he has brought forward legislation that not only scraps those targets, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) pointed out, will leave Ministers with no child poverty targets at all. He has just denied that from the Dispatch Box, but the fact is that the Welfare Reform and Work Bill removes all the child poverty targets. Why are the Government, in reality, despite his fine words, throwing in the towel on child poverty?
Mr Duncan Smith
We are not; we are committed to eradicating child poverty and we will have to report every year on our achievement in line with the figures that I gave the right hon. Gentleman earlier. I simply say to him that his Government failed to meet their targets—they spent £75 billion on tax credits in their last six years and still failed—and it is under this Government, in the past five years, that child poverty has actually fallen by some 300,000, rather than under them.
Stephen Timms
The truth is that child poverty is now going to rise even faster than already predicted because of the huge cuts in tax credits next April, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) referred. With most children in poverty now living in working households, not workless households, should the Secretary of State’s children’s life chances reports not include data on children in low-income working households, as well as on those in workless households?
Mr Duncan Smith
I believe that our reports will cover a much wider range of issues that affect child poverty. I have always felt that issues to do with family stability, drug and alcohol addiction and education are critical to a child achieving a decent outcome. If the right hon. Gentleman has anything further to add, I am always willing to take his submissions, and the Select Committee has also said that it will do the same. My point is that an arbitrary target simply for an income line, which is what his Government did, leads to a huge distortion in the benefits system, and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) has said exactly the same.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
7. What steps he is taking to increase public awareness and understanding of the new state pension.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
We have begun a new media campaign for the new state pension. It will use the full range of communication tools, including press, radio and digital means. Material has been updated to be clearer, to engage people and to help them better understand what the changes mean for them.
Graham Evans
The basic state pension would have been £560 a year higher by the end of the last Parliament if it had been uprated by earnings alone. Does my hon. Friend agree that maintaining the triple lock gives pensioners the greater certainty about their security that they definitely deserve?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am grateful to him for making that point in this House. It is important to remember, notwithstanding the tough economic climate, that we on the Conservative Benches have looked after the pensioners. We have given them security and the protection that they need, and I can assure the House that they will continue to have that protection with the triple lock.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Does the Minister understand that a great number of women who were born in the 1950s feel that the Government did not adequately inform them not only about the changes to the state pension age affecting their retirement, but about the speeding up of that process? Will he look again at that basic unfairness for a group of women who have paid in but who are getting nothing out?
Mr Vara
May I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the original increase in ages was started under a Labour Government? We have relaunched the campaign to ensure that the target group of people—those who are within 10 years of retirement from April 2016—take an active role in trying to find out how they will benefit under the new state pension.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that the Association of British Insurers published figures this summer about the new pension freedoms which show that people with big pots are buying income drawdown and that people with small pots are cashing out. He knows that women live longer than men and that they have smaller pots than men, so what is he doing to ensure that women’s income in retirement is properly protected?
Mr Vara
Let me be absolutely clear: this Government will not dictate what anybody should do with their pension pots. What we have put in place is the means by which people—both men and women—can seek advice. As I mentioned earlier, there is the Money Advice Service, which has on its books more than 2,250 firms across the country that can give advice. It is for people to take that advice and then to decide. We will not dictate how people should deal with their money.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
8. What recent assessment he has made of progress on rolling out universal credit.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
18. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the roll-out of universal credit.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Universal credit is now available in more than half of jobcentres across Great Britain and will be available in all jobcentres early next year. The national roll-out is on track and our “test and learn” approach is now working very well. Nearly 175,000 people have made a claim for universal credit so far. The number is growing exponentially as we roll out the scheme across the country. Our evidence shows that universal credit claimants find work quicker, stay in work longer and earn more than the jobseeker’s allowance claimants.
Kate Hollern
I am surprised by that response. The targets that the Minister set last October have been dramatically missed. Will he now accept that universal credit is a failed and expensive policy?
Mr Duncan Smith
It would be helpful if the hon. Lady listened to the answer that she was given rather than go with a Labour Whip’s handout. The Front-Bench team obviously worked very hard to ensure that she got her question in. Universal credit is going to be a remarkable success; it is rolling out to more than half of jobcentres and people will benefit enormously.
Matt Warman
In contrast to the views expressed by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern), in my constituency of Boston and Skegness I am told that the roll-out of universal credit is progressing well in its limited form, thanks in part to all the agencies involved. Will the Secretary of State assure me that we will continue to provide the important computer support needed for this online programme so that we can ensure that it goes as far and as fast as possible?
Mr Duncan Smith
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In all the areas in which we have rolled out universal credit—in more than half of jobcentres—it is dramatically improving people’s lives. Unlike when the previous Government rolled out tax credit and hundreds of thousands of people lost their money, this scheme is ensuring that people who deserve the money and are ready for it are paid it.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The number of people receiving universal credit remains derisorily small. Four years ago, the Secretary of State told us that the transition to universal credit would be complete by 2017. We told him he would not manage it. We were right; he was wrong. He still has not given us a revised date for the completion of universal credit roll-out. Has he given up entirely on ever having one?
Mr Duncan Smith
I am on the verge of giving up speaking to the right hon. Gentleman, because he misuses all the facts. As I have told him again and again and again, he is more than welcome to visit the sites where it has been rolled out. He has had an open invitation to come to see the digital site and I recommend that he does so. Universal credit is already working; no one has lost any money; it will be online; and it will go out fully and start next year. This is a successful programme and if the right hon. Gentleman wants to compare notes about tax credit roll-outs, I would be more than happy to do that.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I recently visited my local jobcentre in Maidstone. I found that the job coaches there were pretty much unanimous in their support of universal credit—
Helen Whately
Will my right hon. Friend advise on what formal assessment there has been of the success and impact of universal credit so far?
Mr Duncan Smith
As I have already said, universal credit is now available in more than half the jobcentres. The full development starts rolling out next year. People will benefit enormously not just from the technicalities but from the fact that an adviser will now stay with a claimant all the way through the claim. I know that my hon. Friend was not looking for a job, but perhaps the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) will need to be looking for one in a few years’ time.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
9. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of work capability assessments on disabled people.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
We are committed to continuously improving the work capability assessment process for all people. That is why since Labour introduced it in 2008 we have conducted a Department-led review, an evidence-based review and five independent reviews.
Louise Haigh
Contrary to the Minister’s earlier remarks, figures finally released by the Department over the summer showed that 2,380 people died after being declared fit for work—more than four times the death rate of the general population. In a harrowing case, a constituent of mine reported to me that she frequently considered committing suicide, both before and after being found fit for work. Does the Minister not feel that it is therefore high time to review the work capability assessment and that thousands of people are being wrongly defined as fit for work?
Priti Patel
Once again let me say that any attempt to extrapolate anything from those figures is simply wrong. It is impossible to draw any causality from those statistics. Organisations have commented on this and Full Fact, which is widely known, has said that similar comments to those made by the hon. Lady, which have been widely reported, are simply wrong. We should not infer from the data that there is any causality, and the trends are down.
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am sure that most people in the House will remember the Secretary of State’s Easterhouse epiphany. When will he reply to my invitation to visit my constituency to meet the people of Easterhouse again to listen to them about the effects of his punishing policies on their lives?
Priti Patel
Ministers in the Department and the Secretary of State will be very happy to visit the hon. Lady’s constituency and, importantly, speak about the Government’s record in supporting people in getting back to work.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
10. What support his Department provides to young people seeking work.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
12. What support his Department provides to young people seeking work.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
14. What support his Department provides to young people seeking work.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
Tackling youth unemployment is a priority for this Government. We are determined that young people should not slip into a life on benefits. The Department for Work and Pensions provides a broad range of additional support for young people over and above the standard Jobcentre Plus offer, and that support is tailored to their needs.
Mr Mak
I thank the Minister for that answer. There have been nearly 4,000 new apprenticeship starts since 2010 in my constituency, where the economy is strong and growing. Does she agree that this Government’s efforts to increase both the number and the quality of apprenticeships is critical to improving Britain’s competitiveness in the world and to getting Britain back to work with more jobs and improving pay?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Interestingly, notwithstanding the Government’s well-known track record on apprenticeships and the number of people across the country who have benefited from our apprenticeship scheme, the subject was discussed at the G20 last week, and other countries are now looking at our scheme to see the positive benefits it has had on our young people.
Dr James Davies
The Minister might be aware of the Change100 scheme run by Leonard Cheshire Disability, which delivers paid work experience placements for young disabled graduates at major employers. Does she agree that such initiatives have an important role to play in helping to ensure that we reduce the disability employment gap?
Priti Patel
I am fully aware of the excellent work that Leonard Cheshire Disability, along with many other organisations, does to help young disabled people take up employment. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), has discussed with many organisations, including the Shaw Trust and Whizz-Kidz, how they plan to do more in that area. It is right that we should all do more to support young disabled people to secure employment.
Nigel Huddleston
I have been approached by several young people in my constituency who have learning and reading difficulties, and they tell me that they find the process of applying for benefit, and the form-filling involved in seeking jobs, very complex. What specific actions is the Department taking to assist young people in these challenges?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is right. For a start, all young people are screened at the beginning of their claim process to identify any barriers and the kind of support they need. Importantly, we provide options other than online and paper-based ones, such as telephone support or face-to-face interviews. If he would like me to look at any specific cases, I will be happy to discuss them with him.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that what all our young people deserve is high-quality training and high-quality apprenticeships? Is she aware that young people suffering from autism face a particular struggle in getting into the labour market and staying there, even though they might be very talented indeed? What is she doing to help them?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point, and he is right that this is about supporting individuals. The Government have a raft of measures, schemes and initiatives to support young people. For those who face certain challenges, such as autism, we are working with employers to help them provide those young people with opportunities for sustained employment. We have many programmes, such as Access to Work, which specifically support individuals who face challenges in the workplace. We are developing our relationships with employers so that more and more of them are coming on board to support young people in having fulfilling careers.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Last week I visited the Newport and District Group Training Association in my constituency, which provides higher national diplomas and higher national certificates, which bridge the gap between school and the workplace. I was told that what they want more than anything is a UK Government who are committed to those qualifications and to funding them. Is that a guarantee the Minister can give?
Priti Patel
This Government are absolutely committed to supporting young people. Bridging the gap between school and the world of work can be challenging. Our policies and measures across Government—not just in the Department for Work and Pensions, but in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Education—fully support that transition. Importantly, the DWP is about to roll out a Jobcentre Plus programme in schools, and we are also doing much more with employers to support the transition into the world of work.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
11. What steps he is taking to help people with mental health conditions into work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
Across Government we are investing over £40 million in a range of voluntary pilots to explore the most promising and evidence-based approaches to improving the employment prospects of people with mental health conditions. The Access to Work mental health support service also offers support to individuals with a mental health condition who are absent from work or finding work difficult.
Paul Scully
Sutton Mental Health Foundation does excellent work in this field. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as helping unemployed people into work, it is important to help employed people who develop mental health conditions to remain in work, wherever possible? What are the Government doing to help businesses in this situation, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, which do not have large HR departments?
Justin Tomlinson
As one who has employed someone with a mental health condition, I know the importance of keeping people in work. People with mental health conditions account for 20% of long-term absentees, so in December 2014 we launched the Fit for Work scheme, which helps to tackle sickness absence by providing an occupational health assessment and health and work advice to employees and, crucially, employers. That is particularly important to the smaller businesses that provide 47% of private sector jobs. Also, through the Access to Work scheme, our dedicated team of advisers have helped record numbers of people—more than 1,600 last year.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
A joint report from the Methodists, Baptists and United Reformed Churches points out that 100 people with mental health problems are sanctioned every day. Every one of those sanctions reduces the confidence of a person with mental health issues and their hope that they can ever get back into work. Will the Minister look at what is happening with those sanctions? They are destroying confidence, not helping at all.
Justin Tomlinson
Over the past year, sanctions fell by 40%. Jobseekers are only asked to meet reasonable requirements, taking into account their circumstances and capability, including mental health conditions, disability and caring responsibilities. Sanctions are not imposed if a jobseeker has good reason for failing to meet those requirements. Also, jobseekers can always ask for decisions to be reconsidered by an independent panel.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
15. What estimate he has made of the number of people who have been in full-time employment in the last 12 months.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Full-time employment has risen by more than 350,000 over the last year, accounting for 99% of the rise in total employment. The number of people in full-time work is at a record high, and is up over 1.5 million since 2010.
Stephen Metcalfe
I am sure the whole House welcomes this Government’s success in creating more full-time jobs. I hope it will also welcome the fact that wages are now rising by 2.8%, on average, which shows that not only are more people in work, but they are being rewarded better than ever.
Mr Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend is right: nearly 2 million more people take home a pay packet that is increasing, up 2.8% on the year, and for the last nine consecutive months, the increase in pay has outstripped inflation. Even better, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced a huge rise in take-home pay through the national living wage, and we should all welcome that.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
This month, we are rolling out our Fit for Work programme to all employers across England and Wales, and to GPs. Employers will now be able to refer thousands of workers facing long-term sickness to specialist support, providing occupational health advice and helping them to avoid long absence. The Fit for Work service is the first line of defence when anyone falls sick, and alongside GPs it will help employers to avoid people falling on to sickness benefits and losing their link with the world of work.
Will Quince
Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the work of social enterprises, such as GO4 Enterprises in Colchester, which do brilliant work in helping young people, ex-offenders and those with mental health difficulties to get back into lasting work?
Mr Duncan Smith
Absolutely. I recognise the huge and vital contribution made by firms such as GO4 Enterprises, delivering huge change in Essex. My Department is instrumental in growing social investment via the £30 million innovation fund I set up, and we will continue to chase and improve those targets.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
T4. How can the Secretary of State claim, as he did this afternoon, that no one has lost out from the roll-out of universal credit, when the taxpayer has lost out to the tune of £140 million because of the botched roll-out of the IT systems?
Mr Duncan Smith
Actually, that has not happened. Taxpayers have not lost money. What we have done is to go on rolling out a system, and unlike what happened when tax credits were rolled out under the last Labour Government and hundreds of thousands of people lost money, nobody is losing money as universal credit rolls out.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
T2. Despite being diagnosed with neuromyelitis optica mid-way through her degree course, my constituent Amy Green successfully completed her course and now hopes to set up her own business. What support is available for people with disabilities who want to start their own business?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
As someone who ran my own business for 10 years, I wish my hon. Friend’s constituent the very best of luck. The Government have helped over 28,000 people through the new enterprise allowance, and through the Access to Work scheme specific training and specialist support can be provided to people with disabilities.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
T6. When is the Minister’s Department going to publish a full analysis of the impact of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill on the proportion of children living in child poverty as defined by the Child Poverty Act 2010?
Mr Duncan Smith
We publish statistics the whole time on child poverty. We will also be publishing statistics on the effects of different aspects of what we do. There has never been across-the-board comprehensive publication of data by Government on all those things, but I am happy to engage with the hon. Lady if she wants to take the matter further.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
T3. My constituent, Mrs C, recently bereaved, failed to apply for the bereavement allowance in time because she was not aware that it existed. She now has severe financial problems. Will the Minister and his officials be willing to meet me to discuss this case and any way that we could help her?
Mr Duncan Smith
I am very happy to see my hon. Friend myself. If what he is suggesting has happened, it should not have done, and let us put it right.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
T7. Will the Secretary of State support Oxfam’s calls for the Welfare Reform and Work Bill to include a requirement for his Government to publish a poverty strategy that would properly address the issue of low pay and tax credit cuts? Please note: the answer is not the Chancellor’s entirely bogus living wage.
Mr Duncan Smith
We are focused constantly on trying to get incomes up, and we are looking to do that through the raising of the national living wage announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. For this Government, the No. 1 thing we need to do to make sure that people get out of poverty is to get them back to work. There are some of the best employment figures in Scotland thanks to this Government.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
T5. Given that the Chancellor has said that the welfare costs of new Syrian refugees will be paid for out of the international aid budget, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a good case to be made for that budget also to be used to pay for the costs of existing asylum seekers already in the United Kingdom?
Mr Duncan Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for that really helpful question. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that in this particular circumstance, the needs of these particular migrants, in many cases in desperate trouble, will be met by the money in the aid budget. We have no plans to change that. My hon. Friend cannot tempt me to say more, but following is a statement in which he might like to catch the Speaker’s eye.
Mr Speaker
Of course, there is no obligation on colleagues to ask helpful questions.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
T8. The planned reduction in support of £30 a week for those in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group is causing considerable anxiety. If I heard the Minister for Employment correctly, she said that no existing claimants will lose financial support. Does that mean that existing claimants reassessed after April 2017 will not be designated as new claimants and subject to that £30 reduction?
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
As I said, there will be no cash losers among existing claimants. Obviously, the details of this will be outlined as we go through the Welfare Reform and Work Bill in Committee.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
T9. I note what the Minister has said about the excellent progress in reducing youth unemployment numbers, which is really welcome. What has the Department done specifically to focus on reducing the numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training, given the very specific challenges that those people face?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is correct. This Government have had a very strong track record in supporting young people in getting back into work. As I said earlier, this area was discussed at the recent G20. We have now joined an international commitment to do even more because we are ambitious for our young people. We have agreed to have a target for doing more by reducing the number of NEETs by 15% by 2025. We are committed to that. She will be interested to know that our international counterparts are also interested in what the United Kingdom has done and achieved.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
T10. What assessment has been made of the impact of cuts to ESA for those with mental health conditions?
Priti Patel
I did not quite hear the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I think he was alluding to ESA. Ten days ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave a speech that basically outlined that we will continue to support those on ESA with the right interventions to help them get back to work.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
As the Minister will be aware, the previous Government agreed to lift the Pension Protection Fund cap imposed on long-serving employees’ pensions when a pension fund collapses. Will he tell the House when he will bring forward the appropriate legislation to make that happen?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He will appreciate that I am not prepared to make an announcement about that at the moment. When I do make an announcement, he will be the first to know.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Physical exercise and sport have been shown to have a very positive effect not only on physical wellbeing, but on mental wellbeing. What is the Department doing to encourage employers to encourage employees to take part in such activities, perhaps with flexible working hours to allow them to do so during the working day?
Mr Duncan Smith
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, which is about getting ahead of the curve by making sure that people do not fall sick. I have announced today the Fit for Work programme, part of which is very much about trying to encourage employers to look at the health of their employees well ahead of that happening. If he wants to write to me about this, I will be very happy to discuss it with him, and we may be able to do more.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I welcome all that the Government have done to increase youth employment, including the remarkable achievement of Eastleigh College, working alongside local employers and stakeholders. Will the Minister investigate having a separate disability living allowance application for those with mental disabilities, such as severe autism, as highlighted by my constituent Cheryl Derrick on behalf of her son?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is absolutely right about the Government’s achievement in supporting young people back into work. I would be very happy to discuss her particular case with her and to pick up on the points she made.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
This Government oblige jobseekers to search online without giving them the skills or resources to do so. Despite my many questions, the Minister has refused to tell me how many claimants have been sanctioned because they cannot get online. Will the Minister tell me or promise to find out?
Mr Duncan Smith
Nobody should be sanctioned because they cannot get online. If the hon. Lady has any examples of that, we would be very happy to take them up. There are online opportunities in libraries and jobcentres, and everything else. If she wants to write to us about it, I would be very happy to deal with it.
Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)
With Wales nearly certain to qualify for the European championship, what efforts are being made to improve disabled spectators’ facilities in football stadiums?
Justin Tomlinson
I think the whole House will join me in wishing Wales the very best of luck in qualifying for their first final since 1958. They are nearly there. As somebody who is very passionate about sport, I regularly meet the Minister for sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). We are putting a lot of pressure on both the Premier League and the Football Association. Disabled people should have the right to enjoy sport in the same way as everyone else.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
As it seems that there may finally be movement towards addressing welfare in Northern Ireland, has the Minister considered how best to address one of the core legacy issues from the troubles—that of mental health?
Mr Duncan Smith
The hon. Gentleman is right that a huge amount of work is being done and there is still even more that can be done, but the No. 1 priority for Northern Ireland right now is for people to sit down, behave rationally and sort this out so that we can get the money to Northern Ireland and support the sort of people he talks about, rather than posturing and playing games.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Government’s own data show that people in the work-related activity group are twice as likely to die than those in the general population. How can the Secretary of State justify £30-a-week cuts for people in that category?
Mr Duncan Smith
The hon. Lady put out a series of blogs on the mortality stats last week that were fundamentally wrong. Her use of figures is therefore quite often incorrect. I simply say to her—[Interruption.] She has had an offer to meet the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), time and again, but she just wants to sit in the bitter corner screaming abuse.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
In the period during which the Secretary of State has held his job, what is the most unacceptable reason he has come across for a benefit claimant being sanctioned?
Mr Duncan Smith
There are rules, regulations and guidance on who should be sanctioned. The sanctions regime, which was in place under the Labour Government, is there to ensure that when taxpayers pay their money to support unemployed people, those people look for work, take that work and stay in work. I think that is only fair.
Syria: Refugees and Counter-terrorism
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
Before I make a statement on counter-terrorism, Mr Speaker, let me update the House on what we are doing to help address the migration crisis in Europe and, in particular, to help the thousands of refugees who are fleeing Syria.
This issue is clearly the biggest challenge facing countries across Europe today. More than 300,000 people have crossed the Mediterranean to Europe so far this year. These people came from different countries under different circumstances. Some are economic migrants in search of a better life in Europe; many are refugees fleeing conflict. It is vital to distinguish between the two.
In recent weeks, we have seen a vast increase in the numbers arriving across the eastern Mediterranean from Turkey. More than 150,000 people have attempted that route since January. The majority of them are Syrian refugees fleeing the terror of Assad and ISIL, which has seen more than 11 million people driven from their homes.
The whole country has been deeply moved by the heart-breaking images that we have seen over the past few days. It is absolutely right that Britain should fulfil its moral responsibility to help the refugees, just as we have done so proudly throughout our history. But in doing so, we must use our head and our heart by pursuing a comprehensive approach that tackles the causes of the problem as well as the consequences. That means helping to stabilise the countries from which the refugees are coming, seeking a solution to the crisis in Syria, pushing for the formation of a new unity Government in Libya, busting the criminal gangs who are profiting from this human tragedy and playing our part in saving lives in the Mediterranean, where our Royal Navy has now rescued over 6,700 people.
Britain is doing, and will continue to do, all those things. We are using our aid budget to alleviate poverty and suffering in the countries from which these people are coming. We are the only major country in the world that has kept the promise to spend 0.7% of our GDP on aid. We are already the second largest bilateral donor of aid to the Syrian conflict, including by providing more than 18 million food rations, giving 1.6 million people access to clean water and providing education to a quarter of a million children. Last week, we announced a further £100 million, taking our total contribution to over £1 billion. That is the UK’s largest ever response to a humanitarian crisis.
Some £60 million of the additional funding will help Syrians who are still in Syria. The rest will go to neighbouring countries—Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon—where Syrian refugees now account for a quarter of the population. More than half of the new funding will support children, with a particular priority placed on those who have been orphaned or separated from their families. No other European country has come close to this level of support. Without Britain’s aid to the camps, the numbers attempting the dangerous journey to Europe would be very much higher.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said yesterday, we will now go much further in the spending review, significantly reshaping the way we use our aid budget to serve our national interest. We will invest even more in tackling the causes of the crisis in the middle east and north Africa, and we will hold much larger sums in reserve to respond to acute humanitarian crises as they happen.
Turning to the question of refugees, Britain already works with the UN to deliver resettlement programmes and we will accept thousands more under the existing schemes. We have provided sanctuary to more than 5,000 Syrians in Britain and we have introduced a specific resettlement scheme, alongside those we already had, to help Syrian refugees who are particularly at risk.
However, given the scale of the crisis and the suffering of the Syrian people, it is right that we should do much more. We are proposing that Britain should resettle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees over the rest of this Parliament. In doing so, we will continue to show the world that this is a country of extraordinary compassion, always standing up for our values and helping those in need. Britain will play its part alongside our European partners, but because we are not part of—[Interruption.] This is important. Because we are not part of the EU’s borderless Schengen agreement or its relocation initiative, Britain is able to decide its own approach.
We will continue with our approach of taking refugees from the camps, and from elsewhere in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. This provides refugees with a more direct and safe route to the United Kingdom, rather than risking the hazardous journey to Europe, which has tragically cost so many lives. We will continue to use the established United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees process for identifying and resettling refugees. When they arrive here we will grant them a five-year humanitarian protection visa, and we will significantly expand the criteria we use for our existing Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme. As we do so, we will recognise that children have been particularly badly affected by the crisis in Syria. In most cases, the interests of children are best met in the region where they can remain close to surviving family members, but in cases where the advice of the UNHCR is that their needs should be met by resettlement here in the UK, we will ensure that vulnerable children, including orphans, will be a priority.
In recent days, we have seen councils and our devolved Administrations coming forward to express their willingness to do more to take Syrian refugees. This has reflected a wider generosity from families and communities across our country. I commend in particular the Archbishop of Canterbury for the offer made by the Church of England. My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will now work intensively with local authorities and the devolved Administrations to put in place the necessary arrangements to house and support the refugees we resettle. The Home Secretary will update the House on these plans next week.
Finally on this part of the statement, in full accordance with internationally agreed rules we will ensure that the full cost of supporting thousands of Syrian refugees in the UK will be met through our aid spending for the first year, easing the burden on local communities. This will be a truly national effort and I know the whole House will come together in supporting these refugees in their hour of need.
Turning to our national security, I would like to update the House on action taken this summer to protect our country from a terrorist attack. With the rise of ISIL, we know terrorist threats to our country are growing. In 2014, there were 15 ISIL-related attacks around the world. This year, there have already been 150 such attacks, including the appalling tragedies in Tunisia in which 31 Britons lost their lives. I can tell the House that our police and security services have stopped at least six different attempts to attack the UK in the past 12 months alone.
The threat picture facing Britain in terms of Islamist extremist violence is more acute today than ever before. In stepping up our response to meet this threat, we have developed a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy that seeks to prevent and disrupt plots against this country at every stage. It includes new powers to stop suspects travelling. It includes powers to enable our police and security services to apply for stronger locational constraints on those in the UK who pose a risk. It addresses the root cause of the threat—the poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism—by taking on all forms of extremism, not just violent extremism.
We have pursued Islamist terrorists through the courts and the criminal justice system. Since 2010, more than 800 people have been arrested and 140 successfully prosecuted. Our approach includes acting overseas to tackle the threat at source, with British aircraft delivering nearly 300 air strikes over Iraq. Our airborne intelligence and surveillance assets have assisted our coalition partners with their operations over Syria. As part of this counter-terrorism strategy, as I have said before, if there is a direct threat to the British people and we are able to stop it by taking immediate action, then, as Prime Minister, I will always be prepared to take that action. That is the case whether the threat is emanating from Libya, from Syria or from anywhere else.
In recent weeks it has been reported that two ISIL fighters of British nationality, who had been plotting attacks against the UK and other countries, have been killed in air strikes. Both Junaid Hussain and Reyaad Khan were British nationals based in Syria and were involved in actively recruiting ISIL sympathisers and seeking to orchestrate specific and barbaric attacks against the west, including directing a number of planned terrorist attacks right here in Britain, such as plots to attack high-profile public commemorations, including those taking place this summer.
We should be under no illusion; their intention was the murder of British citizens, so on this occasion we ourselves took action. Today, I can inform the House that in an act of self-defence and after meticulous planning, Reyaad Khan was killed in a precision airstrike carried out on 21 August by an RAF remotely piloted aircraft while he was travelling in a vehicle in the area of Raqqa in Syria. In addition to Reyaad Khan, who was the target of the strike, two ISIL associates were also killed, one of whom, Ruhul Amin, has been identified as a UK national. They were ISIL fighters, and I can confirm that there were no civilian casualties.
We took this action because there was no alternative. In this area, there is no Government we can work with; we have no military on the ground to detain those preparing plots; and there was nothing to suggest that Reyaad Khan would ever leave Syria or desist from his desire to murder us at home, so we had no way of preventing his planned attacks on our country without taking direct action. The US Administration have also confirmed that Junaid Hussain was killed in an American airstrike on 24 August in Raqqa.
With these issues of national security and with current prosecutions ongoing, the House will appreciate that there are limits on the details I can provide. However, let me set out for the House the legal basis for the action we took, the processes we followed and the implications of this action for our wider strategy in countering the threat from ISIL. First, I am clear that the action we took was entirely lawful. The Attorney General was consulted and was clear that there would be a clear legal basis for action in international law. We were exercising the UK’s inherent right to self-defence. There was clear evidence of these individuals planning and directing armed attacks against the UK. These were part of a series of actual and foiled attempts to attack the UK and our allies, and given the prevailing circumstances in Syria, the airstrike was the only feasible means of effectively disrupting the attacks that had been planned and directed. It was therefore necessary and proportionate for the individual self-defence of the United Kingdom. The United Nations charter requires members to inform the President of the Security Council of activity conducted in self-defence, and today the UK permanent representative will write to the President to do just that.
Turning to the process, as I said to the House in September last year:
“I think it is important to reserve the right that if there were a critical British national interest at stake or there were the need to act to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, you could act immediately and explain to the House of Commons afterwards.”—[Official Report, 26 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 1265.]
Our intelligence agencies identified the direct threat to the UK from this individual and informed me and other senior Ministers of that threat. At a meeting of the most senior members of the National Security Council, we agreed that should the right opportunity arise, military action should be taken. The Attorney General attended the meeting and confirmed that there was a legal basis for action. On that basis, the Defence Secretary authorised the operation. The strike was conducted according to specific military rules of engagement, which always comply with international law and the principles of proportionality and military necessity. The military assessed the target location and chose the optimum time to minimise the risk of civilian casualties. This was a very sensitive operation to prevent a very real threat to our country, and I have come to the House today to explain in detail what has happened and to answer questions about it.
I want to be clear that the strike was not part of coalition military action against ISIL in Syria; it was a targeted strike to deal with a clear, credible and specific terrorist threat to our country at home. The position with regard to the wider conflict with ISIL in Syria has not changed. As the House knows, I believe there is a strong case for the UK taking part in airstrikes as part of the international coalition to target ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq, and I believe that that case only grows stronger with the growing number of terrorist plots being directed or inspired by ISIL’s core leadership in Raqqa. However, I have been absolutely clear that the Government will return to the House for a separate vote if we propose to join coalition strikes in Syria.
My first duty as Prime Minister is to keep the British people safe. That is what I will always do. There was a terrorist directing murder on our streets and no other means to stop him. The Government do not for one minute take these decisions lightly, but I am not prepared to stand here in the aftermath of a terrorist attack on our streets and have to explain to the House why I did not take the chance to prevent it when I could have done. That is why I believe our approach is right. I commend this statement to the House.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and I shall start by asking about the refugee crisis. When a country decides how to respond to the plight of others from outside, it is a moment when a nation becomes clear about who it is and what it stands for. This is one such defining moment. Is our national priority to keep people out at all costs or to give sanctuary to those fleeing from their homes? Is being British to be narrow, inward looking and fearful of the outside world or is it about being strong, confident and proud to reach out to those seeking refuge on our shores? It must be the latter.
We should not be talking about refugees as being “a burden” on us. Among the Syrian children we take in now will be the future consultants at our hospital bedsides, the entrepreneurs who will build our economy, the professors in our universities and those who will be among the strongest upholders of British values, because that has been the story of refugees to this country—whether it be the Jewish children of the Kindertransport, the Asian families driven out of east Africa 20 years later or the Sierra Leoneans fleeing a brutal civil war. The Prime Minister said last week that it will not help to take more refugees because it will not solve the problem in Syria, but that was a false choice. Helping those Jewish children was not part of our efforts to end the second world war; helping the east African families did not bring down the brutal dictatorships in east Africa, but it was the right thing to do.
I shall not take up any more time rehearsing the criticisms of the Government’s response to date, but I want to ask the Prime Minister about what is going to be done now. He said that this country will now accept 20,000 Syrian refugees over the course of this Parliament. How many will it be this year? The crisis is immediate so does that mean there will be only 4,000 this year? We need more information on that. Will the Prime Minister now urgently convene local authority leaders from around the country to hear from them what they are prepared and able to do to settle the refugees into their areas and how much further they can go? Many local authorities are keen to step forward and play their part—and that is greatly to their credit. They will need additional resources, particularly at a time when they are undergoing unprecedented cuts. The Government have said that they are planning to use the international aid budget for this purpose. Is that compliant with our commitment to 0.7%, and why does the Prime Minister not use the reserves for this purpose?
It is not just a matter of immediate resettlement; there is also integration. Will the Prime Minister establish and publish a proper integration plan? The refugee crisis is not an issue only for local government or the Home Office; it is an issue for the Department for Transport, the Department for Education, the Department of Health, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and for the devolved authorities of Scotland and Wales. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales on this issue, and will he convene Cobra to establish a cross-governmental plan?
Desperate conditions in the refugee camps are what drive many of those who risk their lives trying to bring their families to Europe. We strongly support our aid already provided to the refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, but it remains a concern that the Prime Minister is not co-ordinating his response more broadly with other European countries or with the UN. Will he reconsider his refusal to take any refugees from the southern European countries where most refugees have arrived? Fifty thousand have come to Greece in the course of just one month, and these refugees, too, need help.
It is clear that Europe has been overwhelmed and is without a plan so will the Prime Minister call for an emergency summit of EU leaders? We have a lot to learn from those countries that have already embarked on the process of resettling refugees, so will he join me in thanking Dame Glenis Willmott, MEP, for ensuring that this will be debated in the European Parliament this Wednesday?
Let me turn to the Government’s action on counter-terrorism. No one should be in any doubt about the scale of the threat posed by ISIL. We have witnessed its brutal torture and murder of British citizens abroad, and the sickening attacks that it has inspired and is seeking to organise here at home. The security services and our armed forces do immensely important work to keep us safe—a task that is difficult and dangerous—and we thank them for what they do.
I thank the Prime Minister for briefing the shadow Foreign Secretary and me this morning, when for the first time we learned of the specific operation of 21 August of which he has just informed the House. The Prime Minister has told the House today that in order to protect the safety of our citizens here at home, the Government have authorised the targeting and killing of a man—a British citizen—in Syria, a country where our military force is not authorised. Will he confirm that this is the first occasion in modern times on which that has been done?
The Prime Minister said in his statement that a meeting of senior members of the National Security Council had agreed that should the right opportunity arise, the military should take action, and that the Attorney General, who was at the meeting, had confirmed that there was a “legal basis for action”. The Prime Minister has said that the action was legally justifiable under the doctrine of national self-defence, because the man was planning and directing armed attacks in the United Kingdom, there was no other way of stopping him, and the action was necessary and proportionate. Bearing in mind that the sufficiency of evidence in relation to each of those points is crucial to the justification for that action, why did the Attorney General not authorise the specific action, rather than merely confirming that “there was a legal basis” for it? Was the Attorney General’s advice given or confirmed in writing, and will it be published? The Prime Minister said in his statement that the Defence Secretary had authorised the operation. Why was it not the Prime Minister himself who authorised it?
I want to ask the Prime Minister about the specific target of this attack. Inasmuch as he can disclose it to the House, will he say what it was about this individual and his actions that singled them out from all that had gone before? Did he represent an ongoing threat, or was the threat based on a specific act that he was plotting? Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether this action by our military was an isolated action, or is he saying that the Government are likely to repeat action of this sort in the future? Above all, will he agree with me that there is a need for independent scrutiny of what the Government have done? May I ask him to request that the counter-terrorism reviewer and the Intelligence and Security Committee investigate this action and, in particular, consider the sufficiency of the evidence?
We are already engaged in the use of force against ISIL in Iraq, and it is vital for the United Kingdom to continue to play its part in international efforts to combat ISIL across the region. The Prime Minister said in his statement that if he proposed joining coalition strikes in Syria, he would return to the House for a vote of authorisation. May I reiterate the position as set out by the shadow Defence Secretary and me on 2 July? ISIL brutalises people, it murders people, and it is horrifically oppressive. We will carefully consider any proposals that the Government present in relation to military action in Syria, but we all need to be clear about what difference any action would make to our objective of defeating ISIL, and about the nature of such action, its objectives, and the legal basis. Potential action must command the support of other nations in the region, including Iraq and the coalition that is already taking action in Syria.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her response. I agree with her about the contribution that refugees who have come to Britain have made to our country. I am thinking of Jewish refugees from Europe, and of the Ugandan Asians who have made an immense contribution to our country, and I know that these people will do so as well.
I also agree with the right hon. and learned Lady that, as I said, there is not a number of refugees that we can take that will solve the problem of Syria. This is about meeting our humanitarian responsibilities, and demonstrating that ours is a country—which it is—with a moral conscience and a moral way in the world, which is why it is one of the countries that are not only taking refugees, but meeting their aid targets in a way that other major countries are not.
The right hon. and learned Lady asked about the 20,000 and how many we can take in this year. Obviously we want to get on with this process. It will depend in part on how well UNHCR can do in processing people in the camps to come to the UK. Checks obviously have to be made on the people we will be receiving. We also want to work, as she says, very closely with local authorities so that the capacity to not just receive people, but receive them well, is in place. She asked about the aid budget and whether we were going to stick to the rules. Yes, we are. The aid rules are explicit: we can use the money in the first year receiving refugees. That makes common sense, apart from anything else, so we will use that money.
The right hon. and learned Lady asked for an integration plan. The Home Secretary and Communities and Local Government Secretary will chair a committee to bring together Government, so that we make sure we do everything we can to help people across the country, and they will be looking at that issue of integration. Have we discussed this issue with First Ministers in Wales and Scotland? Yes, there has been contact. The First Minister in Scotland has made a generous offer, wanting to take, I think, 1,000 refugees into Scotland. With this 20,000 figure, that will probably rise, and I welcome what the Scottish National party is saying about that.
The right hon. and learned Lady asked about European co-operation. I have just got off the telephone to Angela Merkel; she was very grateful and welcomed the statement we are making today, but let me make this point, because it is important: Britain has a major role to play in terms of this conflict because we are the second biggest funder of these refugee camps, and we are the biggest donor of aid to many of these countries. We will be taking 20,000 refugees, but we think it makes more sense to take the refugees from the refugee camps, rather than those redistributed within Europe. Obviously countries within the Schengen no-border system have a different set of responses, and we will work with them, and it is important that we show solidarity as we do so. We want to encourage people not to make that dangerous crossing in the first place, and it is worth considering this: 11 million have been pushed out of their home in Syria, and so far only perhaps 3% have made that journey to Europe, so it is important that as we act with head and heart, we help people without encouraging them to make that dangerous and potentially lethal journey.
The right hon. and learned Lady asked about an emergency summit. Britain, France and Germany called for an emergency meeting of Home Affairs and Justice Ministers, which will take place on 14 September. We will be meeting as well in October, and if there is a need for further meetings, we can look at that, but what is needed overall in Europe is a comprehensive plan—not just for the number of refugees, but for dealing with the external border, making sure other countries meet their aid obligations and stopping the criminal gangs.
Let me turn to the right hon. and learned Lady’s questions on counter-terrorism. She asked: is this the first time in modern times that a British asset has been used to conduct a strike in a country where we are not involved in a war? The answer to that is yes. Of course, Britain has used remotely piloted aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan, but this is a new departure, and that is why I thought it was important to come to the House and explain why I think it is necessary and justified.
The right hon. and learned Lady asked about the legal justification. She is right to say that we believe it was necessary and proportionate, and there was no other way we could have met our objectives, and all this was based on the Attorney General’s advice. We do not publish the Attorney General’s advice, but I am very happy to discuss the content of that advice and describe what it was about, which was largely self-defence. She asked whether the Attorney General should take the responsibility for carrying out these strikes. I do not think that is the right person to carry it out. I think the way we did this is right: with a meeting of senior national security Ministers, it being authorised by that group, and the operational details being left with the Defence Secretary, in line with what the Attorney General said. A proper process was followed.
The right hon. and learned Lady asked what was different about this person and this case. There was a relatively unique set of circumstances—which is not to say that they will not happen again—in that these people were in a part of Syria where there was no Government, no one to work with, and no other way of addressing this threat. The choice we were left with was to either think, “This is too difficult,” throw up our arms and walk away and wait for the chaos and terrorism to hit Britain, or take the action in the national interest and neutralise this threat, and I am sure that was the right thing to do. She asked if we would repeat this. If it is necessary to safeguard the United Kingdom and to act in self-defence, and there are no other ways of doing that, then yes, I would.
The right hon. and learned Lady asked about scrutiny, which is a very good question. I have come here today because I think it is important to be accountable in front of this House, but I am happy to look at what other ways there may be of making sure these sorts of acts are scrutinised in the coming months and years.
Finally, the right hon. and learned Lady talked about whether we should combat ISIL in Syria, as we do in Iraq. The question for the House is whether, if it is right to degrade and defeat ISIL in Iraq, in time it is surely right for us to assist in the efforts already under way to defeat and degrade ISIL in Syria. There are complications and difficulties, and I do not want to come back to the House until we have debated the matter more and people have had the chance to make their views known, but I am in no doubt that ISIL and its operatives are a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom, and the sooner they are defeated and eradicated, the better.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the more absurd features of the discussions on the dreadful migration crisis of recent weeks has been the suggestion by some that the problem is either caused, complicated or made worse by Britain’s membership of the European Union? Does he agree that the flows start through Turkey and Libya, after which people come across the continent towards Britain, which is one of the more popular destinations after Sweden and Germany, and that those flows will cease only if we have more co-operation of the type that we have with the French at Calais, not if we open up disputes with the other member states of Europe?
Will the Prime Minister continue to make a leading and positive contribution to the comprehensive plan that he says is required to deal with, among other things, the appalling problems of where people should be encouraged to go and be accommodated outside Europe, how hard-headed decisions can be taken on who has to be settled for the duration of the crisis, and how that will be handled? We should not join Governments in Europe who simply pretend that the problem can be pushed over the border into a neighbouring state for the time being.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend is certainly right about the need for a comprehensive plan, and obviously our membership of the European Union enables us to take part in the discussions and debates about what that comprehensive plan requires. We have been particularly clear that until we get a return path for returning some migrants to Africa, it will be very difficult to solve the problem.
I also agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that if we were not in the European Union, the problem at Calais would not go away. Actually, we are helped by being good partners with the French and by being able to have our border controls on French soil. I commend the Home Secretary on her excellent work with the Interior Minister in France on strengthening that border, but the problem is not related to our membership of the EU. If we were out of the EU we would still have a problem—possibly a worse problem—of people trying to break into Britain.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement but say that I am sorry it was not shared in advance, as is the norm? That is extremely disappointing and frankly unacceptable, especially on matters of national security.
Having raised the humanitarian crisis with the Prime Minister at the first Prime Minister’s questions of this Parliament in June, I am glad that there are finally the beginnings of a change in UK Government thinking. It is frankly appalling that few more than 200 Syrian refugees have been taken up so far through the UK relocation scheme, and it is correct that we should be taking more. It is welcome that more will be given refuge in the UK, but it is a shame that that is being spread through the duration of this Parliament. Will the Prime Minister tell us how many Syrian refugees will be relocated to the UK before the end of the year?
We should take the opportunity to recognise the welcome that was given to refugees in countries such as Germany, Austria and Sweden. Today we learned that the French Government are to allow 24,000 Syrians to settle in France, while Germany is allocating £4.4 billion to support refugees. Why will the Prime Minister not work constructively with EU partners on accepting a share of the refugees who are in Europe at the present time? Will he make sure that he does not use the refugee issue as an excuse to revisit military intervention in Syria? Given the importance of all those issues, will the Prime Minister take part in the full day’s debate on the humanitarian crisis that will be held in the House of Commons this Wednesday? Finally, on counter-terrorism, when will the Prime Minister get round to setting up the Intelligence and Security Committee of this House?
The Prime Minister
Taking the last question on the ISC first, I think we will be able to do that in the coming days. I am confident of making progress. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response.
On the issue of how many Syrians Britain has already given asylum to, I think the figure is actually 5,000, and the number under the relocation and resettlement schemes that we already have runs to about 1,000 refugees a year. What we are now doing is adding to that with this new scheme, which will be exclusively for Syrians and will see the resettlement of 20,000 Syrian refugees. As I said, we welcome the fact that the First Minister in Scotland has offered to take 1,000. We think that will now have to be increased with this more generous approach.
The hon. Gentleman talks about working constructively within the EU. That is exactly what we are doing, and that is what lay behind my phone call with Angela Merkel just a few minutes ago. The point I would make is that we do not believe the right answer is for Britain to take people who have already arrived in Europe. We think that it is better to take people out of the refugee camps, so that we do not encourage people to make this perilous crossing. We are not part of the Schengen no-borders agreement, so we do not have to take part in that relocation scheme. We are doing work in the Syrian refugee camps: 10 times more money is given by Britain than by some other major European countries to those refugee camps. I think that entitles us to say that we are taking an approach that is about helping people on the ground, rather than encouraging people to move.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The Government are clearly right to increase yet further Britain’s immense humanitarian support for the Syrian people, and right, too, to use British aid—entirely in accordance with the rules governing its spending—to support refugees in their first year in the United Kingdom, but will the Prime Minister accept that the failures of the international community to protect, and to tackle the causes of the Syrian catastrophe, evoke memories of the failures over the Rwandan genocide, over which the international community was left guilty and shamed?
The Prime Minister
First, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks about the use of the aid budget, which he did so much as a Minister to promote and develop? He is right to say that we are dealing with the consequences of failure with respect to Syria. It is an incredibly difficult situation, because not only do we have the terrorisation of people by ISIL, but Assad has been the recruiting sergeant for ISIL because of the butchery of his own people. What we must not do is give up on the idea of a transition for Syria; we need to keep working towards that.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
In the summer of 1939, my parents took into our home a young Jewish girl, Johanna, who had arrived in Leeds on the Kindertransport. Her sister and others had arrived on the same Kindertransport, and Neville Chamberlain facilitated the arrival of these young children more than this Government are facilitating such things now. It is sad that this Government are doing less than Neville Chamberlain did. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is going to take in 20,000 refugees over five years. The Germans took in 10,000 on one day. What kind of comparison is that? I recognise the financial problems and the assimilation problems, but if we do not do it now, we will live to regret it for the rest of our lives. The message from my constituents, in a huge postbag and at every event I attended in my constituency over the weekend, is: “Let them in! We’ll welcome them. We’ll do what the Germans did. Let’s get on with it!”
The Prime Minister
I believe that the 20,000 Syrian refugees—many of whom will be children—that we will take directly from the Syrian refugee camps are the modern equivalent of the Kindertransport, and this country should be proud of that. At the same time, let us recognise that when it comes to those Syrian refugee camps, Britain is spending more than France, Germany and Italy. On our aid budget, we all sat around the table and promised 0.7% of GDP, but how many major countries have actually kept their promises? This one has.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. On those people we will be letting in, can some priority be given to not just Christians, but the Yazidis, who have been so poorly treated in Syria?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In drawing up the criteria, we will be looking at the people who are the most vulnerable, and there is growing evidence that some people are vulnerable not only within Syria but within the refugee camps themselves, so Yazidis, Christians and others—particularly children or women at risk of abuse—will all be in our scheme.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
There is perhaps a sad inevitability about the news that my former constituent Reyaad Khan has been killed, having joined ISIL, but I think that the House will have been surprised to learn that the manner of his death was a drone strike against a British citizen in Syria. There will therefore be many questions that Members will want to ask, and that I as his constituency MP and members of his family will want to ask. In the light of the action that the Prime Minister has outlined to the House today, I would like an assurance that he will be as forthcoming as possible, given the security situation, in explaining the nature of the threat that this 21-year-old man posed to the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the way in which he put it. Of course I will be as forthcoming as I possibly can be. I have been forthcoming in this statement, and I will be in future statements, but I am restricted because of operational sensitivities and for reasons of national security. The police will have informed his former constituent’s family of what has happened. I would simply say that when we are dealing with people who are producing such a tempo of potential terrorist attacks—attacks on police and on members of the armed services, attempted attacks on commemorations in our country—which the head of MI5 describes as having no recent comparator, we have to take action. When we are dealing with people in ISIL-dominated Syria—there is no Government, there are no troops on the ground—there is no other way of dealing with them than the route that we took. I think that, for all those reasons, it was the right route.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I commend the Prime Minister’s emphasis on taking those who are in the Syrian camps. If we are genuinely to help refugees, this cannot simply be about helping the fittest, the fastest and those most able to get to western Europe. We must help those who are left behind in the camps, who are sometimes the most vulnerable. I ask him to go further, however, and to enable the United Kingdom to spearhead international efforts to create safe zones in Syria, so that those who are caught between the barbarity of Assad and the depravity of ISIL do not feel the need to flee their own country in the first place.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for taking people from the camps. We have looked at the issue of safe zones, and we will continue to do so, but if we are going to designate safe zones, we have to ensure that they are safe. That would involve a military commitment by Turkey, by America and potentially by Britain, and it would be a very significant commitment. We should focus on what the safe zones are supposed to achieve, which is to try to keep people in their homes and communities or, when they have left, to keep them in refugee camps rather than see them making the dangerous crossing into Europe. The thinking about safe zones is certainly the right sort of thinking.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I recognise and welcome the change in Government policy in recent days and weeks. The Prime Minister might no longer be describing refugees as a “swarm”, but there is still a lot that he could be doing to catch up with public opinion here. We should not be raiding our international development budget to pay for this, we should not be restricting our help to those who are currently in the country, and we should not be resisting efforts to build a common EU position. The people of Britain do not want to see the human misery of hundreds of thousands of people being used as a political football; they want a non-partisan approach. May I therefore suggest that the Prime Minister convene a summit of the leadership of all the parties represented in this House, so that we can construct a policy for the reaction to this crisis that will unite our country rather than divide it?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I should like to make two points. First, we are not raiding the Department for International Development budget. It is an acceptable existing use of that budget to pay for refugees in their first year after coming to Britain, and that is good common sense. I will resist, though only partly, the temptation to point out that, according to my Sunday papers, the Liberal Democrats want to cut the aid budget. But there we are; perhaps I will leave that one for the memoirs.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about a common European position. Yes, we should be working towards a comprehensive approach, but we are not in the Schengen no-borders agreement, and I think that being able to maintain our border controls when others in Europe have given theirs up is right for Britain. I also think it is right to take the refugees out of the refugee camps rather than take part in the relocation scheme, which always has the danger of encouraging more people to get into boats, get into dinghies and make the potentially lethal crossing across the Mediterranean.
Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
For every drowned baby we see on television there are many more in the rubble of Syrian cities unseen, and for every refugee we take there are many more who want to come, too. Given that the only long-term solution is to re-establish functioning nation states in the region, will the Prime Minister not accept that aerial bombardment can have only a partial effect and that this needs a much greater and wider international approach to trying to solve the problem at source? What discussions are now unfolding among other Prime Ministers and Presidents to try to do more than just stick Elastoplast on this continuing and growing problem?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is entirely right that what is required, whether in Iraq or, more crucially now, in Syria, is functioning Governments that can represent all their people, with armed forces that have the confidence of all their people. That is the long-term answer in both Iraq and Syria, but we are a long way from that in Syria. He asked what conversations are going on. Conversations are going on to try to secure a transition in Syria from the totally unacceptable regime we have today, which is the recruiting sergeant for ISIL, to a regime that can represent all the Syrian people, but he is right.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The offer of 20,000 refugees over five years amounts to just 12 refugees a day, which falls pitifully short of what is needed and of what people in this country deserve and expect. Local authorities such as Brighton and Hove’s would be very willing to accept more, provided the Government fully resource this. Will the Prime Minister therefore guarantee the funds—not from the aid budget—and, crucially, that they will last for more than one year, so that people who want to act to help this crisis can be enabled to do so?
The Prime Minister
I notice that Brighton is very keen to be generous with other people’s money. The point is that, yes, we will fund this in the first year through the Department for International Development budget and then we will need to look at how we provide the resources that local authorities need. That process will be led by the Home Secretary and the Communities Secretary over the coming weeks.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
May I welcome the statement that my right hon. Friend has made this afternoon? Does he agree that it is, in effect, the only way to uphold international law and to show real compassion, by acting in the way that he proposes in the countries that are lodging the greatest number of refugees?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support. We are endeavouring to have a plan that demonstrates both head and heart. It is right to take refugees and it is right for us to demonstrate our humanitarian concerns—to play our part—but we have to recognise that solving the problem is going to require a lot more than that. Indeed, as I said the other day, there is no number of refugees that you can take to sort out this problem: 11 million people have been pushed out of their homes, and only 3% of them have so far come to Europe. Part of the focus must be on trying to secure the future for those 11 million and not encouraging them to get into boats and dinghies to attempt such a perilous crossing.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, but does he accept that the generous spirit the British people have demonstrated in the past few days gives him wide scope to do even more than he has proposed today? Will he give us some more indication of the number of refugees he proposes to take—children and those in other categories—in the coming months? He has talked about 20,000 over the course of this Parliament, but how many will come in the short term and in the medium term? Can he tell us about that?
The Prime Minister
The Home Secretary will be making a full statement next week about this, but it is going to depend on the capacity of the UNHCR to process people, and on the capacity of councils and others to take people on. But I do not see any reason why we cannot get off to a very good start and make sure that we bring people to this country and give them the genuine welcome that this country wants to give them.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Tomorrow the Foreign Affairs Committee will begin taking evidence on the widening of military action in Syria.
On refugees, I entirely understand the Prime Minister’s need to respond to the public mood, but he will know that every refugee brought here means that many times that number cannot be looked after in the region. His response of focusing on those most in need is both sensible and proportionate. Will he press our European Union partners to get on the path of achieving the 0.7% UN development expenditure target so that agencies such as the World Food Programme and the UNHCR have the resources to address the consequences of action in the region?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The 0.7% commitment is not some sort of badge to take out and wear; it is something that is making a real difference. The reason why we have been able to be the second largest bilateral donor to the Syrian refugee camps is that the resources are available—as I have said, I am talking about giving 10 times more than some other major European countries. This morning I met Stephen O’Brien, formerly a Member of this House and now UN Under-Secretary-General with responsibility for humanitarian affairs. The camps are short of money. They need money for food and for proper resources. There is a crying need for other countries to do what Britain has done and meet the promises that we have made.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
When I asked the Prime Minister a question in June, he told me he was convinced that our country was doing all it should to help vulnerable child refugees. It took tragic events in August and the signatures of half a million British people to get him to change his mind. May I ask him to change his mind again and take refugees out of his migration target?
The Prime Minister
The point about the migration target is that the Office for National Statistics has calculated migration figures in the same way for many, many years. It includes refugees as well as other migrants. I think the British public wants to know that the system as a whole—for migration and for those seeking asylum —is under control. I am absolutely clear that we are committed to taking 20,000 Syrian refugees, and we will meet that target.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) was quite right to emphasise the World Food Programme and the fact that many other European countries have simply not subscribed enough. The website for the World Food Programme demonstrates that the United Kingdom has given twice as much as Germany over the past year and 45% more than Germany over the past five years. Perhaps that is something the Prime Minister would like to take up with Angela Merkel.
The Prime Minister
Everyone in Europe is taking action, and it is important that, collectively, we work together to deliver what is needed. On the issue of providing resources not just to the World Food Programme and to Syrian refugee camps but to the countries from which these people are coming in order to stabilise them, there is no doubt in my mind that Britain is leading the way.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
On the issue of talking to the devolved Administrations, may I urge the Prime Minister to include the First Minister of Northern Ireland? There is a strong desire on the part of the people of Northern Ireland to play their fair and proportionate role in taking refugees. That has been very clear from the outpouring of compassion right across the community in all parts of Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister is right to say that refugees should come from the camps and to point out the difference between economic migrants and genuine refugees.
On the issue of possible military intervention in Syria, it is one thing to talk about targeted and clearly defined action against Daesh, but quite another to talk in the wide and indiscriminate terms that we heard on the television at the weekend.
The Prime Minister
May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for taking migrants from the refugee camps? I would like to take him up on his offer, and I will ensure that conversations are had with the First Minister to see what role Northern Ireland can play in this matter.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I strongly support the Prime Minister’s view that our help to Syrian refugees must be given close to the borders of Syria, and that we should not encourage people to undertake hazardous journeys using people traffickers; that is cruel. Will he confirm that on the unrelated topic of economic migrants, more will need to be done to honour the very serious promises that we made to the British people?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. There are a number of people who are fleeing the appalling conflicts for whom we need to find a home, but clearly there are people who have been crossing the Mediterranean—particularly those coming from Libya on the central Mediterranean route—who are economic migrants in search of a better life. Part of the comprehensive approach that Europe needs is to ensure that there is a way of breaking the link between getting on a boat in Libya and getting settlement rights in Europe. Going back through history, whenever countries have had huge problems in this regard, they have needed to break that link to discourage people from making the trip if they are not refugees.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
At the Home and Interior Ministers summit next Monday, will Britain now sign up to be part of a Europe-wide response to assist refugees from all parts of the world and ensure that they have somewhere safe to go, so that Britain plays a much greater role than it does at present, including sorting out the misery and desperation of people living in the camps in Calais and other places? They are human beings, too, who need some help and support.
Can the Prime Minister say anything about the welcome remarks made by the Foreign Secretary during his visit to Tehran, when he indicated that the new relationship with Iran meant that there was a possibility of wider political involvement in bringing about some degree of progress in and possibly even a solution to the desperate crisis facing Syria through a summit of all the nations of that region plus, of course, Britain, the USA and Russia?
The Prime Minister
We do not believe it is right to take part in the European relocation quota because we think that a better answer for Britain, which is such a major investor in the refugee camps, is to take people directly from the camps. In that way we will not encourage more people to make this perilous journey. By taking a long-term view, and looking at the asylum seekers we have taken and the people we have resettled from around the world, I would say Britain is absolutely fulfilling our moral responsibility, and we absolutely play our part.
In terms of the hon. Gentleman’s question about Iran, of course there is an opportunity for greater dialogue with Iran now that this nuclear deal, which I think is a good deal, has been done, but Britain should enter into that in a cautious and sceptical way. We ought to remember that Iran is still a supporter of terrorist organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah, which I know he describes as friends but which I see very much as enemies. We also need to make sure that Iran is playing a positive role in Syria, rather than the role it plays now of propping up the hated Assad regime.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My right hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for North Somerset (Dr Fox) have both raised the possibility of safe havens in Syria itself to stem the flow of refugees at source. If this is to work, it would require a United Nations mandate, which would require the support of Russia. Do the Government recognise that remaining fixated on removing Assad puts a bar on any solution of this sort? Will the Government make up their mind that the main threat to our interest is Daesh? If so, we can then proceed to have a genuinely international coalition and agreement against that main threat.
The Prime Minister
I very much respect my right hon. Friend’s views, but on this occasion I do not agree with him on two grounds. I do not think it is right to look at Syria and say that we have to choose between ISIL or Assad. It would be a great mistake to think that because Assad is perhaps the lesser of two evils we should back him. Assad is one of the chief recruiting sergeants for ISIL because of the butchery of his own people. I do not think there is a workable proposal for safe havens as things stand today, but it has been possible in past times to intervene in that way to try to keep people safe. If you were acting to try to alleviate a humanitarian emergency, you could act in that way, but the problem is that safe havens would require a large military intervention, and a large military intervention that I do not currently believe is the right answer.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Like most Members, over the past few days I have been inundated with messages of sympathy and support for those suffering as a result of the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Europe. Let us remember that no parent would place their child on water unless they thought that that was still safer than being on land. Will the Prime Minister join me in praising the work carried out by local and national groups, such as Scotland Supporting Refugees, that have demonstrated leadership where this Government have fallen so woefully short and have provided information to members of the public who want directly to support those affected by this desperate situation?
The Prime Minister
Let me agree with the hon. Lady in commending the many great voluntary and charitable bodies that will be helping with the national welcome that we will be giving to 20,000 refugees from Syria.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
May I commend the Prime Minister for his measured and reasonable response to what has sometimes been an hysterical clamour for something to be done without a specific plan for what that something should be. I can tell him that in Aldershot we have no spare accommodation; I spoke to my local authority this morning and was told that it has no assets, and the private rented market is completely saturated. That is the reality there. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is absolutely right that if we are to deliver a comprehensive solution, which is what the Prime Minister has called for, we need to resolve the problem in Syria. Unless we engage with Russia, which has made it crystal clear that it will not resile from its support for Assad, and get everyone around the table—regional leaders, the Americans and ourselves—we will not be able to do that. I commend the Prime Minister. He has a job to do, and I think that he will do it brilliantly.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. He is right that resolving the problem in Syria will take engagement with all the parties he mentioned. The argument that I would make to the Russians is that nobody benefits from the immense boost that is being given to Islamist extremist violence by what is happening in Syria. Russia, in time, will feel the pain of that just as we do, so I think that there are some common interests. He is right that, as well as showing heart and welcoming people to our country, we now need to go through all the practicalities of making sure that we can give them that very good welcome.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement—however belated and inadequate it is—and the action being taken against Daesh military terrorist planners. However, is it not a fact that the vast majority of Syrians who have had to flee their homes have been driven out by the actions of the Assad regime and that Assad continues to barrel-bomb civilian populations? What is our Government doing, alongside other Governments, to get a no-fly zone over those areas to protect Syrian civilians?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to the fact that President Assad and his forces are still using chemical weapons against their own people and that barrel bombs have been used on a number of occasions. I came to the House after seeing pictures of dead children who had been gassed by Assad, and I suggested that we take military action. The House did not agree on that occasion, but I hope that when it comes to future discussions we will think very carefully about our national interests and how to keep this country safe, how to defeat terrorism and how to give the people of Syria the chance of a better future.
Sir Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Prime Minister is quite right to concentrate on the plight of children, which I think is in the spirit of the Kindertransport. I also think that he is right to concentrate on helping the people in the camps in Syria. Of course, it is not the children who decide to take the dangerous journey from Syria; they are accompanied by their parents. If they are separated or orphaned thousands of miles from home, they are peculiarly vulnerable. Will my right hon. Friend tell us about the discussions he has had with international and European partners to identify those children quickly and see that they are resettled in the region or elsewhere?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the issue of children, who will be one of the priority groups of the 20,000 we will be taking. We have to be very careful in this regard, because many expert groups advise that there is a danger in potentially taking children away from other family members and groups, but I am sure that there are many orphaned children and children at risk whom we could welcome here. We have also looked at Save the Children’s proposal about the 3,000 Syrian children already here in Europe, and we will continue to discuss that. Again, major international organisations such as the UNHCR advise caution on relocating unaccompanied children, so we should be guided by the evidence as we make these very difficult decisions.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
In view of the crisis over the past few weeks, should not Germany be warmly congratulated on its act of humanity? In many respects, Germany has acted as the conscience of the European Union, and indeed of Europe as a whole. When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Hungarian Prime Minister—no doubt he will—will he express our contempt for the remarks made by that creature and tell him that what is required is humanity and that it does not matter a damn whether the people who are trying to save their lives and their children’s lives are Muslim or not, because that is totally irrelevant?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should not take account of someone’s religion. We do not do that in our asylum processes, when we welcome and resettle people in what is—and let us be proud of it—one of the most successful multiracial, multi-ethnic democracies anywhere on earth.
I think we have to show some understanding of the difficulties that the Schengen countries have. Once people have crossed one external frontier into Europe, there is not really another border, unless they come to Calais, perhaps, so there are stresses and strains within the Schengen system. We are working with the Schengen countries as partners. We will not join the Schengen system—we are going to keep our borders—and we will not take part in their relocation system, but we need to show some understanding of the problems they have and perhaps help them with, for example, the external frontier to Europe, which is causing so many difficulties at the moment.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I well remember when the Prime Minister came to this House to ask for authority to take action against President Assad. This Parliament decided to block him in that quest and has allowed President Assad to ethnically cleanse his own country. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that his job in preventing Assad’s genocide is now much more difficult than it was two years ago, when he first proposed those measures?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says, but we have to deal with the situation that faces us now. No one is arguing that military action is the only answer to the problem. We need a comprehensive solution, but at the end of the day, I am sure, the removal of ISIL from Syria will be in this nation’s interests.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is naturally huge interest in this subject, and I am keen, as far as possible, to accommodate it, but there is a pressure on time. In appealing for brevity, perhaps I can look to that versatile thespian, Mr Stephen Pound.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I think the whole House is grateful to the Prime Minister for his statement, responding to a unique outpouring of sympathy, tempered with horror, from the nation—well articulated, if I may say so, by the shadow Home Secretary—but he is now talking about 5,000 travel documents being issued to 5 million people in Lebanon and Jordan alone. What criteria will be used to make that dreadful “Sophie’s choice”? Will it be the UNHCR, or will he—as I hope he will—make use of the religious leaders in the camps, particularly among the Assyrian Christian community, to help him in this terrible, difficult task?
The Prime Minister
In the interests of brevity, let me say that it will be the UNHCR, but we should look at vulnerable groups—that could include Yazidis and Christians—who may, on some occasions, face dangers in the camps.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for facilitating the organisation of the vigil we held in Westminster Hall earlier today?
I welcome the statement and I am very pleased that we are doing more, but when welcoming Syrian refugees to our shores, how can we ensure that we do not inadvertently reward those who traffic vulnerable people for financial gain?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of the ways to make sure that the criminal gangs do not benefit is to take people out of the camps, rather than take people who have arrived in Europe, because, tragically, many of them are being inveigled into using criminal gangs, which benefit when the trade in people increases.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and remind him that it was the Ugandan Asians arriving in Leicester that so transformed that city. I agree with him that direct recruitment should be from the camps; however, there will be exceptional cases of people who have arrived in mainland Europe, some of whom I have met in Calais, who have ties with the United Kingdom and who may need to be processed. Will he look at those cases? In particular, will he please stress to the EU the need to support Europol? That is the organisation best placed to deal with the criminal gangs and Daesh, and we should give it more support.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about Europol, and we are putting in investment and working very closely with it. We are also putting National Crime Agency officials into the operations in Sicily and elsewhere to break up the criminal gangs. I would be very cautious, however, about his suggestion about Calais. Anything that suggests that Calais will become a processing centre for people to come to the United Kingdom would simply make the situation there worse. We need to explain to people that coming to Calais and trying to get through the tunnel is not the way to get to the United Kingdom. That is what all the security and the defences are about, and we should keep them up.
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
Having seen at first hand the work of DFID officials helping refugees from Daesh in their camps, can the Prime Minister confirm that there will be no reduction in that effort now that we are welcoming more to this country with DFID funds? I am sure that that was the implication of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said. I think the whole House will agree that we should all be proud of what those officials are doing and have been doing over many years.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will continue to invest in these refugee camps; £1 billion has gone in already and we will keep up that investment. Taking people from the camps is the right answer for Britain and the right answer for those people, and of course we will release some of the capacity of those camps, because at the moment they are under huge amounts of pressure, not just budgetary pressure but people pressure as well.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has said that Britain will take in 20,000 refugees over the next five years, but he has paradoxically said that we will not accept them as refugees—they will not be given refugee status. He said they would be given status as being under humanitarian protection. As he knows, that is a discretionary leave to remain that does not entitle them to settlement. These are people who desperately need security and stability in their lives. How is he going to reconcile that with the status that he is proposing to give them?
The Prime Minister
That is a very good question. There are two reasons for taking this approach. One is that by granting people the humanitarian passport, as it were, they do not formally have to go through asylum procedures to prove that they are refugees; we are taking them once they have met the criteria, and then they have the right to stay. Of course, at the end of those five years some may choose to return to Syria, but many will want to stay here and apply for settlement rights, which of course they will be able to do.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
The acting Leader of the Opposition rightly referred to the contributions that refugees have made to this country throughout history and the hopes for the children whom we are to welcome, but ultimately Syria will need its best and its brightest. Is it not right that by investing in refugee camps in the region we will help—I hope—Syria to rebuild itself in future as well as look after people in the immediate vicinity?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I repeat the figure of about 11 million people taken out of their homes. All our interests are in those people going back to their homes. That obviously needs a solution to the Syrian crisis, but it is the right answer rather than an even bigger movement of people.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
We welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, but when he talks about 11 million people in the camps in Syria and the impossibility of moving them and investing in them, does that not suggest that the policy should be the opposite—to help with the crisis of the people who are on the streets in Europe and fund the camps to protect and keep the people on the border and in the region of Syria?
The Prime Minister
We are funding the camps in Jordan, in Lebanon and in Turkey. The point I am trying to make about the 11 million is that, given that so far only 3% of the 11 million have moved to Europe, we have to be careful not to create an incentive so that that 3% becomes 10% or 20%, because that would completely overwhelm the capacity of even the most generous state, such as Germany, to receive people. That is why investing in the refugee camps and not just helping those in the camps outside Syria but working with UN agencies about how to help people inside Syria, which I was discussing with Stephen O’Brien this morning, is so important in trying not only to stop the scale of the movement but to save lives at the same time.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on both parts of his statement and the agencies on the intelligence-led operation of 21 August. Does he agree that the mark of a truly altruistic and compassionate society is measured not in the tens of thousands of fit and able young men it accommodates, but in the number of people who are truly vulnerable—women and children, the elderly and the sick?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we are working with the UNHCR on the categories of people we will be taking from the camps.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I remind the Prime Minister that many of us in the Chamber are quite closely linked through our ancestry to migrants and refugees? In my case, my Huguenot Protestant ancestors were hounded out of France by the Catholics. Most of us in the Chamber will come from that sort of background. Should we not build on the generosity of spirit that has been shown by the British people? I do not think that the Prime Minister has yet gone far enough. I hope that he will go further. All of us must realise that none of us has clean hands and many of us are so responsible for the instability in the middle east that caused this problem in the first place.
The Prime Minister
Where I agree with the hon. Gentleman is that the British public are very generous and want to see us resettle refugees. They do not see any conflict—neither do I—between resettling refugees and playing our humanitarian part while having a well- managed and well-controlled immigration system. They want both things and we must deliver both things.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The facts of the matter are that those refugees who have made it into the EU are already safe and we cannot make them any safer. Not all those coming in are genuine refugees. We are already taking hundreds of thousands of migrants into the UK every year and we are struggling to cope with them. I have not heard anybody ask that they should be distributed around the rest of the EU through a quota system. May I therefore urge the Prime Minister to have regard to the silent majority in this country and base his decisions on common sense and being practical, not on the affliction of so many other politicians, which is some kind of emotional craving to be seen as compassionate, irrespective of the practicalities of the situation?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He makes an important point about those who have already made it to Europe being, to some degree or other, far safer and less at risk than those still stuck in Syria or in very precarious positions in refugee camps or on the borders. It is right that we consider that in our response.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
It is ironic that it has taken a photograph of one little boy washed up on a beach to focus world attention. This has been going on for months if not years: thousands of people have already drowned, but that one little boy has certainly focused attention. Our response, while welcome, is insufficient. One person in my constituency rang up today as I was driving up in the car and said, “I’ve got places for 20 families.” My local authority, which is a poor local authority, has already offered places for 20 families. That little boy came from Kobane, which was liberated by Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, not by us, and that little boy’s father has gone back to Kobane. We owe such people something more. It is this country’s individuals who have shown the way, and I would hope that the Government will follow.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the connection between what happens in Kobane, with the liberation of that town by Kurdish forces, and the opportunity for people to return. There is a connection between what happens on the ground in Syria militarily and this refugee crisis.
The second point I would make is that Britain’s generosity on this issue did not start five minutes, five days or five weeks ago. Our generosity started with our decision to pursue 0.7% of GDP for aid, even at a time of austerity, and our decision to be the second largest bilateral aid donor to those Syrian refugee camps—beaten only by the United States of America. We give more than Germany, more than France and many times more than most other major European countries. This money is a measure of our compassion and sympathy, because it has saved many, many lives.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
For clarification, is my right hon. Friend saying that in the event of the destruction of Daesh the flow of refugees from Syria is unlikely to recede unless we also see the end of Assad’s regime?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is difficult to get precise figures, but a number of people have left Syria because of Assad’s brutality and a number of people have left because of ISIL’s brutality. That is why the movement of refugees has been so great and why it is wrong to say that we need to choose between two evils. We need to get rid of both of them.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the Prime Minister agree that our priority in relation to Syria should be to work with other Arab countries and Iran, Russia, France and Germany to find a coherent response to the fighting in the region, and that we should not repeat the mistakes of the Iraq war—a war opposed by the Liberal Democrats—by following the US Government into bombing and then occupying an Arab country?
The Prime Minister
We should work with other countries in accordance with international law, but that should not stop us getting on and doing the necessary things that we have done, including the counter-terrorism action that I referred to earlier.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking a proportionate, measured approach in the national interest. It is a shame that Her Majesty’s Opposition did not take a similar approach when Syria was debated on a substantive motion two years ago, when their behaviour was duplicitous, and that is being charitable. May I take him back to the tragedy within this humanitarian disaster that is the systematic persecution of Christians over many years? Notwithstanding his earlier answers, in designing the mechanics of the refugee settlement regime, will he take into account the systematic persecution of Christians that has existed for many years?
The Prime Minister
We will certainly look at that. As I have said, we should look at vulnerable groups. That can include Yazidis, Christians and others who are vulnerable not just in Syria right now but, potentially, in the situations in which they find themselves outside Syria.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
There can be no starker contrast than that between the overwhelming majority of young people in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who utterly condemn the activities of Daesh, and the actions of Reyaad Khan and the two individuals from my constituency who regrettably associated with him and also travelled to fight in Syria. Clearly, the Prime Minister and his Ministers have difficult decisions to take when there is a threat to this country. Will he meet me and my hon. Friend to discuss the circumstances and the nature of what happened and, most importantly, to discuss what we can do better together to tackle the extremists who are trying to recruit individuals from our shores in order to prevent further young people from getting involved with this barbarous organisation?
The Prime Minister
It is certainly a matter of huge regret when young people from our constituencies get involved in extremism and violence, and when they travel to Syria or Iraq and take part in these dreadful events. I will consult the Defence Secretary to see whether he can host a meeting with MPs who have particular concerns to raise.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
My constituents will warmly welcome what the Prime Minister has said today. They do care that we are generous and I know that they will do their bit if they can. He spoke about causes. There is no question but that the exodus from Syria is down to the chaos that reigns in that country. There has been a lot of talk of moral obligations in my postbag over the past few weeks. Does this country have a moral obligation to join the military coalition that is operating in Syria?
The Prime Minister
I think that we have an obligation to act in a way that will reduce the pressure on these people and that will further our national interests and make us more safe. We therefore have to debate and discuss in this House not only how many refugees we should take and what we are doing in terms of humanitarian aid, but what we can do to help degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. There is no doubt that the ISIL fanatics are dedicated to doing us harm. Therefore, what we are doing in Iraq is right, it is right that we support the action that others are taking in Syria, and we need a debate about whether we should do more to help with that.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
In January the Prime Minister committed us to taking 500 refugees from Syria under the vulnerable persons relocation programme. Why are only 217 people here, despite 150,000 people going from Turkey to western Europe, as he described?
The Prime Minister
Of course, in total we have given refuge to about 5,000 Syrians. We have also had a resettlement programme for many years that resettles about 1,000 people a year, including Syrians. In addition to that, there is the specific vulnerable persons programme, which we will be massively expanding.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Some time ago, my great-grandparents made a long journey over land and sea and became refugees in England, so I understand as much as anybody the importance of Britain giving refugees a home. Once we have welcomed those who need to come here, we must ensure that they have the tools to lead a decent life, integrated in our communities. Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the investment we are making for the long-term future of these refugees will be sufficient?
The Prime Minister
My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. Giving someone asylum and refugee status is not an act that is just completed with a piece of paper; it has to be completed with a warm welcome. We have to say to these people, “You will be welcome in our communities. Your children will be welcome at our schools. You will be welcome to use our hospitals.” These people will be able to take jobs in Britain. They will have all those rights. It is very important we make sure that the welcome is warm and well organised, which is why I think the scale we are looking at is about right.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister must be aware that there has been a sharp rise in crimes against Muslims and in anti-Muslim sentiment in the UK and Europe. Will he, as Prime Minister of this country, assure me that religion will not be a criterion to grant humanitarian relief? Will he resist the temptation to use the term “Islamic terrorism”? It is not Islamic. It is just pure terrorism.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we should not take people on the basis of their faith, but on the basis of whether they are being persecuted. I describe it as “extremist Islamist terrorism” because I think simply to say that what we are facing from ISIL and others is terrorism is not a proper description of what we are facing. The religion of Islam is a religion of peace. The overwhelming majority of Muslims want to condemn—and do daily condemn—these fanatics, but the fact is that the fanatics themselves self-identify as Muslims. That is why it is so important that British Muslim communities—as they do—stand up and condemn them and say, “You are not acting in the name of our great religion. You are perverting it.” But simply pretending the problem does not exist by just calling it terrorism will not work.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister defended the recent action against ISIL on the basis of specific intelligence and specific targeting. When it comes to the debate we are going to have on bombing Syria, may I commend that approach? I think many of us want to be reassured that we have a specific intelligence-based approach, not just a generalised one of bombing our enemies’ enemy.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is a difficult balance to explain the information we have without endangering national security or operations that may be under way. All I would say is that we will always try to provide the best and most up-to-date intelligence information in a format that people can find reliable, but, as Prime Ministers have found before, this is very, very difficult water to go through.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Our country has a long and honourable tradition of providing asylum and we warmly welcome those who will come to our shores—to Birmingham as they did to Berlin. Leadership is key at this time of the greatest refugee crisis since the war, and so, too, is the tone that that leadership sets. Will the Prime Minister therefore assure the House that there will be no more talk of swarms of marauding migrants, when there are hundreds of thousands of people fleeing for their lives?
The Prime Minister
I think what matters is the action we take to demonstrate the humanity and moral conscience of Britain. That is what we are doing today.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
ISIL does not recognise the boundaries of Syria and any Russian intervention would be to support the Assad regime alone. On that basis, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we will carry on supporting the countries that surround Syria, such as Lebanon and Jordan, which are taking in the refugees?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give that assurance. The scale of movement of people into Lebanon, for instance, now accounts for about a quarter of its population. We give a lot of money to that country to help with refugees and we should continue to do so. It is better for people to stay and be looked after there, and in time to return to Syria, than to take the perilous journey to Europe.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The city of Liverpool has a very proud tradition of welcoming those fleeing from oppression and we stand ready to welcome refugees from Syria. From the hundreds of pieces of correspondence I have received in recent weeks from my constituents, I know that they, like me, will be bitterly disappointed by the lack of ambition from the Prime Minister today. How quickly, after the statement from the Home Secretary next week, can we expect the British programme to start?
The Prime Minister
The British programme can get under way straightaway. We need to talk to UNHCR to make sure it can process the people out of the camps, but I think that 20,000 Syrian refugees is a generous and correct approach for Britain to take.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
For what it is worth, I think the military event in August was both lawful and right. The refugee and terrorism crisis the Prime Minister has described suggests we need not just a diplomatic and an aid solution but a defence solution. Will he please urge the strategic defence and security review to look carefully at increasing our defence budget over the next year or so, because we are surely going to need it?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point about the defence budget. That is why we have recommitted to 2% throughout this decade, meaning a real-terms increase in our defence budget, and I believe that an important part of that must be making sure we have these counter-terrorism capabilities, such as the one we used in August.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The Prime Minister rightly said that he did not want people making these dangerous crossings of the Mediterranean. The Swedish academic Professor Hans Rosling has identified an EU aviation directive that is forcing such crossings to happen, at four times the cost of flying, helping criminal gangs to grow and creating the risk of drowning, as we saw with that young boy last week. Will the Prime Minister consider the possibility at the EU level of suspending that directive for a while on the routes people are using so that they do not have to risk their lives making these crossings?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly look at that suggestion and the academic the hon. Gentleman quotes.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
Given that at least part of the humanitarian crisis derives from regional instability caused by the Iraq war, I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, because we bear a particular responsibility for it. Does he agree that the US, which contributes only half as much as the UK in Syrian aid as a proportion of GDP, and which has accepted scarcely any asylum seekers at all, should now also respond and do more, and will he ask the US Administration to do so?
The Prime Minister
I obviously look forward to discussing this matter with President Obama, but let us be fair, the US is the largest aid donor to Syria, and I am sure we will go on encouraging it and others to do more, just as we have kept our promise about the 0.7%.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I welcome what the Prime Minister has said today, but he will know that when Turkey invaded Cyprus, we took 50,000 Cypriots; that during Idi Amin’s reign in Uganda, we took 30,000 Asian Ugandans; and that we took more than 20,000 Vietnamese boat people in a short space of time. Why has he limited his help for Syrians to 4,000 a year?
The Prime Minister
We have said 20,000 refugees, which I think is the right response for Britain. We want to make sure we have the capacity to give these people a home and a welcome. Obviously, every year Britain takes asylum seekers from right around the world—I think last year we had some 25,000 applications. We have a large number of people from Eritrea and other countries trying to make their way to Britain and claim asylum. Our record on asylum claims over a 10 to 20-year period shows that we are a generous country which operates the system properly, and I think that 20,000 Syrian refugees is about right.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The children of Syria are the victims of dictators, terrorists and traffickers. They are certainly not the victims of UK immigration policy, and therefore I commend and support my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s statement today. What discussions have been had with countries such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states on providing greater aid, taking refugees and supporting refugee camps around Syria?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have had those discussions and will continue to do so. The Arab world has provided some generous funding for refugee camps, but I am sure we will have further conversations with them.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The British people are indeed, as the Prime Minister said, a generous people, and they will find his proposal for taking 4,000 Syrian refugees a year derisory, but above all, long after this refugee crisis is no longer on the front pages, there will be a need for a sustainable, Europe-wide strategy. It cannot be right for Greece and Italy to be left alone to deal with incoming migrants from across the Mediterranean. It cannot be right that we refuse to take our quota. Syrian refugees are not the only issue; migrants from the horn of Africa and north Africa are drowning in the Mediterranean every day. The Prime Minister needs to look to a more sustainable strategy that is more genuinely about working closely with our European neighbours, because hundreds of thousands of lives depend on it.
The Prime Minister
I do not agree with the hon. Lady. I think 20,000 Syrian refugees is the right response for Britain. While I agree that we need a co-ordinated European response, I do not believe it should be Britain giving up our borders and joining the Schengen no-borders arrangement. That lies behind what the hon. Lady and others are suggesting—[Interruption.] If that is not the case, the Labour party needs to be clear about it. I think we can have a comprehensive approach that helps the Schengen countries with their external borders, but maintains our borders and recognises that we benefit from having them.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend’s decision to spread the 20,000 refugees over the lifetime of this Parliament seems to me a sensible one, but it does not come without risks—namely, the opportunity for those who wish our country ill to infiltrate the camps to see if they, too, can get themselves to the UK under this programme. Will the Prime Minister assure the House and the country that robust but sensitive vetting and security procedures, where appropriate, will be in place from day one until the end?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give that assurance. It is important to select people who are genuinely vulnerable and need to be saved. We will be careful not to accept people who might support extremist or terrorist views.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Constraints mean that I will have to park questions about the deployment of lethal force against a UK citizen in order to address the refugee crisis. The Prime Minister talked about supporting these refugees in their hour of need, but how does that rhetoric chime with admitting only 20,000 over the course of five years, with overtones of disqualification for those who have already made perilous journeys and perhaps lost loved ones? Will the Prime Minister go further than merely have his Ministers having disparate conversations with First Ministers and will he, along with the Irish Government, convene a special meeting of the British-Irish Council properly to co-ordinate the response for refugees across all the Administrations of these islands, taking account of their different service models, and to offer good partnership to international agencies and domestic charities that want to help?
The Prime Minister
I will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman says. Obviously, what the Republic of Ireland does is a matter for the Republic of Ireland, if it wants to opt in to the relocation system. I am pretty confident that 20,000 refugees coming into Britain is, and will be seen to be by other European countries, a generous and compassionate offer that will help to take the pressure off other European countries.
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s willingness to use the aid budget for exactly what it was intended to achieve—helping people in crisis right now. Will he ensure that as the aid budget, thanks to our strong economy, continues to grow, he retains the flexibility to use it for similar crises in the future?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The aid budget is there to help the most vulnerable, the weak and the poorest in our world, and that should include the first-year costs of people to whom our country is giving refuge and asylum. Yes, we will go on making sure—this will be part of the spending review—that the aid budget addresses some of the causes of instability and insecurity in our world, because that is a way of stopping some of these problems before they happen.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
In a few weeks’ time, it will be the first anniversary of the murder of my constituent, Alan Henning, by ISIL. Alan gave his life to get vital aid through to Syrian children, but as we saw last week, Syrian children are still in desperate need of refuge and support. It is in respect of the scale and lack of immediacy of the Government’s response today that my constituents in Eccles and Worsley will be disappointed. They want to see a more immediate response and a more generous offer to Syrian refugees. Will the Prime Minister think again?
The Prime Minister
This response is immediate, and it is generous. We will start straightaway, working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, taking people into our country—as we have up to now—and giving them a warm welcome.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I welcome the increase in the number of refugees, but may I raise the issue of timing? Given that only 216 vulnerable Syrian refugees have been relocated via the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, can the Prime Minister assure me that the expanded programme will happen more quickly, so that it will not be desperately too late for those thousands of refugees over the course of this Parliament?
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
In the 1990s, families in Darlington welcomed Bosnian refugees into their homes, and it is a credit to them that they are willing to welcome refugees again. Our voluntary sector is already collecting toys and clothes. Those people know what to do, and the local authority is on board. What they do not know—they are trying to plan, and the success of the scheme will be greatly assisted by an ability to plan properly—is when this is going to happen. They have no idea when it will happen. The Prime Minister said “straightaway”, but we need more than “straightaway”. We need to know whether the Prime Minister is talking about days or weeks. What does he mean?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, the Home Secretary will make a statement next week, setting out more detail about how the scheme will work and how we will work with local councils to deliver it.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The Prime Minister is absolutely right to focus on long-term solutions to this problem, but does he agree that we must face the reality that, in order to solve it, we shall need to consider more concerted military action across Iraq and Syria, working with our allies, and that we shall not be able to avoid having that debate and arriving at a resolution?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. In order to solve the problem, we need to see an end to ISIL in Iraq and Syria. This is a terrorist state: it is a state that terrorises its people, that throws gay people off buildings, that terrorises women. No wonder people are fleeing from it. It is unthinkable, in my view, that we will ever see a solution to the problems in Syria and Iraq while ISIL still exists. The role that we are playing at the moment is that of helping those who are taking direct military action, while providing military action in Iraq, but of course we must discuss and debate in the House whether we are to go further.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
In recent days, a number of people have been in touch with me asking how they personally can extend accommodation, support and friendship to refugees who are fleeing the conflict in Syria. What consideration have the Government given to how they will harness the tremendous generosity of individuals, churches and community groups, so that we can take advantage of that massive generosity in respect of which the Government have been so tardy?
The Prime Minister
I think that, apart from the last bit, the hon. Lady has made a very good point. We will ensure—for instance, through the devolved Administrations—that the scheme that we come up with with local councils enables voluntary groups and others who want to volunteer to try to harness their enthusiasm.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. What more can be done to encourage Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar to play a greater role? Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the Kurdistan Regional Government, who are currently supporting 1.8 million Syrian refugees and other displaced people who are currently in northern Iraq, in various refugee camps?
The Prime Minister
I certainly join my hon. Friend in praising the KRG for the work that they are doing, not only looking after people but combating ISIL. We will go on talking to Saudi Arabia and other countries about the support that we can all give, together, to those in refugee camps.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
At present, even an 18-year-old Syrian girl isolated in Lebanon, Jordan or Turkey would not normally be eligible, under family reunion rules, to join her refugee parents in the United Kingdom, which would potentially push her towards people smugglers. Will the Prime Minister undertake to look again, urgently, at the scope of the family reunion rules, and also at ways of overcoming the difficulties—highlighted by organisations such as the Red Cross—that many people face in attempting to make applications at British embassies in the region?
The Prime Minister
I will ask the Home Secretary to look specifically at the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and to write to him.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister refer again to the huge contribution of Britain, not just over the last few weeks but over several years, in helping to ease the burden of the Syrian refugees. Can he elaborate on whether discussions are going on with our European counterparts on how, jointly, we can tackle and stop these murderous people-traffickers at source?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that issue. We are working with European partners, particularly through the operation centre in Sicily, where we are bringing to bear our expertise in combating the people traffickers. European action, of which we are part, is under way.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister agree that there are great advantages to both local communities and refugees if they are located evenly and proportionately throughout the kingdom? Does he know that in the fine city of Newport, we successfully host 459 asylum seekers and Cardiff has more than 900, but the constituency of the Chancellor has only two, the Home Secretary has only five and the Prime Minister has none? How many of the 20,000 will be located to his constituency?
The Prime Minister
That will be for the discussions chaired by the Home Secretary and the Communities Secretary. We want to make sure that the whole country can come together to welcome these people.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
There has been a lot of debate this afternoon about the numbers, and rightly so because, to maintain the good will we have all spoken about in our communities, that number has to be right. I am interested in the how and the when. How can we feed in ideas from our constituents? For example, in South Cambridgeshire we have an empty, fully functioning barracks in Bassingbourn, and many of my constituents think it could be a good idea to use it. How do we feed this in?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent suggestion. The point of the committee chaired by the Home Secretary and the Communities Secretary will be to take into account what local authorities can do and what voluntary bodies and charities can do, but also to listen to the suggestions of hon. Members.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
During the summer I visited the British Red Cross office in Glasgow. A constituent who is a Syrian refugee, has a brother in Athens with kidney failure. He needed to go to Athens and the Home Office granted asylum after representations from me. That serves to highlight the fact that in this crisis there will be issues of family reunion and instances when a relative will have to go to another part of Europe for reasons of organ donation. May I ask the Prime Minister to look at such issues very sensitively?
The Prime Minister
One of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues raised the issue of family reunion, which we obviously look at in this context. The rules we have are there for a good reason, but I know that the Minister for Immigration has taken careful note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the remarks of former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, who has pointed out that the UN camps have hardly any Christians in them because the Islamists have driven them out? Will my right hon. Friend take special steps to address the issue of Christians who are not in the UN camps?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which is why I pointed out earlier that we will take people who are vulnerable and that could include Yazidis or Christians, who, because of their religious beliefs, have not only been persecuted in Syria but have sometimes found life difficult in the camps as well.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
This afternoon the Prime Minister has unhelpfully conflated membership and signing up to the Schengen agreement with taking a proactive part in a proper co-ordinated pan-European response. Why does he continue to unhelpfully muddy these waters, and will he now give a clear explanation as to why, beyond the opinions of his rabid Eurosceptic Back Benchers, he is not engaging properly with our partners in Europe?
The Prime Minister
We are engaging. Our decision to take 20,000 people and our immense funding of the refugee camps will take the pressure off other European countries. I am not conflating those two things. Those who are part of Schengen have taken away all their internal border controls across Europe and they maintain their external border, so obviously the Schengen countries have to come together to work out what they are going to do about this migration crisis. We can be part of that—we help to fund Frontex and to secure the external border, and we are helping to break up the criminal gangs —but we have not decided to take our borders down, as they have, so we are not in the same position. I am not conflating the two; this is a really important point.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and may I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the operators and those who endure what we ask them to in order to execute these strikes? Does the Prime Minister agree that we now have to win the argument about dealing with ISIS? We have seen the tragic events over the past few months, and we must now use that momentum to push ahead, win this debate and deal with the core cause of this: ISIS and President Assad.
The Prime Minister
I commend my hon. Friend for what he has written and said about this, and I thank him for what he says now.
I believe that we will benefit if ISIL is degraded in Iraq and Syria. We are taking an active part in Iraq and helping in Syria; the question is, should we go further? I feel that one of the problems of the last debate was that many colleagues on both sides of the House said to me, “I simply felt I couldn’t vote for this action against Assad and chemical weapons because of what happened over Iraq.” I totally understand that, but we have now got to get over that and recognise that it is in our interests as a country for ISIL to be degraded and ultimately destroyed. We are playing a proud part, but I would like us to do more. Let us separate this from the issue of the Iraq war and act in our national interest now, with partners, to get rid of this dreadful terrorist organisation.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Over the past 10 years Hull has taken many refugees under the Home Office’s Gateway programme, and they have been successfully resettled. At the Freedom festival over the weekend, nearly 1,200 people signed the petition established by Sue Hubbard to get more support for Syrian refugees. A few months ago Hull offered to help by taking in more Syrians, but the Home Office dragged its feet and nothing happened. What assurance can the Prime Minister give me that the Government will now take up Hull’s very good offer?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give the hon. Lady that assurance. The Gateway programme, which she talks about, and other schemes effectively resettle about 1,000 people in Britain every year. In addition there are successful asylum applications—I think there were 11,000 last year—and we will now be taking 20,000 Syrian refugees. I think that is a generous, compassionate country in action, and we look forward to working with Hull City Council on that basis.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
There is widespread support for the Prime Minister’s generous decision to take 20,000 refugees, but last year alone we took 183,000 economic migrants from the European Union. I wonder whether that is proportionate, or whether we could not be more generous to refugees if we were less obsessed with the free movement of people.
The Prime Minister
The ability to move in Europe and take a job is something that many of our own citizens enjoy by going to live in another country. What we should be addressing is the additional pull factor of our welfare system, which can give people some €12,000 or €13,000 in their first year after coming to Britain. That would ensure that free movement works, which is important, but is not artificially inflated by our own welfare system.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has mentioned the five-year protection visa. Will he give assurances that people who have that visa will be allowed to work and travel, and that there will be an automatic assumption of the extension of proper resettlement rights to them if they so wish?
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The International Chamber of Shipping, the UK Chamber of Shipping and their respective members are doing their best to assist with the rescue of refugees and migrants at sea. However, there is a pressing need for the UK and the other EU countries to work with those in Africa and the middle east to deal directly with people smugglers. My right hon. Friend outlined in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) the work that is being done in that regard, but may I urge him to leave no stone unturned in eliminating that wicked and cruel practice?
The Prime Minister
I certainly take on board what my hon. Friend says. At the heart of the situation is the problem of people smugglers and criminal gangs, and we must crack them.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister stated that today’s decision to accept 20,000 refugees in the UK over five years was made with both the head and the heart. My head says that is only six refugees per constituency per year, or a total of 30 per constituency over five years. In the past month I have had literally dozens of offers from constituents in Dundee West, and I am sure I echo Members throughout the Chamber who have had the same experience. Why do we need to wait five years? We have a crisis on our hands. Can we not get on with it now, and act urgently and compassionately?
The Prime Minister
We are getting on with it now, and in the letter that the First Minister of Scotland wrote to me, she said that Scotland would be willing to take 1,000 refugees. She will have to reassess that, because now that we are taking 20,000 as a country I will be able to write back and say that Scotland will be able to do more.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
By announcing that their borders are open to all the migrants who can get to them, Germany and Sweden have inadvertently increased the demand for migration across a continent and increased the human misery. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the UK will not make that mistake and that we will not do the wrong thing, even if it is for the right reasons?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, we must act with head and heart, and that is why we think it is right to take people from the refugee camps.
Mr Speaker
Order. I keep spotting people who I did not think were here at the start of the statement, but they are all people of the very highest integrity, so I will leave people to self-regulate, if I can put it that way. If they were here at the start, they are welcome to take part, and if they were not, they are not.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
When the Prime Minister started speaking, I felt really proud that Britain was going to take 20,000, but then we were told that it would be over five years and I have to say that my heart sank. The local council in my constituency of Bridgend has said that, despite £50 million in cuts over five years, it will take in 10 families. Many of these families cannot wait five years for us to offer them a home. Their need is now. Why cannot we move the 20,000, start taking people now and have a regular statement from the Prime Minister telling us how many have come so that we can get a sense of movement and take our 20,000, certainly before five years is up?
Mr Speaker
I say very gently to the House that the Prime Minister is giving very succinct replies and I think it is not unreasonable that we should have succinct questions to which he can respond.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
What steps are being taken to warn President Putin about the implications of his plans further to support the Assad regime, which will only lead to the expansion of Islamic terrorism? It is bad news for the middle east, for the UK and for Russia.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to continue discussions with the Russians. As I have said, in the long run the growth of Islamist extremist violence is bad for Russia, just as it is bad for the United Kingdom.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is worrying that the Prime Minister is using a crisis situation to announce a major reshaping of aid policy, which many people would say should meet humanitarian need rather than a narrow definition of national interest. In confirming that the use of aid will meet current OECD guidelines, will he also tell us what thought he has already given to providing support outside of the aid budget and beyond the first 12 months of resettlement?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, we will start with the use of the aid budget, which covers the first year, and then the committee, to be chaired by the Home Secretary and the Communities Secretary, will look at what more needs to be done to make sure that these people can be properly looked after.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
May I warmly thank the Prime Minister for his decision and will he join me in thanking, alongside the Kurdish Regional Government, the people of Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and other countries that have taken in millions, supported by the UK and other countries, over the past four years?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to praise those countries. They have borne a huge burden in terms of the people they have taken in and looked after. We must go on supporting them and the work they do.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
What criteria has the Prime Minister used to arrive at a figure of just six refugees per constituency per year? In the light of the compassionate acts of constituents, will he review that figure?
The Prime Minister
I believe that 20,000 Syrian refugees is a generous and correct figure for Britain. What we should do now is get on with it and move as rapidly as we can to process those people. It takes time because we have to work with the UNHCR to go through those in the camps and find suitable people to come here. It also takes time to work with local councils. I do not want to make a pledge that we then cannot deliver properly on the ground, and I believe that this 20,000 pledge can be delivered properly.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, Plymouth is a dispersal centre for asylum seekers. When he knows what the figures are, will he let Plymouth MPs and Plymouth City Council know how many people they will have to help? Will he also make sure that there will be health screening so that we can sort out whether or not people have TB, which is an important issue in my patch?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that all those issues will be looked at by the Home Secretary’s committee.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
In the 1840s and 1850s, the Yorkshire solicitor Thomas Constable was estimated to have saved the lives of 500 refugees fleeing the appalling humanitarian disaster of An Gorta Mór. Now that the Prime Minister has properly recognised the present situation as a refugee crisis, will he give us an assurance that he and all his Ministers in the Government will give the necessary leadership to ensure that we keep the nation together in our actions to deal with it, and that they will not allow anyone to use it to divide us for political gain?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can certainly give that assurance. The whole country will recognise, as should political leaders, that this is a good approach that we can all work with.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s statement, and I am sure that the whole House welcomes the £1 billion of British taxpayers’ money that is being committed to humanitarian aid in and around Syria. Does he agree that the French and the Germans need to match that commitment, and more? Does he also agree that Germany’s open-door policy gives a green light to the human traffickers who are directly responsible for so much human tragedy in the Mediterranean?
The Prime Minister
Every country must take its own approach, and justify it to its Parliament and its people. I do think that the money we spend in Syrian refugee camps is hugely important, because it not only saves lives but gives people the chance of security and safety without having to make a perilous journey.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
The mark of a civilised society is the way in which it deals with a humanitarian crisis. All of us have had full postbags over the past few weeks as people have reflected on the human misery and suffering that have taken place, and people in my constituency will reflect on the paucity of the response from the United Kingdom. When we see Germany taking in 10,000 refugees a day, talking about taking 20,000 people over five years is inexcusable. This Government should be ashamed of themselves. We have talked about the capacity to take people in. What is this country’s capacity to take real action to deal with this humanitarian crisis?
The Prime Minister
As I said, I think taking 20,000 people is the right response for the United Kingdom, and I think we should come together and work out how best our local councils and local voluntary groups can give those people a warm welcome.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Prime Minister said that the thinking on safe havens was the “right sort of thinking”. On 28 November 2011, I asked the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether we could have safe havens in Syria for the protection of civilians. He replied that there was no “imminent plan” for such safe havens. Why did we not push harder for safe havens at that time? Which countries objected to them? And what is the timeline for the present plan for safe havens that would allow people to be protected on their doorstep from Assad and from Daesh?
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear about what I was saying; I do not want to mislead anybody. I said that the thinking about safe havens was the “right sort of thinking”, because it is addressed at trying to help people in the region, rather than encouraging them to travel. The problem with safe havens up to now—it is still a problem—is that if we are going to declare somewhere a safe haven, it must be safe. Our experience in Bosnia and elsewhere is very relevant here. To make the haven safe, we would have to commit a lot of troops and, potentially, air support to take out Syrian air defences. A whole series of steps would have to be taken, and we are a long way away from that. The only point I was trying to make was to show some sympathy with those people who are pursuing the idea of safe havens, because they are at least trying to help people in the region, rather than encouraging this trade in people.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has set out the action that he intends to take in and around Syria, and also here at home. He has been very clear about not becoming involved in the EU quota system. Given that, and given the very real pressures faced by the countries on the frontline—particularly Greece and Italy—is there any assistance that the United Kingdom can give those countries with the processing of the applications and with the refugees?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we can and we do. We help them with their capacity in terms of fingerprinting and sorting people. Part of the problem with the Schengen system is that people who come to Greece and Italy then transit onwards, rather than doing what they ought to do, which is to provide their details so that they can make their asylum applications in the first country they arrive in. We are helping with that, as it is part of the problem that Schengen is coping with at the moment.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments on the generosity of the British people through the aid budget. It is extremely welcome that, as the second biggest donor, we are finally getting recognised for the efforts that we have made alongside the Turks, the Lebanese, the Jordanians and the Iraqis. May I urge him to work with our regional NATO partners in the area to enable them to do more, not only financially but militarily? They are capable, and they have the necessary troops and weapons to do more.
The Prime Minister
I certainly look carefully at what my hon. Friend says. I think that today we are talking about the humanitarian response; the issues he raises are perhaps for later.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is worth reminding the House that we are not talking about migrants; we are talking about refugees and, for that matter, human beings. Why did it take the tragic and gut-wrenching image of poor, wee Alan Kurdi to shame the Prime Minister into finally taking the action that he has announced today? It is very limited action and my constituents demand more.
The Prime Minister
I will tell the hon. Gentleman the action that this country and this Government have taken: meeting the 0.7% of GDP for our aid budget when no other major country in the world has done it. That has saved countless lives and this country can be proud of it. Before we listen to all these lectures about acting too late, we should recall that it was this Government who put the money into the refugee camps and sorted out the 0.7% of GDP, and it is this Government who are now saying we should take 20,000 Syrian refugees.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s move today, and the generous spirit shown by my constituents and others around the country. I wonder whether he has considered the other part of our humanitarian recent history from this House, which is the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and its measures against transport and trafficking. Does he think links can be made here?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point; that is a key part of our work against these criminal gangs, and an increasing number of countries are looking at the legislation passed here to see whether they can imitate it.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is exactly a month since I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman’s Minister to ask why the vulnerable persons relocation scheme was failing for refugees from Syria and why it had not been extended to Iraq, but I have had no reply. I hope the Prime Minister’s statement today will begin to answer the first part, but what about the second? Given his conflation of the military threat from Daesh in Iraq and in Syria, what difference is there between refugees fleeing from Daesh in Syria and in Iraq?
The Prime Minister
The difference is that, of course, in Iraq there is at least a Government who govern part of that country, and there are safe spaces to go in that country, whereas in Syria people are caught between the horrors of ISIL and the terrors of Assad.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
What assurances can my right hon. Friend give the British people that Islamic State terrorists posing as refugees will not be inadvertently permitted into our country? What assessment has been made of that risk?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, we will take great care over this issue and make sure there is proper security screening of people who are coming.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Would the Prime Minister concede that perhaps the Government have been a little slow out of the traps in responding to this crisis, perhaps because Ministers are a bit befuddled by an artificial debate that conflates economic migrants with refugees, and indeed that conflates economic migrants with the European Union debate that Conservative Members are having? Would he also care to comment on the editorial policy of newspapers that deliberately include provocative articles by deliberately provocative writers saying it is absolutely fine to send gunboats to stop refugees, and change their position straightaway when there are pictures of dead little boys washed up on the beach?
The Prime Minister
The Government were right to reach 0.7% and right to be the leading aid donor in Europe to the Syrian refugee camps, and are now right to take 20,000 Syrian refugees.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the compassion and safe harbour afforded by this Government to Syrian refugees. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s statement on the isolated military action taken by this Government. Does he agree that while the UK remains at risk from dissident terrorists, our constituents would not forgive us if we failed in our ultimate duty to keep them safe, no matter how difficult the circumstances?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; keeping the country safe is the first duty of Government.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has made repeated reference to how much effort this country has put into dealing with the refugee crisis over the past months, but back in June my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) tabled an early-day motion on Operation Mare Nostrum. That operation was estimated to have saved the lives of half a million refugees in the Mediterranean area, but the Government cancelled it, saying that it was a pull factor. Does the Prime Minister regret cancelling it? Is it time to reinstate it?
The Prime Minister
Twenty-eight member states made that decision about Mare Nostrum, but what we then did in response to the growing number of people who were still coming across the Mediterranean was deploy the flagship of the Royal Navy. Again, this was Britain acting rapidly and saving 6,700 lives.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
May I commend the Prime Minister on his proportionate, humane and timely response to this crisis, which has escalated at a rapid pace? Before I came to this place, I defended the Home Secretary in asylum and immigration cases in court, and I saw at first hand how considerable progress was made in dealing with the asylum backlog. We inherited more than 100,000 asylum cases from the previous Labour Administration. What measures and resources have been put in place in the Home Office to deal with the additional burden, so that robust and legitimate decision-making is ensured?
The Prime Minister
I look forward to the House gaining the benefit of my hon. Friend’s wisdom from pursuing all those cases. It means that when she speaks in these debates, she has real knowledge of what these cases are like. It is very important that the Syrian refugees are given humanitarian passports, so that they do not have to go through the lengthy asylum process, which is why we are taking that approach.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
In a reply to me last month, the Minister for Immigration said that the vulnerable persons relocation scheme was designed to focus on need, rather than meeting a quota. Is the Prime Minister now imposing a quota of 20,000 on that scheme? What will he say to the 20,001st person who has a provable and legitimate need?
The Prime Minister
The first thing to do is to get on and deliver the 20,000.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that the downside of the Opposition’s suggestion of taking refugees from mainland Europe is that it gives a green light to people smugglers and encourages exploitation? We have a good record in this country, thanks to this Government, of tackling modern slavery and human trafficking, and it would be wrong at this stage to turn our back on the genuine progress that we have made.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. As we are not part of Schengen, we had a choice over how to design our programme. We have taken the decision that it is better to take people from the camps. That is a good and humane decision, it will help others to be able to use those camps, and it will not encourage people to make that perilous journey.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s statement completely fails to realise either the scale or the urgency of the humanitarian crisis that faces us. It also fails to recognise the huge well of generosity in our country at the moment. People in every one of our constituencies are desperate to help. If the Prime Minister wants a moment for his big society, this is it. Will he come back to this House tomorrow with a statement that recognises not only the scale of the catastrophe that faces the Syrian people, but the huge desire in our constituencies to help them? Let us do more to help these people and have a statement of which to be proud.
The Prime Minister
I think people will respond very positively to the idea of giving a warm and thorough welcome to 20,000 people coming to our country. We should now get into the business of implementing the scheme rapidly. We need to get local councils and local groups on side, and make sure that everyone works together. Let us find a warm and really good welcome for these 20,000 people.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
As the Prime Minister has pointed out, the vast majority of refugees are in camps near Syria, and I welcome his long-term commitment to substantial aid for these people. Will he advise us on whether a share of that aid can be used to help refugees develop the skills that will be needed to rebuild Syria in due course, as everything possible needs to be done to bring about a durable peace when, eventually, military conflict ends?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely, that can happen. We can use aid money for building capacity in those countries. Once people are able to return to their homes, it can be used to do just that.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Most fair-minded people in this country will not regard the Prime Minister’s proposal as a proper response to the situation. Taking in and giving sanctuary to 4,000 people a year over the next five years when we are in the midst of the largest global refugee crisis since the second world war is woefully inadequate. We should be ashamed that we are not doing more. Furthermore, the distinction between people in the refugee camps and those already in Europe is quite spurious. There have been references to the little boy who was washed up on the shores of Turkey. What if that little boy had not drowned, and his parents had applied to this country for refuge and sanctuary? Would we have said that our doors were closed to them?
The Prime Minister
First, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that 20,000 is the right response; it is a good response that everyone can now get behind and work with. Those people who have made it already to Europe are in many cases in a far better and much safer situation than the people still stuck in Syria or stuck in the refugee camps, which is why it is those people whom our effort will be directed towards.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I commend the Prime Minister for giving children, especially orphans, priority in today’s statement. We have had heart-rending pictures and stories of children, and I have been contacted by many of my constituents, all reiterating that we must be humanitarian, as children are our future. Will the Prime Minister please reiterate his assurances that we will do our very best for those orphans and children?
The Prime Minister
We certainly will. We will be looking specifically for orphans and vulnerable children among the people we take from the camps. They will require a particular amount of care and attention, as they are coming miles away to a strange country, as regards ensuring that they have all the care and love they need as they grow up.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I have also been inundated with offers of support from constituents in Oldham and Saddleworth. How will the Prime Minister speed up the asylum process? It can take many months, if not years, and many refugees have specific skills that are in short supply in the country; I have a family of engineers from Syria who want to work and have been in the country for a few years.
Will the Prime Minister also confirm whether he will publish the Attorney General’s guidance on the legal basis for the killing of a UK citizen, so that this House can scrutinise the decision making?
The Prime Minister
On the second issue, we do not publish the advice of the Attorney General. No Government have done that. What we did with Libya was describe the legal case, and I am happy to do that, and to describe the legal advice, which is based on self-defence, as I set out in my statement.
On the asylum system, of course we want to speed it up; we have sped it up, and that is why we have dealt with so much of the backlog and have introduced measures such as the suspension of appeals, so that people can continue to appeal once they have been returned to the country they have come from. We will continue to do that, but let me stress that these 20,000 Syrians will not have to go through some lengthy asylum process. They will be helped from those camps to a life in Britain. Let us say today that we will give them a warm, friendly and joyous welcome.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Prime Minister, the party leaders who questioned him and the 102 Back Benchers who have also done so.
Refugee Crisis in Europe
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
In the light of the Prime Minister’s statement, I rise to propose that the House debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration—namely the refugee crisis in Europe.
The number of people standing to ask questions has, I think, shown the strength of feeling and interest in the House. Most Members have welcomed the Government’s decision to take more refugees directly from the camps near Syria and the Government’s aid to the region, where they are ahead of every other country and are making an extremely important contribution. The Prime Minister is right, too, that the issues in the camps are serious, with a lack of schooling for thousands of people and a cut in rations meaning that the conditions are desperate and we should help.
The response in the Chamber today has raised two significant concerns about the Prime Minister’s response. The first is about the scale of the response— the 20,000 people he will help over five years—and the second is about the lack of help for refugees who have already fled into Europe. Interior Ministers are meeting on the 14th and the crisis is still escalating. This is not just about the tragic scenes we have seen of Alan Kurdi and others who have drowned or the families who are ready to walk from Hungary to Austria to find a safe home. This is also about our chance to discuss the number of people the Prime Minister has offered to help: 20,000 over five years could mean 4,000 a year, whereas the Kindertransport took 10,000 children in the space of nine months. I would urge the Prime Minister to reconsider and to see what more we can do with councils and communities across the country that have come forward asking to help and to do more. He has rightly changed his mind already in response to public concern. I ask for the House to have the opportunity to persuade him to do so again, given the urgent need to provide help.
I ask the Prime Minister to consider again helping those refugees who are already in Europe and who need help. He says that he does not want to encourage people to travel. I say to him that they are travelling already. They are not waiting for a response from the British Government. The refugees in Greece need particular help and humanitarian aid. Many are already being helped through Hungary and Austria, but in Greece there are thousands who are desperate for help. We could do more. We have a chance to work with other European countries, putting pressure on them to do more.
The Prime Minister has responded in part to what is now the greatest humanitarian crisis since the second world war. I urge him to do so again. I ask that we have the chance to debate this tomorrow and then again on Wednesday.
Mr Speaker
I have listened carefully to the application from the right hon. Member and am satisfied that the matter she raises is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Has the right hon. Member the leave of the House?
Application agreed to.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member has obtained the leave of the House. The debate will be held tomorrow, Tuesday 8 September, as the first item of public business. The debate will last for up to three hours and will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the right hon. Member’s application.
Points of Order
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I hope that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will accept my prioritising age before—well, age before something. Let us hear a point of order from the Father of the House, the right hon. Sir Gerald Kaufman.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order on the contempt shown towards this House by the Home Office, as evidenced by its treatment of a case that I wrote to the Home Secretary about last month. It relates to a constituent who came to see me and told me that she had moved into my constituency. She gave me her old address and her new address. I immediately wrote to the Home Secretary, on 17 August. I did not expect a reply from her, because in five years she has sent me only one letter, but I thought that my letter might be passed to a junior Minister. Instead, I received an undated letter from UK Visas and Immigration. The email date on the letter was 25 August. It stated:
“According to our records, Ms Smith is currently residing at 25 Thruxton Close…Therefore Ms Smith is not residing in your constituency.”
She is residing in my constituency. I wrote to the person who sent the email, J. Hughes, stating that if he did not reply to me by last week I would raise the matter in the House. He has still not replied to me. I will not be treated like dirt by the Home Office. More importantly, I will not allow my constituents to be treated like dirt. What can be done about it?
Mr Speaker
May I say to the Father of the House that I think he is almost always, including today, the means of his own salvation? There were occasions in the previous Parliament when the right hon. Gentleman had occasion to bring to my attention his dissatisfaction with not having received a reply from a Minister, and I think that on more than one occasion he received a reply from someone who did not exist—the name on the letter was that of someone who did not exist.
Look, these are not matters in which the Chair ordinarily becomes involved, but I have the highest regard for the courtesy that the Home Secretary has always shown to me, and which ordinarily she has always shown to the House. I think that it is much easier to respect the traditions and courtesies of the House and to err on the side of speed of response and, if I may say so, also on the side of acknowledging a very senior and long-serving Member who has made an approach.
I do not think that there will be a division of the House, or even any great objection from the right hon. Gentleman, if I say that he is not always the easiest colleague to please, but he has a right to represent his constituents and to be treated with the utmost courtesy. I am sorry if he feels that he has not been. I know that the Home Secretary will do her best with her ministerial team to accommodate his various requests and, periodically, his demands. [Interruption.] She says from a sedentary position that she does. Let us leave it there for today. The right hon. Gentleman has not been in the House for 45 years for no reason.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. After those words, I must be very careful what I say. Earlier today you quite rightly amended the business for Wednesday to allow for special recognition of Her Majesty’s becoming our longest-serving monarch. Unfortunately, one consequence of that is that questions to the Secretary of State for Wales moves to the following week and questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which we would have considered on that day, sadly fall. As these are dark and desperate days in Northern Ireland, and as it is very important that the House debate these, matters and questions Ministers, is there any mechanism whereby the timetable can be further amended so that we can have Northern Ireland questions before the conference recess?
Mr Speaker
Not readily, no. However, there are various means by which Members can secure the presence of Ministers if important matters arise on which those Members wish to probe. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced denizen of this House and will be well familiar with those mechanisms. He might even, from time to time, abuse them.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I will come to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I have been saving up the precious commodity of Mr Pete Wishart. Let us hear from the hon. Gentleman.
Pete Wishart
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that we are all grateful that we will have an extra three hours to debate the refugee crisis, but the Labour party knew that the Scottish National party was giving our Opposition day to discuss the crisis, and it knew that because it requested us to make the whole day about the crisis. It is such an important issue that we must not play party politics with it. [Interruption.] It must not be a feature of the Labour leadership contest. The House deserves much better than that. [Interruption.] Will you make a ruling, Mr Speaker, that our debate will still stand—
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a lot of commotion and I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman. I need to hear what he is saying.
Pete Wishart
Mr Speaker, will you confirm that on Wednesday it will still be in order for the Scottish National party to table a cross-party motion to agree to debate the refugee crisis on a substantive issue, and that we should stop playing games with something so important, because it is more important than any feature of the Labour leadership contest?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and appreciate his patience in waiting to be called. It will be entirely orderly for the hon. Gentleman or his party so to table. As Speaker, my responsibility is simply to hear an application and judge whether it has merit, rather than to become embroiled in what might be considered to be competitions between parties. He has asked me a straight question—will it be orderly?—and the answer is yes. That seems to satisfy not only the hon. Gentleman, but, very importantly—and I mean this—the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) to boot.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Can we boot the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)?
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am saddened by the SNP’s response, as I think it important that all of us who want to debate this subject should be able to do so tomorrow and on Wednesday as well. On Wednesday, we will have the opportunity to discuss a motion and an opportunity to vote; that will be immensely important. I would just urge SNP Members to pause for a second to remember the gravity of the issue that we are discussing, and to make sure that all of us in this House are able to unite around helping thousands of people, rather than debate the timing of the motions.
Mr Speaker
Notwithstanding what has just been said, one thing I can say which will command agreement, because it has the advantage of being factually true, is that there will be a debate under Standing Order No. 24 tomorrow, as a result of the successful application by the shadow Home Secretary, and there will be a debate on these matters in terms it chooses led by the Scottish National party on Wednesday. That is the factual position, and I thank colleagues for what they said.
Now, the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has been waiting very patiently to make his point of order.
Mr Dodds
Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), Mr Speaker. I support entirely what the hon. Gentleman said. Given the grave events in Northern Ireland, it is the wrong time for Northern Ireland questions not to happen. Have you had any communication from a Minister indicating that Government time will be provided to allow some sort of debate on the situation in Northern Ireland in these two weeks when Parliament is sitting? It will be too late when we come back in October.
Mr Speaker
There may well be such an opportunity for a number of reasons, although I cannot guarantee it. First, it is possible that, having heard the right hon. Gentleman speaking with the authority of his office, and having heard what was said by the hon. Member for Ealing North, the Government may choose to provide such a debate. That is one possibility; another is a debate courtesy of the Backbench Business Committee; and a third—depending on the nature of the circumstances, and their urgency or otherwise—is a debate under Standing Order No. 24. So there are opportunities. The right hon. Gentleman is very experienced and I know he will keep an eye on the situation. I will be very sensitive to the legitimate claims that colleagues might have in these circumstances. I hope that that is fair. If a Minister wants to say anything, he is most welcome. No, not on this occasion.
European Union Referendum Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
18:08 - The House divided: - Ayes: 517 / Noes: 59 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
New Clauses, new Schedules and amendments relating to the application to the referendum of section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 or to the subject matter of that section | Two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of clause 2; amendments to clause 2; amendments to clause 2; remaining proceedings on Consideration | Five hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration |
Mr Speaker
Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to make a speech, or simply to vote against?
Mr Speaker
Funny that, turning up in the House of Commons to make a speech. [Laughter.] It will be a pleasure to hear the right hon. Gentleman.
Alex Salmond
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I always think that it is marginally to my advantage to speak when I am trying to persuade hon. Members to support my cause. Many people have argued to the contrary —that silence could be golden in the circumstances—but looking at the programme motion, I do not think the Government should succeed. Only six weeks have passed since we were here discussing the European Referendum Bill. Of course I understand the Government’s anxiety to progress the business while the Labour party is concerned about other matters, but the motion on the Order Paper strikes me as hardly adequate for reasonable discussion.
Those of us who were present during the Committee stage will remember, among many other events, a last-minute starred amendment allowed relating to the timing of the referendum; the Government facing defeat on the issue of purdah; and the absolute confidence with which the Leader of the House and the Minister told us that the question to be put in the referendum was already more or less accepted by the Electoral Commission and that we did not have to worry about that process.
Now we come to Report stage, and we find that we are to have two and a half hours to debate the issue of purdah. We also find that a Government amendment—new clause 10—was tabled so late that you, Mr Speaker, have allowed a manuscript amendment to that new clause. I have absolutely no idea what the Government were doing during the six weeks of recess that they were only able to table a new clause so late as to allow a manuscript amendment to it. That will cause considerable controversy, and I imagine that debating it will take up the full two and a half hours.
That brings us to the second two and a half hours allowed to us, in which we have to discuss the
“Entitlement to vote, impartiality of broadcasters, party spending limits, the referendum…campaigning…financial controls…further provisions about the referendum”
and, crucially,
“the question on the ballot paper”.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
If we do not pass this amendment to the timetable, we finish at 10 o’clock, so we would have less time than is currently proposed. If we support the right hon. Gentleman, we cut our nose off to spite our face.
Alex Salmond
The hon. Gentleman will be able to exercise his best judgment on whether to support the motion, but I think it is reasonable to state the inadequacy of the time allowed. There is little or no chance that all these matters will be adequately and properly discussed, and the hon. Member—the right hon. Member—knows it.
Alex Salmond
I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. These things take time. A few years ago, if someone had said that I would be a right hon. Member, I would have shaken my head as well, but who knows what will happen to him.
It is perfectly proper and reasonable to state that this is an inadequate timetable and to appeal to the best judgment of the Foreign Secretary to tell us that he has been persuaded by this eloquent speech to allow a proper length of time for discussion of these hugely important matters.
To facilitate the House finishing before midnight, Mr Speaker, I shall leave matters there—[Interruption.] Well, I could move past my introduction to say a few things more, but I shall say only that this is not a proper way to discuss a matter of such import. The Government have lost control of the timing of the referendum, they have lost control of the conduct of the referendum and they have been overturned on the referendum question, all in the space of the last few weeks. Their attempt to rush the Bill through this House has not served them well, and even at this last ditch, I think they would do well to consider coming back with a more adequate timetable. The Government might thereby serve the interests of the House, and probably their own interests, rather better than they have been doing.
Question put.
European Union Referendum Bill
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 80 / Noes: 516 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 285 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly negatived.
23:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 249 / Noes: 319 - Question accordingly negatived.
23:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 64 / Noes: 494 - Question accordingly negatived.
12:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 64 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
12:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 237 / Noes: 308 - Question accordingly negatived.
12:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 53 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Manuscript amendment (a) to Government new clause 10, after subsection 5 insert—
‘(5A) Any regulations under subsection (2) must be made not less than four months before the date of the referendum.’.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the “purdah” arrangements that govern ministerial and official announcements, visits and publicity are made at least four months before the date of the referendum.
New clause 5—Restriction on publication etc. of promotional material by central and local government etc.—
‘(1) This section applies to any material which—
(a) provides general information about the referendum;
(b) deals with any of the issues raised by the question on which the referendum is being held;
(c) puts any arguments for or against the proposition that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union; or
(d) is designed to encourage voting at the referendum.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), no material to which this section applies shall be published during the relevant period by or on behalf of—
(a) any Minister of the Crown, government department or local authority; or
(b) any other person or body whose expenses are defrayed wholly or mainly out of public funds or by any local authority.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to—
(a) material made available to persons in response to specific requests for information or to persons specifically seeking access to it;
(b) anything done by or on behalf of the Electoral Commission or a person or body designated under section 108 (designation of organisations to whom assistance is available) of the 2000 Act;
(c) the publication of information relating to the holding of the poll; or
(d) the issue of press notices;
and subsection (2)(b) shall not be taken as applying to the British Broadcasting Corporation or Sianel Pedwar Cymru.
(4) In this section—
(a) publish” means make available to the public at large, or any section of the public, in whatever form and by whatever means (and “publication” shall be construed accordingly);
(b) “the relevant period”, in relation to the referendum, means the period of 28 days ending with the date of the poll.’.
This new clause replicates section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and applies it directly to the EU Referendum. It is supplemented by New Clause 6 on Exemptions to prohibition on publication of promotional material by central and local government etc. (No.2). Amendment 4 removes from the Bill the disapplication of section 125 of the 2000 Act.
New clause 6—Exemptions to prohibition on publication of promotional material by central and local government etc. (No. 2)—
‘(1) For the purposes of the referendum the Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify materials that he or she intends or expects to publish in the relevant period to be exempted from the prohibitions on the publication of materials under section (Restriction on publication etc. of promotional material by central and local government etc.).
(2) Any materials listed in regulations made under this section will not be subject to the prohibitions on publication under section 125 of the 2000 Act.
(3) In this section “the relevant period”, in relation to the referendum, means the period of 28 days ending with the date of the poll.’.
This gender-neutral new clause permits the Government to specify material that they intend or expect to publish in the “purdah” period for the referendum that would be exempted from the prohibition on publication of promotional material contained in section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which Amendment 4 would apply to the EU Referendum. The material would have to be specified in regulations exercisable by statutory instrument, which under clause 6 of this bill must be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
Amendment (a) to new clause 6, at end add—
‘(4) Before laying any regulations under subsection (1) the Government shall seek the advice of the Electoral Commission on the subject of the proposed regulation.
(5) Any advice given by the Electoral Commission under this section shall be published by the time the regulation is laid.
(6) Any regulations under subsection (1) must be made not less than four months before the date of the referendum.’.
The Electoral Commission gives advice to the Government about proposed referendums. The proposed subsections (4) and (5) would reinforce this role in respect of regulations made under this section. Subsection (6) sets a time limit to ensure stable “purdah” arrangements are in place in advance of the start of referendum campaign.
Amendment 11, in clause 10, page 5, line 28, at end insert—
‘(1A) (a) Section 1 will come into effect after a resolution has been passed by both Houses approving arrangements for a purdah period covering a period of five weeks before the referendum date.
(b) arrangements for a purdah period will include—
(i) restrictions on material that can be published by the government, public bodies and the EU institutions; and
(ii) measures to determine breaches of purdah and penalties for such a breach.’
The referendum provision of the Bill could only come into effect after arrangements for purdah had been approved by both Houses of Parliament.
Government amendment 53.
Amendment 78, in schedule 1, page 19, line 23, leave out paragraph 26 and insert—
‘26 (1) Section 125 of the 2000 Act (restriction of publication etc of promotional material by central and local government etc) applies in relation to the referendum during the referendum period with the following modification.
(2) Section 125 (2) (a) of the 2000 Act has effect for the purposes of the referendum as if, after “Crown”, there were inserted “including ministers in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and Her Majesty‘s Government of Gibraltar”.’
The purpose of the amendment is to apply the “purdah” arrangements that govern ministerial and official announcements, visits and publicity during general elections to the campaign period before the referendum.
Amendment 4, page 19, line 23, leave out paragraph 26.
The purpose of the amendment is to apply the “purdah” arrangements that govern ministerial and official announcements, visits and publicity during general elections to the campaign period before the referendum. The amendment should be read in conjunction with New Clause 5 (Restriction on publication etc of promotional material by central and local government etc) and New Clause 6 (Exemptions to prohibition on publication of promotional material by central and local government etc (No.2)).
Mr Lidington
In Committee, I promised to reflect on the concerns that were raised about the Government’s proposal to disapply, for the purposes of the EU referendum, section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Government accept completely the importance of the referendum being conducted in a way that is both fair and seen to be fair by the partisans on both sides of the debate. In particular, that means that the conduct of both Ministers and civil servants must be beyond reproach. We are therefore bringing to the House today proposals that we believe provide the rigorous safeguards wanted by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I reiterate what the Foreign Secretary and I have both said before, namely that the Government will not undertake activities during the final 28 days of the campaign that would be seen as the province of the lead campaign organisations. In particular, there should be no question of the Government undertaking any paid advertising or promotion, such as billboards, door drops, leafleting, or newspaper or digital advertising during that period.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
What is the exact meaning of what the Minister is saying? My letter to him on behalf of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in July made clear the Committee’s view that section 125 should remain unimpaired and that
“the Government should not be allowed to use the machinery of Government (i.e. the resources of the Government) for campaigning purposes during the purdah period, as is already implied in the Civil Service Code.”
Do the Government accept that position?
Mr Lidington
I was going to say that, having studied my hon. Friend’s letter and listened to the views expressed by him and many other hon. Members, we are bringing forward amendments that have three effects. First, we are proposing to reinstate section 125 of the 2000 Act and remove the blanket disapplication that is currently in the Bill. Secondly, we propose a narrow and limited exemption to permit the Government to carry out EU business as usual during the final 28 days of the campaign. Thirdly, we propose a power for exemptions to be made to the general prohibition in section 125, subject to an affirmative resolution being passed by both Houses.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Lidington
If I may finish this point, I will then give way.
In addition, those areas of Government activity that are permitted by Parliament will be subject to guidance from the Prime Minister to Ministers and from the Cabinet Secretary to civil servants based on the purdah guidance issued before previous referendum campaigns. The Cabinet Secretary said in evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee that civil servants would not under any circumstances be permitted to support Ministers in doing things that Ministers were prohibited by statute from taking part in.
Mrs Gillan
Why is it necessary for the Government to make any amendment to section 125? The Electoral Commission has carried out statutory reviews of the referendums since 2004 and has not identified any significant concerns from the Government or any other party about the application of section 125. Why are the Government changing the playing field and insisting on modifications to something that has worked well and that they have used in the past?
Mr Lidington
We are bringing forward limited exemptions from section 125 because we believe—we have received firm legal advice on this—that if left completely unamended, it would pose genuine difficulties. I will go on to speak in some detail about this matter to respond to the concerns that my right hon. Friend and other colleagues have expressed. Before doing so, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).
Sir William Cash
Of course my right hon. Friend has received legal advice, but legal advice can cut both ways. Indeed, Speaker’s Counsel has made it clear that he does not think there is much of a problem in respect of the issues the Minister has just been describing. Not only have the Electoral Commission and Speaker’s Counsel been clear on these points, but if regulations are introduced, they will come in by way of the affirmative procedure after the Bill has been enacted and there will be no opportunity to amend them, because regulations, being statutory instruments, can only be accepted or rejected in their entirety. Does my right hon. Friend not agree?
Mr Lidington
In answer to my hon. Friend’s last point, if the House is dissatisfied with any regulation that the Government put before Parliament, it can reject the statutory instrument. In that case, the default position under the package that I am proposing to the House would be to revert to section 125 without the exemptions being made by regulation. There is, therefore, the safeguard that Parliament will have the final say.
I hope that my hon. Friend will listen when I address the concerns in more detail, but I say to him first that I have been present at a number of debates in the House when he has said that a legal opinion that he has received is of weight and importance. I think that the Government are entitled to take seriously the arguments that Treasury counsel have put to them.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I realise that I should not be interrupting the flow of people to whom the Government are only too anxious to make any concession that is demanded and who are obviously quite clear about what result they want from the referendum—indeed, they are rather more concerned about the result than the process—but will the Minister confirm that, whatever further concessions he is now making, it will still be possible for Ministers to give a clear and authoritative opinion on whether, according to the constitutional Government of the country, it is in the best interests of the United Kingdom in respect of its political future in the world and its economic prospects to be in or out of the European Union, and that little things like being allowed to take advice on the factual accuracy of what they are saying on behalf—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. [Interruption.] Order! The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that interventions have to be short. We cannot have speeches at this stage. [Interruption.] I will make the decision. I am sure that the Minister will want to reply. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman needs to intervene again, he may do so, but we cannot have speeches or long interventions.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to sit down for a moment. He is well known as the big beast and I am certain that he has never worried about the number of people around him who may not be on the same side.
Mr Lidington
The answer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s question is that the Government will, of course, express their view very clearly at the conclusion of the negotiations and make their recommendation to the country, giving their reasons for so doing. One aspect of the debate about which we have concerns is how the Government, who will have called the referendum and made a recommendation to the British people, should be able to express their view and answer questions in the final four weeks, as he described. The debate about so-called purdah and section 125 relates specifically to the final 28 days of the campaign.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend comment briefly on the comments that were sent out at just gone half-past 12 today by Michael Carpenter, the Speaker’s Counsel, in which he said:
“I commented about all this in my earlier note to the Committee. Mr Lidington seems simply to repeat the unsound arguments advanced before.”
For those of us who have concerns, that is a very worrying statement from such learned counsel.
Mr Lidington
If my hon. Friend had received the legal advice that I have had, she might take a rather different view.
Many hon. Members have said that the purdah rules that apply during elections have worked well and I agree. Of course, those rules are based entirely on guidance and convention. They allow for common sense and involve no legal risk. Section 125 of the 2000 Act is very different, since it is a statutory restriction. Given that the EU referendum debate will, I think we would all accept, involve people on both sides of the argument with deep personal pockets and passionate views on the subject, the risk of legal challenges during the campaign is real. The Government are seeking, through the amendments, to manage that legal risk.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
With respect, I think that this is legalistic claptrap. I do not remember the Prime Minister being particularly constrained in arguing his case during the general election. What is important is that the process is considered to be fair. Why can we not just cut to the chase and accept amendment 4, which was tabled by the Opposition, under which we would have full purdah and do what we do in general elections, so that everybody thinks it is fair?
Mr Lidington
As I have just said to the House, what the Government can and cannot do in general elections is governed by guidance and convention, and not by statute, which brings the risk that a dispute could end up before the courts. The situation as regards the EU referendum is different, because there is law on the statute book, dating from 2000, so discretion and common sense cannot be applied in the way that is possible during elections, when we rely on guidance.
On amendment 53, we believe that section 125, as drafted in the 2000 Act, would create legal risk and uncertainty in what I might describe as ongoing normal EU business during the final weeks before the referendum. One of the problems with the original subsection 1(b) is the breadth of the wording that describes and defines the material that would be caught. It imposes a very wide-ranging prohibition on Government activity. It bans public bodies and persons
“whose expenses are defrayed wholly or mainly out of public funds”
from publishing material that
“deals with any of the issues raised by”
the referendum question.
Unlike the recent cases of the Scottish or alternative vote referendums, the subject matter of the EU referendum cannot simply be avoided in Government communications during the last 28 days. The subject of EU membership is broad. A Government statement in Brussels on an EU issue under negotiation could be said to be dealing with an issue raised by the question of our membership, and therefore be caught by the restrictions in section 125. Let me provide an example.
There are ongoing negotiations between the EU and the United States on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. It is perfectly conceivable that, at some stage during the last month of our referendum campaign, those negotiations could reach a stage at which there would be a discussion between the institutions of the EU and member states of the EU. The British Government would have a view on the right outcome and might want to circulate papers to lobby, using the sort of materials that would be captured by the section 125 definition of publication. If the section remains unamended, my concern is that there is a risk that that will be challenged in court, because it could be said to be raised by the referendum campaign. It is certainly conceivable that one or other or both of the campaign organisations could pray in aid that particular issue as indicating why we should or should not remain a member of the EU. Once that happened, it would certainly be classed as raised by the referendum campaign.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is, as usual, helpful in explaining his case. In reality, however, if that situation arose the discussions would not happen in the 28 days when this country was making up its mind whether it wanted to be part of the European Union. That just would not happen. The EU is very good at putting things off and the idea that that example is a reason for changing the law is fanciful.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend does not understand the extent to which we simply do not know. One member state can control the timing of items on the agenda. The timing depends on which particular illustration one is looking at, but the country holding the rotating presidency of the European Union will decide which items of business appear on the agenda of Council and COREPER meetings. The Commission will decide when to publish new proposals for, or amendments to, legislation. The European Parliament is a law unto itself. Its sessions will continue during our referendum campaign and the British Government are likely to want to circulate published material, under the terms of the 2000 Act, to try to influence decisions of MEPs in a way that favours our national interest.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
Can I just get this right? The Minister’s case is that some nefarious other Government will seize the opportunity of the 28-day period to rush something through the European Union. If so, that will be the fastest bout of decision-making in the EU’s history!
Mr Lidington
I am saying that the European Union is a constant process of negotiation on a whole range of issues involving Ministers and officials from many different Departments. In the course of that work to champion our national interests, Ministers and their officials have to produce materials that I believe could be classed, under section 125, as published material and material the content of which would deal with an issue raised by the referendum question. As well as covering a wide range of content, the 2000 Act gives a very broad definition of the term “publish”. It defines it as making it
“available to the public at large, or any section of the public, in whatever form and by whatever means”.
That would therefore cover printed material and electronic communications.
Mr Lidington
Yes, I will, but I am conscious that other Members want to speak.
Philip Davies
May I give the Minister an example of what I fear? What I envisage is if, two weeks before the date of the referendum, the leave campaign is 10 points ahead in the poll—I hope it will be further ahead, but for argument’s sake let us just say it will be 10 points ahead—I am not sure that the Minister’s amendment will deal with the prospect of the Government, the European Commission and the German Chancellor all in a mad panic, like the clumsy intervention in the Scottish vow, standing up and saying, “We hear what you are saying and if you vote to stay in we promise to address some of these issues.” Will the Minister give a commitment now that the Government will not engage in that kind of activity?
Mr Lidington
What my hon. Friend describes would not be permitted under the amendment.
Let me give some examples of the types of business I believe would be caught under section 125. We often table minute statements during Council meetings, for example to set out the UK position on the limits of powers conferred on the EU under the treaty. They are an important point of reference to have on the record, and we make them public and publish them. We circulate papers to other Governments and to the institutions to advocate particular policy outcomes. We did that with some success recently in relation to the digital single market. If appropriate, we would want to do that with other EU business if it happened to fall within the final 28 days of the campaign.
Sir Edward Leigh
As a Minister I sat on Telecommunication Councils and it is incredibly detailed stuff. Surely we could wait 28 days to publish such material. That would be perfectly possible. I do not know what hack in the Foreign Office is writing the Minister’s speech, but the reality is that it just does not add up.
Mr Lidington
If a decision to attempt to reach a consensus at Council happens to be timed to fall within those 28 days—I do not think we can assume that all EU business is going to stop for the last 28 days of our campaign—then of course, in those circumstances, the Government would want to make representations, including circulating the type of paper I have described. European Court of Justice judgments are handed down and advocates-general opinions are presented in a timetable that is not within our gift or influence. Again, the Government not only often wish to comment on such matters but to guide British business and other interest groups on what those judgments or recommendations actually mean. For example, had the recent case on European Central Bank clearances gone against us, there would have been an extremely urgent need to write to notify City institutions on the implications of that judgment for them, to avoid a risk of instability in the markets.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
To clarify a point the Minister made earlier, can he assure the House that under his proposals we will not, in the run-up to the referendum, see something like the vow that came out just before the Scottish independence referendum? Will he rule out that kind of thing?
Mr Lidington
From memory, I think the vow was a commitment by party leaders acting in a party political capacity, so that is a completely different issue.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend’s amendment 53 changes the scope of the subjects within purdah. I have listened carefully to his remarks, and he has explained very articulately the functions that might need to be carried out, but instead of moving amendment 53, could he not accept amendment 4, go back to normal purdah and introduce in statutory instruments exemptions relating to functions rather than subjects?
Mr Lidington
I will come to the detail of our proposal, because in doing so I hope to answer my hon. Friend’s points.
Mr Clarke
My right hon. Friend is so desperate to give way to everything put to him, I do not think I am his friend at all. In my opinion, he has already given away far too much. I quite understand why: the opportunism of the Opposition parties, which do not agree with the hard-line Eurosceptics in my party but which are determined to vote with our rebels to force this preposterous situation on us. Will he assure me that if, two weeks before the campaign ends, a decision is suddenly taken to finish health and safety or food safety regulations in some key area, because a judgment of the European Court has meant that hundreds will die or the horticulture industry will be wiped out, a Minister will be allowed, in these complex trade matters, on TTIP and so on, to consult officials and give some authoritative, clear description of what the decision or proposal actually means? I do not think that most of our right-wing newspapers would report what he would say based on factual advice, but could we leave open the possibility that he can at least consult experts on the negotiations before giving statements on behalf of the Government?
Mr Lidington
The straight answer to my right hon. and learned Friend is that amendment 53 does not address the particular dilemma he describes, because it does not grant such an exemption from the overall restrictions in section 125.
Mr Lidington
I will give way to the hon. Lady, but then I am going to make some progress and not give way again for a time.
Lady Hermon
I want to make a suggestion and throw the Minister a lifeline he may wish to grasp. I think we all agree that both sides want to be sure that the referendum is fair, and I hope both sides agree that the Electoral Commission is independent, impartial and professional in organising referendums. New clause 10 is so drafted that the only duty on a Minister introducing regulations to make exemptions from purdah is that the commission is consulted. I suggest that we change “consult” to “seek the approval of” the commission.
Mr Lidington
I will come to new clause 10 in a few moments, after I have finished with amendment 53, because the arguments raised by the former are slightly different.
I want to deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). Amendment 53 reapplies section 125 for the purposes of the referendum, but with limited modifications to enable the Government to transact wider EU business without the legal risks I have described. The list of prohibitions in the amendment directly reproduces some of the things in section 125, such as the prohibition on the Government encouraging people to vote in the referendum—that is, I think, a word-for-word replication of what is in section 125. The key difference applies to section 125(1)(b), which we propose to rephrase by replacing the words that capture publications on any subject “raised by” the referendum campaign with words applying the prohibition to material that
“directly addresses the question of whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union”,
meaning, we believe, that ordinary, ongoing EU business would not be caught.
We have also proposed revisions to subsection (1)(c) that give additional safeguards to those worried about the Government or other public sector bodies misusing the exemption. If subsection (1)(c) were left in its current form, with the words
“puts any arguments for or against any particular answer”
to the question of our membership, it would create a lack of clarity over whether material would be prohibited if it did not argue explicitly for remaining or leaving but did set out a view of the consequences of remaining or leaving. We took the view that there should not be such a loophole. The amendment therefore provides that any material that either deals directly with the referendum question or sets out the consequences of remaining or leaving would be caught, but that a publication on normal EU business that did not touch on those issues or draw lessons about what it meant for the UK’s membership would be permitted.
My hon. Friend asked why we were proposing this alteration in an amendment to the Bill rather than in secondary legislation.
Mr Lidington
We wanted, if possible, to avoid language that relied on statements about the intention of a particular publication—to use the language in section 125—because once we get into questions about the intention of the publisher, we are almost inviting a legal challenge and wrangle over what was intended or not intended. I considered whether we ought to adopt the approach that I think lies behind my hon. Friend’s question and list exhaustively the types of publication that might be covered. The difficulty is that it is in the nature of EU business that it sometimes proceeds at a stately pace but sometimes rapidly and at short notice, and I felt that the Government needed the ability to respond and that a list purporting to be exhaustive would make it more difficult to manage the legal risks. To sum up, we thought that in managing the legal risks the most effective way to proceed was to balance them with a reinforced safeguard against the misuse of the limited exemption.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Minister not recollect that since the late ’90s, when the legislation was first framed by the Labour Government, the Conservative party, first in opposition and then in government, has never once said that there was any problem with the legislation in all the referendums we have had? We accepted it in 2000 knowing that Labour wanted a referendum on the euro—it was really about the euro referendum we never had—and we never thought it was a problem.
Mr Lidington
The legislation is now 15 years old, and the more we have gone into its detail, the more I have come to the view that many of its provisions, including some we are not planning to amend, would benefit from a review simply to bring it up to date. For example, it was written in an age before the digital communications and social media that are now normal. We have considered this matter in detail and taken serious legal advice, and we believe that there are legal risks of the type I have described.
On new clause 10, on Second Reading, the Foreign Secretary and I argued that given that the referendum was being held on the basis of a clear Government commitment and that voters would be asked in effect whether they agreed or disagreed with a Government recommendation, following a Government-led renegotiation, it was reasonable for Ministers to be able, with restraint, to use ordinary Government communications channels and civil service support, including during the final 28 days of the campaign. However, it was clear from the debates at earlier stages and from my conversations with hon. Members on both sides of the House that there was widespread concern about the scope of any general exemption for Government communications.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
My right hon. Friend seems very nervous about expressing an opinion on that, which would perhaps not be necessary if we had a more representative body listening to the debate than we happen to have in the Chamber at the moment with this selective group. The Government, who will be the Government at the start of the referendum and after it—[Interruption]—and during it, as the Foreign Secretary rightly says, should not have a period of four weeks during which they cannot check the factual accuracy of anything the Minister says on a controversial European subject. The Government will be unable to use the resources of the civil service to put out statements, including factual statements, on what propositions are correct, and they will be unable to use any Government resources to explain the merits or otherwise of what will be the Government’s position on a particular issue. We have not covered this problem; we have already gone—farcically—too far in neutralising the ability of the Government to give an authoritative opinion and explanation of the facts and the issues in the course of the campaign.
Mr Lidington
My right hon. and learned Friend puts his view forcefully. That was the case the Foreign Secretary and I put on Second Reading and in Committee, but widespread concern was expressed on both sides suggesting that we were asking for something that was too broad in scope. That is why we have come forward today with something that is, yes, a lot narrower than what was originally in the Bill.
Mr Lidington
I want to touch on a further point about new clause 10, and then I want to try to bring my remarks to a close, touching briefly on some of the other amendments, because other Members wish to speak.
There has been some debate about whether individuals, including elected representatives, are caught under section 125. We have not proposed to alter the wording in this respect. It states that no material can be published in the final 28 days, and makes it clear that this applies not only to the Government and local authorities, but to
“any other person or body whose expenses are defrayed wholly or mainly out of public funds or by any local authority.”
Let me be straight about this. Both the Foreign Secretary and I were rather taken aback when we received advice saying that there was a risk that elected representatives or anybody else in the public sector might be caught by the provision. A literal reading of that part of section 125 suggests that that might be the case. It is also true that this does not seem to have been a significant issue in previous referendums. It has not been tested in the courts and there is room for legal argument. It would be possible under the automating power to put that beyond any doubt.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
To ensure that the electorate are properly informed so that they can take a decision on our future relationship with Europe on that basis rather than on an emotional basis, we need a proper cost-benefit analysis of the whole issue. It should not be applied just to immigration, which is the issue of today, but to how much the EU costs, how much we get out of it, how the regulations impact on businesses and jobs and so forth, so that the electorate can make an informed choice.
Mr Lidington
I do not want to trespass on matters that will come up in the second group of amendments, which we will debate later, but I am very confident that when we come to the end of the negotiations, the Prime Minister will want not only to make a firm recommendation, but to explain his reasoning to the public in full.
Mr Jenkin
I am somewhat astonished that the Government are raising the question of hon. Members somehow being caught by purdah provisions. It is an established legal principle that titles of sections are not used to determine construction in legal interpretation. The word “person”—here I take the advice of Speaker’s Counsel—is likely to mean “a legal person” and to be of a similar nature to “a body”. The Minister’s suggestion that this might constitute “individuals” betrays, I think, the poor legal advice he has been given.
Mr Lidington
I am not arguing that there is legal certainty about this, but if my hon. Friend looks at the wording of the Act—this is not something invented by this Government—he will see that it refers to
“any other person or body”,
thus distinguishing between the two concepts. I am saying that this would need further discussion and legal analysis, but that if we came to the view that there was any sort of risk to individuals, there should be a power to make it possible to remedy the problem.
Mr Lidington
I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but then I am going to press on.
Mr Chope
Is my right hon. Friend prepared to accept manuscript amendment (a)? Why does he not bring before us a draft of the regulations that he proposes? That is common practice in the legislative context, and Committees are often allowed to look at the draft regulations, but we do not have them before us.
Mr Lidington
It would be premature to bring forward draft regulations before the Bill has completed its progress through this House and before it has even started in the House of Lords. The provisions in amendment 53 include a duty on the Government, following the Select Committee’s advice, to consult the Electoral Commission about anything we might want to bring forward under this measure. Then, of course, those have to be laid before Parliament in the usual way, be debated and be approved or not approved in the same way as any secondary legislation.
Mr Lidington
I am going to make some progress. At the end of the day, it is for Parliament to decide whether or not it is satisfied.
I leave it to Opposition Members to speak to their own amendments. I thought that there was not a huge difference between what they had proposed in new clause 6 and what the Government are proposing, but there are some technical difficulties over issues such as what is meant by the term “materials”, and not least over the fact that the Opposition amendments would permit exemptions from section 125 only for material to be published by the Government. There would, for example, be no provision for any kind of exemption for the devolved Administrations.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I may have missed this in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), but is the Minister minded to accept amendment (a)? Yes or no?
Mr Lidington
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I address that at the appropriate point in my speech.
The Opposition amendments also make no provision for Gibraltar, whereas the Government’s amendment does.
Mr Lidington
I will, but I do want to respond to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin).
John Redwood
I just wanted to finish off this interesting discussion about what MPs can do. It is complete nonsense that MPs could not join in a referendum. We all know that MPs join in referendum campaigns, and in local election and by-election campaigns, and that they do so as politicians. They are, quite rightly, not allowed any MP expenses—they must not abuse this place—but, as politicians, they can intervene, under the existing law.
Mr Lidington
During general election campaigns, we are not Members of Parliament. Parliament has been dissolved, and we act as individuals, putting ourselves forward as candidates. In the case of local or European parliamentary elections, Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority rules apply to how our expenses may be spent. However, there is no statutory prohibition of the kind that is embodied in section 125. Let me say again to my right hon. Friend that it is the words of section 125 that give rise to this concern.
Let me now address amendment (a), tabled by the Chairman of the Select Committee. It suggests that there should be a period of four months between Parliament’s agreeing to any statutory instrument and the date of the referendum. I can see the case for that. It would provide an assurance that the Government would not try to rush through secondary legislation, and it would ensure that Parliament had ample time to consider the matter for it to be on the statute book before the referendum campaign, in its most ardent stages, got under way. However, I felt that the difficulty was that it would introduce a rigidity into the timing that was unwelcome—[Interruption.] Let me finish. We do not know exactly what might happen during the period that we are considering. If something were to come up and there was a consensus in Parliament that a change, a narrow exemption, was needed, we would be unable to introduce it at a later stage if we accepted the minimum period of four months that my hon. Friend has proposed.
Having thought long and hard about the matter and discussed it with colleagues, I have concluded that, largely in the interests of trying to secure as great a consensus as possible, we will accept amendment (a). As I have said, I think that a firm time limit of that type has drawbacks, but, in the interests of bridge-building—and paying due respect to the recommendation of a cross-party Select Committee—I am prepared to accept the amendment on the Government’s behalf.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for outlining the Government’s approach—at some length.
Since the Bill’s publication, there has been a great deal of debate about the purdah provisions, and specifically about the proposal in paragraph 26 of schedule 1 to strike out the purdah regime set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. There has been a great deal of comment about the Government’s motivations. The accusation has been made that they want to load the dice, and to set up a regime for the conduct of the referendum that would stack the odds in favour of one side, or would allow Ministers to abuse the power of their positions.
Having watched the debate unfold, not just this evening but since the Bill’s publication, I suspect that, from the Government’s point of view, this may be something of an accidental fight. This has the feel of a Bill that was drawn up quickly on the back of the election result, with some advice adopted about what purdah might or might not mean, but without that advice being explored and tested as intensely as it might have been in other circumstances. It looks as though the self-imposed imperative of moving immediately after the Queen’s Speech may have taken over from the task of bottoming the Bill out.
I am not sure whether, when Ministers drew up the Bill, they expected the purdah provision to generate this amount of heat. I rather suspect that they did not, but having included the provision in the Bill, they have had to justify it. As we have heard from the Minister this evening, their justification has been twofold. The first justification is that section 125 of the 2000 Act is so widely drawn that it would paralyse much of the Government’s work on the EU referendum, in a way that would not be the case with a referendum on another subject. The second is that the Government want to take a view, express that view, and, in some way, use Government resources—such as civil servants, special advisers or Government websites—to do so.
We listened carefully to the arguments advanced on Second Reading and in Committee. Our proposals are set out in new clauses 5 and 6, and in amendment 4. Taken collectively, those proposals would leave the purdah regime in place, but there would also be a mechanism for seeking exceptions to it through regulations that would have to be approved by Parliament. That would have several effects. It would put Parliament in the driving seat when it came to deciding whether the Government had a case for exceptions to purdah and testing some of the arguments that the Minister has just set out; it would act as a safeguard against the suggestion that the referendum was being run in an unfair way, if Parliament were tasked with approving the regulations; and, as I have said, it would provide a mechanism for testing the proposition that “business as usual” Government announcements—for example, responses to urgent situations or important decisions made at the European Council— would inadvertently be caught by the purdah regime. We believe that this approach—reinstating purdah, but allowing a mechanism via regulations for exceptions to it—is a sensible way to proceed.
Alex Salmond
The Minister suggested that the Opposition had forgotten the devolved Administrations in their amendments and new clauses. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that point?
Mr McFadden
Our intention in all these amendments was to reinstate purdah as set out in section 125, but to set out the mechanism in regulations. If those regulations need to cover the devolved Administrations, they can of course do that.
The Government’s response to the issues raised is set out in new clause 10 and amendment 53, and I would like to spend a few minutes on those. Government new clause 10 accepts our argument about having an exceptions-to-purdah mechanism through regulations approved by Parliament. Indeed, as the Minister set out, there is a great deal of overlap between Government new clause 10 and our new clause 6, but Government new clause 10 has the added dimension of the requirement to consult the Electoral Commission, something asked for by the Public Administration Committee in the correspondence from July. We believe this is a sensible addition and therefore have no objection to new clause 10; nor do we object to the amendment, which the Government have accepted, tabled by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) about the timescale for this.
However, as with much of this debate, amendments and new clauses need to be seen in conjunction with other amendments, in this case Government amendment 53, which makes alterations to the definition of purdah. We do not believe the Government have made a convincing case for those alterations. It is unclear whether the amendment is intended to deal with the business-as-usual issues that the Government have spoken of as being a particular problem, or whether it goes much further in the alteration of the purdah regime. Perhaps more importantly, given the wide redrawing of the purdah rules in this amendment, if it is passed it is not clear whether there will be any need at all for the kind of exceptions regime set out in new clauses 10 and 6. We feel that would give the Government too much scope to act without further parliamentary debate and approval, and we will therefore not support Government amendment 53. To complete the picture of our attitude on these amendments, I should say that we intend to press our amendment 4 to a vote. We will support Government new clause 10, we will oppose amendment 53, and we will support our amendment 4.
Mr Lidington
I went into quite some detail about how amendment 53 was intended to carve out business as usual and added a safeguard to make sure that the exemption could not be abused. What does the right hon. Gentleman fear in this regard?
Mr McFadden
Our concern is that, instead of reinstating purdah and then having an exceptions regime, the Government propose to both have an exceptions regime and change the definition of purdah in such a way that there might not even be a need for an exceptions regime.
In the end, the various amendments and new clauses tabled set out three possible ways to deal with this issue. The first is simply to reinstate the purdah regime with no exceptions or modifications—the route perhaps favoured by some in this House. The second way is to reinstate the purdah regime but have a mechanism for exceptions that are subject to the approval of the House through regulations. That is the approach we have set out, and that the Government have, we acknowledge, moved a considerable way towards with the tabling of new clause 10. The third option, which is the one the Government seem to want to pursue, is both to water down the definition of purdah and have an exceptions regime; that is the combined effect of new clause 10 and amendment 53. We believe that the second approach—to have purdah, with exceptions where there is the approval of this House—is the right one.
Sir William Cash
If the vote on amendment 53 is successful and it is knocked out, there will be a vote on amendment 4. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the consequence of that would be to go back to the full purdah arrangements without any let or hindrance?
Mr McFadden
That would be the case if we did not have new clause 10; yes, amendment 4 would reinstate the full purdah regime, but new clause 10 allows the Government to come forward with regulations dealing with the points the Minister has made about the need for exceptions to this. In that regard, new clause 10 has a lot in common with Opposition new clause 6.
Lady Hermon
I am confused by the right hon. Gentleman’s response to the former leader of the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond)—for whom I have enormous regard on these parliamentary occasions—in relation to the devolved Administrations. Opposition new clause 6 states:
“For the purposes of the referendum the Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify materials that he or she intends or expects to publish in the relevant period”.
It clearly does not apply to the Northern Ireland Executive or the Scottish Parliament, and that could not be extended by regulations; it would have to be extended in this Bill, but that is not in this amendment, and I could not possibly vote for it.
Mr McFadden
As I have said, there is a great deal of overlap between new clause 6 and new clause 10. As I indicated, our voting position is that we will support using new clause 10 to deal with these issues because there is so much overlap between it and our new clause 6. We will oppose Government amendment 53, and we will support our amendment 4.
Sir William Cash
The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) made a very sensible point on the differences between my amendment 78 and amendment 4, because mine takes account of this issue, as the right hon. Gentleman conceded by saying it could be dealt with subsequently with regulations in relation to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. I cannot understand why the Opposition cannot take that on board.
Mr McFadden
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak to these issues later in the debate, if he decides to move his amendment 78.
Many other Members will also want to speak in this debate. However, for all the heat generated by this issue of purdah, we should not mistake it as being more important than the issues of substance that this referendum is about. The Bill before us by definition focuses on the rules of the referendum, and there has been a great deal of heat about that, but the arguments about our future place in the EU and the world are a lot more important, and when our debates here are done we should focus on those, rather than the process and the rules and regulations surrounding the poll.
It is important that the referendum be conducted fairly. The objections to the Government position have been made because people want to ensure that it is conducted fairly. While we want change in the purdah regime, we should not be drawn into one process argument after another, which always sets this up as being an unfair referendum process. As I said at the beginning, the Government have probably got themselves into a fight that they did not entirely intend to get into. Some of the suggestions as to what is caught by section 125 make it look too widely drawn. The approach that we have set out is to reinstate the purdah regime, but allow the Government to bring forward regulations to deal with the problems that the Minister set out. That is a sensible way forward that would neither give too much latitude nor ignore the issues that have been raised in today’s debate.
Mr Jenkin
First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for generously accepting amendment (a) to new clause 10. That will provide a significant safeguard and reassurance, and it will provide stability in the referendum campaign. It means that regulations changing the rules will not be made halfway through the campaign, perhaps to suit the convenience of Ministers at a time when the temptation to avail themselves of that convenience might be considerable, given the big issues at stake in the referendum. I am grateful to members of my Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, for supporting that amendment.
I am bound to say, however, that new clause 10 has been described as an open barn door for whatever changes to purdah the Government want to make. Given that they started from the position that they did not want to have purdah in statutory form at all, we are entitled to be a little suspicious about what kind of regulations they might bring forward. I appreciate that there is a safeguard, in that regulations will have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and the Committee will be vigilant in looking at those regulations.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister, and to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is also listening, for the fact that the Government have accepted the principle that the Electoral Commission should be consulted and give a view in advance of any such regulations. That moves the Electoral Commission into a slightly new role, but it is not uncommon in other countries. In Ireland, for example, the equivalent of the Electoral Commission has a strong role in policing the purdah regime. I will come to that in a minute.
I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe for being so scrupulously polite and confirming to all of us once again that his integrity is unimpeachable. I commend him for having brought the Bill a long way from where it was in June, when the Committee wrote to him after taking evidence from Lord Owen, from Jack Straw, from Peter Riddell, the director of the Institute for Government, from Lord Bew, the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, from the Electoral Commission, from Sir Jeremy Heywood and from Ministers. The Government were, and still are, putting forward the view that section 125 of the 2000 Act is too wide-ranging, but that failed to convince almost all our witnesses. As the Minister will recall, we made it clear in our letter that the Committee’s unanimous view was that section 125 should be restored to the Bill, and that
“its intent should remain unimpaired by any amendment.”
I imagine that that remains the view of Committee members, particularly as I suspect most of them will support what is decided in the Division Lobbies later.
We have the Electoral Commission’s advice on the Government’s new proposals, which makes it clear that, like the rest of us, the commission has had very little time to consider them, although I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for telephoning me while I was in Ireland last week and explaining what was intended. This is pretty complicated stuff, and to end up with 38 pages of amendments to debate in five or six hours is not the best advertisement for how we legislate in this House, but nevertheless there has been dialogue, and it has been good-natured. My colleagues and I do not relish disagreeing with our Government, so we very much appreciate the fact that the dialogue has been conducted in a good-natured way. I thank my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip for that.
The Electoral Commission’s advice states that it has not had sufficient time to fully consider the detailed implications of the Government’s proposals, but that the Government should explain in more detail
“how it would expect to use these powers”—
the powers under new clause 10. It states:
“Our view is that, if Parliament accepts this new clause, its use should be limited only to managing any potential restrictions on the conduct of ‘day-to-day’ EU business.”
The Electoral Commission also makes clear its support for the amendment to new clause 10, which my right hon. Friend the Minister has accepted. It states that any changes should be made
“well before the start of the restricted period of 28 days before polling day.”
I am grateful to him for accepting that.
Speaker’s Counsel has been mentioned. My right hon. Friend said that the TTIP negotiations might suddenly intrude on the last 28 days of campaigning, but Speaker’s Counsel has been clear on that point in emails today. He mentions provisions on EU business being conducted as normal, stating:
“I do not share the view that these are caught by s.125.”
It could not be clearer. He goes on:
“Commenting on EU business is not providing information about a referendum”—
that addresses the question of TTIP negotiations—
“neither is it ‘dealing with any of the issues raised by a referendum’…nor is it putting any arguments for and against any particular answer”.
He points out:
“Even if they were doing any of these things, then s.125(3)(d) expressly allows the issue of press notices (without any restriction as to their content).”
What do the Government need to be able to do that they will not be able to do? That has been singularly unexplained in the whole process.
Mr Baker
Does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental problem is not a lack of faith in the Government but a lack of faith based on past EU referendums in other countries, where the conduct of Governments, and the EU in particular, has led to trust in the process being undermined? Is that not the fundamental problem?
Mr Jenkin
And indeed in our own country—it was the conduct of the Welsh referendum in 1997 that led the Committee on Standards in Public Life to bring forward its proposals for purdah, which the then Labour Government accepted and which the Labour party consistently supports today. Those arrangements were good enough for the north-east referendum, the alternative vote referendum and the most recent Welsh devolution referendum. Indeed, in the view of some Members, they were probably not strong enough in respect of the Scottish referendum last year.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, the purdah proposals were designed for a referendum on the euro, so the idea that the European Union was not considered when the arrangements were formulated is just not correct. Tony Blair’s Government introduced the 2000 Act in order that there could be a fair referendum on the euro, which was his ambition. If these arrangements were good enough for Tony Blair, why are they not good enough for our own Conservative Government?
A referendum should be a solemn and carefully regulated constitutional procedure, not a ploy or device to get a particular outcome and fix a political problem. Abuse of the referendum by less scrupulous Governments in the last century famously led Clement Attlee to describe referendums as
“a device of demagogues and dictators”.
Other countries, such as Sweden, Ireland and Switzerland, have much tougher purdah regimes. The Government’s proposals take us backwards, as we have heard from those who have participated in referendums, such as Nigel Smith, a well-known referendum expert who was chairman of the Scottish yes campaign. He has been appalled by the proposals, and he gave evidence to our Committee about them.
It has been suggested that the precedent for the forthcoming referendum should be 1975. I do not know whether Members have read the 1975 Cabinet minutes, but they show how the Government were set to run a parallel campaign to the yes campaign. That is not the precedent that we should follow in the last 28 days of campaigning. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary could bring forward a White Paper before the start of the 28-day period, just as the Scottish Executive brought forward a comprehensive White Paper about their proposals for Scottish independence, although it was lacking in detail and a little bit partisan—we had some comments to make about that. There is nothing to stop the Government bringing forward as much information as they want before the purdah period. Incidentally, the Electoral Commission thinks that 28 days is far too short for a purdah period and we are not debating that today. If the Government, with all the advantages that Governments have, cannot win the referendum just because they will be restricted for the last 28 days, what kind of referendum do we expect to have?
I listened to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and I really think he wants to go back to a 1975-style referendum where the Government are used as an instrument of campaigning in what should be a fair fight. What is the point of having spending limits on the yes and no campaigns if Ministers can use the machinery of Government in an unrestricted way, which is what the abolition of purdah would mean?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I have never known a referendum of any major consequence in which the losing side has not followed up its defeat by saying it has been cheated and that the electorate has just been misled. That has been said ever since the 1975 referendum, and the Scottish nationalists have said the same thing ever since the Scottish referendum. The Government have no intention of putting out publicity, as they have said. The basic proposition should be that the Government of the day, when putting out a statement of their policy or an explanation of their position on a particular proposal—such as whether or not we as members of the European Union should be party to a TTIP with the United States—should be entitled to use the civil service and their press office as a source of advice and checking the factual accuracy of what Ministers are saying on behalf of the Government. The alternative is preposterous: under my hon. Friend’s proposition, for three weeks there would be no Government.
Mr Jenkin
That is absolute nonsense. Even in a general election, Ministers can get advice from their Departments. Ministers also take advice during local government elections. If something happens that is unconnected with the referendum, Ministers will be able to take advice. I have heard it said that Ministers want to use their private offices to organise their speaking tours and to use their special advisers, who are paid for by the taxpayer, to campaign in the referendum. That is not an acceptable use of public money. What is the point of placing spending limits on the yes and no campaigns if the Government are going to avail themselves of all those advantages? My right hon. and learned Friend could persuade the Government to produce a White Paper to set out their case well in advance of the purdah period. That is an unimpeded advantage of which the Government can avail themselves. All we are saying is that there should be something of a level playing field in the last 28 days.
I regret that the Opposition accept new clause 10; nevertheless I am grateful that they support amendment (a) in order to create a framework for the creation of regulations. I am very unhappy with amendment 53. As the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), made plain, to have amendment 53—which already adulterates section 125—without the scrutiny process of regulations and a specific debate about what Ministers actually want to exempt is a shot from a double-barreled shotgun against section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. If the Government want to provide exemptions, they should introduce the amendments under regulations rather than under amendment 53.
The advantage of defeating amendment 53 is that we will be able to have amendment 4 instead. It was the unanimous view of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee that section 125 and its effect on this referendum should be restored unimpeded. That would be the effect of amendment 4, but there may be some tidying up to do.
Sir William Cash
Does my hon. Friend accept that, while we may end up voting for amendment 4, amendment 78 is better, simply because it deals with the problems of the devolved territories? As I put it to the Opposition’s Front-Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), even if we end up with amendment 4, the consequence will be that we will still be thrown back by new clause 10, which will leave it all to regulations. As far as I am concerned, that is highly unsatisfactory.
Mr Jenkin
Most of my Committee would certainly agree that this is making the best of a bad job. We will, however, make some progress today if we succeed in restoring section 125 under amendment 4, which the Opposition have pledged to put to a vote should amendment 53 be defeated. I therefore advise my colleagues, very reluctantly, to vote against amendment 53, because while I think the Government have conceded the principle that there should be purdah, they have not accepted the fact of how it will apply. If they want to amend the Bill again in the other place, it would be worth while having that discussion, rather than accepting amendment 53.
Mrs Gillan
May I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he and the Committee have done? Although I am a member of the Committee, I was not able to participate, but he knows my views on the subject. Given that the Government have conceded that their original plans were not acceptable, does he agree that the elegant solution would be for them to withdraw amendment 53 and allow amendment 4 to go through? Purdah would then be reinstated and the Government would have the flexibility, through the solutions provided by the Committee, to produce the regulations for this House to scrutinise. Would not that restore the general public’s confidence in the referendum process?
Mr Jenkin
I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend. In fact, I think that would reinforce the integrity with which the Government have approached the matter. They still have the option of amending the Bill again in the other place and bringing it back for discussion in this House, and of introducing regulations under new clause 10, so long as that happens at least four months before the date of the referendum. I am bound to say that there are plenty of options available to the Government. They do not need to divide the House on amendment 53.
Mr Baker
My hon. Friend may not be able to commit to this now, but does he think that the Committee he chairs would be prepared to scrutinise statutory instruments before they come to the House, so that the Government could have confidence that they enjoyed cross-party support before they came to the vote? We are well aware that they cannot be amended; they can only be voted down.
Mr Jenkin
I will certainly undertake to put that in front of my Committee. It depends on the Government: if they table amendments 35 minutes before the deadline and a recess period and are then determined to discuss them on the first day back, it makes it very difficult to scrutinise matters, as the Electoral Commission has attested. I invite my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe to make sure that any regulations he introduces under new clause 10 are published in draft so that we can properly give them pre-legislative scrutiny, take proper advice on them and make objective recommendations to the House without being rushed or bounced into them.
One of the advantages of amendment (a), which my right hon. Friend has kindly accepted, is that the temptation to bounce the country into a referendum has been significantly reduced. If we are to have a sensible referendum debate, there has to be a proper period for discussion of the outcome of the Government’s negotiations and the merits or otherwise of remaining in or leaving the European Union. I am sure that was the Government’s ambition when they originally proposed the idea of a referendum. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in winding up.
Alex Salmond
I wish to speak to amendment 11, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends.
The Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), had my rapt attention and much of my agreement until he produced the remarkable argument that if purdah was good enough for Tony Blair, it should be good enough for the House now. I am afraid that the alliance of scepticism against the Government’s motives was dissolved as a result of that one phrase, that one single disastrous rhetorical flourish.
The hon. Gentleman made another point with which I disagreed, and I want to put this on record before I come to the points on which I agreed with him. He wandered into a period outside the purdah and asked whether at that point the Government had the right to publish a White Paper giving their point of view, backed as a democratically elected Government by the civil service. Of course they have the right to do that, but the House should be concerned about whether the restrictions should apply during the 28-day purdah period, or perhaps for a week longer were the Electoral Commission to have its way. I think that they should, and I shall illustrate that view with a cautionary and moral tale from the Scottish referendum.
The Scottish referendum was regulated not by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—PPERA—but by the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013. The Act made provision for a statutory purdah period in Scotland during the 28 days leading up to the referendum. According to the explanatory notes, part 4 of the Act provided that,
“for the 28 day period ending with the date of the referendum, the Scottish Ministers and certain public authorities in Scotland cannot publish any material providing general information about the referendum, dealing with issues raised by the question to be voted on in the referendum, putting any arguments for or against a particular answer to the question to be voted on, or which is designed to encourage voting in the referendum.”
In other words, acting in their capacity as Ministers, they were not allowed to use the Government machine during the purdah period to advance the yes cause to which they were all committed. I must point out to those on the Government Front Bench today that nobody interpreted that to mean that this First Minister or any other Scottish Minister should not take part in the referendum campaign. The explanatory notes to the Act went on to state:
“However, this rule does not apply to information made available following a specific request; specified material published by or under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body; any information from the Electoral Commission, a designated organisation or the Chief Counting Officer or any other counting officer; or to any published information about how the poll is to be held.”
In a situation that was every bit as disputatious in regard to the arguments for and against, those measures in the Act were passed with hardly any dissent, rancour or suspicion of motives. It was accepted that that was the right thing to do. Perhaps the Government should have suggested something similar for this referendum, instead of doing whatever they were doing during the recess, unless they are seriously arguing that the constitution of this country involves a much simpler process for a European referendum. Had they done that, they would not now find themselves in this embarrassing position.
Sir William Cash
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the EU dimension of the Scottish referendum was pretty hot? I seem to remember President Barroso and others making statements about the single currency, for example. I speak now as the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the arguments about the EU business that have been put forward by the Government are rather specious, given that the EU dimension of the Scottish referendum was really very volatile?
Alex Salmond
Yes, indeed it was, but we are discussing the 28-day purdah period at the moment. It has been suggested to me by a knowledgeable European that President Barroso, as he then was, harboured ambitions to be the Secretary-General of NATO and was hoping for support from Ministers—perhaps not those in the Chamber tonight, but those who are none the less not too far from us. Who knows why President Barroso made those interventions, but they were not made during the 28-day purdah period.
The cautionary aspect of this tale is that that purdah period, enacted in legislation, bound the Scottish Government and their agencies and public bodies in Scotland but it did not bind the United Kingdom Government. The UK Government were bound not by statute but by the Edinburgh agreement of 15 October 2012. That was what we used to call a gentleman’s agreement; it had no statutory basis. Paragraph 29 of that agreement stated:
“The Scottish Government will set out details of restricted behaviour for Scottish Ministers and devolved public bodies in the Referendum Bill to be introduced into the Scottish Parliament. These details will be based on the restrictions set out in PPERA. The UK Government has committed to act according to the same PPERA-based rules during the 28-day period.”
Now, I do not think that they did that. I do not think that most reasonable Members of this House believe that that is what was done. I will give two examples from among the many that I could use.
The first is, I admit, arguable, but it has already been raised on the Conservative Back Benches. It relates to the production of the vow when there were 10 days of campaigning left. The vow was described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on “The Andrew Marr Show” on 7 September 2014 in this way:
“You will see in the next few days a plan of action to give more powers to Scotland, more tax powers, more spending powers, more powers over the welfare state.”
One of the arguments in favour of purdah is that the arguments should be laid out and set before the campaign period, and that during the campaign the politicians can debate them and the people can participate in the debate—as they did in huge numbers in Scotland—and make up their minds. It is not meant to be a period during which politicians can say, “Here’s a fresh initiative that we forgot to mention earlier.”
A comparison could be made with the European referendum if, for example, what used to be called the no side were to take the lead, unexpectedly perhaps, with 10 days to go and the German Chancellor or the President of the Republic of France were to suspend Question Time in the Bundestag or the National Assembly, get on a plane and rush across to say that the Prime Minister’s renegotiations of our position had suddenly found more favour with them than had previously been the case.
I accept that this point is arguable. Others could argue that the vow was not really a Government announcement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that he was just speaking off his own bat as a politician. I am not sure that that is a good argument, but it is certainly a cautionary tale.
Philip Davies
I always enjoy hearing what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, because he speaks so well and is very persuasive. I should like to put on record that I share his view that the vow made during the independence referendum was completely unacceptable. It was a panic measure that was clearly introduced by the Government, and I envisage exactly the same thing happening in an EU referendum, given the same circumstances.
Alex Salmond
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I would have welcomed it even more if he had made it exactly a year ago. I could then have publicised his scepticism about his Government’s motives.
The second example that I shall give the House is, in my view, beyond argument. The purdah period is meant to cover not only Government Ministers but civil servants. Their involvement is arguably defensible throughout the run-up to a referendum. I disagree with the Select Committee on this point; I believe that civil servants should be able to act on behalf of the elected Government of the day. However, during the purdah period, they are not meant to take a position on the matter that has been put in front of the people. I want to make a point about the referendum unit in Her Majesty’s Treasury, which was described by the permanent secretary to the Treasury earlier this year as a “Unionist institution”. The clue is in the name: Her Majesty’s Treasury. This ignores the fact that the monarchy in its present state was formed a century before the treaty of Union, which was under debate. The referendum unit in the Treasury continued its activities throughout the referendum campaign.
I have an email here showing the briefing from Treasury sources that was going on a week before the referendum. The email was sent to the BBC by a civil servant in the referendum unit of Her Majesty’s Treasury—that Unionist institution—and it was designed to influence the conduct of the referendum, one week before the vote. That seems to be a glaring example of what would have been a breach of the purdah regulations, had they been placed in statute rather than simply in the terms of the Edinburgh agreement.
That is why I turn to our amendment 11. The Minister told us earlier that he did not want to be in a position where legal challenges were flying here, there and everywhere, as that would be an impossible position for the Government to be in. The way to avoid that is not by dismissing the regulations, but by having a system for enforcing the regulations—one that does not rely on injunctions, interdicts or legal cases, but one within the regulations that is properly respected. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made the point in an earlier intervention about the Electoral Commission. The way to avoid a recurrence of what happened in the Scottish referendum and to dispel the notion that the Government over these past four months have been trying to pull a fast one on purdah, which is the overwhelming view across this Chamber at this moment, is by having an enforcement mechanism within the regulations on purdah. That could be done via the Electoral Commission, as the hon. Lady suggested, or via a committee of Privy Counsellors—ever since I became one I have become much friendlier to the idea of a committee of Privy Counsellors. There needs to be some respected body to which possible breaches of purdah can be reported, and these can be investigated and then enforced.
Mr Jenkin
I think the right hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement about the role of civil servants—obeying the Government of the day but not carrying out instructions that would put their Ministers in breach of purdah. There should be something in the civil service code that makes it clear that the yes and no campaigns of a referendum are the equivalent of political parties in an election, but the code contains nothing about referendums. I have great sympathy with the point he is making about the enforcement of purdah, because the north-east referendum had exactly the same problem as he is describing; John Prescott announced new proposals in the last few days before the referendum and we could not get anybody in government interested—they said it was a matter for Ministers.
Alex Salmond
The Chair of the Select Committee cited Tony Blair approvingly, presumably to encourage Labour Members’ support, but attacked John Prescott to move them away. None the less, the hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the bar is so low for a breach, as he puts it, of purdah that even talking on “The Andrew Marr Show” about proposals amounts to such a breach? Is that not a contraindication to the other aspect of his argument and other arguments that have been heard in this Chamber today, in that Ministers and MPs can talk about matters without things being a breach of purdah?
Alex Salmond
That question was some time in the gestation, and I had moved on from what I described as the “arguable” case of the vow. The vow was not a single appearance on “The Andrew Marr Show”, and I used the quote from that show just to demonstrate to the House that the vow was presented as a new initiative, something different, a last-minute offer. The argument about whether the vow breached purdah has been made well by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and the analogy in a European referendum would be a re-presentation. Presumably, the idea in the European referendum is meant to be that the Prime Minister renegotiates this country’s relationships with the EU and then presents that to the people for consideration of whether they want to be in or out on that basis. The equivalent idea here, therefore, would be that he finishes that renegotiation but things are going badly in the campaign and so there is a further renegotiation and re-presentation. I certainly do not believe that is within the spirit of a purdah regulation, although people might argue that it meets the letter of it.
I accept that that point is debatable—I am pretty clear which side I am on—but there is no debate whatsoever about the behaviour of officials in Her Majesty’s Treasury in the referendum unit who were actively briefing and intervening during the campaign. The reason that was allowed to happen is that, as the Chair of the Select Committee said, the civil service code does not specify referendums in the way that it does elections and there was no statutory basis for the enforcement of purdah in the UK Government as there was for the Scottish Government.
Sir William Cash
In the light of the interesting argument and the factual information that the right hon. Gentleman is giving the House, I wondered whether he had had an opportunity to discuss these matters with the Opposition and what the outcome of those discussions might be as to whether they would support the kind of enforcement arrangements he has in mind.
Alex Salmond
I have had some chats through informal channels, but I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman’s warm reception to my point might convince those in all parts of the House that there was something sensible in not just talking about purdah but actually having an organised enforcement mechanism and putting in place my amendment’s suggestion of
“measures to determine breaches of purdah and penalties for such a breach”.
As I say, I am open to the suggestion from the hon. Member for North Down about involving the Electoral Commission or about its involving a committee of Privy Counsellors—just so long as there is an enforcement mechanism. The evidence from last year, when there was no statutory basis or enforcement mechanism, was that there are people who will drive a coach and horses through a purdah period.
I am pro-European to my fingertips. I am more pro-European than I suspect most Conservative Members will ever be and certainly more than the Prime Minister will ever be, but I want to see this referendum conducted on a fair and proper basis. That includes a purdah period and, when it has been agreed, everybody sticking by the rules and there being an enforcement mechanism to make sure that they do so.
Sir William Cash
I would just like to take up the point that the right hon. Gentleman ended on. For all the reasons that I gave in Committee, when I put the case for going back to section 125 in its complete integrity, in order to have fairness it is essential that we have something by which people abide. A lot of this debate tends, from time to time, to move between what the Conservative party says or what Labour, the Liberal Democrats or the Scottish National party say. First, it was decided that we were going to have a European Union referendum Bill, and now the Electoral Commission has changed the nature of the question, with the consent of the Government. The question now is, “Do you, the voters of this country, want to remain in or do you want to leave?” This has cut completely across all political parties. Therefore, although this debate is taking place in this Chamber, the nature of this debate involving the Conservatives, Labour and the SNP must not be allowed to distort the fact that this is a vote about the real future of the individual people of this country. It is about the voters deciding for the first time since 1975 whether they are going to stay in what I regard now as a dysfunctional European Union—the immigration issue has recently made that even more obvious—or whether we are going to continue to argue that we should leave, because we can make that case. That is to come and the bottom line is that this Bill is not about “Conservative versus Labour”; it should be about the positions adopted across the Floor of the House. I know for a fact that many Labour Back Benchers agree with those who share my view on the Conservative Back Benches—and there are some on the Front Benches, too. It may well turn out that we will need to address the question later of whether or not Ministers should be allowed to participate on either side of the debate in the national interest.
I was particularly taken by and interested in the recent article the Minister wrote on “ConservativeHome”, in which he rather gave the game away. He and I have been discussing this since 1990, when he was special adviser to no less than the Foreign Secretary and other people in No. 10 were desk officers for the Government position at that time under John Major. Let me read what he said right at the end of his article, because I want to concentrate on the reasons for purdah. We have heard so many arguments in relation to the process. I have made my position quite clear, which is that amendment 78 is more comprehensive than amendment 4. Let me bypass that argument for the moment in the interests of trying to achieve the best result, but without prejudice to coming back to the matter at a later date.
In the final paragraph, the Europe Minister said:
“Ultimately, this is about the EU’s effectiveness as a whole. We want”—
whoever we may be—
“a dynamic, competitive, outwardly focused Europe, delivering prosperity and security for all of the people in the EU, not just for those in Britain.”
Actually, that is not what this debate on the referendum will be about. Elements of the argument will demonstrate that there are certain advantages in having a degree of alliance and co-operation in Europe, which I am in favour of, but not on the basis of the status quo of the treaties, or of the tweaking of negotiations that do not make any substantial difference to the basis on which those treaties are conducted. That is why I have firmly concluded that we must leave the European Union. I have just come back from Luxembourg—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary can ask me any question from the Dispatch Box. I have just come back from Luxembourg where the national chairmen of a whole raft of EU committees were debating questions relating to migration. I can only say that the trend of the arguments was not at all in line with many of the things that we in this House would have expected had those arguments been put forward by our own Ministers.
Basically, I am cynical, to say the least, about the outcome of this debate. The trouble is that we are being invited to cut across the fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) has said, that there have been four referendums without any legal problems. Furthermore, the Electoral Commission has backed amendment 78—it did not mention amendment 4 because it knows that my amendment deals with the devolved territories as well—and we have Speaker’s Counsel on our side. We are told by the Minister that, as far as he is concerned, there are a number of legal opinions, including from two leading counsels, that have indicated that there could be legal problems. Well, that is not what the Speaker’s Counsel says. His advice relating to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is on the website for anyone to see. He has reinforced his view in the light of the remarks made by the Europe Minister on “ConservativeHome”. I expressly sent the Speaker’s Counsel a copy of that article and asked him whether he would revise his legal view. He is very distinguished and was the legal adviser to the European Scrutiny Committee for many years. He has also been involved in the legal service of the European Commission. He knows what he is talking about, and I take these other legal opinions that we are being offered with a pinch of salt.
Finally, I say to the Foreign Secretary, who is chuntering quite a lot—I say that with great respect because I rather like him—that if those opinions are so important, let us see them. Let us see the basis on which the advice was given, and we will hear the same old arguments that we heard about the Iraq opinion. At the end of the day, however, we did get the Iraq opinion. This issue may not be quite so momentous, but none the less to fall back on the old canard that we should not publish opinions is not actually an answer to the questions that we are asking. We want to know the basis on which the advice was given.
I just do not believe that the Government’s arguments add up. A lack of trust has been generated, which goes deep into the past—right the way back to the White Paper of 1971 when we were promised that we would have a veto, which has now been overridden. We have not been given a referendum since 1975, and it is essential that we have a fair referendum that people can trust. I fear that the outcome of the vote this evening will be that new clause 10 goes through, perhaps with an amendment that might make a marginal difference. A vote against amendment 53 will simply allow a vote on amendment 4, which takes us back to a kind of purdah, but not the complete purdah that I and I think the British people want under amendment 78. We are the representatives of the people, which is why I wish to speak so candidly on this matter.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and to be a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. Basically, I agree with him that it would have been a lot better to have had no tampering with section 125, and that we should have left it as it was and abided by the legislation that was enacted all those years ago.
I want to speak strongly in support of what the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said. He chose his words carefully and wisely. I was pleased to be a member of his Select Committee, to participate in the discussions and to listen to the advice that we were given. I have signed his amendment (a), and I am pleased that the Government have accepted it. I am also pleased that our Front-Bench team is going along with the attempts to modify the Government’s position. As I have said, it would have been much better to have had none of this debate and to have accepted the legislation as it was. I had a slight qualm about one thing that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said, and that is that my enthusiasm for Tony Blair is rather more muted than his. I will say no more than that.
It is important that somebody from the Labour Back Benches says a few words in support of the shift that has taken place in the Government. It seems to be supported by all sides even though it does not go as far as I would like. That is very important, because, whichever way this referendum goes, if there is a sense that it is not fair, it will devalue the whole result. I am of a certain age and I remember well the 1975 referendum, in which I participated strongly, as I have mentioned before. I was the chair of the “Vote no” committee in Luton and the agent for the “Vote no” position in Bedfordshire at the time, so I know what happened very well. It was unfair, and the resources piled into the yes side compared with the puny resources on the no side were unbelievable. That was a travesty of democracy. When we are voting on fundamental constitutional positions, it is important that referendums are regarded as fair by all sides.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is no longer in his place, implied that no one takes referendums seriously and that after the result whoever loses always thinks that they have been treated unfairly. I do not think that is true. Some years ago, referendums on the European constitution took place abroad. The political establishments in France and Holland put massive resources into ensuring that there was a yes vote, but on both occasions there was a no vote. I do not think that they thought that the result was unfair, even though the big resources were on the losing side. They had to come up with another way of dealing with the matter and, of course, they introduced very similar constitutional changes into the European Union.
It is important that we ensure that the purdah period is seen to be fair, that no cheating takes place and that the Government cannot use their resources to pour in propaganda on their own side, whatever that might be. One assumes that the Government will come back and say that they have made a wonderful deal in the European Union and that we should all vote in favour of it. If that is the case, we want to have a fair debate that is seen to be fair by all sides.
Like the hon. Member for Stone, I have deep reservations about the European Union. We have constant talk about Europe, and I have to say over and again that this is about not Europe but the European Union, which is a political structure imposed on some of the countries of Europe. Europe is a wonderful place that I love dearly. I am very Eurocentric: I go there for my holidays, I drink European wine, and I love European culture, history, language—everything. But it is Europe I love, not the European Union.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I agree with my hon. Friend’s line of argument. It would have been better had section 125 been left in its entirety. I take a more optimistic view than some Members. The benefit of this debate is that it has exposed the Government trying to do something underhand. That debate has been had and now, during the referendum, they will have not only to follow the rules but to be seen to be following the rules of purdah. This debate has almost certainly ensured a much fairer referendum campaign.
Kelvin Hopkins
I broadly agree with my hon. Friend. The debate has largely cleared the air and I look forward to a much fairer referendum than might have taken place if we had not had it or these changes.
Before I conclude, I should apologise for not being in the Chamber for the beginning of the Minister’s speech. I heard the meat of it and the important points that he made, however.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and I agree with pretty much every word he said.
I find it extraordinary that we are having this debate. We are discussing something that is part of our national politics. We have had a long-standing convention that Ministers can act and speak as Ministers and then move into a different mode and act as politicians. The most graphic example I can give is for Members go to the Government website and look at the transcript of the Bloomberg speech and then go to the New Statesman’s website. On the Government website, certain political phrases are excised. That is absolutely normal in our political discourse, certainly in general elections.
The Cabinet Secretary himself, referring to the last general election, wrote on the civil service blog:
“For this election, purdah begins today. Of course, the country—and the public services that we deliver—can’t just stop for the election. The UK Government retains the responsibility to govern and Ministers remain in charge of their departments. Civil servants will keep delivering government business, and if any crisis needed urgent action then we would tackle it in the normal way.”
We know that that works perfectly well in general elections. I remember going to help one of our Ministers. She had been to a ministerial event with her red box in the morning and she came back and was acting as a politician. It works fine and we have a long-standing tradition of doing that during general elections.
We did not have purdah in referendums, as was shown spectacularly in the first Welsh referendum. I was involved, as there was a complete cleanout of Tory MPs in Wales. I was the nearest thing, because my bottom gate is 50 yards from the Welsh border. The Tory party was flat on its back at the time and the Labour party behaved in the most amazing manner. There was even an aeroplane that flew along the south coast of Wales with a large banner fluttering along behind it reading “Vote yes, support Blair”. That was where we were with referendums, so it was quite right that the Neill committee was established.
It is worth remembering the comment made by Professor Vernon Bogdanor, which I mentioned earlier. He taught the Prime Minister a little something. He said that
“one purpose of a referendum…is to secure legitimacy for decisions where Parliament alone can not secure that legitimacy. For that legitimacy to be secured, the losers have to feel that the fight was fairly conducted.”
That point has not been made tonight, apart from by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). Everything we say tonight is for the birds if the public smell a rat. If the public detect that the referendum has been rigged to help one side, they will not feel that it is legitimate or that the debates are straight. Whatever the result, many of them will not accept it.
There is an incredibly important point here. Purdah was not set up lightly. It was set up after long debates and I remember clearly that Labour’s interpretation of the Neill committee’s recommendations was that it should be 28 days. Those of us in the Conservative Opposition at the time were very unhappy with that. We had wild, radical Jacobins who are now in the Lords, such as Lord Fowler, Lord MacGregor and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—not crazies, or crazy radicals—who argued consistently and steadily for more than 28 days, and we pushed that. I remind the House of those debates, in which those of us in the Conservative party reluctantly accepted 28 days.
I find it strange that those on the Labour Front Bench are not proud, as they should be, of introducing purdah. After the horrors of the first Welsh referendum, they took note, listened to the Neill committee and came forward with these purdah rules, which have worked extremely well. Labour should be proud of how the rules have worked. We have had several referendums. I am sitting next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who was Secretary of State during the most recent Welsh referendum. I am totally unaware of any problem relating to purdah in any of those referendums so I am afraid that I doubt the Government on this.
Mrs Gillan
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The referendum was conducted on 3 March 2011. As Secretary of State at the time, I remained neutral, because I wanted the Welsh people to have confidence in the outcome, and that is what happened. There was a good result in favour of the Welsh Assembly Government having primary legislative powers, and there was no problem whatsoever with the period of purdah, either at UK Government level or at Welsh Government level.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I would like the Minister to try to cite a single example of purdah rules infringing the ability of the Minister with responsibilities in the areas affected by those referendums to act effectively.
I do not have much time, but I want to mention one interesting organisation, the European Commission for Democracy through Law, which is better known as the Venice Commission. It is the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters. My interpretation of its guidelines on referendums is that they seem to be breached by the current UK Government’s stance on purdah. I would be very interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister’s comments on that. To help his team, the guidelines to which I am referring are the “Guidelines for Constitutional Referendums at National Level”, which state that
“public authorities (national, regional and local) must not influence the outcome of the vote by excessive, one-sided campaigning.”
In 2005 the commission published “Referendums in Europe: An Analysis of the Legal Rules in European States”, which noted approvingly that countries such as Ireland, Portugal and Latvia have strict provisions for electoral neutrality. Even the Russian Federation has neutrality rules. It would be interesting to know where we feature in that regard. Also, have the Government looked at the most recent code of practice on referendums from 2007, which makes it very clear that respect for equality of opportunity is crucial for referendums and elections?
The most recent endorsements of the proposals are in amendment 4 and in amendment 78, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, and which I have signed. It is worth noting that the Electoral Commission has stated:
“We have not identified problems with the workability of section 125 of PPERA applying to governments at previous referendums, and so we think that it should be workable in relation to this referendum.”
I am afraid that everything I see this evening will be a mess. The only really clean solution is to go back to purdah, as outlined in the debates when we reluctantly agreed 28 days, and we can do that with amendment 78. I would like to hear what the Minister’s legal advice is. The Speaker’s Counsel—this has been mentioned twice, but I will mention it a third time—has said clearly that making statements on European Councils and putting them in press releases is allowed because they do not infringe section 125. Let me just put that on the record. Section 125 refers to material that
“(a) provides general information about a referendum…
(b) deals with any of the issues raised by any question on which such a referendum is being held;
(c) puts any arguments for or against any particular answer to any such question”.
As a layman, I just do not see how a Minister going to a Council, putting that into a statement and then repeating it in a press release can infringe section 125. I would really like the Minister to put the legal advice he has received in the Library.
I will bring my remarks to a swift conclusion. I do not like new clause 10. We will have to trust the Government to produce a list of exemptions. It is entirely black and white; we either accept or we reject. It would have been much better if the Government had put those exemptions in an amendment, as they have done with amendment 53. Why not consider the other exemptions in a full debate such as this, rather than a take-it-or-leave-it statutory instrument? I am convinced that the only real solution is to go back to the proper purdah that we thrashed out previously, which worked in previous referendums.
Sir William Cash
Does my right hon. Friend have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) on the enforcement of purdah, because we are getting into a bit of a mess on this, as my right hon. Friend has said? If there was some means of enforcing the purdah that is left, we might have at least some leverage over what happens later.
Mr Paterson
That is certainly worth looking at, but what we really need is a return to proper purdah and we want section 125, so we would like the House to support amendment 78, which covers the devolved parts of the United Kingdom. That is the best solution. I think that what we are looking at is a botch. I think that it will end up looking like new clause 10, and possibly like amendment 4, but that is better than where we were last time.
I thank the Minister for the respectful way in which he has listened to the debate, but I would be grateful if he answered the points I have made. I repeat them again. What are the instances in previous referendums when purdah stopped normal Government functioning? Where are we with clarity regarding the Venice Commission? Please can these horrific legal statements, which have put such a spook under the Government, be placed in the Library? For myself, I will seek a return to pure purdah.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
The rules relating to purdah in elections ensure a fair and proper process during elections and referendums. In fact, the Cabinet Office’s general election guidance, issued just before this year’s general election, states that elections
“have a number of implications for the work of Departments and civil servants. These arise from the special character of Government business during an Election campaign, and from the need to maintain, and be seen to maintain, the impartiality of the Civil Service, and to avoid any criticism of an inappropriate use of official resources.”
The Scottish National party believes that the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union—arguably our most vital and strategic international relationship—should set the gold standard for fairness and impartiality. The Government’s original proposals fall far short of that standard—indeed, they will undermine public and parliamentary confidence in the process. That is why they are now—eventually—being opposed by Members on both sides of the House.
The Government’s latest back-pedalling exercise, otherwise known as new clause 10, still fails to live up to the highest standard of impartial conduct, and specifically fails to introduce any mechanism properly to enforce the purdah regulations it proposes. Amendment 11, standing in my name and those of my colleagues, fills that gap. The Minister’s own former Government colleague, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), from whom we have just heard, is quoted in The Times today as saying:
“All we’re asking is that this debate is open and fair, and we adhere to the current rules on purdah”.
He continues:
“You cannot have sneaky little tricks to try and rattle the thing through… It is just going to dirty the whole process and the losers may well consider it to be illegitimate if it has not been done fairly.”
Many voters in Scotland remember the sophistry deployed by the previous Government during the referendum campaign on Scottish independence. Despite the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats signing up to the Edinburgh agreement, the agreement was blatantly ignored following the no campaign’s last-gasp panic in the face of judgment by voters in Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) mentioned the vow, and we will continue to mention the vow until it is implemented in full, but eleventh-hour initiatives such as the vow, and using the referendum unit in the Treasury to orchestrate a scaremongering campaign by pressurising banks and other companies, were clear breaches of the agreement on the part of the UK Government. Understandably, MPs on both sides of the argument do not want to see a repeat in the Euro-poll. If only they had spoken up last year. That is why I call on the House to support the SNP amendment, which will introduce an enforcement mechanism against breaches of purdah covering both Ministers and civil servants.
As on so many issues, rather than provide strong leadership, the Prime Minister has botched this business at every possible step. That may lead some of us to believe that his heart is not in it and he was somehow bounced into making the commitment against his own free will. First, he backed down on asserting collective Cabinet responsibility on a vital national issue. Then, he caved in on the timing of the poll, after his attempt to hold it on the same day as the Scottish elections faced parliamentary defeat before the summer recess. Last week, he was overturned by the Electoral Commission on the referendum question itself. And in the past few days, we have seen the Government retreat on their original attempt to influence the campaign by using Ministers and civil servants during what should be a strict purdah period. Our amendment will keep the campaign fair and honest and provide the means to enforce good intentions, and I recommend it to the House.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on using the summer recess very well in bringing back this Bill in a different form. The fact that legislation was put together in haste before the recess can only be put down to the manifesto commitment to the referendum. We now have back, at least so far, section 125 of PPERA in some form.
This afternoon, I am not going to speak about the good or ills of the European Union; that is for a future debate. I can appreciate the concerns that led the Minister to try to alter the usual section 125 terms, given the nature of the tentacles of the EU’s involvement in vast tracts of just about every aspect of UK Government, although he is probably over-concerned about this.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) put it very well when he said that legitimacy is the most important thing, in that whatever the outcome of the referendum, the losers, no matter which side they are on, must be able to say to themselves and to the world at large, “We did our best; we lost—but it was fair.” That is the position we need to be in with this European referendum, because it may not happen again for the next 40 years. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) talk about the problems of the 1975 referendum. I was obviously too young to take part in that, but it was, by all accounts, something of a shambles. For the Welsh referendum in 1997, the Neill Committee came up with the precursor ideas to what became the PPERA that we know today.
In all legislation, simplicity is best. While PPERA is far from simple, the purdah rules in section 125 are rules that we know. They are tried and tested, and they have served us in quite a number of referendums. We do not live just by legislation in this country, but by convention, a degree of case law, decent behaviour and knowing what is right. We have an enlarged Electoral Commission. Some might say that it is a somewhat bloated bureaucracy, but it has earned a high degree of respect. We have the ministerial and civil service codes. Also, the media have changed. It was said earlier that “The Andrew Marr Show” breaks various stories. We now accept that all these are just the new ways of doing things. Purdah has not been broken; we know how things are and know that normal business continues throughout elections and referendums. We know fairness when we see it, hear it and feel it.
As was described earlier, the PPERA legislation was put together in anticipation of a euro referendum, when the same concerns that have been aired by the Minister would have been known by the then Labour Government. Legislation does not always do all that it should, but PPERA served us well through the alternative vote referendum. Had there not been local elections in 2011, many people would not even have known that that referendum was on. No aspect of that was important to the day-to-day basis of normal government, unlike the Scotland referendum. PPERA has served for new forms of election as well, including the police and crime commissioner elections. We have all appreciated that government continues. The EU will continue to go through its machinations whether there is a UK referendum or not.
Conservative Members may not always be in government; I doubt it, much as I hope that we will. Changing now legislation—PPERA—that has served us well for some 15 years would be a dangerous step for the future. I urge the Government to accept that amendment 53 merely muddies the waters of that legislation. I would prefer amendment 4 or, even better, amendment 78 as a far more elegant means of having a free and fair referendum that has legitimacy, and after which the losers will be able to say, “We lost, but it was free and it was fair.”
Mr Baker
It might be helpful to return to the origin of this problem: some people, including many Conservative Members, are concerned about tipping the scales using taxpayers’ funds. If this place is for anything, it is about Members choosing to restrain power through the law, and that is what we are seeking to do tonight. Ministers might be tempted to take steps at the last moment to help influence the result, so we want to ensure that they are appropriately restrained in the usual way through normal purdah rules, or as close to them as we can get.
Michael Ellis
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). I want to use the two or three minutes available to me to discuss the crux of the matter, to which several colleagues have referred. It boils down to the fact that the Government are honouring a commitment to hold a referendum on our membership of the European Union, which has been the cause célèbre, requirement and demand of many for generations. I am sure that Conservative Members will agree that the Government should be commended for including that as a manifesto commitment, and for undertaking to have the referendum. That is the crux of the matter.
I support the Government on this issue this evening because not only are we giving a generation of British voters, who have been denied previously, the chance to have a say in such a referendum, but we are actually putting historical injustices right and are allowing a referendum to take place. To hear the Scottish National party preaching about fairness earlier was a bit galling, when the no voters in the referendum on Scottish independence last year felt quite intimidated at times.
In lifting the purdah provisions, we must bear it in mind that section 125 would stop the Government publishing material on any issue raised by the referendum question. The restriction would be unworkable because it is so broad that it would prevent publication in relation to any issue raised by the referendum. It could therefore prevent Ministers from conducting the ordinary day-to-day business of the United Kingdom’s dealings with the European Union. We have to bear in mind the broad scope of the section.
Mention has been made in the debate of different lawyers giving different legal opinions. If I may say so as a barrister, it is quite easy to find lawyers who disagree with each other in good faith. It does not necessarily mean that they are right or wrong. The Government expect to have a view.
Michael Ellis
Sorry, I am running out of time, so I will not give way.
The Government should have a view, and it should not be expected that the Government of the day will be silent on these issues. The Government should expect to take a position and will want to make a recommendation. Under section 125, purdah would be unnecessarily restrictive.
I am conscious of the time and want to give my right hon. Friend the Minister the opportunity to sum up, but I want to make one more point. The European Commission and foreign Governments cannot be permissible donors under our law, so they would not be entitled to contribute. The fear that has been expressed by some hon. Members is therefore misguided, because the rules are already such that their fear will not be realised. I support the Government’s measures and thank the House for its attention.
Mr Lidington
Everybody who has spoken has agreed that there should not be untrammelled freedom for the Government or other public bodies to campaign during the final 28 days before the referendum. Nobody has argued for that; rather, the argument has been about how best to define the scope of restrictions on such activity and the precise form that they should take. It has been about the extent to which the rules should be set by Act, secondary legislation or guidance. I emphasise again that so far as the Government are permitted to act by whatever Parliament eventually decides, those permitted actions will be subject to guidance.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for the courtesy with which he put his arguments. As he was open enough to say in his letter to me of 21 July, a number of witnesses to his inquiry suggested
“that Section 125 could be amended to provide clarification to reduce the perceived risk of legal challenge”.
It is therefore not as if the Government have been completely on their own in saying that there are serious questions that ought to be addressed by a limited and carefully defined exemption from the section 125 arrangements.
We could have chosen to make the changes that we are offering in Government amendment 53 by way of secondary legislation, using the regulation-making power that we propose in new clause 10. We chose to table an amendment to the Bill because it offers greater clarity and certainty to Ministers and their officials, who will have to go off to Brussels and Strasbourg and argue the case for this country’s interests and circulate documents—to publish things in the terms defined by section 125—and they do not want to be looking over their shoulder trying to second-guess whether they might end up with a legal challenge. Primary legislation is just a stronger guarantee than secondary legislation.
We also felt that that greater certainty and clarity should apply to the assurance given in the same Government amendment that any such exemption could not be misused by the Government to pray in aid a piece of ongoing routine EU business to suggest that a particular outcome to the referendum—a case for leaving or remaining—was somehow validated by that publication on the ongoing business. Yes, that could have been done by statutory instrument, but we came to the House with this proposal precisely because we felt that not only the exemption but, critically, the safeguard would be better assured by means of primary legislation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) asked me about the Venice Commission. The commission’s code of good practice in respect of referendums states that, contrary to the case of elections, it is not necessary to prohibit completely intervention by the authorities in support of, or against, the proposal submitted to a referendum. The Venice Commission goes on to say that public authorities must not influence the outcome of the vote by excessive, one-sided campaigning. That is exactly the sort of balance that the Government have sought to embody in the proposed legislation and in the amendments we are presenting today.
I believe that the package is balanced and fair. It will ensure a referendum that is fair, and seen by all sides to be fair, and in which the whole country can have confidence.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 20, page 2, line 2, leave out “parliamentary” and insert “local government”.
This amendment is intended to allow citizens of any EU country who are resident in the UK to vote in the referendum.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 17, page 2, line 2, 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.”
This amendment would entitle British citizens, qualifying Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Republic of Ireland aged 16 and 17 to vote in the referendum.
Government amendment 24.
Amendment 18, page 2, line 13, after “Commonwealth citizens”, insert—
“or citizens of the Republic of Ireland”.
Amendment 19, page 2, line 16, 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.”
This 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 7, page 2, line 16, at end insert—
“(d) the persons who on the date of the referendum would be entitled to vote in a European parliamentary election by virtue of the European Parliamentary Elections (Franchise of Relevant Citizens of the Union) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/1184) (citizens of the European Union other than Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens).”
This amendment would extend the franchise to EU nationals who would be entitled to vote in EU parliamentary elections in the UK.
Amendment 8, page 2, line 16, at end insert—
‘(1A) In subsection 1(a), “persons” include individuals who are aged 16 or 17 and would otherwise meet the conditions to be entitled to vote as electors in a parliamentary election.”
This amendment would extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds.
Amendment 9, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
(a) In subsection 1(a) “a parliamentary election” includes elections to the Scottish Parliament,
(b) a person resident in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Gibraltar who, if resident in Scotland, met the conditions for inclusion in the electoral register for Scottish elections, will be entitled to vote in the referendum.”
This amendment would extend the vote to 16 and 17-years-olds and EU nationals.
Amendment 10, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
‘(3) In subsection 1(a) “a parliamentary election” includes elections to the Scottish Parliament.”
This amendment would extend the vote to 16 and 17 years olds and EU nationals in Scotland.
Amendment 21, page 2, line 20, 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,
irrespective of the length of time that the citizen has been resident overseas.”
This amendment is intended to allow British citizens resident in other EU countries to vote in the referendum.
New clause 1—Impartiality of broadcasters—
‘(1) Notwithstanding any enactment or legal instrument, before the start of the referendum period the Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision to ensure the impartiality of broadcasters during the referendum period.
(2) Regulations made under this section must include provision for the appointment by the Secretary of State of a referendum broadcasting adjudicator.
(3) Regulations made under this section must require the referendum broadcasting adjudicator
(a) to draw up and publish guidance applicable to the referendum to ensure the impartiality of broadcasters during the referendum period, notwithstanding any relevant guidance currently in force or in draft; and
(b) to make arrangements by which any allegations of breach of the guidance on impartiality can be referred to and determined by the adjudicator and where an allegation, in the adjudicator’s view, is vexatious or frivolous to dismiss the allegation.
(4) Guidance published under subsection (3)(a) shall apply to—
(a) the holder of a licence under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or 1996 and
(b) the British Broadcasting Corporation.
(5) Regulations made under this section shall require the referendum broadcasting adjudicator within one day of receipt of an allegation that a broadcaster has breached the guidance on impartiality to determine whether the guidance has been breached and publish its determination and, where a breach has taken place, to require the broadcaster to remedy the breach within one day.
(6) Regulations made under this section are to be made by statutory instrument which is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
The intention of this amendment is to ensure impartiality of television and radio broadcasters during the referendum campaign and to allow for swift adjudication where an allegation of bias is made.
New clause 11—Limit of the expenditure of registered political parties—
‘(1) Notwithstanding Schedule 14 of the 2000 Act and any other enactment, for the purposes of the referendum there will be a cumulative limit on the expenditure which political parties registered under Part II of the 2000 Act can spend cumulatively on campaigning during the referendum.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1) the cumulative limit is £14,000,000.
(3) Each political party’s share of the cumulative limit shall be determined in proportion to its share of the total votes cast at the general election that took place on 7 May 2015.
(4) On the basis set out at subsection (3) the Electoral Commission shall calculate and notify each political party of its share of the cumulative limit.
(5) No registered political party shall spend any money in respect of the referendum campaign until the notification required at subsection (4) has been issued.
(6) Each political party is responsible for its own expenditure and must not breach the limit notified by the Electoral Commission in respect of its own expenditure.”
The purpose of this amendment is to impose an expenditure limit on the cumulative total amount that political parties can spend during the referendum campaign.
Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“or a date within three months before or after May 5.”
This would ensure the referendum vote could not be held on a day three months before or after the date of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish elections.
Government amendment 12.
Amendment 6, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(c) must not be the same day as local government elections in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.”
This amendment would ensure the referendum vote could not be held on the same day as local government elections.
Amendment 15, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(c) must not coincide with local or mayoral elections planned for 4 May 2017.”
This amendment would rule out holding the referendum on the same day as the 2017 local elections.
Government amendment 23.
Amendment 13, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
“or leave the European Union?”
Amendment 14, page 1, leave out line 14 and insert—
“A ddylai’r Deyrnas Unedig bara i fod yn aelod o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd neu adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd?”
Amendment 16, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
‘(6) At least 10 weeks before the date on which the referendum is to be held the Government shall publish a White Paper outlining the terms of any renegotiation between the United Kingdom and the European Union and the consequences for the United Kingdom of leaving the European Union.”
This amendment requires the Government to produce a white paper on the results of the Government’s renegotiation with the EU and the consequences for Britain of leaving the EU.
Government amendments 25 to 28.
Amendment 3, in clause 6, page 3, line 40, at end insert—
‘(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.
Government amendments 29 and 30.
Amendment 1, in schedule 1, page 6, line 6, after second “period”, insert—
“of not less than 16 weeks”
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the referendum period lasts for at least 16 weeks.
Government amendments 31 to 43.
Amendment 22, page 12, line 23, at end insert—
‘(3) Notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, an EU institution (within the meaning of article 13(1) of the Treaty on European Union) may not incur referendum expenses during the referendum period.”
This amendment would prevent the EU institutions, including the Commission, from direct campaigning in the referendum, whether under the guise of EU law or otherwise.
Government amendments 44 to 46.
Amendment 2, page 13, line 11, at end add—
‘(6) For the purposes of paragraph 6 of Schedule 15 of the 2000 Act a permitted participant must not accept a relevant donation, irrespective of whether or not it meets the requirements of the 2000 Act and this Act, if the donation is funded directly or indirectly in whole or part from moneys, resources or support disbursed or allocated by or at the direction of the European Commission, its agencies or any related European institution to the donor or via other parties to the donor.”
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that no funds or support provided directly or indirectly by European Union bodies have a bearing on the outcome of the referendum.
Amendment (a) to amendment 2, after “(6)” insert
“Notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972,”.
This amendment would ensure that amendment 2 takes effect as intended. It would make clear a permitted participant could not accept donations paid by EU institutions under the authority of EU law.
Government amendments 47 to 52 and 54 to 77.
Mike Gapes
I will speak not only to amendment 20 but to amendment 21, which is also in my name. These amendments are, in a sense, a package. Just as we in the Labour party have widened—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a great deal of noise in the Chamber. It is only right and courteous that there should be a mood of hushed attention as the hon. Gentleman addresses the House.
Mike Gapes
Just as we in the Labour party have, for better or worse, widened our franchise, so the widest possible franchise should be involved in the referendum, which is likely to be held next year. The Government have proposed that the referendum should not have the same franchise as there was for the Scottish referendum, which was the local government franchise, but should simply have the parliamentary franchise. They propose restricting the franchise to those who vote in parliamentary elections and not including some people who vote in local government elections and in European Parliament elections, some people who can vote in the London mayoral election next year and some who were eligible to vote in the Scottish referendum in 2014.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Is it not the case that in many constituencies across the country, including mine, a large number of people will not be allowed to vote in the European referendum simply because they are Europeans, even though they pay their taxes, their children go to school in the area and they see themselves as Londoners?
Mike Gapes
That is exactly the point addressed in amendment 20. People can vote in a European Parliament election if they are a citizen of any of the 27 other European Union countries and are resident in the UK. If the Government get their way, people who are paying taxes in this country and living in this country, perhaps having done so for decades, with children who were born in this country, and who are perhaps married to British citizens but who happen to retain the nationality they had when they came here from Italy, Germany, France or one of many other countries, will not be able to vote in the referendum which will affect their status and that of their family in the UK.
Stephen Gethins
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of Christian Allard, a fantastic Member of the Scottish Parliament who will not be able to vote in the referendum because of his French nationality?
Mike Gapes
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. We discussed this issue in Committee on 18 June, when exactly that point was made. Two million EU citizens are living in this country and many of them will not be able to vote in the referendum which will directly affect their future, although if they are from the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus or Malta, they will be able to vote. A Greek Cypriot will be able to vote in the referendum but a Greek person from one of the many islands in the archipelago around Athens will not be able to. We face the absurd situation of a discrimination that affects the livelihoods and future prosperity of those people.
I do not want to delay the House much longer, but let me briefly refer to my other proposal, amendment 21.
Mike Gapes
That is absolutely right. Just as there are more than 2 million EU citizens living in the UK, more than 2 million British citizens are living in other EU countries. Some of them will have registered to vote as overseas voters under the existing law, which allows people who have been abroad for up to 15 years to vote in parliamentary elections. Some thousands of people do that, but the bulk of them do not. British people who have been living in Portugal, Spain, Germany, Cyprus, Greece or France for more than 15 years are not going to be eligible to vote in a referendum that could seriously damage their prospects of being allowed to stay in those countries and have rights there, should the British people vote in the referendum that we leave the EU. Many overseas voters are incensed about that. There is an organisation called Labour International with which I am associated, and a similar organisation for the Conservatives. I know that those voters have been sending communications for months saying that this is a democratic outrage, that the Government will damage their future and that they will have no say on their position.
Ironically, the Conservative party said in its election manifesto that it was going to get rid of the 15-year rule, yet the Conservative Government—they cannot even blame the Liberal Democrats for this—are introducing legislation in effect to disfranchise many British people who will no longer have a say in their future within the European Union. That is undemocratic. It is outrageous that British people’s futures will be affected. As the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said, if we leave the European Union, there will be two groups of people who will be particularly badly affected. I am talking about EU citizens living in the UK who may have British-born children, and British citizens living in other European Union countries.
Given the shortage of time, I shall not say any more on this. I will be supporting my Front-Bench team on widening the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Although I have raised these issues, I know that neither the Government nor, unfortunately, those on my own Benches will support my position. In order to save time, I shall not press my amendment to a vote.
Stephen Gethins
I rise to speak to amendments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in my name and that of my hon. Friends. We want to see the gold standard of the independence referendum applied to the European referendum. I hope that Members of the Official Opposition will vote with us tonight. Earlier we voted together and defeated the Government. That is what can be achieved when we stretch across and vote together. I hope that we shall be doing that later tonight.
One area that might help us to achieve that gold standard is votes for 16 and 17- year-olds, which is proposed in amendment 8. I know that we have discussed this matter before and I am glad that we will be able to vote on it tonight. There are benefits to involving young people at an early stage in the political process. Let us not forget that when we have a European Union referendum, those aged 16 and 17 will have to live with the consequences of that decision for a whole lot longer than many Members of this House. Let us consider some of the comments made by Members about the positive aspects of including 16 and 17-year-olds in the vote.
We will also consider amendment 7. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) for his excellent contribution on votes for EU nationals. He talked about how Cypriots and Maltese can vote but not those of other nationalities. I mentioned the position of Christian Allard, the Member of the Scottish Parliament, who will not be able to vote. We should also consider the big contributions that EU nationals have made to all our constituencies. I am talking about the people from Poland, Ireland, Italy and from elsewhere in Europe.
The independence referendum had a significant impact, and I pay tribute to the people who campaigned for a yes vote, as well as to those who campaigned for a no vote. The turnout of 85% was extraordinary, as was the democratic journey that we made. I hope that Members from across the Chamber will learn the lessons from the independence referendum when it comes to voting this evening.
I also wish to touch briefly on the issue of double majority. We have been told that we are in a partnership of equals in the United Kingdom. If we are, why should it be the case that Scotland—or indeed England, Wales or Northern Ireland—can be dragged out of the European Union against its will?
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is regrettable that our new clause 3 has not been selected, as there is a certain irony in a Government that want to introduce a double majority in this House on English votes for English laws but do not want that principle to apply to the much more fundamental question of our membership of the European Union?
Stephen Gethins
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the double majority and why we brought it up.
Let me make a point about amendment 5. I am glad that the Government have acceded to some of our demands, so that we will not see a vote on the first Thursday of 2016 or the first Thursday of 2017. We welcome those concessions, which have been among a few so far. If we are going to have the referendum, however, we want a proper political debate. We do not want it to be rushed just before the crucial elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or local government. That is why we propose in amendment 5 to have a three-month period on either side of them to protect the referendum debate.
To sum up, let me touch on the debate to come. It is disappointing as we reach the final stages of debating the Bill that we still do not have more details about the Government’s proposed renegotiation. I am not sure when we will see those details, as we have a Government who have for the past five and a bit years been adept at losing friends and influence throughout the European Union. I do not see that changing any time soon.
There is no one on the SNP Benches who does not think that the European Union could do with a bit of reform, but that reform should be a two-way process. That was set out by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon to the European Policy Centre on 2 June. I encourage all Members to read that speech. As well as considering areas for reform in which powers can be returned to the member states or, indeed, to the devolved Administrations, let us consider areas in which we could work more closely together, such as energy or climate change.
I want to finish on a serious point. We talked today about the refugee crisis, and that is certainly an area in which we could be working more closely with our European partners, as was well debated today. I sense that when the Government moved forward today they were moving a little behind other European partners, not least those in the Vatican. It was in July 2013 that Pope Francis said:
“We have lost a sense of brotherly responsibility…we have forgotten how to cry.”
We are now seeing action, almost two years on. We are late to this, and sometimes we need to learn from our European partners and to work more closely with them. I hope that even those on the Government Benches will accept that that is something we have to do.
Our amendments would strengthen the Bill and would strengthen the debate we could have during the referendum period.
John Redwood
I rise to speak on the issues of the independence of broadcasting and campaign funding covered by two of the new clauses. It is most important that we should have a fair referendum and I think that the House has made a wise decision this evening to further that aim. I hope that the nation’s leading broadcaster, the BBC, will enter into the spirit of wanting that fair campaign and will study and understand where those who wish to stay in and those who wish to leave are coming from. It needs to learn that in the run-up to the referendum campaign proper as well as in the campaign itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has tabled a suitable new clause to try to ensure that that happens and I hope that the Minister will share our wishes and might have something to say on this point.
I notice that in recent months it has been absolutely statutory for practically every business person being interviewed on business subjects and subjects of great interest to consumers and taxpayers to be asked for their view of whether their business would be ruined if we left the European Union. The question is always a leading question and they are treated as somewhat guilty or suspect if they do not immediately say yes, of course, their business would be ruined if we were to leave the European Union.
Sir William Cash
Does my right hon. Friend sometimes wonder how these people come to be asked to go on the programme?
John Redwood
It would be far too dangerous for me to speculate on that without more factual information at my disposal. My hon. Friend is being slightly mischievous. I could not possibly agree with him and call into question how people are invited to BBC interviews. However, it is interesting that the one argument that the campaign to stay in the EU seems to have—that leaving the EU would be bad for business and jobs would be lost—has become a constant refrain in all BBC interviews.
The BBC seems devastatingly disappointed when a lot of businesses take the opposite view. It was fascinating to hear the wonderful interview with Nissan last week. The whole House will welcome the great news that Nissan has a very big investment programme for the United Kingdom’s biggest car plant, which will carry it through the next five years and beyond with a new model. When the BBC tried to threaten that investment by asking, “Wouldn’t you cancel it if the British people voted to come out of the EU?”, Nissan said, “No, of course we wouldn’t.” It is about the excellence of the workforce, the excellence of the product and access to an extremely good market here. It is in no way conditional upon how people in Britain exercise their democratic rights.
It is that spirit—the spirit of Nissan—that I hope the BBC will wish to adopt when contemplating such interviews in future. I hope that it will understand that most business interviews over the next few months should not be about the politics of the EU; they should be about whether the company is doing well—creating jobs, making profits and investing them wisely. If the business is misbehaving, then by all means the interview should be about the allegations.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Who does the right hon. Gentleman think is behind this sinister conspiracy at the BBC? Is it the director general or some other individual in a senior position, or are other forces directing the BBC in such a way that he believes there is a conspiracy to keep Britain in the European Union?
John Redwood
I never said that there is a conspiracy, and I have not suggested that there is one figure in the BBC who holds that view; I think that most people in the BBC hold that view, and I think that it is quite spontaneous. I think that in some cases they are not even aware that they are doing it. I note that many Members, including on the Opposition Benches, are nodding their heads wisely. They, too, have heard such interviews. It now seems almost a statutory requirement in what should be interviews on general business subjects to regard those people as having a unique insight into our future in the European Union, ascribing to them supernatural powers that apparently the millions of other voters in the country do not share, asking them to dictate the future. I think that the referendum is a democratic process and that everyone’s vote is of equal weight and value. It is a conversation for the whole country. I am not against business people joining in, because I am a democrat, and they have voices; I just think that it is a bit odd that our leading broadcaster wants to turn every business interview into a political interview.
Philip Davies
I am charitable to the BBC and do not think that it sets out to be biased in its coverage. The problem—I am not entirely sure how my right hon. Friend will tackle this point—is that it sets out to talk only to people from the same metropolitan set, and they all have the same opinions. The people in the BBC need to get out more and discover that across the country there are opinions different from those of that narrow band of people. How does he think they can address that? It is not conscious bias; they just need to get out more.
John Redwood
My hon. Friend make his comments in his own inimitable way. That is not quite what I was trying to say, or how I was going to say it, but this is a free country and it is wonderful to hear him contribute to the debate.
I am just trying, in the brief few moments that you have kindly allowed me, Mr Speaker, to extend the conversation from this great Chamber to the BBC and to say to it, “We all want you to be part of this big family conversation in the run-up to the referendum, but you have a unique responsibility, because you are charged with independence, fairness and balance. We trust that you will be especially careful, because many people have very passionate views on both sides of the argument, and that always creates more tensions and difficulties for broadcasters.”
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I am curious to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was as acutely aware of that bias among business leaders during the Scottish referendum campaign, when they were wheeled out repeatedly as part of “Project Fear” to hone their skills, which we will doubtless see much of in the coming months. I just cannot remember him being so outraged at the time. Perhaps he could confirm that.
John Redwood
If the hon. Gentleman cares to check johnredwoodsdiary.com, my blog, he will see that I wrote on that very subject during the Scottish campaign ahead of the referendum and made very similar points to the ones I am making now about the role of business, where it can help and where it cannot. He will be disappointed to learn that I believe in being consistent. It has been one of my problems in politics, trying to be consistent, and if one seeks to combine consistency with being right, it can be absolutely devastating. I must now teach myself humility and realise that no one can always be right; we just have to carry on the conversation as best we can.
John Redwood
That would be appropriate if they were doing a package on attitudes towards Europe, for example; or it would be appropriate during the referendum campaign to have business voices as well as political voices and others—but not in every interview that is meant to be about a business subject. BBC reporters do not choose to do that every time a social worker is on to talk about a social work case, or some local government worker is on. They do not immediately ask, “What would happen to your job if we left the EU?” There is something quite odd about it. Very often, the business matters that are being discussed have nothing to do with foreign trade. Nor do I understand why the right hon. Gentleman and some others wish to mislead and threaten the British people into thinking that our trade would be at risk, because clearly it would not be at risk. All of us wish to trade with Europe and be friends with Europe, but some of us wish to have a relationship with people in the European Union that allows their euro to evolve into the political union that they want without dragging Britain in and losing our democracy in the process.
Tom Brake
I am getting more confused, because now the right hon. Gentleman is drawing a parallel between the impact that coming out of the EU would have on a business and the impact on a social worker. Perhaps he would like to explain in what way the UK coming out of the EU would have an impact on a social worker.
John Redwood
Of course coming out of the EU will have an impact on the conduct of the public sector in Britain, as well as on the private sector. It will change who makes the laws and how the budgets are run, for example. If we did not have to send £11 billion a year to the EU to be spent elsewhere, we would have more scope to have better social work and tax cuts in the United Kingdom. I think that would be extremely good news. Why are public service workers not asked whether they would rather see some of that money spent on their preferred public service than sent to be spent elsewhere in the European Union? That line of questioning would be just as interesting as the one trotted out each time for business people: “Will your business come to an end if the British people dare to vote for democracy?”
Philip Davies
Is not the point that the BBC tries to show that every business wants to remain in the European Union, when the fact is that many businesses want to leave the EU? The BBC always seems to be able to find businesses that want to stay in, but never seems to be able to look at the website of Business for Britain, which has more than 1,000 businesses that are quite happy to be outside the European Union.
John Redwood
That is a good point. The other constitutional point I would make about businesses is that in an entrepreneurial business where the entrepreneur-owner-manager owns 51% or more of the shares, of course they speak for business, so if they say, “I want to stay in,” or, “I want us to pull out,” that is not only their view but the view of the whole business. I can understand that and it is very interesting, but quite often the people being interviewed are executives with very few shares in very large companies, who have not cleared their view through a shareholder meeting or some other constitutional process. The BBC wishes to give the impression that that is the view of all the members of the company, whereas in fact it is just the opinion of an executive. It is interesting, and the executive may be quite powerful, but he does not necessarily speak for the company, and that is never stressed in the exchanges.
Sir William Cash
Does my right hon. Friend accept that, quite often, what is interesting is which questions are not asked, as well as those that are asked and the people who are put on? For example, some of us have for a long time been making the argument, based on House of Commons Library statistics, that we run a deficit with the other 27 member states of about £62 billion, whereas the Germans run a surplus with the other 27 member states of about the same amount or more. Why does that sort of argument never get aired or heard?
John Redwood
I am being tempted into byways on the substance of the debate in the forthcoming referendum, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We would like to hear more questioning of our deficit and a reminder that we are the customers more than the producers; it is the other way round for the Germans. It is unusual for the customers to be in a weak position and the producers in a strong position.
Mr McFadden
This is a very broad debate, covering a number of issues. I want to set out our views on the amendments that we have tabled.
Amendment 17 and associated amendments 18 and 19 deal with the ability of 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum. I do not propose to go over all the territory covered in Committee about 16 and 17-year-olds having the vote, but I want to make one or two specific points about why it is important for this referendum.
The referendum will be a major constitutional decision that will have a bearing on Britain’s future for decades to come. None of us expects it to be a regular event like local elections, elections to Assemblies, or elections to this House. It has been 40 years since the last such referendum and such a vote on our constitutional future is a once-in-a-generation decision. The result will affect every young person in the UK for decades to come. At the moment, British citizens have the right to live, work and study in any EU member state. One of the main motivations—if not the main motivation—for those seeking to leave the European Union is to end the principle of free movement of people and to impose stricter controls on immigration. In the context of our leaving and restrictions coming into play, it is hard to see how such a move would not be reciprocated towards our own citizens and their ability to live, work and study in the remaining European Union. The rights, opportunities and freedoms of young people for decades to come are very much on the ballot paper in this referendum.
Philip Davies
The right hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that 16 and 17-year-olds should have a vote because the referendum will impact on young people for decades to come. It will presumably also have a massive impact on my 12 and 10-year-old sons. By the same logic, he will be arguing that they should have a vote, too. Why should the vote be extended just to 16 and 17-year-olds? He seems to be arguing for complete nonsense.
Mr McFadden
The argument has the benefit of not only principle, but recent experience. While I do not share the view of every member of the Scottish National party about all the virtues of last year’s referendum, extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds worked well. No one on either side of the debate in that referendum would argue that 16 and 17-year-olds did not understand the issues, engage in the debate and carry out their vote, whether for yes or for no, in a responsible manner. For those reasons, we believe that the vote in this referendum should be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, and that there are specific reasons for doing so on such a long-term constitutional decision such as this which go above and beyond the general debate about the voting age.
Stephen Gethins
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me and the leader of his party in Scotland that we also benefited from EU nationals having the vote in the independence referendum? It was a benefit then and could be a great benefit in this referendum as well.
Mr McFadden
I want to deal with that issue and the comments of the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). The contribution made to this country by EU citizens is not disputed by me or any Opposition Front Bencher. What my hon. Friend said about that positive contribution and people paying taxes is absolutely true. It is also true of the many British people living and working in other EU member states. I completely agree with him that the argument is not about contribution, value, rewinding the clock or any of the other general points. The issue is about precedents in other referendums concerning such matters in other countries. We looked at the precedents and every referendum we found regarding accession to the European Union, joining the single currency or European treaty change was restricted to citizens of the relevant member state. That does not mean that they think that citizens of other countries living in that state do not make a contribution or pay taxes and are not valuable citizens, but that precedent has been set time after time when countries make significant decisions about their own future.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) failed to enunciate any specific undertakings, responsibilities or rights for voters elsewhere in the European Union who are British citizens. Can the shadow Minister share with the House any specific rights that would be circumscribed or removed as a result of a decision by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union?
Mr McFadden
I do not think that is clear at all. It is very uncertain what the rights of British people living in other member states would be in the event of the UK leaving the European Union. The hon. Gentleman raises an important question, which is one of many. I do not want to get sidetracked into the arguments for in and out tonight because I want to concentrate on the amendments. I do not think that anyone can say with confidence that there would be no effects on those citizens in the event of Britain leaving the European Union.
Mike Gapes
My right hon. Friend referred to precedents. Is it not the fact that in our elections and presumably in the referendum that took place in 1975, citizens of other countries who are not British citizens have participated, because we allow Commonwealth citizens, such as the citizens of Malta and Cyprus, and citizens of the Republic of Ireland to participate? There are problems with a definition that relates only to citizens of this country. I accept that there is a parliamentary franchise, which is the position that the Government have taken and something that my right hon. Friend will no doubt remind me of, but the position is messy and not straightforward.
Mr McFadden
My good and hon. Friend anticipates my reply. He is right that history comes into play here, and not always in a linear manner. The thing that unites citizens of the Republic of Ireland and the other examples he mentioned is that they are part of the parliamentary franchise. He is right to say that it is not strictly about citizenship, but about who can vote to elect a national Parliament.
It remains the case that throughout the European Union when countries have had referendums of this type they have not extended the vote to citizens of other countries. It is important to state that, because too often the debate becomes about the value of the contribution of those citizens to the UK. That is not in dispute at all. The issue is having consistency in how we take decisions on our nation’s future.
The exchanges that took place on broadcasting impartiality showed the dangers of those proposals. We should allow broadcasters to do their job. The Opposition do not favour the appointment of a broadcasting referee. I do not think that the finest moment in the Scottish referendum was the mass demonstration outside the headquarters of the BBC in Glasgow, calling for the head of the political editor. I hope that we do not see that in this referendum. I am therefore not in favour of proposals that seek to set up some kind of referee to go through BBC news bulletins and second-guess who should and should not be interviewed. We should allow our broadcasters to do their job.
Sir William Cash
The right hon. Gentleman is clearly referring to my new clause. He ought to take into account the fact that that the Secretary of State, in correspondence with the chairman of the BBC Trust and Ofcom—the right hon. Gentleman may or may not have seen it—has quite a lot to say about the necessity of improving the manner and process of adjudication. I will deal with that in a moment.
Mr McFadden
I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but it will take more than a letter from the Secretary of State to the BBC to convince us that some kind of broadcasting referee is needed to adjudicate in this process.
Philip Davies
I am slightly confused by what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. He seems to be saying that there should be no adjudicator of the BBC’s impartiality. There already is one: it is called the BBC Trust. Is he saying that the BBC Trust should be abolished and that nobody should oversee the BBC’s output? He said that there should be no referee, but there is a referee. Is he saying that that should no longer be the case and that there should be a free-for-all at the BBC?
Mr McFadden
The fact that there are processes in place proves, rather than negates, my point. We have trusted broadcasters in this country and I do not agree with trying to intimidate them in any of these referendums. They should be allowed to do their job.
John Nicolson
Since the right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of intimidation twice, is he aware that the father of the chapel at BBC Scotland said that far from being intimidated by the protesters, the main intimidation broadcasters felt was in fact from the Better Together campaign? The father of the chapel has no dog in the fight, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows.
Mr McFadden
I will just say that if the hon. Gentleman takes a sense of pride from the demonstration that took place in Glasgow, he is entitled to his view, but that is certainly not something I would feel. I do not think it was the finest moment in that referendum campaign.
On the date of the referendum, we have said all along that it should not be held when other important elections are taking place. In Committee, the House accepted a Government amendment ruling out the date of the elections due in May 2016. Our amendment 15 would also rule out holding it on the date of the elections due on 4 May 2017. I am glad to see that the Foreign Secretary has added his name to amendment 12, which would have the same effect.
Government amendment 23 deals with the new question wording put forward last week by the Electoral Commission. The Opposition respect the work of the Electoral Commission. Its job is to examine referendum questions and to comment on them. We therefore accept the change it suggests, but may I ask the Minister a couple of questions? Has he asked the Electoral Commission why it was appropriate to approve the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?” on a yes/no basis without an alternative statement about remaining part of the United Kingdom being deemed necessary? Has he asked why a yes/no question was approved for the referendum on the alternative vote a few years ago, but is not deemed appropriate this time? Does he know if this decision should be considered a one-off for this referendum, or whether we should expect all future referendums to be a choice between two alternative statements, rather than yes/no in answer to a proposition, as has often been the case in the past? As I said, we accept the new wording, but would like to know more about the reasons behind it and the contrast in the approach taken with other recent referendums.
Amendment 16 calls for a White Paper to be published outlining the terms of any renegotiation settlement the Prime Minister has reached and the consequences for the UK of leaving the European Union. We believe this is important because the referendum needs to examine not only our current relationship with the EU but what leaving might mean for the UK. This, too, was touched on in Committee. The Minister for Europe indicated at that point that the Government might produce a White Paper. May I press him on this tonight? Has further thought gone into that, and can he tell the House definitively that that will be the case? This is important, because voters deserve as much information as possible about what the decision on Britain’s future means. This will in the end be a choice between two futures and there should be information about both of them. Our amendment states that such a White Paper should be published at least 10 weeks before the poll, well away from any of the discussions about purdah, which applies to the final 28 days of the referendum period. We are not calling for Government information to be sent to every household, or for this to be a last-minute intervention. We are saying that at least 10 weeks from the poll it will be important to have a proper view on remaining and leaving. What does anyone advocating leaving have to fear from the consequences of doing so being set out in a White Paper?
This section of the amendment paper contains many other amendments, a lot of them dealing with technical points about registration, reporting and other issues, but the amendments on 16 and 17-year-olds, the White Paper and my other comments touch on the issues that we believe we should focus on in the period available to us.
Sir William Cash
I begin by referring particularly to my amendment on the impartiality of broadcasters. It will be observed that I have not confined my remarks exclusively to the BBC. I am aware, having been on the Broadcasting Bill in the 1990s, that the broadcasters have different regimes: the BBC has a royal charter and the other broadcasters are regulated by statute. I introduced an amendment to the second of the two Broadcasting Bills to ensure impartiality that was accepted by the now Baroness Bottomley when she was Secretary of State. Impartiality is a fundamental necessity in relation to the function of broadcasters. Given that £3.7 billion—I think—of the BBC’s total annual income of over £5 billion comes from the taxpayer, I think the taxpayer has an absolute right to be certain that there is no manoeuvring and completely unbiased reporting and comment.
I was deeply disturbed, as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, when I set up an inquiry into the BBC’s handling of European issues, against a background that I will explain in a moment, when the right hon. Lord Patten, then BBC Chairman, refused three times to appear before the Committee. I had effectively to require him to do so through the aegis of the Liaison Committee, which unanimously supported my proposal. I had exactly the same experience with Lord Hall, who also refused three times. I again had to use the aegis of the Liaison Committee to ensure he appeared, which eventually he did. On the other hand, Rona Fairhead, who is now the Chairman of the BBC Trust and who did not have the protection of being a Member of the House of Lords, did appear. The correspondence, which is set out in our report, is interesting to read. Whatever the excuses given, both Lord Hall and Lord Patten, as Members of the House of Lords, were in a position to refuse a summons from a Select Committee. This seemed completely extraordinary, and eventually, through the good offices of the then Chairman of the Liaison Committee and others, both of them did eventually acquiesce, although Lord Patten subsequently resigned because of ill health. The bottom line is that it was a very serious situation.
It has been claimed in evidence to us, which I am now slightly paraphrasing, that the BBC is effectively completely independent. This is simply not the case. First, it has to report to Parliament. Secondly, its representatives ought to appear in front of Select Committees. I have to say that they do appear before the Public Accounts Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, but I am talking about the European dimension, which is my main concern and which is relevant to the conduct of the Bill, and to how the taxpayer will be affected if there is not complete impartiality
The late Hugo Young, whom I knew extremely well, wrote a book called “This Blessed Plot”. I knew him since we were about 10 years old. We both lived in Sheffield and more or less grew up together in our respective ways. We were not very close friends, but knew one another well enough. He went to Oxford as I did: he went to Balliol, I went to Lincoln. We used to speak to each other. He went on to become one of the most celebrated journalists in our time.
Mr Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too modest or self-effacing to inform the House that there is a chapter in that book named after him and devoted to a study of his activities.
Sir William Cash
I do not know what to say. That is true. I did not know it was going to be written. In a discussion over lunch during the Maastricht period, I heard Hugo Young, one of the greatest journalists of his generation, say “Bill, you’ve got The Daily Telegraph, The Times, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail; we’ve got the BBC.” I thought that was pretty revealing. The bottom line is that there is a serious concern here, although I believe it is now potentially capable of being remedied.
The BBC remains the most important source of news for the country. An Ofcom survey in 2013 noted that 34% of those who consume news named BBC 1 as the most important news source to them. According to Ofcom’s calculations, the BBC has the highest share of each of the platforms on which it has a presence— 56% on television, 64% on radio and 27% on the internet. As reflected in the conclusions of the European Scrutiny Committee report, after evidence was taken from wide sources, 58% of the public look to the BBC for the news they trust. This is very important, and we need to be certain about the degrees of impartiality maintained during the referendum campaign—not only for taxpayers and licence payers, but for voters, 58% of whom, as I say, look to the BBC for the news they trust. It is a hugely important issue.
Correspondence published recently by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, following the report of the European Scrutiny Committee, is also important. I sent a copy to him as well as to the Prime Minister and others. The Secretary of State wrote to the chairman of the BBC Trust, which has the responsibility for enforcing BBC standards. He said that the corporation’s coverage of Europe had not been “faultless” in the past. A committee had been set up—in 2005, I believe—called the Wilson committee, which was extremely critical of the manner in which the BBC covered European issues. I was not surprised when I discovered from another source—I hope I am right in quoting it—that when it comes to newspapers, people in the BBC tend to come from what might be called The Guardian stable. The figures on that were interesting.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend rather glossed over the Wilson report, but it is important for us to remind people what Lord Wilson said. He said:
“While we have found no evidence of deliberate bias in BBC coverage of EU matters, we have found that there is a widespread perception that it suffers from certain forms of cultural and unintentional bias…The problem is complex. In essence it seems to be the result of a combination of factors including an institutional mindset”
and a lack of knowledge about the European Union. He also said:
“The BBC needs to take more care in the selection of interviewees.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that all the problems that Lord Wilson identified about the BBC coverage, whose existence the BBC itself accepted, are still there today?
Sir William Cash
There is a case, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) touched on earlier, relating to the business news. In its report, our Committee referred to the business section which comes on at about six o’clock in the morning, and to what I hope will not continue to be a stream of people putting forward the pro-EU case. Given that the charter itself is under review and a consultation period is in operation, we look to the Secretary of State to ensure that the opportunity is taken to address this question as part of the review, and that includes addressing the question of public purposes.
The basis on which a chartered body operates is by reference to the objects of the charter, and those public purposes do not specifically include the impartial delivery of commentaries and news. The question of the charter is linked to the guidelines, and the guidelines are rather like a statutory instrument: they must have regard to what the charter says. On the other hand, the charter itself should specifically ensure that in its wording impartiality is an absolute.
John Redwood
Has my hon. Friend ever heard a BBC journalist ask someone how they would like to spend all the extra money we would have if we did not make a contribution to the EU, or is it just my bad luck that I have never been around when they asked that?
Sir William Cash
There have been suggestions, of course, that the BBC has been in receipt of money from the EU. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who is not in his seat at the moment—he usually is—put that question to Mr Harding, and we were hoping we would get further information on the matter. We have, however, invited Lord Hall to return and he will be coming back to see the Committee quite soon. He has accepted the invitation this time—he has not been required to appear—and we are looking forward to getting an answer to that question, and many others.
Mr Nuttall
Perhaps when Lord Hall does appear, we might put a point to him about choosing interviewees, which is just as relevant in respect of businesses. We might suggest that when the BBC is seeking an anti-European Union viewpoint, it should not always go to members of UKIP, because there are members and supporters of all parties—not just the Conservative party, but the Labour party, too—whose views it could, and should, be seeking.
Sir William Cash
The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and other Labour Members on my Committee put that very question to the witnesses—Lord Hall and Mr Harding in particular, as well as Rona Fairhead—because it is essential that all sides of the arguments are heard. As I have said repeatedly in this debate, this is not a party political issue in the sense that it is not Conservative versus Labour. The very fact that the referendum has been set up and the question is “Do you want to remain in or leave?” means that it is a national issue and therefore all the broadcasting authorities, including the BBC, must have regard to the fact that we are passing over in this Bill the entire conduct of the referendum. That means it must be conducted not on a party political basis, but on yes versus no and on the question: “Do you want to remain in or do you want to leave?” Therefore there must be impartiality. We do not just want a Eurosceptic view. Some might think, “I would want that, wouldn’t I?” but actually, no; it must be done on an impartial basis.
It is rather strange that the BBC was somewhat dismissive of News-watch, an organisation that runs a comprehensive analysis of all news programmes—who goes on, what questions are asked and the whole conduct of the BBC output. I am afraid that it seems to me that the BBC was somewhat dismissive of that, to say the least. I believe from what I have heard that the BBC does not in fact have its own monitoring system. If it does not have its own monitoring system, how is anybody to know whether or not it has been impartial, because that is like looking for a needle in a haystack? We do not have the facilities to be able to conduct the analysis for ourselves, but the BBC has £5 billion and I would have thought that was the least it could do.
John Nicolson
May I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question I asked earlier—although I might of course have overlooked his comments on this on billcash.com? Does he now regret the fact that the Conservative party acted as a cheerleader for bias during the Scottish independence referendum, and does he accept that that set something of a precedent for one-sided BBC coverage in referendums?
Sir William Cash
I do not blog so I am not in a position to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. All I can say is that I would deplore any bias whether in the Scottish referendum or the European referendum, or indeed in just normal current affairs.
To return to my point, there is the facility for this if the BBC steps up to the mark and does in full what the Wilson committee report recommended and, more than that, what is in line with what the Secretary of State is now proposing. This is a hugely important question given that according to the BBC 53% of the British people depend on it for the news they trust.
John Nicolson
Would the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that apparently with the sole exception of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), there was broadcast silence from Conservative Members when there were dramatic examples of corporation bias during the Scottish referendum coverage? With all due respect, I never heard the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) utter a cheep in complaint about that, which makes us feel a trifle cynical about his motivation. One feels that it might just be about Europe rather than bias.
Sir William Cash
I do not want in any way to sound as though I am drawing on the fact that I have been in the House for 30 years, but with great respect, the hon. Gentleman ought to know that I am not known for dodging issues or not taking a serious point seriously. If I did not say anything at the time, I do not regard that as a fault on my part, but if he is right about how the BBC dealt with the issue, I deplore it. I think that is all I can say on that subject for the moment.
The BBC recently published an annual report that was rather critical of the fact that Select Committees ask questions about the BBC’s performance on so-called editorial independence. I am not denying that it is important that the BBC should have a degree of independence in order to be impartial, but I think I have made the case that there has not been the complete impartiality that we believe the BBC should deliver to the British public. That is perhaps the result of the lack of a monitoring system, or perhaps because of a certain cultural bias of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) mentioned, and we can see it in the evidence that we have accumulated in the European Scrutiny Committee and in the reports of News-watch.
What I read in a recent article by Rona Fairhead, the chairman of the BBC Trust, was peculiarly unsatisfactory. She stated in that article, published in the past week or two, that
“the BBC needs to be driven by evidence and fact, not by prejudice”.
However, in addition to what the annual report had said, she effectively stated that the BBC should not be subjected to Committee questions in the way that it is. I can only assume that she meant the European Scrutiny Committee, but perhaps she meant the Culture, Media and Sport Committee as well—my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley asks some tough questions when people from the BBC appear in front of that Committee. Rona Fairhead stated:
“Research carried out for the trust”—
on what basis I do not know—
“shows clearly that the public see a need for independent scrutiny and regulation, but they want this done by a separate body representing licence fee payers, not by politicians.”
However, we have overarching responsibility for the accountability of Ministers, and of the BBC, which has to appear in front of the Public Accounts Committee and so on. Rona Fairhead’s article continued:
“That independence has needed defending over decades, not just from governments but also from parliament, with a growing tendency in recent years for select committees to question BBC executives about detailed editorial decisions.”
That is quite an extraordinary statement.
We took evidence and legal advice, and the bottom line is that the BBC does not have complete, unfettered independence, editorial or otherwise. It has to comply with the charter. We make it clear in our report that we expect the impartiality requirements that are embedded in the framework agreement and other documents to be complied with in the light of what the charter states. The first port of call is what the charter says and unfortunately we felt, very strongly and unanimously, that the BBC had fallen short. We look to it to remedy that. I have referred to the correspondence on 15 and 18 June between the BBC Trust, Ofcom and the Secretary of State. I do not have the time to go into its recommendations in detail, but there seems to be recognition that something has to be improved.
Philip Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that the BBC Trust is not good enough to regulate and monitor the BBC’s coverage, because not only does it regulate the BBC, but it is a cheerleader for it as well? That means that it is not in the best position to be an independent monitor of the BBC’s output, and the BBC Trust chairman’s rather snooty view of politicians having any say in what goes on is undermined by the fact that she herself is appointed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
Sir William Cash
From what I have observed from press reports and elsewhere, she appears to have accepted that the BBC Trust is in need of significant reform. The general thrust is that the BBC Trust is bust. Basically, there will have to be a new system, and that is what the correspondence to which I have referred indicates.
Former BBC commentator and employee Robin Aitken’s book, “Can We Trust the BBC?”, covers many matters related to the European Union. I also recommend Peter Shore’s book, “Separate Ways”, the introduction of which contains some extremely pertinent views of the BBC as being deeply biased on EU matters, going back to meetings in the Connaught, alleged connections with the CIA and other similar issues.
News-watch has demonstrated the truth that
“in crucial respects, the BBC has not provided the Committee clear evidence that its EU-related output is properly balanced, informative and wide-ranging across all its platforms—or that the Corporation has raised its game in the ways urged by the Wilson report.”
I have given many of the reasons for that, and more will have to come out in our next inquiry.
John Nicolson
What would the adjudicator’s role be vis-à-vis the BBC Trust? Would the adjudicator have primacy over it? Would the trust’s power to make a ruling on the issue of bias be removed, or would the two compete with each other, giving perhaps contradictory rulings?
Sir William Cash
New clause 1 states:
“Notwithstanding any enactment or legal instrument”,
so that would affect the Broadcasting Acts and the charter. Under my proposals, the Secretary of State would make provision by regulations
“to ensure the impartiality of broadcasters during the referendum period.”
There would also be a requirement for
“the appointment by the Secretary of State of a referendum broadcasting adjudicator”,
who would be completely separate. In effect, during the referendum period, the adjudicator’s arrangements would take the place of those of existing broadcasting authorities and the BBC. I do not dispute the fact that the Government do not want to go down that route, but it has emerged from the correspondence between the Secretary of State, Ofcom and the BBC Trust that serious discussions are taking place to make sure that the BBC and broadcasting authorities generally are properly impartial during the referendum campaign. There are those who do not think that there is a problem, but there are many who think there is, and that it needs to be rectified.
Even if the Government do not accept my amendment, the elements that I have described will need to be addressed in the charter review. The problem is that it is highly possible, if not probable, that the conclusions of the charter review will emerge after the referendum. It is therefore a matter of urgency that we sort this matter out in the run-up to the referendum, and before the charter review is completed. We shall look into this in the European Scrutiny Committee proceedings, to which we have invited Lord Hall, and we will continue to look into it because we believe that it could have a significant bearing on the outcome of the referendum if the situation is not remedied. If, on the other hand, the matter is taken seriously by the BBC and the broadcasting authorities, we will be able to find a solution in the framework of the existing legislation. This is a really serious matter.
I will not spend too much time on the other amendments, except to say that I think I will get an interesting response from the Minister to my amendment 1, which proposes a referendum period of not less than 16 weeks. I shall therefore not dwell on that one. We have to have a proper length of time for the referendum, so that the arguments can be properly put and understood on all sides.
New clause 11 deals with the limit on the expenditure of registered political parties. We have taken advice on this, because it is a matter of grave concern that the political parties, three of which are known to be pro-EU in the broadest sense, might find that they had too much money at their disposal, or at any rate have what we think is too much money if we look at this from the point of view of those who wish to leave. We have proposed a cumulative limit of £14 million. We have also proposed:
“Each political party’s share of the cumulative limit shall be determined in proportion to its share of the total votes cast at the general election that took place on 7 May 2015.”
The new clause also proposes that
“the Electoral Commission shall calculate and notify each political party of its share of the cumulative limit.”
For practical purposes, I look to the Minister to give me his view on that one.
In addition, I have tabled amendment 3, which states:
“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.”
We discussed some aspects of that in the debate on the previous group of amendments. A further amendment relates to the question of permitted participants and the European Union. I should add that quite a lot of my amendments have been endorsed by the Electoral Commission. The Minister can no doubt refer to that body as he goes through the amendments. This is not just a matter of Back Benchers coming forward with proposals; I have been in discussion with the Electoral Commission on many matters, including my amendment 78, which we covered in the previous debate. The commission endorsed that amendment, but unfortunately it was not accepted by the Labour party.
A significant number of Members have signed my amendment 2, which proposes that
“a permitted participant must not accept a relevant donation, irrespective of whether or not it meets the requirements of the 2000 Act and this Act, if the donation is funded directly or indirectly in whole or part from moneys, resources or support disbursed or allocated by or at the direction of the European Commission, its agencies or any related European institution to the donor or via other parties to the donor.”
The object is to ensure that no funds come from the European Union for the purposes of promoting pro-European arguments, including, obviously, the yes vote. It is an important amendment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) has sensibly suggested that we add the words
“Notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”,
just to make sure we do not slip up by finding that there is some law in the European Union that would contradict our proposals.
Sir William Cash
Before my hon. Friend intervenes, I ought finally to add that the Electoral Commission does not agree with this.
Sir William Cash
I entirely agree with that, which is why I will now sit down.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has concluded his speech. We are grateful to him.
Patrick Grady
I shall speak relatively briefly to the SNP amendments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins). As he said, the rules, regulations and conduct of the Scottish independence referendum represent a gold standard for referendums and political engagement more generally.
When the EU referendum does reach the streets and town halls of the UK, Members in this Chamber might be in for a bit of a surprise about people’s willingness to engage in that debate. Key to that political engagement is the right of 16 and 17-year-olds not only to vote but to participate in the debate. They galvanised and energised the debate on the independence referendum. Their generation will have to live with the consequences of this vote for longer than any of us, so it is only right that they should be included. The Scottish Parliament has just enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds with the vote. As a result, a 16-year-old in my constituency faces being able to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections in 2016 and in the local government elections in 2017 but being denied the right to vote in the EU referendum, which will fall at some point between or shortly after those elections.
That leads us to the question of timing, where the Government seem to have been scrambling to keep up with the demand for clarity. At the last stage they had to confirm that the referendum would not clash with the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly elections, and now they are introducing amendments to say that it will not clash with local elections specifically planned for 4 May 2017. The SNP amendment asks for a clear three months on either side. There are good reasons for that, not least the amendment that has just been passed on purdah, because of course a purdah period will also apply to the Scottish Parliament elections. Perhaps the Minister can advise us on what will apply in advance of local government and London mayoral elections, but either way we are looking at having two purdah periods in a relatively short time, depending on the date the Government choose. That can be avoided by accepting the SNP amendment and giving ourselves those three months clear on either side before another election takes place.
There are additional benefits to having that clear run-up to the date of the referendum. I saw major benefits in holding the Scottish independence referendum in September, not least because it gave us a good long period of campaigning during the glorious summer for which Scotland is renowned and which it experiences every year but experienced particularly last year during the Commonwealth games. That led literally to engagement on the streets, with stalls, petitions and conversations that would not have happened if the referendum had come in May. But the precise month is less relevant to this than the length of time available; no matter the exact date, what was crucial was the good period of time available for a free and full debate.
Allowing three months on either side of the referendum gives it the respect and the place that it is due in our national discourse. I think some Members on the Labour Benches have been surprised to see so many people filing out town halls because of an election. Such a thing is no surprise to us in Scotland who have seen a democratic reawakening and an engagement with the political process that was brought about by our independence referendum. We have the opportunity now to do the same thing. It does not matter what we believe in or how we vote in the referendum. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), I am pro-European to my fingertips, and I look forward to shedding light on the positive case for remaining in the European Union. No matter what side we support in the EU referendum, we should allow that space and time to be made available.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I am interested in this idea of double majorities. Obviously, giving a veto to each of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom would be very useful in certain contexts, but does the hon. Gentleman think that it should be something that applies to all national referendums in future, including one on changing the voting system?
Patrick Grady
That is quite an interesting proposition and it is certainly worth considering. We were told that Scotland should be leading, not leaving, the UK. If we are to have a respect agenda and a family of nations, perhaps that is the kind of thing that we should be considering. As I said earlier, it is precisely the principle that this Government want to introduce in their proposals for English votes for English laws. Therefore, legislation, which can always be revisited and amended in different ways, will be subject to a double majority in this House, but a fundamental, decisive and long-term principled decision on our membership of the European Union will be denied that opportunity of a double majority when we are trying to decide the future of the United Kingdom and its role in the modern world.
Like much of what we have tried to do in this House since being elected, the SNP has tabled amendments on the basis of what we were told during the independence referendum. We heard that Scotland was a valued member of the family of nations and that we should be leading the UK, not leaving the UK. But we now face the prospect of Scotland’s 16 and 17-year-olds and European Union citizens being denied a vote on this matter of vital importance. The date of the referendum is being chosen on a whim to suit the political expediencies of the Government rather than to allow a free and fair debate. Worst of all, Scotland’s citizens will be forced to leave the European Union even if they vote to stay in. That does not suggest a respect agenda. It might be that some of us see that as the kind of material change that requires a fresh evaluation of Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom.
The SNP has tabled clear and sensible amendments that are consistent with the points that we have made throughout the passage of this Bill. If the EU referendum is to be seen as free and fair, the rules must be clear and based on consensus. We do not have to look far to see what the gold standard of a referendum process should be. I hope that the Government will listen, but I fear that, as on so many issues, they will not.
Sir Edward Leigh
I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and his new clause 11, but the House will be relieved to hear that I shall do so rather more briefly. There is a quote by Sir Winston Churchill in the No Lobby, which says that he wanted to spend the first million years in heaven painting. As much as I love my hon. Friend, I fear that I might spend the first million years in purgatory listening to his speeches.
Sir Edward Leigh
My hon. Friend has identified an important point. The Minister will remember that I made precisely this point in my amendment 53 in Committee, before our summer break.
Although there has been a lot of fire and emotion and a vote tonight about purdah, the question of spending by both sides is probably more important. Lord Lamont, the former Chancellor, has written a number of articles about it. It is incredibly important when we have the referendum that we get a sense of closure. At the end of this, whatever the result, people should feel that it has been broadly fair. Otherwise, we might reap the whirlwind. We should remember what happened after the Scottish referendum. If the yes campaign should win, we do not want to create a sense of unfairness for the other side.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has taken seriously the points I have put to him. In our earlier debates, the way he put it was that there should be a “broad equality” of forces, but we fear that that simply will not happen. Although there are sensible, firm and clear limits on how much public money will be available to the no and yes campaigns—say, £600,000 or something on each side—and that is completely fair, the party establishment of the main political parties, the Conservative party, the Labour party, the Liberal party, and the SNP, will almost certainly campaign to stay in Europe. Their ability to spend will be based on the votes that they got, with the Conservative party allowed to spend £5 million, the Labour party £4 million, the UK Independence party only £3 million—they will be the only people on the other side—and the Liberal Democrats £2 million. We could reach a situation in which the yes campaign is spending up to £17 million and the no campaign only £8 million.
That has already happened once before. In 1975, the no side was outspent 10:1, which simply cannot be fair. When I put those points to my hon. Friend the Minister in the past, he said that although he accepted that morally and logically there was force in my arguments, that was not in our tradition, as we do not have limits for general elections. I am sure that he will make the same argument again tonight. However, a general election is somewhat different. Separate political parties all have their own position that they are putting forward, rather than ganging up, in a sense, on one side of the argument. There is no sense of unfairness at the end of the process, or a sense that one important political point of view has been massively outspent by the other side.
Although I accept that the Minister will make those arguments, I hope he will feel that there is some sort of moral force in what we have said. For instance, the official yes side in the AV referendum spent £3.436 million and the official no side spent £2.995 million. There was a broad equality in what the yes campaign and no campaign were spending on the AV referendum, was there not? I think we all felt it was a fair referendum. The arguments were put, there was a clear decision and people accepted it. Surely we do not want to be in the situation that has arisen with so many other referendums in Europe, in which there is a sense that the political establishment—the European establishment—has a massive imbalance of resources on its side when it comes to spending. That creates a sense after the referendum that it has somehow been unfair.
Our sole UKIP Member is not present for this important debate, but we do not want to create a situation like the one that existed after the Scottish referendum, do we? There was suddenly a great surge in support for the SNP, and we would not want to recreate that position. [Hon. Members: “Why not?”] There will not be a surge in support for the SNP after this referendum; there might be a surge in support for somebody else, which SNP Members might not welcome.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will try to convince us that the Government do want a broad equality of resources during the campaign, so that we can feel that the yes and no campaigns have put their points of view fairly, that the public have listened to their arguments and that a fair decision has been made.
Tom Brake
May I say what a pleasure it is to take part in this debate? Certainly, for some Members on the Government Benches it is as though two Christmases have come at once—the BBC and the European Union. Had we also been able to debate political correctness, traffic wardens and road humps, their ecstasy would have been complete.
Tom Brake
And wiping out the Lib Dems would be the final segment.
I want to make a few points about amendments 8, 19, 17, 20, 21 and 23. With regard to votes at 16 and 17, I will not repeat the arguments that have already been set out on Second Reading and in this debate, but clearly it is something we support. One of the fundamental reasons why we support votes at 16 and 17 in the EU referendum is that young people could be deprived of the benefits of our EU membership, such as the ability to live and work abroad. That would be extremely regrettable, because it would close down their options.
Amendments 20 and 21 were tabled by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who is no longer in his place. I assume that he did so—I support him in this—to try to initiate some sort of debate, because one thing that is sorely lacking in debates on our membership of the EU is the impact that pulling out would have on UK citizens who live elsewhere in the EU and on other EU citizens who live in UK. I think that he was trying to trigger that debate, because those who support leaving the European Union have to start talking about that. It is only fair that they set out what they think the impact would be on the millions of EU citizens who live in the UK, and on the millions of UK citizens who live elsewhere in the European Union.
When the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) referred to precedent, I hope that he was not saying that the Labour party could not move on the issue of votes for EU citizens in the UK simply because there was no precedent for that anywhere else in the EU. If we always waited for a precedent to be set, we would never do anything. I hope that there are other reasons why the Labour party cannot support that, although it was not entirely clear what they were. All he referred to was the fact that precedents elsewhere in the EU were against that happening.
Government amendment 23 relates to the wording of the referendum question. Like the official Opposition, we accept the wording put forward by the Electoral Commission, but we are disappointed that it is more complicated than the original question. Indeed, the Electoral Commission has suggested in its own findings that the change was not necessary because there was no evidence to suggest that the original question resulted in participants changing their voting preferences. I am slightly confused about why the Electoral Commission then felt that it was necessary to put forward an alternative and more complicated question, but that is where we are and that is what it has set out.
Mr Nuttall
I am a little confused about why the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the words “remain” and “leave” could possibly be confusing to anyone. Surely it is perfectly obvious that “remain” means stay in, and “leave” means get out.
Tom Brake
To us as we debate it, potentially it is quite clear what the two mean, but I think that the hon. Gentleman might accept that, outside this Chamber, the original question was simpler. There is the risk that people will be more challenged by the alternative question proposed by the Electoral Commission.
Tom Brake
I see the hon. Gentleman shake his head. I am sure he has attended counts, looked at people’s ballot papers and tried to work out the reasoning behind the decisions taken in for example, crossing two boxes rather than one during a general election, or in the more confused voting that takes place in elections where there are multiple choices. The question and the way in which people participate in the referendum does present challenges and lead to difficulties, which is why a simpler question is always the better choice. However, the Electoral Commission has recommended this question, the Government are implementing its recommendations and, with some misgivings, we will support that.
Mr Baker
A great many fascinating and important points have been made about impartiality of the media and spending by political parties. I will speak briefly about amendment 22 and my amendment (a) to amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), which deals with the EU institutions and their spending.
It has been put to me that if the EU institutions spent heavily in the referendum campaign, it would greatly assist the campaign to leave, particularly if some of the Commissioners came over on speaking tours and explained their plans for a federal Europe. Notwithstanding that, it is a matter of concern that the EU institutions might end up being the only unregulated parties in the course of the campaign. I am therefore keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on spending by the EU institutions, but I know we all want to hear him cover the wide range of points made during the debate, so I shall sit down.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)
This is a very large group of amendments, covering almost the entirety of the Bill, it is late and I have less than 10 minutes, so I shall skip lightly over anything covered during Committee stage with the Leader of the House and focus on the new points and the new areas raised this evening. I commend all the Government amendments in the group and will try to summarise the most important ones briefly, before moving on to some of the others in the group.
First, there are amendments dealing with changes to the campaign rules. They broadly have the support of the Electoral Commission and will ensure that the Bill and PPERA operate together and that campaigning is fair and transparent. They include changes to allow the lead campaigns to be designated quickly if needed, so that they do not cut into the short 10-week campaign period, and to allow the Electoral Commission to reject applications from campaigners with offensive or obscene names. Second are the amendments dealing with changes to the administration rules. They are all technical and deal primarily with the interaction between UK law and Gibraltarian law. Third are amendments responding to concerns raised by Members in previous debates to rule out holding the referendum on 4 May 2017 and to add Irish citizens resident in Gibraltar to the franchise.
I will deal first with clause 2 and the referendum franchise. Quite a lot of this was dealt with in Committee, and given the limited time, I will have to skip very lightly over it. I will, however, mention Government amendment 24, which makes a small change to permit Irish citizens resident in Gibraltar to vote in the referendum to bring equality to who can vote in the UK and Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar support the change, and I am pleased to see consensus across the House with an Opposition amendment for the same purpose, amendment 18, having been tabled. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for raising the matter in Committee.
Given the limited time I have, I do not propose to spend a great deal of time—in fact, any—on votes at 16, because we covered it in Committee. I will come back to the issue of EU citizens at the end, if time allows, but there is an awful lot of other ground to cover.
As I said, the Government amendments on campaigning broadly have the support of the Electoral Commission and will ensure that the Bill and PPERA operate together and that campaigning is fair and transparent. On designation and the time allowed for the campaign, we have proposed changes which I hope will please my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), as they address concerns he raised with me in Committee and again this evening. He was worried that we should have a full 16-week campaign and that designation should not eat into the final 10-week short campaign period. I promised him that we would find an answer to make sure that it did not. These changes mean that the required statutory instrument to fix the date for the referendum should, as is usual for an affirmative resolution, take six weeks to go through the House. Only once that process is complete does the 10-week short campaign period start. Obviously, six plus 10 equals 16. I hope that my hon. Friend and others will be reassured that we will have adequate time to debate during that entire 16-week period.
Equally, it is important that the designation process means that the decision on who are the lead campaign groups for the in and the out campaigns is properly arrived at that and those groups are clearly designated before the start of the 10-week campaign, since that will allow them to access the money that designation as lead campaign groups allows and also to spend that money correctly to put their points as strongly as possible during the last 10 weeks of the campaign. We have therefore decided to table an amendment that will allow the designation process to be done via a negative resolution and, if necessary, for that resolution to take effect immediately on the day, at the latest, that the SI setting the date for the referendum is tabled. That will mean that while the SI setting the date is going through Parliament, the work by the Electoral Commission to designate lead campaign groups can be going on in parallel and will be complete on or before the start of the 10-week period so that designation will be complete in time for the full 10 weeks to be carried out properly. I hope that that answers, very briefly, the major concerns that were raised in Committee and again here today.
I should also mention that the negative resolution I have described would need to take effect very promptly on the day that it was tabled. That is unusual; we usually wait for two to three weeks after tabling something before it takes effect. I have already spoken to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to discuss the importance and exceptionality of getting the provision to take effect immediately rather than after three weeks. I look forward to working with him on this wherever possible.
I now move on to some of the non-Government amendments. Amendment 1, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, would require that the referendum period be no shorter than 16 weeks. I hope we have already dealt with that and therefore do not propose to dwell on it any more strongly.
Amendment 3, also in the name of my hon. Friend, would require that the legislation be clear at least six months before it is required to be implemented or complied with. I think that his rationale is based on the Electoral Commission recommendation that the rules be clear six months before they are enforced. We can satisfy that recommendation in a slightly brisker and less onerous fashion, because we have already published the detailed draft regulations on how the vote should be held. They have been available in the Commons Library since July, and the Electoral Commission has been assessing them carefully too. The rules will already have been extremely clear for six months by spring next year, and I hope that that will give everybody plenty of chance to consider and absorb the details and subtleties as needed. I hope that my hon. Friend will therefore be able to withdraw his amendment.
New clause 11 deals with spending caps, which were mentioned by a number of colleagues. The new clause would mean that all political parties seeking to campaign in the referendum would not be able to spend, in total, more than £14 million. This would replace the individual spending limit set for political parties that register as permitted participants under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is seeking to reduce the impact that political parties—presumably the major ones—can have in campaigning in the referendum, but I am afraid that the new clause would not necessarily achieve what he may intend. For example, assuming that the 11 parties had secured between them 99% of the general election vote, the Lib Dems and the UK Independence party would find that their spending limit fell by between 55% and 60% compared with the levels currently set in PPERA, and the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the Democratic Unionist party would find their allocations falling by over 90%. Instead of £700,000 each, Plaid Cymru, for example, would be stuck with a limit of £84,000.
If political parties wanted to get round my hon. Friend’s proposal they could simply register several other permitted participants and funnel any extra money that they might have into them. Their total spending would be well above the limit that he suggests, and the new clause would not be able to stop it. It also opens up the option for political game playing, whereby parties may not want to campaign but simply register to impact on and reduce the limits of other political rivals. That would not reflect well on the quality of rules underpinning the referendum. I therefore hope that he will be able to withdraw the new clause.
I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friends in relation to the various amendments on the European Commission’s role. For a start, neither EU institutions nor foreign Governments are legally permitted donors under UK election law, so any campaign group that took money from them would be committing an offence. I note that the Electoral Commission announced on Friday that it does not support the amendments for that reason. There are well-tested rules, modelled on election rules, to prevent anyone from circumventing that by using middlemen. Equally, to take an example entirely at random, if my hon. Friends are considering supporting the out campaign, I gently suggest that any attempt by the EU to interfere in the campaign would be a huge boost to my hon. Friends’ side, and although the EU is many things, it is not stupid, so I suspect that it already understands that point.
Time is very tight, but I propose to speak very briefly about the changes proposed to broadcasters’ impartiality. I simply say that the existing regulators already have many of the required powers; the question is about turning principle into practice and getting them to use those powers. I am delighted to confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has urged them to do so. I therefore hope that we will not need to add any further regulators to the panoply that already exists.
I will sit down to leave the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who moved the lead amendment, a few moments to round off the debate.
Mike Gapes
It is important to say that this has been a useful and interesting debate. The real debate is of course yet to come for the country. I will withdraw amendment 20, but the issues that I raised are pertinent to our country’s democracy and are certainly of great concern to the millions of British people living in other EU countries, who feel that they are being disfranchised on a vital decision that could affect their wellbeing and future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Summer-born Children (Education Guidelines)
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I want to extend my thanks to the Speaker for selecting me for this Adjournment debate, for even at this late hour the issue I intend to raise is highly important. I can tell the Minister that even at this late hour, although the Gallery may not be packed, a lot of people are watching this debate with real interest and have been waiting for his performance, and mine, for some hours now.
As with most Adjournment debates, the reason for applying for it started with issues raised by constituents. Their cases alone would have been enough for me to want hold the debate, but, as so often, when one starts to do one’s research one realises that something is not just a problem in one constituency but is a national issue. I recognise that others are pursuing similar campaigns. At the outset, I wish to recognise the excellent work of Bliss, the Too Much, Too Soon campaign, and the Summer Born campaign, as well as thousands of parents and colleagues, for I recognise that in raising this matter I follow in the footsteps of angels. I also want to praise the Department for Education and the Minister for the work they have already undertaken on this matter. The Minister will understand, however, that tonight I am going to try to persuade him to go a little further.
The definition of a summer-born child is one born between 1 April and 31 August. The issue, in essence, is that children must enter education by the September after their fifth birthday. So in a reception class starting on 1 September this year, there could be a child born on 2 September 2010 and a child born 11 months later at the end of August the following year. One might therefore expect a huge gulf to be seen in development—a fact that is consistently borne out by studies. It is well documented that summer-born children can suffer from long-term development issues and a lag in educational standards. A DFE study from last year showed that at the end of their first year children defined as summer-born were at a significant disadvantage in comparison with older children. The study shows that two thirds of those born between May and August fail to meet minimum expected standards in reading, writing, speaking, maths and other development skills, compared with slightly less than a third for those born between September and December.
That is understandably worrying for a parent of any child born in these months, but equally worrying is that, while intuitively one might expect this gap to decline as the child progresses through the education system, many studies show that children who are young for their year are typically still seeking to catch up at GCSE level and are less likely to go to university. In June this year, an article published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry confirmed the DFE study’s findings that younger children were twice as likely to have language and behavioural problems relative to their elder peers. Interestingly, since I spoke about this on the radio at lunchtime, a number of people have contacted my office.
It is noticeable also that Sutton Trust research shows that this issue affects not only the poorest areas in our society but some of the richest—it spreads across our society. As I am sure the Minister knows, it is not unknown for some summer-born children to be told that they have special needs. Moreover, the experience of being persistently outperformed by more developed or older children can lead to serious confidence and inferiority perceptions and bullying. Of course, all these risks are also faced by premature children who are encouraged to start school before they are ready.
This whole catalogue of issues and problems was personified for me in two constituency cases. In the first, a summer-born child entered into reception without any deferral, despite requests to our local council to repeat their nursery years. It became clear that the child needed longer to develop. Therefore, the parents, with the headteacher’s support, using the guidelines in place, applied for the child to repeat reception rather than move to year 1. The admissions manager repeatedly stressed that the guidelines were not statutory, but after pressure the request was eventually granted. However, the council has said that the guidelines are not statutory, and it is now telling the family that it may have to go through the whole deferral process again in year 5. The possible consequence is that the child may miss year 7 and go straight into a secondary school in year 8, rejoining their original age cohort.
The second constituency case was raised by Louise and Ian Hunter in relation to their son Hugh. Hugh was born extraordinarily premature, and has been the beneficiary of the neo-natal unit at St George’s hospital and all its excellent staff. Hugh would not have been ready to enter reception at age 4, so his parents sought to defer it to age 5. One might have thought from knowing the medical history that a letter from the parents would have formed the substantial part of an application to defer his education and that very little else would be required. However, yet again, the local council told the parents that the guidelines were non-statutory, and that there might be issues with other authorities if they chose to move house at some stage. Indeed, the local authority appeared to say that “non-statutory” means voluntary or optional. The local council tried to claim that it needed a precedent to be able to follow the guidelines or clear evidence that Hugh had special educational needs before it could authorise a deferral. Finally, after a lot of persuasion, notice was taken of the guidelines, but there was still confusion over the process. Hugh was lucky to benefit from having dedicated and conscientious parents, and 18 months after their original application to defer, the council agreed to their request.
For many years before the guidelines were published, the whole process was mired in even more difficulty and uncertainty, so the way that the DFE and Ministers have grasped this matter is entirely to their credit and is much welcomed. However, it is clear that this matter remains far too much of a lottery for many. The volume of emails I have received from people from around the country this afternoon, following my performance on “You and Yours” on Radio 4, shows that this concern is not confined to those two constituency cases.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I sought the hon. Gentleman’s permission to intervene and thank him for giving way. As he will know, education is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but the issues in the cases that he outlines are also apparent in Northern Ireland. My concern regarding my constituents is that summer-born children are sometimes expected to be smarter than their younger counterparts. Has the hon. Gentleman experienced that on the mainland as well?
Stephen Hammond
I am unsure that I necessarily followed that exactly, but the hon. Gentleman, as ever, makes a clear point. I am sure that parents in Northern Ireland will be listening carefully.
Going back to my performance on “You and Yours” today, several people have emailed me since and I was particularly struck by a lady who contacted me to say that she had triplets born prematurely at 25 weeks. They should have been born on 1 November, but she was told by her local authority that if she delays their start to school, they will have to go into year 1 rather than reception. That is despite the fact that her children have been diagnosed by paediatricians as having additional needs and developmental delay. Another lady got in touch to tell me about her grandaughter who was born in August 2005 in Dublin. In Ireland, as the Minister will know, parents can choose when a child with an August birthday starts school, so the parents decided to delay her entry into reception. A few years later, it was necessary for the family to move to the UK, where the local authority has insisted that the child starts school with her chronological age group in year 5, thereby skipping year 4. That has caused huge distress and anxiety for the child. Practice differs across the country, but the guidelines are being followed inconsistently and it has become far too much of a lottery.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I spoke to my hon. Friend before the debate to say that I would intervene, and I thank him for giving way. My youngest son, William, started school today. He was born in November and my wife and I just know that he is ready to start school. Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason for such a response to his stellar performance on Radio 4 this lunchtime is that this is ultimately about parental choice? Parents know what is best for their children and want greater control over when their children enter the education system.
Stephen Hammond
I wholeheartedly concur. I am pleased to see from some comments that the Minister has made already that he, too, understands and accepts that point fully.
We must look at the practice in other countries. In the Netherlands, parents have the right to choose whether a child has one or two years at kindergarten. In the USA, study at kindergarten can be delayed to allow social, emotional, intellectual or physical growth. In some German states, all children are required to be assessed by a paediatrician or educational psychologist to check that they are ready for school. I am not suggesting that we implement all those practices, but it is clear that there is a recognition of these issues across a number of countries.
I have referred a number of times to the guidelines entitled “Advice on the admission of summer born children”, in which the Minister is well versed. I find it difficult to disagree with a statement that came from his Department earlier in the year, which stated:
“Our reforms are raising the quality of early years education”.
It stated that there was
“a greater focus on the key skills children need for a good start in life.”
That is what the guidelines entail.
Paragraph 2.17 of the school admissions code states:
“Parents may seek a place for their child outside of their normal age group… In addition, the parents of a summer born child…may request that they are admitted out of their normal age group—to reception rather than year 1.”
It states that authorities must
“make decisions on the basis of the circumstances of each case and in the best interests of the child concerned”;
that they must
“take into account the views of the head teacher”;
and that they must inform the parent of their decision and
“set out clearly the reasons for their decision.”
Finally, it sets out that any application must be taken into account as part of the normal process and not be given a lower priority.
Those guidelines are a real step forward, but there is always a but. In this case, the but is not about the guidelines; there are issues with how the process is being operated in practice, there are concerns about the attitudes of a number of councils and there is a feeling among many parents that they are not getting a fair hearing or that the system is operating a postcode lottery.
Let me briefly set out the issues with current practice. First, although there is no statutory barrier to a child being admitted outside their normal age cohort, there is no right to insist or to appeal. Although the guidelines state that the rationale must be set out, they do not confer any extra rights. Secondly, some authorities allow delayed entry into education but then insist that the child begins in year 1, rather than in reception, thus removing all the hoped-for benefit of starting a year later. Thirdly, some authorities, as I pointed out when describing the case in my constituency, allow a child to defer entry at primary level but give no guarantee that the child will remain in that cohort post-primary school. Finally, there are any number of similar problems for the parents of premature and pre-term babies. Some local authorities take no account of prematurity or the due date.
The Education Committee noted in a report earlier this year that the number of cases where children were being delayed and then admitted into year 1 rather than into reception had increased and that there was an increase in the number of contentious cases.
Tonight, I ask the Minister for minor tweaks that I think would have a substantial impact on the lives of many children. I hope that those tweaks will address the issues that I have described. I know that the Minister has agreed to a review, so I ask him to look at revising the guidelines in three ways. First, I ask that the due date, rather than the birth date, of premature children be used in the definition or interpretation of compulsory school age. Secondly, I ask him to consider giving the parents of summer-born children an automatic right to defer, given that parents have the best feeling for when their children should enter education, with a similar provision for the parents of premature children. Finally, I ask him to ensure that once a deferral has been agreed, the child stays in the same educational cohort throughout their educational career.
If the Minister feels that that is a “perfect world”, that he cannot necessarily agree to all those suggestions, and that perhaps one would be a step too far—although I do not think they are—then surely the default position must be that the onus is placed on the council to prove why a request should not be granted. I hope the Minister will consider the three tweaks, which I regard as relatively minor. Like supporters of the Summer Born and Too Much, Too Soon campaigns, I have been hugely encouraged by the Minister’s interest in this issue. Tonight—or this morning—we have the chance, through those tweaks, to change many children’s lives for the better. I hope the Minister will agree, in his comments this morning, to look at those tweaks and to revise the guidelines accordingly. We have the chance to make a change that will be of benefit to so many children.
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) on securing the debate, and on choosing such an apposite time of the day in which to have it. I also congratulate him on his very effective campaigning on this issue, both for his constituents—Hugh Hunter and his parents—and the other families he referred to. I congratulate him on the fight he has put up on their behalf, and on his campaign nationally on this very important issue. It is timely, as it allows me the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on summer-born children, and our intention to amend the school admissions code to ensure that summer-born children do not miss out on an important year of their education and schooling.
The statutory school admissions code currently requires admission authorities to provide for the admission to school of all children in the September following their fourth birthday. A child does not reach compulsory school age until on or after their fifth birthday. No parent, therefore, is obliged to send their child to school before that age is reached. Most parents are happy for their child to begin school at the age of four, but as we know, children develop at different rates, particularly in the early years. Some parents will therefore feel that their child is simply not ready to start school before compulsory school age. To allow for this, the admissions code makes it clear that parents can request that their child attend part time, or that their entry be delayed, until they reach compulsory school age.
Where parents of a summer-born child want that child to start school at the age of five, as the law allows them to, they will start school at the point when their peers are moving up from the reception class to year 1. If they want their child to be admitted to the reception class at this point, they must currently request that they be admitted outside of their normal age group. The admissions code requires the admission authority to then make a decision on the age group the child should be admitted to, based on the circumstances of the case and their best interests. In making that decision, the admission authority is required to take into account the views of the headteacher of the school—as my hon. Friend explained—as they are best placed to advise on the age group at their school in which the child’s needs can best be met. The code also makes it clear that admission authorities must take into account the wishes of parents, alongside other information relating to the child’s academic, social and emotional development.
This, however, is where problems seem to arise at a local level. The decision on what age group the child should be admitted to often seems to be problematic, with the parents and admission authority failing to agree on what is in the best interests of the child. I am concerned about the number of cases in which it appears that the wishes of parents are not being respected and children are being admitted to year 1, rather than the reception class, and are therefore missing out on the essential teaching of reading and arithmetic which takes place in the reception class.
We have always made it clear that there are no statutory barriers to admitting summer-born children to a reception class at the age of five. In July 2013, we published non-statutory advice to help admission authorities and parents understand the statutory framework within which decisions must be made, and to remove the misunderstandings that appeared to get in the way of admission authorities agreeing to parental requests. For example, it clarified that a school’s funding would not be affected if they admitted a child out of their normal age group, and this advice seemed to be successful at dispelling such misunderstandings, but unfortunately it did not result in a reduction in the number of problematic cases, or the number of parents whose wishes were overruled.
That is why last year we amended the admissions code to provide greater clarity about how such decisions should be made, and to improve transparency for parents. The code now makes it clear that the decision must be made in the best interests of the child. It also requires the admission authority to take account of the views of the headteacher of the school concerned, as they are best placed to advise on the age group at their school. The code requires the admission authority to publish the process for requesting admission out of the normal age group, and to set out the reasons for its decision in each case for the parents concerned. It also makes it clear that admission authorities should take into account the wishes of parents, alongside other information relating to the child’s development.
In spite of these changes and the additional non-statutory advice we have published alongside them, I am concerned about the number of cases in which it appears that children are still being admitted to year 1 against their parents’ wishes and are, as a consequence, missing out on that important reception year at school. I am also concerned that some children who are admitted outside of their normal year group are later expected to miss a year and move up against their wishes to join the other children of the same age range—a point referred to by my hon. Friend.
We have therefore decided it is necessary to amend the admissions code further to ensure that summer-born children can be admitted to reception at the age of five, if this is what their parents wish, and to ensure that those children are able to remain with that cohort as they progress through school. We have already begun the work necessary to implement the change. We will conduct a full public consultation in due course and, subject to parliamentary approval, we will introduce these further changes to ensure that no child is forced to start school before they are ready.
Admission authorities may have been reluctant to agree to parental requests because they felt it would open the floodgates—that large numbers of parents of summer-born children would want them to be admitted outside their normal age group—and that, as a consequence, the admission system would become impossible to manage. I do not believe this to be true. The reception year of school is the final part of the early years foundation stage, and we know that most parents are happy for their child to go to school at this point, confident that they are ready for the challenge. We believe that only a small proportion of parents of summer-born children wish them to be admitted to reception at the age of five—for example, children born in the late summer months or born prematurely. On that point—the first of the three my hon. Friend made—I will further consider whether we can make changes in relation to the due date versus the birth date of prematurely born children.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I hope he is happy to learn that we are taking action to address his concerns on the admission of summer-born children.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015
Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2015
(9 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2015.
Nick Boles
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton, and I trust that you had an enjoyable and relaxing summer, along with the rest of the Committee. It is always good to get some early net practice when we come back after a long recess, but I am not sure whether I would choose to have net practice on consumer issues when facing the hon. Member for Walthamstow, who is of course one of the House’s great experts on these matters. I hope she will take it as an act of good will—indeed, of good luck in the current contest for the position of deputy leader of the Labour party—that I intend to keep my comments relatively brief. I know that other Government Members will want to release her to her campaigning duties, and I hope she can persuade her colleagues to do the same.
Although the orders are technical and consequential in nature, they are important elements in the implementation of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which forms part of our wider drive for greater productivity. The majority of the Act will come into force on 1 October. The Consumer Rights Act is a major part of the reform and simplification of UK consumer law, which will empower consumers, improve consumer choice and drive productivity in competitive markets. The Act aims to foster high levels of consumer confidence so that people try new products and services, and shop around. Of course, in order for consumers to be confident, they need to know what their rights are and what they are entitled to if something goes wrong. The Act provides a clear scheme of consumer remedies for when things go wrong with goods, services and digital content.
The two orders simply amend the existing legal framework to take account of the new consumer legislation. The draft Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015 adds the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 to the list of legislation in schedule 5 to the 2015 Act, meaning that public enforcers of those regulations have access to the investigatory powers they need.
The order amends the Uniform Laws on International Sales Act 1967, which implemented the convention on the international sale of goods. The convention enables parties from different countries to decide that the standard terms set out in the convention apply to their contract. The order will mean that international businesses cannot avoid their obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 when applying the convention terms to consumer contracts. The order also amends schedules 14 and 15 to the Enterprise Act 2002, so that public bodies have the power to disclose and share information obtained through or for the purpose of enforcing the unfair terms and secondary ticketing provisions that have been introduced to the Consumer Rights Act.
Lastly, the order amends schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 to enable a local authority to be a primary authority in relation to relevant functions and to take a role in co-ordinating the enforcement of specified provisions of the 2015 Act. That means the benefits of dealing with a single authority are available to business in relation to those parts of the Consumer Rights Act.
The draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2015 amends the Enterprise Act 2002, enabling enforcers such as Trading Standards to use civil enforcement powers rather than criminal sanctions for certain breaches of the Act, where such breaches affect consumers’ collective interests. For example, Trading Standards could seek an enforcement order where a business refuses to refund any of its customers for faulty goods it has supplied. Finally, the Consumer Rights Act contains a number of measures to reduce burdens on businesses, some of which will particularly benefit small businesses. For example, in the majority of cases, businesses will receive notice of an inspection from consumer law enforcers such as Trading Standards, which will reduce the costs of disruption to such businesses.
The orders will make for a smoother implementation of the Consumer Rights Act, which alone is estimated to generate net benefits of £1.7 billion over the next 10 years. The wider package of consumer law reform is estimated to boost the economy by £4 billion over the next 10 years. I therefore commend the orders to the Committee.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
May I start, Mr Hamilton, by echoing the Minister’s comments—not, alas, about brevity, but about serving under your chairmanship? It is the first time for me, but I hope it will not be the last. I hope that all members of the Committee have come back from their holidays refreshed and raring to go. Unlike the Minister, I am excited by the opportunity to debate consumer rights legislation, having devoted a considerable amount of time to it during the last Parliament—dare I say that my application to “Mastermind” with this as a specialist subject is in train?
I can see that nobody else here had the pleasure of serving on the Consumer Rights Public Bill Committee and debating at such length the exciting subject of our rights and responsibilities under consumer legislation. With that in mind, let me offer the Committee the Opposition’s take on these two orders. We do not oppose them, but we have some questions. It would be helpful if the Minister looked into them and gave us some explanation, given the debates we had in the previous Parliament. I am sure that he read all the Consumers Rights Public Bill Committee discussions in detail; dare I say that that will be his “Mastermind” test for today?
The draft Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015 deals with the sharing of enforcement powers. As the Minister acknowledged, it covers the legislation on ticket touting. No Member here can fail to be aware of just how strong the debates about ticket touting were. A number of Members from across the House debated and raised concerns about ticket touting—particularly about the links between ticket touting and organised crime—and the number of people being ripped off by touts. Therefore, it was welcome that the Government eventually gave in and put measures in the Consumer Rights Act to try to address the challenge of ticket touting. This order looks at one of the provisions around the enforcement powers, particularly information sharing for public agencies.
Members who were in the House during the previous Parliament will recall that a lot of our debates were about the lack of information that made ticket touting possible—the opaqueness about what was being sold and the difficulties faced by enforcement agencies in being able to pursue those selling tickets and ripping off consumers.
Chapter 5 of part 3 of the Consumer Rights Act is enacted by this order. Therefore, it would be helpful to hear a little more from the Minister about how the Act will be made real. Having talked to a number of organisations campaigning against ticket touting and affected by the industry, I am concerned to note that they have yet to receive any guidance from the Minister as to the pursuance of this statutory instrument. As the Minister said, the Consumer Rights Act will come into force in a couple of weeks’ time. This order contains requirements about information sharing, but it does not set out what information should be shared or the powers that enforcement agencies will have to address such issues.
For this side of the Committee, this fits into a wider point. The Minister committed to a review of the secondary market as part of the legislation. That legislation was passed in March and there was a commitment that the review would happen within a year. We are yet to hear when the review will happen and what issues it will cover. One of the Minister’s colleagues in another Department suggested that ticket prices should be set by supply and demand, under secondary ticket touting. As I am sure the Minister is aware, the concern has always been that there was not a fair supply of tickets within the ticket touting industry, and that was causing the problem for consumers.
How does the Minister think information-sharing powers will help to tackle the issues around ticket touting and to identify people who are ripping off consumers? What does that mean for the review of ticket touting that the Government promised within a year of the legislation being enacted? I am concerned to read in the explanatory memorandum that no impact assessment has been made of the information-sharing powers. If one of the concerns that the ticketing and entertainment industries had about the powers was about the impact of the legislation on their ability to deal with requirements for tickets effectively, then surely such information sharing would have an impact. Surely the Minister would expect enforcement agencies to be able to use that information to identify those ripping off consumers and that would have an impact—hopefully a positive one. I would therefore be interested to hear why no impact assessment has been made. Given the cross-party agreement that we needed to tackle ticket touting, perish the thought that what he is now introducing is a dog without teeth.
The second statutory instrument deals with the Enterprise Act 2002, and we have some more substantial concerns about that. I am sure the Minister will remember the detailed conversations we had with one of his predecessors about that Act—in particular, about how we ensure that all consumers are protected equally.
The Consumer Rights Act seeks to simplify the ways in which people can use their rights and responsibilities. It draws on the idea that if someone understands their rights in one sector, they will be able to apply them across all sectors. When that legislation was being drafted, we had a severe concern that particular types of consumers were being excluded from it, in particular air and rail passengers. At the time, the Minister in charge of the Bill told us that we should raise those concerns on this very statutory instrument if equivalent powers were not provided under the national conditions of carriage legislation.
It was therefore with a little sadness that I noted that the Minister wrote to us on 29 July to say that, contrary to the assurances given to us during that legislative process that equal rights to a reasonable service, within a reasonable timescale and at a reasonable price would be translated to passengers as well as other consumers, that was not to be applied and passengers were to be excluded. Therefore, in the context of this statutory instrument, they are excluded from the provision that allows for a market-wide survey to be carried out if there is concern that the collective interest is being breached.
What does that mean in layman’s terms? If we thought that passengers were being ripped off, the Competition and Markets Authority could not investigate, and neither could the Office of Rail Regulation. Why does that matter? I am sure that all of us here have had complaints from people about services, and rail services and planes in particular, but if this statutory instrument is enacted as it stands, those consumers will not have the same rights. Will the Minister tell us how he sees that conflict being resolved? The Opposition are particularly concerned about the levels of compensation offered to consumers when their rail journeys are delayed or they receive a poor service, such as when disabled passengers cannot get on to trains because of poor quality provision and people experience a range of refund systems with different train companies when their services are delayed.
There is strong evidence that the number of complaints about rail passenger services is going through the roof. Surely that is a good indication that it would be right to take a look at the whole market and the ways in which different train companies respond. As part of the campaigning I have been doing, I had a delayed train journey and found that I got a different type of refund—a train voucher—rather than my money back. Under the Consumer Rights Act, I would be entitled to a refund, but the national conditions of carriage allow for the train company to give me a train voucher, which means that I have another ticket for the train company that cannot run a train on time.
Were I to be sold a faulty good or service in another part of my life, I could ask for the equivalent of my money back or a refund under the new Consumer Rights Act, but because the Government have excluded passengers from the legislation and are delaying the point at which that conflict might be resolved, the powers to be enacted by this statutory instrument will not allow the Competition and Markets Authority to look at why passengers get such a raw deal when it comes to compensation. Therefore, as a passenger, I will not get the protection that this SI offers me in other areas of my life.
Does the Minister agree that passengers deserve a better system of compensation for a poor standard of rail services, and that it is a priority for him and his Department to resolve the conflict that the statutory instrument will create whereby those consumers will not be afforded the protection of a market-wide study into that area, which they would get in other areas? If he does not agree, will he explain why he thinks the compensation systems that passengers can currently access are acceptable, even though there is a conflict with the Consumer Rights Act? Given that he wrote to us to say that there would be a delay, when does he expect passengers to get the decent right of return we are talking about?
We agree with the Minister that these are technical issues, but passengers—including me over the summer and many of our constituents—who find themselves waiting for delayed trains or in overcrowded carriages, unable to get a seat, should expect clarity from us on their rights and how they can exercise them. There is a risk that the order will not give them the same protection that they receive in other parts of their lives, and I am sure we would all agree that that is not the intention. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Nick Boles
The hon. Member for Walthamstow has demonstrated to the entire Committee that she does not need any time to get warmed up at the start of a new parliamentary session. I will try to answer her questions as best as I can, although some of them might, understandably, have strayed into a discussion of the fundamental principles of legislation, rather than the precise and technical implementation of the orders before the Committee. I hope that you will not mind if I stick rather more narrowly to the question before the Committee, Mr Hamilton.
The hon. Lady first asked about the secondary ticketing review and when we might announce when it will be launched. It has taken a bit of time to discuss the appointment of the chair of the review with interested parties and to agree on the precise date of the launch, but we have made good progress in establishing the terms of reference. We have been talking closely with key stakeholder representatives, and we have been trying to identify the best possible candidates for the shortlist for the skilled chair and for members of the expert group. That obviously needs to be discussed by my Department, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but we expect to be able to launch the review and announce the chairman relatively soon. That review will then be able to address many of the issues that the hon. Lady raised. It is of course the case—I hope this provides some reassurance to the Committee—that the rules applying to the resale of tickets on online secondary platforms came into force on 27 May 2015. The review will follow, but those rules are already in force.
The hon. Lady asked why we were delaying the implementation of the provisions for transport sectors—
Stella Creasy
Before the Minister moves on, the draft Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015 refers to the enforcement powers of agencies around ticket touting. The rules on what ticket providers should provide have already been published, but the order gives enforcement agencies the power to act across borders. For example, if I bought a ticket to see a band, wherever I had bought that ticket online, there would be an expectation that it would be a fair ticket at a fair price, with the relevant information and the unique identifier. If that were not the case, Trading Standards in another part of the country—wherever that ticket was being sold—could act. The Minister is talking about the review, so will he clarify why he does not think this change will have an impact on the industry? Being able to share information in that way is quite a substantial change, so why—I did ask this previously—has no impact assessment been made for this order?
Nick Boles
A full impact assessment was completed for the Bill, and the review will be able to look into any further issues that are within its terms of reference. I do not believe that a specific impact assessment of the information-sharing powers that the hon. Lady referred to is necessary. The information sharing will differ in each investigation, and it will simply not be possible to identify a single level of impact. If she wants to write to me to make the argument for that impact assessment, I would be happy to go into the matter in more detail and respond in writing.
Moving on, the hon. Lady asked about the delay in implementing the provisions for three transport sectors: mainline rail, maritime and aviation. We created that delay because we want to consult widely with the industries and other interested parties to gather information on the consumer protection available in those sectors. That is down to the simple fact that those sectors are mostly run with elaborate and advanced sector-specific schemes. We want to assess whether it would be appropriate to apply the provisions in full to those sectors or whether it would be appropriate to make an exemption from the Consumer Rights Act to enable transport providers to continue to pay compensation for delays and cancellations under their sector-specific schemes rather than under the terms of the Act. We make no judgment about what the result of those consultations will be. We reserve absolutely the possibility of applying the Act to those sectors, but we have concluded, based on conversations with the industry, that it is right to explore the situation further before applying the provisions. Obviously we did not want to hold back the application of those provisions to other sectors, which is why we have made an exemption for these sectors today.
Stella Creasy
I thank the Minister for saying that, but it is a bit of a surprise to those of us who were on the Consumer Rights Public Bill Committee and heard specific assurances from the previous Government that they would offer equivalent protection. I shall give an example of the difference we might see. Over the summer, my rail journey was delayed and the rail company gave me a rail voucher. Under the Consumer Rights Act, I could ask for my money back, rather than be given a ticket to use with the same rail company. Is the Minister saying that he is comfortable for the train and aeroplane companies to dictate to passengers what appropriate compensation is? In other areas, there is equal protection for all consumers—I could ask for my money back, if that was what I wanted. If he is not offering equivalent protection, passengers will continue to get what companies want them to have, rather than what they are entitled to do.
Nick Boles
I obviously was not clear, but I will try to be clearer. I am not saying what the conclusion of the further consultation with those industries and other interested parties, including the hon. Lady, will be. I am saying that we will take a bit more time to have those conversations and understand whether there are arguments for allowing sector-specific compensation schemes to continue to operate in those sectors or whether they should come under the full provisions of the Consumer Rights Act, as she has ably advocated. There is no concluding position; there is a conversation with the industry and other interested parties to gather evidence. She is urging further impact assessments on us, so I hope that she will not criticise us for seeking evidence before applying provisions to those sectors.
Nick Boles
I am not going to give way again on that point; we have discussed it pretty fully.
The Chair
Order. The shadow Minister needs to keep her comments brief for an intervention.
Stella Creasy
I want to push the Minister. Promises were made to the House during the passage of that legislation, which is why the second statutory instrument is so important. We were assured that passengers would get equivalent protection and that that would include the ability for the Competition and Markets Authority to conduct investigations. If he is excluding particular groups, then the provisions of this SI will also be excluded. That is a serious change to the assurances that we were given during the passage of the legislation. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case?
Nick Boles
I am afraid that the Minister cannot confirm that any of the things the hon. Lady says are the case, because we have not decided anything specific on this issue. We have decided not to apply the provisions to those sectors at the moment, while we continue conversations with the industries and other interested parties, which includes the hon. Lady and anyone else. I would point out to her that it is possible to have equivalent levels of treatment without those levels of treatment being provided and arranged in entirely the same way. Although I agree that equivalence is always something to seek, I also believe that it is right to talk to industries that already operate arrangements, to understand whether there is a case for different treatment.
I have done my best to answer the questions raised by the hon. Lady. If she is unhappy with any of my answers, I am happy to go into more detail in writing.
Nick Boles
I will give the hon. Lady one last opportunity. She seems keen to have a last crack at it.
Stella Creasy
I am just curious; the Minister raises pertinent points about consulting with industries and ensuring that compensation and consumer rights fit well together, but can he explain why that did not happen during the passage of the Consumer Rights Act? From what he is saying, that was not the case. When we looked at the issue in Committee and asked about passenger rights, we were assured that those issues had been considered; he is now saying that that is not the case. Can he account for that variance in the stories being told to the House?
Nick Boles
The hon. Lady is seeking to suggest that I have changed the Government’s policy. I would point out a couple of facts to her. First, this Government are not the previous Government—there was an election. Secondly, I was not the Minister then, Thirdly, I have made no statement that we are changing policy on this issue, but have simply said that we are not yet applying the particular, technical provisions of the regulations to the specified sectors while we conduct further conversations with the industry. If there is a change of policy relative to that discussed in the Public Bill Committee under the previous Government, we will bring that policy change to the House, and I have no doubt that she will subject it to her normal, inquisitorial treatment. However, we are not there yet, so I urge her to wait a little longer while we talk to the industry.
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Forgive me if I am going out of bounds a bit, Mr Hamilton, but 75% of rail users are not aware of, or know very little about, the arrangements for compensation or their rights to it now, so how will the Minister take that into consideration? People who do not know their rights do not have rights. How often are the arrangements afforded to the individuals affected? If rights in this area are not brought into the Consumer Rights Act through this statutory instrument, how will people have those rights in future?
Nick Boles
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. It is a general problem with consumer protection that oftentimes the people who most need that protection are not aware of the provisions for it. That is one of the key motivations for this legislation: to make consumer rights clearer and more consistent. However, as I said earlier, that does not necessarily mean that there cannot be more than one arrangement to provide such protection. That is why we will continue to talk to the industry. There are lots of bodies representing customers and passengers in the affected sectors, all of which will be able to state their case, make their arguments and provide evidence. No final policy decisions have been made; it is simply that at the moment—today, in this Committee—we are not applying the provisions in the Consumer Rights Act to the specified sectors, while we continue the conversation with them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015.
draft enterprise act 2002 (part 8 domestic infringements) order 2015
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2015. —(Nick Boles.)
Ministerial Correction
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Communities and Local Government
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Brandon Lewis
A Help to Buy ISA will help those saving for a deposit to have a better chance of owning their own home. The Help to Buy schemes have already supported a total of 210,000 households since 2010 with the measures we have taken. We intend to go further. We will do more to help people reach that aspiration of owning their own home. We will work to deliver that for 1.3 million housing association tenants, supporting their desire to own their own home and making sure that at the same time we are boosting the housing supply in this country.
[Official Report, 15 July 2015, Vol. 598, c. 315WH.]
Letter of correction from Brandon Lewis:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the Westminster Hall debate on housing supply in London on 15 July 2015.
The correct response should have been:
Brandon Lewis
A Help to Buy ISA will help those saving for a deposit to have a better chance of owning their own home. A total of 210,000 households have been helped to become homeowners since 2010 with the various measures we have taken. We intend to go further. We will do more to help people reach that aspiration of owning their own home. We will work to deliver that for 1.3 million housing association tenants, supporting their desire to own their own home and making sure that at the same time we are boosting the housing supply in this country.
Petitions
HS2 Proposed Golborne Connection
Gypsy and Traveller sites in South Staffordshire
Protection of the wrecks of HMS Cressy, HMS Hogue and HMS Aboukir
Use of body image altering software programs
Heavy Goods Vehicles on the A519 (Staffordshire)
Installation of bus stop on Henry Cort Way in Gosport
Road Safety on Spencefield Lane (Leicester)
Speed limit and traffic calming on Monmouth Road in Walsall
Written Statements
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Royal Navy Operations
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Penny Mordaunt)
On 15 April 2015, while in the Irish Sea, the fishing vessel Karen sustained damage to her nets and deck equipment and, following repairs, resumed fishing shortly after.
On the information available at the time, the Royal Navy (RN) was confident that no UK submarine was involved in the incident, and I also informed the House in response to questions from the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Margaret Ritchie) on 10 June 2015 (question 1312) and during Defence oral questions on 13 July 2015, Official Report, column 579.
I now wish to inform the House that, on the basis of new information that has become available, the RN has now confirmed that a UK submarine was, in fact, responsible for snagging the Karen’S nets. The incident, the delay in identifying and addressing the events on that day, and their consequences, are deeply regretted.
It is standing Ministry of Defence policy not to comment in detail on submarine operations but, exceptionally, I can say that this incident occurred because the submarine did not correctly identify the Karen as a fishing vessel with nets in the water, and thus did not give her the berth she would otherwise have had. Moreover, had the submarine been aware of the incident at the time, which it was not, then the protocols in place under the Code Of Practice For Submarine Operations In The Vicinity Of Fishing Vessels would have required the submarine to surface and remain on scene while the matter was investigated.
Notwithstanding the enduring requirement to operate RN submarines in busy coastal waters to guarantee our national security, this is the first incident between an RN submarine and a fishing vessel since the code was introduced in 1993. Having identified the specific circumstances, the RN has already taken steps to further reduce the risk of such circumstances happening again: the instructions issued to submarine Commanding Officers (COs) have been updated to reflect the lessons learned, which will also inform the training given to future COs. The RN’s reporting procedures have been reviewed to enable it to confirm more quickly whether or not a UK submarine was involved. These new arrangements will enable the Ministry of Defence’s established claims procedures to be invoked with minimal delay and the matter fully investigated.
MOD officials have contacted the Karen’s owners and insurers to discuss appropriate compensation.
I can assure the House that we take the safety of fishing vessels, and of life at sea, very seriously. The RN is co-operating with the Marine Accident Investigation Board’s independent inquiry, and will continue to engage with the UK’s fishing communities to explain our position and how we are responding. We will continue to work closely with the Fishing Industry Safety Group and Trade Associations to ensure the continuing safety of fishing vessels and our ships and submarines.
[HCWS177]
Thames Tideway Tunnel
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
I wish to update the House on progress on the Thames Tideway Tunnel since the written ministerial statement— 5 June 2014, Official Report, column 11WS—made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Owen Paterson).
The Thames Tideway Tunnel is an example of world leading British engineering at its best. It will boost economic growth across the capital, generate thousands of jobs and bring significant benefits to the natural environment by protecting the Thames from sewage. In the 21st century, the most dynamic city in the world should not have a river that is polluted by sewage every time there is heavy rainfall.
In the previous statement the Government confirmed they had required Thames Water to put the project out to tender by running a competitive procurement for an infrastructure provider that would be separate from Thames Water and would be responsible for delivering the project, including its financing.
The procurement was carried out under the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006. The Government and Ofwat were consulted throughout this process. On 14 July 2015 Thames Water announced that the consortium forming Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd was its preferred bidder for the project’s infrastructure provider. The shareholders are a consortium of pension funds and long-term investors represented by Allianz, Amber Infrastructure (representing International Public Partnerships and Swiss Life), Dalmore Capital and DIF.
On 12 August the European Commission announced that it was content that the state aid contained in the Government support package was compatible with the European Union’s internal market. The adopted decision is expected to be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in due course.
On 14 August Ofwat announced that it had designated Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd as the infrastructure provider under the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013.
On 24 August Ofwat awarded Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd a Project Licence and commercial close was reached on the project. The Project Licence award followed two public consultations carried out by Ofwat in October 2014 and August 2015. Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd also signed the project documentation and the three main construction contracts with three consortia who will construct the tunnel.
In addition, Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with other project parties, have entered into contracts constituting the Government’s contingent financial support for the project the “Government support package” and other associated documents. The Government support package has enabled the project to attract private sector finance at an acceptable cost for customers and will only be called upon if certain low-probability but high-impact risks arise during construction. If they do not materialise there will be no exposure for the taxpayer.
The Secretary of State, Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd and Thames Water also signed the liaison agreement. This enables Government to monitor progress on the project and will assist with managing any likely calls on the Government support package.
I am placing the core contracts today in the Library of both Houses, subject to some commercial redactions. I understand that other contracts relating to the project will be made available in due course by the parties involved.
The competitions for both the infrastructure provider and the construction contracts were highly competitive. The winning bid for the infrastructure provider offered a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 2.497%, which is fixed, subject to the terms of the project licence, until the first price review following construction. The construction procurements delivered a target build cost which is unchanged from that estimated in 2011. As a result, Thames Water now estimates the project will lead to an average household customer bill impact which will peak at £20 to £25 by the mid-2020s (in 2015 prices), of which £7 is already included within customer bills. They also expect that their current average household bill for water and wastewater services will remain at the same level, before inflation, until at least 2020. This impact is considerably lower than the maximum estimate of £70 to £80 given in the written ministerial statement— 3 November 2011, Official Report, column 41WS—made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). This is a significant and welcome reduction in the estimated bill impacts of the project.
From the first periodic price review following construction of the tunnel prices will be regulated by Ofwat as they are for the remainder of the industry.
Construction on the main drive sites is anticipated to start in late summer 2016 with physical completion scheduled for 2023.
Many parties have invested a great deal of time and effort to reach this significant milestone. Government look forward to continuing to work closely with Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd, Thames Water and Ofwat so that it can manage the taxpayer risks that arise from the Government support package during the construction period and help ensure a successful outcome for customers, taxpayers and the environment.
[HCWS175]
HM Courts & Tribunal Service
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Civil Justice (Lord Faulks QC) made the following written statement on 22 July 2015.
“I am today announcing the Government’s response to the consultation on proposals for increases to court fees, which was published on 16 January 2015, and also launching a new consultation on further proposals.
The courts fulfil a vital role in an effective and functioning democracy. They provide access to justice for those who need it, upholding the principle of the rule of law. That is why we need to make sure that the courts and tribunals are properly funded.
The Secretary of State and the Courts Minister have set out separately plans for reform to the courts and tribunals where we will be investing in reforms that will deliver a modernised, leaner, and more efficient system.
To deliver this vision, we need a strong, secure and effective economy. This Government were elected to continue our work to fix the economy, by reducing public spending, eliminating the deficit and reducing the national debt. The courts and tribunals must continue to play their part in this national effort as much as any other public service.
There is, however, only so much that can be delivered through efficiency measures alone. If we are to secure sustainable funding of the courts and tribunals, we must also look to those who use the system to contribute more where they can afford to do so.
That is why we have to look again at court fees. Despite the fees already introduced, HMCTS still costs £1 billion a year more to run than it receives in income. In considering the changes outlined below, we have been determined to:
deliver faster and fairer justice for all;
protect the weak and vulnerable;
promote equality of all before the law.
Following a consultation launched by the coalition Government in January 2015, today’s Government response confirms that we will:
increase the fees for issuing a possession claim in the county court by £75, from £280 to £355. Our analysis of the available evidence suggests that this increase will not deter anyone who would otherwise have taken their claim to court;
increase the fees for general applications in civil proceedings by £50, from £50 to £100, for an application by consent and by £100, from £155 to £255, for a contested application. In order to ensure the most vulnerable are not affected, we are excluding from this fee rise applications such as those to vary or extend an injunction for protection from harassment or violence.
In December 2013, the coalition Government also consulted on increasing the fee payable to issue divorce proceedings from £410 to £750. Today we are announcing that we will: increase the fees for issuing divorce proceedings to £550. We have carefully considered the concerns raised during the consultation and decided not to increase fees by 80% as originally proposed. Instead we will press ahead with a more affordable increase of about a third. We are also protecting the most vulnerable by ensuring that fee remission is available for those who need it, such as women in low wage households.
These three measures are estimated to deliver over £60 million in additional income each year but the drive to reduce costs is ongoing. We are therefore also announcing today a consultation on further proposals:
an increase in the maximum fee for money claims from £10,000 to at least £20,000. Fees are currently payable on 5% of the value of a claim up to a maximum fee of £10,000. This change will only affect the highest value claims, worth £200,000 or more. There are 1.2 million money claims each year, of which 5,000 will be affected. That is just 0.4% of the total, or one in every 240 money claims. Many of the claims brought for higher values will involve large multi-national organisations or wealthy individuals, and we believe it is right to ask them to contribute more. In order to protect the most vulnerable, personal injury and clinical negligence claims will be excluded from this higher cap and fee remissions for those of limited means will continue to apply;
introducing or increasing fees for certain tribunals. We are proposing to double fees in the immigration and asylum chamber, while applying exemptions to protect the most vulnerable. We will not be applying any fees to the social entitlement chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, where most applicants do not have the means to pay, or to the Mental Health Tribunal, which deals with especially vulnerable individuals. We will, however, introduce fees to the property, tax and general regulatory chambers. In the property tribunal, we are proposing fees at low levels for the majority of applications, while setting higher fees for leasehold enfranchisement cases where there are often large sums of money at stake. In each of the tribunals being consulted on, we aim to recover 25% of the total cost of the service through fees with taxpayers footing the rest of the bill;
a general uplift of 10% to a wide range of fees in civil proceedings. These are small increases and only apply to fees which are not already above full cost.
These further proposals are estimated to generate around £48 million a year in additional income.
We are committed to protecting access to justice for all and so we will: make the remissions scheme more generous. We will increase the amount of disposable capital those who need to pay a larger court fee are allowed to have in order to qualify for remission. We are also considering whether other forms of payment or benefit should be excluded from the disposable capital test. The HMCTS remission scheme will apply across all the courts and tribunals on which we are consulting, with the exception of the immigration and asylum chamber where separate arrangements are in place.
Full details are set out in the consultation paper which is available on the MoJ website. The consultation will close on 15 September.”
We recognise that fee increases are not popular but they are necessary if we are to deliver our promises to fix the economy and bring the nation into surplus. At every stage we have sought to protect the most vulnerable by ensuring they will not have to pay new and higher fees and by making the remissions scheme more generous. We have also sought to ensure that those who can afford to—such as wealthy individuals or large corporations making very high money claims—will make a bigger contribution. Every pound we collect from these fee increases will be spent on providing an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals.
[HCWS176]
Advanced Biofuels Demonstration Competition
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
The Department for Transport launched the £25 million advanced biofuels demonstration competition to support the development of a domestic advanced biofuel industry in December 2014. Following a strong competition, I am pleased to announce that three projects have been selected for investment totalling £25 million over three years.
Grants are to be awarded to three winning projects:
Celtic Renewables Limited £10,925,000
Advanced Plasma Power Limited £10,958,194
Nova Pangaea Limited £ 3,000,000
The projects will use the capital grants awarded, supported by significant private sector investment, to construct three demonstration-scale advanced biofuel plants in Swindon, Tees Valley and Grangemouth.
Relative to first-generation biofuels—those made from traditional crops, starch, sugars or vegetable oil—advanced fuels have the potential to deliver greater carbon savings without the same concerns around food security and land use change. The advanced fuel technologies, the winning projects will demonstrate, could reduce our reliance on imported energy, by turning unwanted waste products into valuable transport fuel, adding value to the UK economy and creating jobs. According to an independent feasibility study, gains from the domestic supply as a result of converting low value waste to high value transport fuel could be worth up to £130 million Gross Value Added (GVA) to the UK by 2030, and potentially up to £500 million per year including exports.
This is a major step forward for the UK and supports the work the Department for Transport is doing to set the UK’s long term strategy for biofuels in order to meet EU targets, which includes considering a sub target for advanced biofuels.
[HCWS174]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn) (Con)
My Lords, welcome to the Grand Committee. As usual, if there is a Division in the House, the Grand Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 2) Order 2015
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 2) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the order was laid before Parliament on 25 June. As noble Lords will be aware, temporary control legislation is a vehicle which enables us to act relatively swiftly to protect the public. It also provides time for the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to gather evidence and prepare full advice on the permanent control of such drugs.
The order specifies seven methylphenidate-based new psychoactive substances, including their simple derivatives, as drugs subject to temporary control under Section 2A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Government are grateful for the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs’s continued support in informing the Government’s response to emerging new psychoactive substances sold as so-called legal highs. The advisory council’s advice informed the order that we are considering today.
On 31 March, the then Minister for Crime Prevention received a recommendation from the advisory council under the temporary control provisions of the 1971 Act. The ACMD advised that five new psychoactive substances, related to the Class B drug methylphenidate, were being misused and that their misuse was having sufficiently harmful effects to warrant temporary control. This advice was accepted and a temporary order for the five substances came into force on 10 April 2015.
Following the coming into force of that order, the Government are aware that online retailers immediately withdrew those substances from sale and replaced them with a further two closely related substances. This came to light through the advisory council’s considerations in preparation of advice for permanent control. On 16 June, the advisory council provided further advice on the two related substances and recommended that they should be included in this new temporary order. The ACMD continues to gather evidence to support a full report on these compounds.
The previous temporary order made on 10 April lapsed on 27 June, as there was insufficient time for both Houses to approve the order. The new temporary order that we are considering today came into force on 27 June to replace that order. This order specifies all seven methylphenidate-based new psychoactive substances, including their simple derivatives, as drugs subject to temporary control.
The methylphenidate-based substances are highly potent stimulants. One of these substances, ethylphenidate, was marketed online as an alternative to cocaine. Their harms are reported to include anxiety, paranoia, visual disturbance, chest pain and a strong urge to re-dose. Other reported harms include bizarre and violent behaviour, loss of fine motor control and high risk of bacterial infection and local tissue damage from injecting.
One branded formulation, Burst, was reported as causing particular problems in the Edinburgh area, including among injecting drug users, who report reinjecting repeatedly. There has also recently been a report of an outbreak of infections in that area associated with the injecting of new psychoactive substances, believed to involve ethylphenidate.
The National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths reported five cases in 2013-14 where ethylphenidate was found in post-mortem toxicology, and another two cases where ethylphenidate was implicated in the cause of death during 2013-14. The advisory council recommended that urgent action should be taken due to the extremely potent nature of these compounds. For these reasons, the Minister for Policing, Crime, Criminal Justice and Victims accepted the advisory council’s advice. The order, which is already in force, applies UK-wide to protect the public. It enables enforcement action against suppliers and traffickers while the advisory council prepares full advice on these compounds.
Under the order, front-line officers have additional powers to disrupt the sale of the substances online and in local head shops by targeting retailers who they suspect of selling temporary class drugs—if not other controlled drugs—including seizing their stock for analysis.
The activity is supported by the Home Office forensic early-warning system, which continues to provide added forensic capability to police forces. The order also sends out a clear message to the public, especially to young and vulnerable people, that these compounds are harmful drugs. The Government and the advisory council continue to monitor, through UK and EU drugs early-warning systems, these and other emerging compounds marketed as legal alternatives to controlled drugs.
Of course, until the Government receive the full report on these drugs they will continue to update public health messages to inform the public on drug harms, using the latest evidence gathered from early-warning systems. We know that the law change, on its own, cannot deter all those inclined to use or experiment with these drugs. However, we expect the order to have a notable impact on the availability and, in turn, demand for these drugs, as we saw with other substances.
Noble Lords will remember that methoxetamine was subject to temporary control and subsequently controlled permanently under the 1971 Act. We are aware that, on introduction of the temporary order, online sellers of these compounds immediately removed them from sale. Anecdotal reports from Edinburgh, where these compounds were first reported as being injected, also suggest a reduction in the number of people seeking treatment as a result of harms suffered from injecting them.
In conclusion, Parliament’s approval of the order will ensure that it remains in force to reduce the threat to the public posed by these temporary class drugs for up to 12 months, while the advisory council prepares full advice on harms in relation to permanent control. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and reasons for this order, which we support. As he said, the order is a temporary class drug order that can be made if the substance or, in this case, substances are not class A, B or C drugs, and if the Secretary of State has either consulted the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs or received a recommendation from the ACMD that a temporary class drug order should be made. The drug also has to be one that is being, or is likely to be, misused, and that misuse is having or is capable of having harmful effects.
The Explanatory Memorandum sets out the evidence in support of the necessary requirements that have to be met to make this order—which, as the Minister said, came into force towards the end of June and can remain in force for a maximum of 12 months. Having been made, the order requires a resolution of both Houses within 40 sitting days if it is to remain in force.
It would be helpful if the Minister could say why it was not possible for the Government to find time for this order to be discussed in this House between 25 June, when it was laid before Parliament, and 22 July, nearly a month later, when the House rose for the Summer Recess, particularly bearing in mind that the order came into force on 27 June. It is now nearly some two and a half months after it came into force that we are able to consider the order. It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s response on that point.
One of the purposes of such a temporary order is that it enables a new psychoactive substance or substances to be brought under the temporary control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, while, as the Minister said, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs can make a full assessment of its harms for consideration for permanent control as a drug under that Act. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the provisions of this order and its consequences will be communicated to key stakeholders and the wider public, especially young people. Presumably this has now been done.
Who are deemed to be the key stakeholders and do they differ from those listed as being consulted in paragraph 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum, headed “Consultation Outcome”? Are, for example, the businesses selling these substances in the legal-highs market, referred to in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum, regarded as key stakeholders and thus advised of the terms of this order?
Although the Minister addressed the point in his opening comments, since the order has been in force for nearly two and a half months, is there any information on the impact that it has had on the level of use and availability of the two further related substances now subject to this order that were not included in the previous order? Might implementation and enforcement of the order be resulting, in respect of those two further substances, in the risks set out in paragraph 6.1 of the impact assessment materialising? Those risks are of course in respect of chemical derivatives or alternative new psychoactive substances imitating their effects being introduced in an attempt to circumvent the temporary drug control.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support on this matter. This issue impacts society as a whole and when we are considering such matters it is important not only to discuss them but, where possible, that agreement is reached. We are looking at this particular issue and the challenges that psychoactive substances pose generally as a major challenge for society as a whole.
The noble Lord raised the issue of scheduling and timetabling. While I do not have a detailed assessment, based on my own previous roles in government, including as a government Whip, I can say that this is scheduled according to other parliamentary business and is discussed through the usual channels. The important point to bear in mind is that we proceed with this order now, as the noble Lord acknowledged, and do so in a timely fashion.
Turning to the noble Lord’s question about communication—again, a very important point—included within “key stakeholders” are the ACMD, the Department of Health, BIS, industry and the MHRA. It is important that all key stakeholders that were part of the initial consultation are included in the communications that have taken place. The noble Lord also asked about the additional two substances or derivative products that were subsequently included. I will write to him about specific issues or evidence that have been raised.
I also stress that tackling the legal high market continues to be an important priority for this Government and the advisory council’s work programme. Noble Lords will be aware of the Government’s action to ban the supply of psychoactive substances for human consumption for their psychoactive effect through the Psychoactive Substances Bill. As noble Lords are aware, the Bill completed its passage through this House before the Summer Recess and has now been introduced in the House of Commons. When in force, the Bill will give powers to the police and other enforcement agencies to enable them to disrupt the supply of these dangerous and harmful compounds, including tackling their availability on the internet.
The legislative action is supportive of the long-term strategic objectives—many of which I know noble Lords share—set out in the Government’s action plan: to reduce demand by raising awareness of the harms of psychoactive substances; to make it difficult to obtain and supply those that pose risks to health; and to ensure that statutory services are able to effectively provide treatment and support recovery. Our balanced approach to tackling psychoactive substance misuse includes the development of toolkits on prevention, and programmes on treatment such as NEPTUNE. We have also taken action in response to the New Psychoactive Substances Review Expert Panel’s recommendations to help local areas prevent and respond to the use of new psychoactive substances, including guidance on taking action against the head shops I mentioned earlier. We have acted swiftly on the advisory council’s advice to make the temporary class drug order presented today to protect the public from the potential harms of these substances.
We are committed to a drugs policy that is informed by evidence of harm and the advisory council’s expert advice. Our duty as a Government is to consider this advice in light of all the information made available by drugs early warning systems to ensure that our response is proportionate to the threat posed by emerging drugs. As I am sure noble Lords will acknowledge, the UK continues to lead international action to tackle the emergence of new psychoactive substances. Our efforts, supported by key partners, led to the international control of mephedrone by the UN in March this year. We continue to share best practice on a balanced approach, including recently sharing our world-leading treatment guidance with our international partners. We also continue to work with our key partners on a list of new compounds that are causing concern, with a view to the UN subjecting these compounds to international control in due course. I hope that noble Lords will find that this legislative measure is conducive to ensuring that ultimately the public are protected from the harms of these new psychoactive substances, and I therefore again commend the order to noble Lords.
Lord Rosser
Before the noble Lord sits down, may I come back to my question about who the key stakeholders are? Paragraph 8 refers to who is consulted. Paragraph 9 states:
“The provisions of this Order and its consequences will be communicated to key stakeholders and the wider public, especially young people”.
Paragraph 10 makes reference to,
“those businesses selling these substances in the ‘legal highs’ market”.
Does the reference to the key stakeholders—that is, those who will be advised of the provisions of this order and its consequences—include, for example, those businesses selling these substances in the legal highs market, referred to in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I believe that we have communicated to all key stakeholders, including those mentioned within the order. However, for fullness of response, I shall write to the noble Lord to ensure that there is a full record of that.
Merchant Shipping (Alcohol) (Prescribed Limits Amendment) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Merchant Shipping (Alcohol) (Prescribed Limits Amendment) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations will bring in new alcohol limits for professional mariners in UK waters or serving on board UK-flagged ships wherever they are in the world. These limits, more restrictive than those in place today, are aligned with those agreed at the International Maritime Organization to apply to all shipping around the globe, with the intention of improving maritime safety.
Noble Lords will be aware of the vital contribution made by the maritime industry to the well-being of this country. In this London International Shipping Week we are celebrating the fact that 95% of our imports and exports are carried by ship, and that the maritime sector contributes up to £13.8 billion of direct gross value added to the UK economy each year. It is therefore crucial that we seek to ensure the safe operation of this industry, working with shipping and port operators and with other maritime nations around the world. One source of risk that we can tackle together is that posed by alcohol consumption, which can impair the ability of mariners to fulfil safety-critical duties.
On the roads, a driver with 100 milligrams or more of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood is seven times more likely to be involved in a fatal motor vehicle crash than is a driver who has not consumed alcohol. If the amount of alcohol is 150 milligrams or more, it is roundly 25 times more likely. The same underlying principle applies on a ship; excessive alcohol consumption increases the risk of error and accident. The current alcohol limits for professional mariners were introduced by the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 and are the same as those applied to motorists in England and Wales—in the case of breath, 35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres; in the case of blood, 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres; and, in the case of urine, 107 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres.
At that time, there was no internationally agreed alcohol limit for mariners. This situation changed in 2010, when the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Convention of the International Maritime Organization was amended. For the first time, mandatory alcohol limits for mariners globally were agreed—in the case of breath, 25 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and, in the case of blood, 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres. These regulations will bring UK legislation into line with the alcohol limits agreed internationally, with the addition of a limit in the case of urine of 67 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres. In doing so, we will reinforce the importance of these limits in securing the safety of ships, and all those who travel on them.
Furthermore, having common international limits helps to ensure that mariners know what is expected of them wherever they are, and enforcement when people are found to have exceeded those limits, national borders not being visibly marked at sea. The regulations also require the Secretary of State to review the impact of the amendments they make and publish a report of the review’s conclusions. This provision seeks to ensure the continued effectiveness of the alcohol limits set for professional mariners for the long term. Her Majesty’s Government are committed to maintaining safe navigation around these shores and, indeed, wherever ships registered in the UK may sail. These new limits on mariners’ consumption of alcohol are an example of how we are doing this in co-operation with our international partners. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Once again, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and objectives of this order, which again we support. Before the introduction of the International Convention for the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers in 1978, the training standards for seafarers were established by individual Governments, which almost inevitably meant widely differing standards between different countries. Since it came into force in 1984, the STCW convention has been subject to a number of revisions and this country has supported and implemented all of the previous amendments. The amendments agreed at the STCW Manila conference in 2010 further updated the convention and the code, and included, for the first time, putting mandatory limits on alcohol consumption, instead of an advisory one, for those on watch-keeping duty. These amendments came into force on 1 January 2012, with a five-year transitional period ending on 1 January 2017.
The STCW convention is incorporated into European law, and the new alcohol limits which are the subject of the order we are discussing are covered by a 2012 EU directive. This order changes the UK’s existing alcohol limits for professional mariners to match those now set by the STCW’s watch-keeping standards for fitness for duty by amending Section 81 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. As the Minister said, the levels are being changed to 25 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath and 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood as required by the STCW and EU directive, and to the commensurate figure of 67 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of urine for consistency.
The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the consultation exercise on the Manila amendments, including the ones covered by this order, and indicates that all the bodies consulted agreed that the alcohol limits for professional mariners should be amended to match those set by the Manila amendments. Why does it appear to have taken over 10 months to seek the approval of this House to an order with which, apparently, all those consulted agreed? The transposition note in respect of this order also states, in respect of Article 2 on transposition, that compliance with the EU directive was required by 4 July 2014. I am assuming that was not the deadline date for approving this order, but perhaps the Minister could say what it was we were required to do by 4 July 2014, and whether we met that date.
The Explanatory Memorandum states in paragraph 4.2 that the limits for alcohol prescribed in Section 81 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 apply to professional mariners only,
“as the provisions relating to non-professional mariners in Section 80 have not been commenced”.
Would the Minister confirm that the STCW convention and code, and the EU directive, apply only to professional mariners and not to non-professional mariners as well? Assuming that to be the case, why have the provisions relating to UK non-professional mariners in Section 80 of the 2003 Act not been commenced for a lengthy number of years? What are the current alcohol limits for non-professional mariners?
The regulations, which, I repeat, we support, deal with a safety issue. Indeed, some shipping companies take a much firmer view on what is an acceptable alcohol limit than those provided for in current or proposed legislation. I am not personally aware of how serious is the problem of breached alcohol limits by professional mariners in UK waters. If the Minister cannot say so immediately, I hope that he might provide some information on how many instances there have been over an appropriate 12-month period of UK professional mariners in UK waters or on UK-registered ships being in breach of the current statutory limits, and how many instances there have been of non-UK professional mariners being in breach of those limits in UK waters.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support of the Government’s proposals and the regulations before us. He is right that this was decided upon by the 2010 Manila conference. For the first time it is being looked at from an international basis, which is very much the right way forward in ensuring that standards are maintained.
The noble Lord raised the issue of this taking 10 months. This was part of the wider effort to ensure we transposed all the Manila amendments. That has taken some time, even though this part was agreed to by the consultees, as the noble Lord mentioned.
On the 4 July deadline, all other parts of the Manila amendments were transposed by March 2015 in advance of the 4 July deadline. The passing of the regulations will ensure compliance in that respect.
The noble Lord raised the issue of non-professional mariners. Indeed, I raised that question myself in looking at the regulations. At the moment, it applies specifically to professional mariners. It is my understanding that the question of whether these rules should apply to non-professional mariners has been consulted upon. Part of the challenge posed during the consultation in the 2000s—I believe during the time that the noble Lord’s party were in government—was how this would be monitored and, more importantly, applied effectively. Nevertheless, as he rightly pointed out, it is an issue that has not been commenced. As far as the Government are concerned, it is an issue that we will continue to look at as we move forward with the new regulations on professional mariners. Nevertheless, he is right to raise that issue.
The noble Lord also spoke on the evidence of accidents relating to alcohol consumption. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch has identified 19 accidents where alcohol consumption played a significant part since 2009. One led to a fatality and two led to the complete loss of a ship. Many of the others presented a significant risk to human life and the marine environment, where it was fortunate that a worse outcome was avoided.
With those responses, and once again thanking the noble Lord for his support, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the discussion, but the Minister and my noble friend Lord Rosser mentioned non-professional seafarers. I remember debating this issue about 10 years ago. I recall the legislation saying that the limit was the same as the alcohol limit on drink-driving. We had a big discussion at that time on how it was to be enforced. Whether you are a professional or an amateur seafarer, and whether you are in a rubber dinghy or running a cruise ship, you can cause just as much damage. I never got a satisfactory answer—I think that one of my colleagues was the Minister at that time—to how you enforce somebody who is going back to a boat late at night in a rubber dinghy. I think that a policeman is the only person who can make an arrest, but how many policemen are hanging around a small port at closing time?
It is a bit distressing that it is taking so long to become accepted wisdom that you should not be in charge of a boat, whether you are paid to be so or not, if you are under the influence of alcohol. I hope that the noble Lord will take that into account and try to push things forward a bit more.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I said in my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, this is an area which I myself raised, and I shall certainly take back his comments. As the noble Lord acknowledged, the challenge posed was that of enforcement. However, he is also right to point out that, whether one is a professional mariner or not, the damage that can be caused by alcohol consumption is very much the same as the impact that alcohol consumption can have on our roads. I note the noble Lord’s concerns in that respect.
Lord Rosser
I fully take the Minister’s point that the issue of non-professional mariners has been going on for some years, but do the STCW convention and the code apply only to professional mariners or do they apply to both?
Lord Greenway (CB)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations, which are a move in the right direction, but I point out, as the Minister has done, that there are still quite a number of instances where alcohol results in either the loss of a ship or the loss of life. Over the years, alcohol has traditionally been the scourge of the seaman. I am glad that we have moved on from the bad old days when even captains were drunk for days on end. However, I must point out the pressures of working at sea today. Working under great stress and with a minimal crew, often you do not have anybody to talk to, so the temptation to drink is still very much there. It is something that I fear is not going to disappear overnight but I think that this is a move in the right direction.
Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015.
Relevant documents: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (Special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
These regulations were laid before this House on 16 March 2015. The Energy Act 2013 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring landlords of residential premises to install smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. These draft regulations were laid under Section 150 of that Act and Section 250 of the Housing Act 2004.
The draft regulations will require private sector landlords, from 1 October 2015, to have at least one smoke alarm installed on every storey of their rental property which is used as living accommodation, and a carbon monoxide alarm in any room used as living accommodation where solid fuel is used. After that, the landlord must make sure that the alarms are in working order at the start of each new tenancy.
Local authorities will be responsible for enforcing the regulations. An authority will be required to issue a remedial notice to a landlord if it has reasonable grounds to believe that the landlord is in breach. If the landlord fails to comply with the notice, the local housing authority must, if the occupier consents, arrange the necessary action to ensure that the property is compliant. The local housing authority can also levy a civil penalty charge on the landlord of up to £5,000.
The regulations have been brought before this House because the Government want to increase the safety of private sector tenants. Setting a minimum standard for the testing and installation of smoke and carbon monoxide alarms will reduce the risks that tenants face from fire and carbon monoxide poisoning in the home.
Working alarms save lives—in the event of a fire in your home you are at least four times more likely to die if there is no working smoke alarm. Successive Governments and local fire and rescue authorities have made extensive use of non-regulatory approaches to increase the uptake of smoke alarms, including a series of highly effective public campaigns such as Fire Kills and the home fire safety checks. However, private rented sector tenants remain less likely to be protected by a working smoke alarm than any other tenant.
The department has also piloted alternatives to regulative approaches to increase the installation of carbon monoxide alarms. However, there are still high-risk properties without these alarms installed. Carbon monoxide poisoning is a serious and preventable form of poisoning. Each year there are around 40 deaths from accidental carbon monoxide poisoning in England and Wales and in excess of 200 non-fatal cases that require hospitalisation. We estimate that the new regulations will save 26 lives and nearly 700 injuries per year. The majority of landlords act responsibly and protect their tenants with working alarms. However, a minority of private sector landlords have proved resistant to safety advice and recommended best practice. That is why the Government decided that it was necessary to introduce the draft regulations, to protect the tenants of these landlords.
A regulatory approach to the installation of smoke and carbon monoxide alarms was discussed as part of the Government’s discussion paper, Review of Property Conditions in the Private Rented Sector, and the majority of responses were in favour. The regulations aim to increase the safety of tenants by ensuring that they are not subject to death, poisoning or injury by a lack of smoke or carbon monoxide warning alarms.
The Government have funded local fire and rescue authorities to purchase a number of alarms for free distribution to landlords, encouraging all landlords to act responsibly towards their tenants as well as helping them comply with the regulations. Alongside these regulations, the department intends to continue to pursue its non-regulatory solutions in order to boost regular testing and uptake of alarms further across all sectors.
I turn now to the concerns of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The draft regulations were laid in March, before the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 received Royal Assent. The department, however, acknowledges that, as of 1 July, Ministers are required to include a review provision in secondary legislation that regulates business, or publish a statement of why it is not appropriate to do so. Following this, if the draft regulations are approved by Parliament and made, the department has committed to amending the regulations by adding a review clause at the earliest suitable opportunity.
These regulations prove the Government’s commitment to continue improvement and create a private rented sector that works for us all. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations, and in speaking to them I do not want to sound too harshly critical, but I fear that the carbon monoxide provisions do not go far enough. As the Minister said, there are on average 40 deaths a year from carbon monoxide poisoning in the home. The figures that I have—and I speak as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Carbon Monoxide Group—are that more than 4,000 hospitalisations a year are related to carbon monoxide poisoning in one form or another. The problem is that the available figures may seriously underestimate the size of the problem. University College London recently assessed that 6% of the London households it surveyed had a high or very high risk of exposure to carbon monoxide. Public Health England commented in March that,
“the burden of non-fatal accidental CO poisoning in England is higher than the burden from mortality”,
and that,
“the numbers of people admitted to hospital with CO poisoning in England are larger than previously estimated and do not appear to be reducing”.
The cumulative effects of low-level poisoning over time can indeed be lethal and can present as things such as strokes. The All-Party Parliamentary Carbon Monoxide Group, which I co-chair, recommended that,
“the Government should ensure that all coroners’ post mortems routinely test for carboxyhemoglobin … levels”,
to see how many cases are missed. I am grateful to the chief coroner who has had a very useful discussion with myself and others and the Gas Safety Trust, which is now piloting with Public Health England a study to develop a protocol for coroners to test for carbon monoxide at post-mortems so that we get an idea of the size of the problem.
The difficulty with the proposed regulations is that they relate to just over 330,000 private rented homes with solid-fuel-burning appliances, but this would protect only a small number of people—roughly 8.2% of those in private rented accommodation—because there is an equally high risk of carbon monoxide poisoning from other fossil-fuel-burning appliances, not just those that burn solid fuel. The regulations particularly name gas. The data collected from coroners’ reports in the past 19 years show that over 35% of deaths were related to mains gas. The requirement that landlords should install and maintain an audible carbon monoxide alarm in all properties with fuel-burning appliances is laudable; the problem is that it will not protect the remaining 92% of those living in private rented accommodation. Some 4.6 million homes will have other fossil-fuel-burning but not solid-fuel appliances, and are at risk not only from the appliances being badly maintained but from neighbours’ appliances being badly maintained with carbon monoxide leaking through brickwork, through cracks in the walls and cracked flues—and also at risk from some of the cooking practices from some of the families who have come here from abroad, who use tinfoil as a way in which to distribute heat over the top of the gas stove, when therefore the gas does not burn properly but burns to carbon monoxide. In that way, you get very high levels of carbon monoxide at about waist height, which is of course the level of the children’s heads and faces when they are in the kitchen with their mother.
The problem with testing alarms is, of course, that in asking that the alarm is tested every six to 12 months, I and others would like to see the onus on the landlords to test the alarms, and that they be required to do so annually. Can the Minister clarify what “proper working order” means? Does it mean that the sensor is checked and not just the battery? Only last week, a couple in Devon had a narrow escape from death after their alarm failed to register a leak, which was because of a faulty sensor. The problem is that alarms cannot be a substitute for proper installation and maintenance of fossil-fuel-burning appliances across the board.
I also have a concern that social housing is exempt. A Hackney Homes study of over 22,000 local authority homes found almost 5% carbon monoxide instance per thousand households. The study also found 35% of these instances resulted from a defective gas appliance. Therefore, while these regulations are step one, can step two include social landlords and then, after that, include that every home where there is a fossil-fuel-burning appliance, at the time when that appliance is installed, renewed or serviced, must be fitted with a carbon monoxide alarm? It should also be the case that those providing the service are proper registered Gas Safe services, and those selling the appliances should sell the carbon monoxide alarm at cost price, not at the huge mark-up that there is at the moment.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest in that I have residential properties, which are let, in the village that I live in in Suffolk and these regulations will apply to them. That is in the register of interests.
I support the intention behind, and the method employed in, these regulations. I am sure that, with her scientific knowledge, the noble Baroness who has just spoken has made many valid points about carbon monoxide. However, I am rising to protest about the way in which these regulations have been introduced so far. They are very complicated, as I shall show.
I should like to refer to the report, published in June this year, of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has already been mentioned by my noble friend. The report draws attention to this statutory instrument as being very important and in the public interest, and it states:
“It will be important that the Department secures effective publicity for the new requirements in good time for the date of October 2015 when the Regulations come into force”.
I suggest that that has simply not been the case. The draft regulations were laid in March but that does not mean that the right sort of consultation on them took place; nor was there any real indication of what was likely to be involved. In fact, the scrutiny committee said that in its Explanatory Memorandum,
“the Department states that … it does not intend to publish new guidance on the policy”.
It is interesting that it has now produced guidance but we should keep bearing in mind the date—1 October 2015, which I think is three weeks away. That is pretty relevant because the guidance was produced last Friday, 4 September, and I have a copy of it in my hand. I obtained it only today but that is quite good with publication having been on Friday, and I doubt whether many other people have it. The guidance contains various questions. One is:
“Is there a ‘grace’ period for landlords?”.
The point made by the department—it is published by the Government and is the official view of Whitehall—is:
“If the regulations are approved, landlords are expected to be compliant from 1 October 2015 when the regulations will come into force. There will be no grace period after this date to install the required alarms”.
That is one of the most astonishing things that I have heard from Whitehall on something which is going to be a major undertaking for many people. In my view, it is an absurd idea. I think that there should be a much better explanation. Until last Friday, the CLA, of which I am a member, found the regulations so complicated to read that its official advice was that they were being brought into effect only for new tenancies—in other words, they were to be brought into effect gradually. It was only last Friday, when this new guidance was published, that the CLA changed its advice, saying that the regulations apply to all tenancies as from 1 October, and that advice was issued today. The CLA has a major role advising people with such tenancies of the obligations upon them. I doubt very much whether there are in the country sufficient pieces of kit to be fitted by 1 October, let alone whether they could physically be purchased and installed by that date—and yet, there is no period of grace.
I shall give noble Lords an example of the sort of complication. What is meant by a “solid fuel burning combustion appliance”? Some would be obvious to many of us. A wood-burning stove is an example. However, open fireplaces are included but they would not normally be regarded as a combustion appliance. I suspect the drafting and do not think that the courts would say that an open fireplace was a combustion appliance. The word “appliance” has a different connotation. There should be much more precision in the drafting of such regulation.
There is also a little note in the advice which states:
“In the Department’s view, a non-functioning purely decorative fireplace would not constitute a solid fuel burning combustion appliance”.
I asked the CLA today about this and it said that this was extremely unclear. For example, let us suppose—as is the case in many old properties—that fireplaces have been left for perhaps decorative or listed-building reasons in a room that has now become a bathroom. They would normally come under this rule. What is the requirement? Is it necessary, as with the energy certificate, to put a board over the fireplace so that it could not be used? Much more precision is needed in these matters.
I am asking for a much longer period. There is no way in which it is practical to bring these regulations into effect on 1 October with no period of grace. The Government have to think again about this. It is an example of extraordinarily bad Whitehall administration.
Lord Crickhowell (Con)
My Lords, I have a few preliminary remarks. First, as I usually do, I find myself in almost total agreement with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, had to say. I re-emphasise the importance of the whole issue of carbon monoxide poisoning. My second confession is that I returned to this country from abroad only this morning and I had not seen these regulations until my noble friend Lord Marlesford drew my attention to them. Thirdly, I think that I have to declare an interest in that I am a tenant of premises that fall within the definitions here. The new regulations may or may not apply to me. There are certainly carbon monoxide and fire alarms in the building and on the upper floor. I do not think that there is an installation on the ground floor that may come under the definition—although it is virtually never used. However, the regulations may not apply in my case because they will apply only to tenancies that come into effect after 1 October. I think that I will be renewing my lease within the next day or two because my landlord and I have already agreed the terms. However, I will hasten to tell my landlord that we may have such an appliance.
My anxieties are like those of my noble friend and I begin, as he did, with the recommendation of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I began to wonder exactly how far the consultation had advanced. The Minister referred to some initial consultations, which I think took place in general a year or so ago. We are informed in the Explanatory Memorandum that during those consultations, which took place between February and March 2014, there were 299 responses to the question on smoke alarms. “A regulatory approach”, we are told,
“was supported by Fire and Rescue Authorities, industry representatives and over 96% of landlords, agents and fire officials who responded to the paper”.
I am glad that they did respond to the paper, but quite clearly if only 299 responded, it does not necessarily indicate that there was—or even now is—a widespread awareness of what has happened in terms of consultation. I do not think that my noble friend the Minister gave us any real information about that.
The scrutiny committee did give us some quite useful information in an appendix. We were told in appendix 1 that the Department for Communities and Local Government,
“intend to update a core set of guidance documents”.
The guidance documents are listed: the How to Rent guide, the industry code of practice, the model tenancy agreement, and the Renting a Safe Home guide. We are entitled to know whether those have all been updated, when and in what way. I would certainly be grateful for that information.
The appendix goes on to say:
“In addition to updating current guidance, we plan to use our partners and the media to communicate the regulatory changes. We have already communicated the key message through press notices”.
I wonder how many people in the business world actually read the press notices on matters such as this, issued even by so great a department as the one in charge of these regulations. It says that we,
“are working with our partners: lettings agents, landlord representative bodies, local authorities, fire and rescue authorities and alarm manufacturers to publicise the requirements over the next 6 months”.
What we really are entitled to know—this is what the scrutiny committee really demanded—is exactly how far that consultation and dissemination of well-publicised advice has gone. I do not think we heard very much about that, with great respect to my noble friend the Minister, in her introduction.
Before we approve these very important regulations—even if it is only a first step, as the noble Baroness suggested—we should know exactly what has been done to ensure that they are widely understood. I am quite certain that my very nice landlord, who is currently renewing the lease of my property, has no idea about it. I am not criticising him for that because I had no idea at all about it until my noble friend Lord Marlesford spoke to me less than an hour ago. I suspect that that situation would be found up and down the country. If we are to approve regulations that are to come into effect in three weeks’ time or something, we should have rather better information than we have been given so far.
Baroness O'Cathain (Con)
My Lords, I too am indebted to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for alerting me to this. I am absolutely horrified—particularly in light of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff—about the real problems behind carbon monoxide poisoning. I take it that this regulation relates to smoke alarms and to alarms that will identify carbon monoxide. They are two separate things.
My mind then begins to race ahead and I think, “Wait a minute—does anybody know that we should have these alarms?”. Surely every house and flat in the country should have them. If the situation is as serious as we are led to believe, and I am sure that it is, this is important. I live in a purchased flat in a block of flats and last year there was a fire in one of the flats. The whole flat was burned out. There was no alarm—or rather there was a smoke alarm in the flat, but it did not matter. I have a smoke alarm in my flat that goes off when I burn the toast, which happens quite frequently. I go down to say that I am terribly sorry for the alarm, but actually it does not ring outside my flat. I could be burned to a cinder along with the toast. Only when it is eventually noticed from outside that there is a fire, or smoke coming out, will an alarm be sounded throughout the whole building. It is so haphazard. The fact that this is being looked at today will benefit somebody—all of us could benefit from it—if people begin to think about the issue in depth.
I also found the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee upsetting, even where in the first paragraph it says that these regulations could not be scrutinised until our first meetings in the new session were convened in May, when we came back. This is really unacceptable, particularly when I go round saying how wonderful for scrutiny the House of Lords is. We all agree that we are the ones who scrutinise the legislation. Nobody else does it as well as we do. No other Parliament in the world does it as well as we do. Yet we do not do it. This is crazy.
My other point is about press notices. I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which states:
“Given the diminishing returns from public information campaigns, it is therefore necessary to supplement them with regulations”.
I really think that the regulations should make it absolutely imperative that smoke alarms and anti-carbon monoxide alarms are installed and regularly checked. There are tenancies that last for five years or 10 years. Some last for 12 months. What is being said here is that the alarm has to be sure to be working only at the beginning of the tenancy. That is stupid. There must surely be some form of measure to ensure that alarms are investigated or assessed annually, or maybe even triennially.
If you have a car that is more than three years old, it has an MOT every year. This kind of check is just as important. Dangers do not stem just from these wonderful combustion systems. The fire in our block of flats was actually caused by the overheating of a computer charger. The whole thing more or less blew up. The benefit now is that we have been alerted to the danger. I was certainly never alerted to it. Instead of taking pride in the fact that we scrutinise everything, we can say that with the diminishing returns from public information campaigns we are alerting people to the need for checks and assessments. Surely people need them anyway.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate so far. I declare my interest as patron of CO-Gas Safety and adviser to Consumer Safety International. I welcome the regulations as far as they go. I will mainly focus on the issue of carbon monoxide but, in the light of our debate so far, I should like to put a couple of other questions to the Minister. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and other colleagues for asking about the guidance. Will the Minister confirm that the guidance was issued only on Friday? That being so, why has it not been made available to Members of your Lordships’ House? It does not appear to be in the Public Bills Office, nor is it laid on the Table. It is rather an abuse of parliamentary process that when we are debating the regulations the guidance has not been made available. If it has and I have missed it, I will certainly apologise to the Minister, but I should like to know.
Secondly, the department said that it had done its best to use a variety of methods to publicise the regulations. Is the Minister seriously saying that all that has happened is that various stakeholders have been told about it and a press notice issued? I acknowledge that her department’s press notices are renowned for the elegance of their language and the persuasiveness of their argument, but simply issuing a press notice is clearly insufficient.
My third point is that I thought that the Minister said in her opening remarks that the Government are now going to amend the regulations. Can she confirm that? She referred to advice from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I may have misheard what she said, but can she confirm it and the timetable for those amendments?
My fourth point relates to a briefing that I have just received from Electrical Safety First, a charity. It does not concern the specific terms of the order, but the charity makes the point that electricity causes more than 20,000 house fires a year, with many people injured and killed. I understand that Electrical Safety First’s policy is that people in the private rented sector are protected by mandatory five-year checks on electrical installations. Will her department respond to that point?
I turn to the subject of carbon monoxide. I welcome the regulations—they are a small step forward—but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I very much doubt that the figure that she cited of 40 deaths per year from accidental carbon monoxide poisoning is accurate. As CO-Gas Safety has pointed out, for carbon monoxide poisoning to be suspected, there has to be a test. At the moment, even in the event of unexplained deaths, there is no test. The noble Baroness has already referred to her work recommending that the Government should ensure routine post-mortem testing under the auspices of coroners. If the research now being carried out by the Gas Safety Trust proves that it is practical and effective to do so, will the Government accept the noble Baroness’s recommendation? She is both co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Carbon Monoxide Group and a past president of the British Medical Association, so she speaks with great authority on the issue, which is why I tend to agree that the estimate of 40 deaths is a gross underestimate.
Secondly, the impact assessment states that the department intends to pursue non-regulatory solutions in order to encourage uptake in all households which do not yet have a carbon monoxide alarm installed. How is that to be done? I assume that it will not just be through another departmental press notice. I know that some campaigners believe that it should be through prime-time TV warnings.
Does the Minister accept that although CO alarms are a useful back-up precaution, they cannot be a substitute for the proper installation and maintenance of gas safety equipment by a registered gas safety engineer? Is she aware that this regulation covers only a small percentage of households in the UK? Indeed, work by CO-Gas Safety going back to 1995 shows that far more deaths occur in owner-occupied homes than in the private rented sector. What is going to happen in relation to owner-occupied homes? Is the Minister aware that respected experts, including Mr Harry Rogers and Mr Stephen Hadley, through Consumer Safety International, have raised concerns about the accuracy of these CO alarms? Is she satisfied that the alarms are constructed to a reliable and accurate standard, wherein the sensor’s function and accuracy levels can be tested?
I want to ask the Minister about government policy in relation to these issues when it comes to Europe as a whole. She will know of the tragic deaths of Christianne and Robert Shepherd from Horbury near Wakefield, who were just seven and six years old when they died from carbon monoxide poisoning from a faulty boiler on a Thomas Cook holiday in Corfu in October 2006. My honourable friend Mary Creagh MP raised this on 14 July in an Adjournment debate in the Commons and described how the family were forced to wait years, until 2010, before a criminal trial was held in Greece, at considerable emotional and financial stress to the family. The court in Corfu found three hotel workers, including the hotel’s general manager, guilty of manslaughter by negligence. In February 2014, eight years after Christi and Bobby’s deaths, the inquest into their deaths reopened in Wakefield. In May the inquest jury concluded that the children had been unlawfully killed and that Thomas Cook had breached its duty of care.
In paying tribute to the brave and determined efforts of the family, I would like to put a couple of points to the Minister. First, research by Mary Creagh’s office revealed that at least 40 holidaymakers have died of carbon monoxide poisoning in Europe in the years since Christi and Bobby died. Does the Minister agree with that assessment? Secondly, in November last year the European Commission launched a Green Paper on the safety of tourism accommodation services. Work commissioned by ABTA from John Gregory, a CORGI gas safety expert, showed why European action was so necessary. He found a lack of legislative consistency throughout Europe and that there is no Europe-wide statistical database of serious incidents caused by carbon monoxide poisoning, meaning that in essence the extent of the problem is as unknown on mainland Europe as it is in the UK. He also raised concerns that the competence, training and knowledge of the operatives undertaking servicing and maintenance of gas appliances across the EU are of a lesser standard than that required in the United Kingdom.
I raise this because, in contrast to ABTA’s responsible approach, the Government have opposed the introduction of a European safety regulation which would have dealt with these problems. My understanding is that opposition from the UK and some other member states has meant that the European Commission is not now taking its Green Paper forward. I ask the Government to think again and to encourage the Commission to continue work to assess how EU regulations could be put in place. If not, we are left with no specific EU-level regulation which sets out minimum safety standards for tourist accommodation safety.
Just as concerning is another brief I have received from ABTA about the prospects of an adequate revision to the EU directive on the safety of appliances burning gaseous fuels. Amendments have been proposed in the European Parliament which would extend the safety regime across the whole of Europe by implementing rules on installation, maintenance and servicing. Again, I understand that the UK Government are opposed to this and because of this opposition it is likely that these measures will not receive agreement within the EU. Again, I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government’s opposition to this.
Overall, the regulations, as far as they go, are welcome, but I accept that it is right that landlords should be given appropriate time and proper publicity to ensure that they understand the duty that falls on them. In that regard, I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to all these issues, particularly to consider whether, even at this late stage, the Government need to reflect on what publicity is to be given on these regulations.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I shall raise a couple of questions on paragraphs 7.8 and 7.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which deal with the tenures covered by the regulations. Paragraph 7.8 defines a specified tenancy as,
“a tenancy … lease, sub-lease … of residential premises which grants one or more persons the right to occupy the premises as their only or main residence in return for the payment of rent”.
I find it difficult to understand why that restriction should be imposed. If Members of your Lordships’ House were renting premises in London but lived elsewhere, as many of us do, those premises would apparently be excluded from the provisions of these regulations. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be sensitive to the life expectancy of Members of this House—at least on the government Benches. However, it does strike me as odd that that restriction is imposed.
Furthermore, the schedule excludes other categories of letting arrangements,
“where the accommodation is shared with the landlord or falls outside of the traditional private rented sector”.
Again, I do not see why someone paying rent in a property the rest of which is owner-occupied should be exposed to a risk that would not be the case if he were renting the whole property. Then there is the question of what is meant by a tenancy or letting arrangement falling outside the “traditional private rented sector”. We now have Airbnb and similar organisations providing facilities by which occupiers or owners of property can let, usually for short holiday periods and matters of that kind, with probably quite a significant turnover of people. Again, why should those people be exposed to risk, unless the noble Baroness can confirm that such properties are included? It seems to me that they are not part of what the Explanatory Memorandum describes as “traditional private rented sector” properties.
Paragraph 7.9 says that the Schedule excludes agreements where there is shared accommodation with the landlord or landlord’s family. I briefly referred to that in speaking to paragraph 7.8, but paragraph 7.9 has the explanation:
“This is likely to arise where an owner occupier rents out a room in their own home”.
The justification for that is:
“The Regulations are not targeted at owner occupied accommodation”.
Of course, by definition this is a property that is no longer exclusively owner-occupied accommodation. Given that a profit is presumably being made out of the letting, the regulations should at least be extended to properties of that kind.
I appreciate that we are not in a position to amend these regulations, but a number of points have been made by noble Lords opposite, and at some length and with great force by my noble friend, that require attention. I suggest that the matters I have raised also need to be looked at. Otherwise, we are potentially exposing people—it will be a fair number of people if we take the different categories into account—to continuing risk. That is not in the least desirable.
In so far as owner-occupied properties, shared in the way set out in paragraph 7.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum, might be brought within the provisions of the regulations if subsequently amended or revised, the result is that nobody loses. The owner-occupiers gain and their safety is enhanced. Therefore, it certainly seems worth the Government taking another look at the regulations and coming back with new ones that meet many, if not all, of the points that have been raised in the Committee today.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has been quite wide-ranging and informative, certainly to me. I also declare a former interest as the landlord of an HMO property. I say right at the outset that it is good practice for anybody, whether in their own home or in private rented accommodation, or indeed for local authorities, to have carbon monoxide detectors and smoke detectors fitted. As a landlord, I certainly did, and most landlords do so. Here, we are trying to target the small number of landlords in the private sector who do not feel responsible for their tenants.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made some very interesting points. One was that the regulations do not go far enough, and she wondered whether there are far more deaths than the 40 that we think there are. She asked whether post-mortem testing for it would be the answer. In the context of these regulations, there are probably many things that we could do but this is a very good start in tackling the small number of private landlords who have little regard for their tenants, whether in terms of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors or the general standard of the accommodation. This is what the regulations seek to tackle.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me about an amendment. The amendment is a “to review” clause. The regulations will be reviewed in two years’ time, acknowledging that they may need to be looked at again.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talked about social landlords. They are exempt but generally in the social sector they tend to be far more diligent in providing carbon monoxide and smoke detectors. As I said, it is a small number in the private sector who seem to be the culprits.
The noble Baroness asked me about the regulations for installing carbon monoxide alarms applying only to rooms containing a solid fuel-burning appliance. I acknowledge that other things may lead to carbon monoxide leaks but these appliances are the main culprits in terms of creating carbon monoxide poisoning. Going way back to my O-level days, I remember learning that you could tell when someone had carbon monoxide poisoning because they would go pink. I do not know whether people stay pink at the post-mortem stage but that was a sign that someone had carbon monoxide poisoning. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also asked about gas appliances. Again, she may well be right but I understand that the incidence is extremely low compared with that relating to solid fuel-burning appliances.
As I said earlier, there is a review clause in the regulations and there will be a review in 2017, but it is probably fair to make the point that these regulations have to strike the right balance by protecting tenants but not causing unnecessary burdens for landlords, the vast majority of whom, as I said, are diligent towards their tenants.
The noble Baroness also asked why the regulations require landlords to check the alarms only on the first day of the tenancy. We want to ensure that tenants entering a house or property are protected on day one, but we expect it to be both the landlord and the tenant’s responsibility. I have experience of a smoke alarm going off when the battery was getting low. Unless you deal with the problem, your life will be a misery.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford said that October 2015 was too soon and that there was not to be a grace period. First, any self-respecting landlord will already have installed a smoke alarm and a carbon monoxide alarm. They are available free. They are not complicated devices. The draft regulations were laid back in March. He is absolutely right that the explanatory booklets for landlords and local authorities were published only on 4 September, but they were emailed to key stakeholders.
Lord Crickhowell
I am sorry, but I do not know what a key stakeholder is. I do not want to be difficult, but I hope that when she clarifies that matter, she will tell me what detailed consultation has been taking place and about the amendments that I specifically asked about to the various documents.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
A key stakeholder is someone who has a stake or interest in the regulation or legislation at hand.
In going forward with the regulations, the Government provided £3.2 million in a one-off grant to help fire and rescue—
Lord Marlesford
Before my noble friend leaves that point, I was certainly not regarded as a key stakeholder—there is no reason why I should be—but I received from the CLA only this morning a link for me to be able to download the advisory note issued last Friday. It produced its new view when it received that advisory note last Friday, which makes the idea of bringing it into force with no period of grace obvious nonsense.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I take my noble friend’s point: he is not a key stakeholder and he got it from someone who would be regarded as a key stakeholder. That includes local authorities, groups of landlords and managing agents. It is not long until 1 October, but the draft regulations were laid back in March, so people who have an interest in this—that is, stakeholders—knew that it was coming.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
When the noble Baroness opened her remarks, she made the point that most responsible landlords do this in any case. Clearly the focus here is essentially on poor landlords who probably have no connection with any of the stakeholder groups—I mean, it is extremely unlikely that they are members of the CLA. Given that we are probably dealing with the kind of landlords who do not have much to do with any such groups, we need a publicity campaign to get it across to them. The criticism here is that guidance three weeks before the start—which poor landlords will never see—plus a press notice which presumably was not covered by the media will simply not do the business. That is the point that the noble Lord is making.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I take the noble Lord’s point that rogue landlords, just like rogue employers or anybody else, are the hardest to reach and the least likely to listen to legislation on their obligations. Certainly the Fire Kills campaign was very effective—I hope—in raising awareness of carbon monoxide, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, says, is a silent killer.
Lord Beecham
I wonder whether publicity is being aimed at tenants to demand that these regulations be enforced. If it is not, perhaps that is something that should be taken up.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
How to Rent may well be updated in terms of giving tenants more advice. More than ever, tenants have better information on how to rent and on their rights under their rental agreements. My tenants were certainly very well informed and I can assure noble Lords that they were well looked after.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford asked about new guidance. We have decided to issue new guidance in the form of explanatory booklets, one for local authorities and one for landlords. We also want to update How to Rent, as I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in time for 1 October 2015. My noble friend Lord Marlesford also asked about decorative fireplaces. A decorative fireplace would be one that was clearly not used for burning; in other words, closed off for the purposes of being able to light a fire.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about electrical safety in the private rented sector. I can inform noble Lords that landlords are already under a general duty to ensure that electrical installations are safe and kept in good working order.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked why tenancies for main homes are included and not for people such as your Lordships, who might spend some of their time in London. That is a fair point. Again, it is a start in terms of addressing problems with landlords. I hope that none of your Lordships have rogue landlords looking after them. The noble Lord also talked about tenancies that have been excluded. Student halls, hostels, refuges, care homes, hospitals and hospices are excluded because they all have their own requirements regarding standards, just as Airbnb is not considered a permanent home. Noble Lords are looking slightly puzzled. The premises that I have just mentioned benefit from existing protections under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. I hope that that helps.
Lord Beecham
Does that apply to the use of properties by Airbnb? I take the point about the others, such as care homes and the like. What about the Airbnb ones?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
No, it would not include Airbnb, but it would include those other types of premises that I mentioned. I hope that I have answered all the questions. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I was waiting until the Minister had gone through the list of all the different types of accommodation. Could she undertake to ensure that, in particular, all universities have the information circulated to them? The university population comprises a large number of students, who go into privately rented accommodation around the UK, which is of very variable quality. In previous years, at the beginning of the autumn term, which we are now approaching, there have been deaths. On a cold night students have turned the heat on. There was a carbon monoxide problem and they died. They were not solid fuel appliances; they were usually gas appliances. However, in the wake of this important move—it is an important move; the Government have accepted that something has to be done—it would be very helpful if universities were asked specifically to alert students to the dangers and make them carbon monoxide-aware. Charities are doing this but they cannot cover the whole area.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness makes a very valid point. In fact, I remember the first day that my son moved into a student house with a boiler in his bedroom and I was terrified that he was going to die in the middle of the night. It is a really good point, which I shall take back.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
The Minister has not responded to the points that I made about European negotiations on safety standards. Would she care to write to me on those matters?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will certainly do so. I have just spotted that point and I will certainly write to the noble Lord.
Lord Marlesford
Following the very interesting, important and sensible point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, does the Minister not now realise that the courts or anyone else will not see three weeks as being a reasonable time for these regulations to be put into effect? The guidance states that there is no grace period. If anyone tried to impose a £5,000 penalty on day two, three or four, I would have thought that that would be seen as absurd in judicial review terms. Will she not take away and reconsider the implementation date? I certainly could not agree to the regulations going forward with an implementation date of 1 October. That is obviously nonsense. The Minister herself gave a lot of examples, referring particularly to the very limited number of stakeholders. One would like to know how many stakeholders there are. I very much doubt whether people have had advisory notices. I do not believe that anyone would regard dishing out advice last Friday, three weeks before the regulations come into force, as adequate. It clearly is not. It is bad government and basically bad administration by Whitehall, and I hope that the Minister does not defend it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, there are two points here. First, it is imperative to protect tenants from unscrupulous landlords who will not meet their obligations. Secondly, in the theoretical situation set out by my noble friend, if on day two—2 October—a landlord was in breach, that landlord would have 28 days to comply, so the date we are talking about is more like six weeks from now.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Harris of Richmond) (LD)
The Question is that this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say “Content”; to the contrary, “Not content”.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, surely if one noble Lord says “Not content”, the statutory instrument just reverts to the main Chamber, where it is open to a substantive debate if the noble Lord puts down a Motion. That is my understanding.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
That is exactly what will happen and I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with that. As he knows, we do not vote in Grand Committee.
Baroness O'Cathain
For clarification, does that mean that this will go back to the Chamber?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
As far as I understand it, that is the case—I have seen this happen before—although I do not wish to pre-empt the view of the Chairman. The Grand Committee cannot approve a Motion if a noble Lord decides that he is not prepared to say “Content”. It simply reverts to the Chamber and will probably appear on the Order Paper within a short time. My understanding is that it is open for debate on the Floor of the House.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
That is exactly what happens. I am grateful to the noble Lord. It will go back to the Government and they will decide when and if they take the regulations to the Floor of the House.
Lord Marlesford
That presumably means that unless they come back this week or next week, because Parliament does not come back until 12 October, it would be impossible for this statutory instrument to be brought into effect on 1 October.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that there is other business to consider and it will be up to the Chief Whip to determine the timetable. We have a sitting Friday coming up, when it is possible to consider this matter. That will be up to the Chief Whip and we should now move on.
Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That the Grand Committee do consider the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
The statutory instrument before us today amends the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 to set out the merits criteria that an applicant must meet in order to qualify for civil legal aid for a female genital mutilation—FGM—protection order. This statutory instrument also makes amendments to specify the applicable merits criteria for victims of modern slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour for legal representation in relation to immigration matters.
The Government considered it important that these provisions were brought into force without delay so that victims and potential victims of modern slavery or FGM could be protected. In particular, it was a government priority that the FGM protection order provisions should commence before the start of the school summer holidays as a means of protecting girls and women from being taken abroad during this period. For these reasons, and owing to limited parliamentary time, the statutory instrument before us was made and brought into force using an urgency procedure, and I am now seeking the approval of noble Lords.
FGM protection orders were introduced in the Serious Crime Act 2015 and came into effect on 17 July. Courts now have the power to grant FGM protection orders to protect women and girls against genital mutilation offences and to protect women and girls against whom such an offence has already been committed. The making, varying, discharging and appealing of FGM protection orders were brought within the scope of the civil legal aid scheme by the Serious Crime Act 2015. Amendments were also made to legal aid regulations under the negative parliamentary procedure to accommodate their introduction, including the financial means test.
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 makes provision for the protection of victims of modern slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour, and it came into effect on 31 July. The Act provides tools to tackle modern slavery, makes sure that perpetrators can receive appropriate punishments and enhances the support and protection for victims. Why are the Government taking this action? Why is it necessary?
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, this is one of the rare occasions on which I can congratulate the Government and the Minister on doing something positive in the arena of legal aid. Later this evening we will revert to the more normal discussions that take place between us across the Chamber in another respect. However, this is an important matter, and I very much welcome the Government’s initiative in ensuring that the change in the law can be adequately enforced.
In that connection, with regard to something that we have just discussed at some length concerning other serious matters relating to safety within the home, there is the publicity that is being given about the issue generally, but more particularly about the availability of legal aid for those suffering from abuse in terms of either of the two categories embodied in the order. It may well be the case that the Government are already directing publicity not only at the potential victims but at organisations and others who might be able to assist in disseminating the information that legal aid is available. It may be too early at this stage for the Minister to give an indication of the number of cases that are thought likely to be brought under each category, or it may be that the information is simply not available this afternoon. However, if and when it becomes available, that information would be helpful—and, of course, it would lend some force to any publicity that the Government will no doubt give about the remedies that will be available.
Having said that, the Opposition certainly support the Government’s steps here. We look forward to assistance being given to people who are being ruthlessly exploited and who hitherto have had insufficient protection from the law.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his support for these regulations, and I look forward to renewing our customary postures later in the day.
As he rightly says, these are early days, and it is difficult to give any figures. I made the very same inquiry of my officials and understandably they were somewhat tentative. I do not suppose that the numbers are going to be very large. What I can say, of course, is that there has been a great deal of publicity generally about both areas that we are concerned with. Therefore, I think that the general public and all those who are likely to encounter these issues will be aware of the situation and will be keen to find out the extent to which there may be legal aid, and I am sure practitioners working in this area will make themselves aware of it.
A guide to the court process was published in July this year, and I understand that it includes the relevant information. I am now being handed a copy, which lays out, in paragraphs 31 to 34, the information which will assist. This is under the female genital mutilation protection orders; it explains their scope and who can apply, and it contains information about the availability of legal aid. Anybody familiarising themselves with these orders—a practitioner or anybody affected by or concerned about them—would find out that legal aid was available. I am not sure whether there is similar information in relation to modern slavery but, if there is, I will undertake to convey it to the noble Lord.
That being, I think, the scope of the inquiry made by the noble Lord, I think we can now proceed to ask noble Lords to approve this amendment. I believe that it is a reasonable one and that it will provide appropriate frameworks for the provision of legal aid for victims of both FGM and modern slavery.
Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5) Order 2015
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 29 June 2015 now be considered. If it pleases the Committee, I will provide a brief summary of the background to this order and set out what it seeks to achieve.
When the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was passed, it provided that the next general election for membership of this Parliament would be 7 May 2020. That same Act also provided that the next Scottish parliamentary general election would be 5 May 2016. The Scotland Act 1998 provides for the poll at Scottish parliamentary general elections to be held on the first Thursday in May every fourth year. This all combines to mean that, as things currently stand, there are due to be general elections to both the UK and Scottish Parliaments on 7 May 2020. Clearly, such a clash of elections is undesirable and this Government have always been committed to ensuring that it should be avoided.
The Government are also committed to implementing the recommendations of the Smith commission agreement. One of those recommendations is that the Scottish Parliament should have all powers in relation to Scottish parliamentary and local government elections in Scotland. As noble Lords will be aware, the current Scotland Bill makes provision to implement that recommendation. However, as both the UK and Scottish Governments agree that Scottish parliamentary electors should be aware of the term of the Scottish Parliament to which they are electing Members when they vote in May 2016, we are faced with an issue of timing. If the Scottish Parliament is to legislate in advance of the May 2016 election to determine a date for the first Scottish parliamentary ordinary general election after that one, the power to do so needs to be devolved now. Devolving that power is exactly what this order does.
The order is made under Section 30 of the 1998 Act, which provides a mechanism whereby Schedules 4 and 5 to that Act can be modified by an Order in Council, subject to the agreement of both the UK and Scottish Parliaments. This order will amend both Schedules 4 and 5 to the 1998 Act, with the agreement of both Parliaments. Schedule 4 to the 1998 Act lists enactments which are protected from modification by the Scottish Parliament. Much of the 1998 Act is included in that list. As I have previously mentioned, the 1998 Act provides for the poll at Scottish parliamentary general elections to be held on the first Thursday in May every fourth year. Section 2(2) of the 1998 Act makes that provision. Therefore, this order will amend Schedule 4 to the 1998 Act to allow the Act of the Scottish Parliament to modify Section 2(2) in relation to the first Scottish parliamentary ordinary general election after 2016. Secondly, Schedule 5 to the 1998 Act lists the matters that are reserved to this Parliament. Among other things, elections for membership of the Scottish Parliament are reserved. In order that the Scottish Parliament can determine the day of the poll at the first Scottish parliamentary ordinary general election after 2016, this order will amend Schedule 5 to provide that that matter will no longer be a reserved matter.
The amendments to both schedules will combine to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the power to determine the date of the first Scottish parliamentary ordinary general election after that to be held next May. The order also amends Section 2 of the 1998 Act in connection with the amendments to the schedules. However, the order places certain limitations on the day which can be chosen by the Scottish Parliament. Specifically, the order will prevent the day of the poll determined by the Scottish Parliament being the same as the day of the poll at a UK parliamentary general election, a European parliamentary election or ordinary local government elections in Scotland. I note that these limitations were as recommended in the Smith commission agreement.
I also take time to anticipate two matters in relation to the order. First, devolving this power to the Scottish Parliament will mean that the Scottish Parliament can, in respect of that election, legislate for the term of the relevant Parliament. Some have asked whether that could result in there being a term of 50 years determined by the Scottish Parliament. To that the Government have two responses. First, the Scottish Parliament is a responsible, democratic body; there is no realistic prospect of such a thing happening. But even if it was contemplated in the wilder imaginings of any parliamentarian, let me also point out that pursuant to Article 3 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, there is a requirement for free elections at reasonable intervals. The Scottish Parliament, pursuant to Section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998 can bring forward only legislation that complies with the convention—and, in particular, Article 3 of the first protocol.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and his staff for keeping me fully informed at an early date, allowing me to consider what is proposed in more detail. I hope that this mini-debate will be far less interesting and contentious than the one two debates ago. There is agreement here. The Opposition are fully behind what the Government are doing. I suppose that some comments could be made about the 50-year proposal, although I think the possibility of that lessens with the change of First Minister. I say that jokingly, of course, in case anybody in the Scottish press gets excited about any perceived attack on Mr Salmond—God forbid.
Certainly, the proposal is firmly within the Smith commission agreement, which the Official Opposition fully support. There are exceptions, which have been outlined by the Minister, and we go along with those as well. The two-thirds majority safeguard is absolutely right. As the Scottish Parliament goes on and gains more experience, it would be entirely ludicrous for anyone to suggest that there is a possibility of it behaving in a manner that, quite rightly, was posited by the Minister as being something that none of us want. Certainly, the Scottish Parliament is growing in experience. The people of Scotland and the United Kingdom should remember that the concept of a Scottish parliament was bitterly opposed by the Conservative Party at the time. We are absolutely delighted at the major conversion of the Government to the principle of a Scottish Parliament. In fairness to the Government, we believe that they are sticking by the terms of the Smith commission to deliver as much as possible to the Scottish Parliament in these devolved matters.
I reiterate that we are fully behind what the Government are doing. In serious terms, the maturity of the Scottish Parliament is growing. That can only be good for relations in Scotland itself and for the very important matter of relations between any Scottish Government out of Holyrood and the United Kingdom Parliament. I repeat again, we are fully behind the measure.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, I, too, support the order. I welcome the Advocate-General’s introduction of it. My mind goes back to the passage of the 1998 Bill through this House. At that time, I tried to move amendments that would have covered exactly the issues we are debating today. I am sorry to say that I did not get any support from the Labour Government, or indeed from the Conservative Opposition at that time. It struck me as odd that we were establishing a new Parliament in Scotland, yet this Parliament was going to continue to control that Parliament’s internal affairs. That seemed to me to be wrong. I was reinforced in that view when I took office as the first Presiding Officer at the Scottish Parliament and found that silly things such as the number of Deputy Presiding Officers we were allowed to have was laid down by this Parliament—that we could do nothing to make any internal changes. I therefore welcome the order. The Smith commission was very clear in stating that the Scottish Parliament should have all powers in relation to its own elections and,
“powers to make decisions about all matters relating to the arrangements and operations of the Scottish Parliament”.
That seems to me to be common sense. I very much welcome it.
If we leave this order as it is, it is open to the Scottish Parliament to change the predicted date of a Scottish Parliament election. I have tried to work it out. I hope that my arithmetic is correct, but if we leave things as they are and the Westminster Parliament is on a fixed basis of elections every five years and the Scottish Parliament is on a fixed basis of every four years, every 20 years there will be a clash. The Scottish Parliament would therefore have to use the powers in the order to make the changes. In the light of that, it would be sensible if the Scottish Parliament were to reflect on the fact that we have a fixed-term Parliament here and in Scotland, and that it would make more sense for the fixed term to be the same so that the dates do not clash at any time. That is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide in the future. In the mean time, I thank the Advocate-General for the introduction of this change to Schedules 4 and 5 to the original Act and I give it a full welcome.
Lord Keen of Elie
I first acknowledge the perspicacity of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, at the time of the passage of the 1998 Act. However, I was not here. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for the position that he has expressed. Of course, there has been more than one Pauline conversion on the road to final devolved settlement. We all hope that there will be more, even among the nationalists.
Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2015
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of the order that we are considering today is to continue in force legislation governing the Armed Forces—the Armed Forces Act 2006—for a further period of one year, until November 2016. This reflects the constitutional requirement under the Bill of Rights that the Armed Forces may not be maintained without the consent of Parliament.
The legislation which makes the provision necessary for the Armed Forces to exist as disciplined forces is renewed every year. There is five-yearly renewal by Act of Parliament. That is the primary purpose of Armed Forces Acts. Between Acts, there must be an annual Order in Council. That is the purpose of the draft order that we are considering today.
If the Order in Council is not made by the end of 2 November 2015, the Armed Forces Act 2006 will automatically expire. The effect of this would be to end the powers and provisions necessary to maintain the Armed Forces as disciplined bodies.
The order will continue in force the 2006 Act until the end of 2 November 2016, when a new Act of Parliament will be required to provide for the legislation to continue for the next five years. We expect the next Armed Forces Bill to be introduced into Parliament soon, and I look forward to our debates on the Bill and on matters of great importance to our Armed Forces during its passage in your Lordships’ House. Indeed, before then, I look forward to enjoying a full and interesting debate next week on the role and capabilities of the UK Armed Forces in the light of global and domestic threats to stability and security.
Turning back to the business in hand today, I should say something about why we need to keep the 2006 Act in force. The Armed Forces Act 2006 applies to all service personnel wherever in the world they are operating. It provides nearly all the provisions for the existence of a system of command, discipline and justice for the Armed Forces, covering such matters as offences, the powers of the service police and the jurisdiction and powers of commanding officers and of service courts, in particular the courts martial. It is the basis of the service justice system that underpins the maintenance of discipline through the chain of command which is so fundamental to the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces.
The 2006 Act also provides for a number of other important matters for the Armed Forces, such as for their enlistment, pay and redress of complaints. Members of the Armed Forces have no contracts of employment and so no duties as employees. Although members of the Armed Forces owe a duty of allegiance to Her Majesty, their obligation is essentially a duty to obey lawful orders, but without the 2006 Act, commanding officers and the courts martial would have no powers of punishment for either disciplinary or criminal misconduct. That is why the Armed Forces Act 2006 is so important and why we need to continue it in force. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and need for the order. We have this debate on the Armed Forces continuation order each year, and I must say that I am no clearer at present than I was when I was first involved in these debates what would be the implications if the order was not carried.
I do not intend to speak at any length. We support the order and, as the Minister said, we have a separate defence debate in the Chamber next week. However, bearing in mind the wide-ranging nature of the order and the apparent consequences if it was not agreed, it has always seemed to me—if, apparently, to no one else—that consideration of the order each year could be used as the basis for an annual general defence debate in the Chamber. There is, after all, very little, if anything defence and Armed Forces-wise that it could be argued would not be relevant in a debate on an order which if not agreed calls into question the continuation of our Armed Forces as a disciplined fighting force.
As paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states, the Armed Forces Act 2006, which the order extends for a further year from 2 November 2015,
“provides nearly all the provisions for the existence of a system for the armed forces of command, discipline and justice … It also contains a large number of other important provisions as to the armed forces, such as provision for enlistment, pay and redress of complaints”.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order and note that his speech is somewhat familiar, as I delivered it myself last year. These things do not change an awful lot so I shall not take long.
The order reflects the constitutional requirement under the Bill of Rights that the Armed Forces may not be maintained except with the consent of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has repeated some of the points and questions that I probably failed to answer last year around this whole issue of what happens should we not agree. But I would like to highlight an area that had its own legislation passed earlier this year—the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Act 2015—in particular, complaints, which are covered in this order.
The 2014 continuation order covered the old complaints system. The 2015 legislation to set up the new Service Complaints Ombudsman amended the Armed Forces Act 2006. Will the Minister confirm that this continuation order incorporates the service complaints paragraphs of that Act? The ombudsman set up in the Act will have stronger powers than the current commissioner to investigate any maladministration in the handling of a service complaint. Will the Minister also confirm that as the Act goes live in 2016, the system set up is on track to meet the change in legislation?
I note, too, my responses last year with regard to the letter from noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to the department, and Mr Morrison’s response on the 2014 order. Can the Minister confirm whether he believes that the Explanatory Memorandum of this year reflects the contents of Mr Morrison’s letter? Will the noble Earl also confirm that next year we will be debating a 2016 Armed Forces Act, which we expect to, as it is done every five years, and does the Minister have any inkling of that timetable?
As the Minister has highlighted, we have the opportunity in next week’s debate on role and capabilities of the UK Armed Forces to explore in more detail issues of a more specific nature, and I hope that the Minister will accept the point made in last year’s debate, which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, repeated today, that a general debate is useful. The issue could helpfully be swept up in the debate next week and the Minister could respond to areas that are defence related but are only tangentially connected with role and capability. In the mean time, I am happy to agree to the continuation order.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for their comments and questions. I shall address them in turn.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, devoted his remarks to questions around the hypothesis that were this order not to be approved, the effect on the Armed Forces would be to render them, in practice, completely ineffective. I can confirm that. The practical effect of not renewing the Act would be that the Armed Forces as we know them would cease to exist because, among the many important provisions in the Act, the key provisions are perhaps the duty to obey lawful commands and the mechanism for enforcing that duty. Without these, the Armed Forces would be unable to continue as disciplined forces. They would continue to owe allegiance to Her Majesty but to deploy the Armed Forces in practice or in theatre would be rendered almost impossible because the system of obeying duties would fall away.
Lord Rosser
Perhaps I should clarify. I understand fully the point that the noble Earl has made. Is the Minister saying that it would be impractical to undertake military action because there would be no duty to obey commands, or is it also the case that if this order was not passed it would be illegal for our Armed Forces to undertake any action? Is it an issue about practicality or is it an issue about whether it is legal?
Earl Howe
It is both, as I understand it, in that the requirement for annual renewal can be traced back, as noble Lords have pointed out, to the Bill of Rights 1688. It declared that the raising or keeping of a standing Army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against law. That means, essentially, that it would be illegal to have a standing Army or, indeed, a standing Royal Navy or Royal Air Force. It has not been a matter for any Government in living memory to contemplate a scenario whereby Parliament might not approve the continuation of the Armed Forces.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I am not advocating that either but I am not entirely clear that the Explanatory Memorandum actually says that about the legality, in words of one syllable.
Earl Howe
I shall naturally take advice from those who are expert in this field. If anything that I have said is wrong or requires expansion I will of course write to the noble Lord. I agree that this is a subject of theoretical interest. I am glad to hear that there is no proposal to take the questions to their logical conclusion, but I recognise the importance of the questions that the noble Lord poses and will be happy to clarify, perhaps at greater length in writing, what the legal position amounts to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, also referred to the Bill of Rights, but focused her remarks on the system of complaints and asked whether the changes that are being introduced are on track. They are. As she knows, the Ministry of Defence worked closely with Dr Susan Atkins, the first Service Complaints Commissioner, to make the service complaints process more efficient and to strengthen the commissioner role. That was the basis of the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill that received Royal Assent on 26 March this year. As she is aware, the Act shortens the complaints process and replaces the commissioner with a new Service Complaints Ombudsman. Implementation is expected in January. The ombudsman will have significant new powers, while maintaining the right balance between the authority of the military chain of command, which must be responsible for looking after its own people, and strong independent oversight through the ombudsman.
Nicola Williams, the former ombudsman in the Cayman Islands, with whom I had a useful conversation the other day, took over as the commissioner in January and will become the first ombudsman, subject to approval by Her Majesty the Queen. Nicola Williams’s first annual report on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints process was published on 24 March. The Government’s response was published on 16 July 2015.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked me whether the Explanatory Memorandum reflects the content of Mr Morrison’s letter. I will have to get back to her on the answer to that.
As for the timetable for the Armed Forces Bill, I anticipate that it will be introduced into Parliament shortly. I cannot comment on its content before that happens, but my understanding is that the Bill should be under way in October.
Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the Grand Committee do consider the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2015. These orders form part of the implementation of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and, with the leave of the Committee, I will take them together. Most of the Act comes into force on 1 October.
Before turning to the orders, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to our debates and to ensuring that the Act is in good shape. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, who has just left us, for her help in steering the Act through the House, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and, if I may say so, to the newly fashionably bearded noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for their well-informed contributions to our lively debates.
The Act is part of a wider package of consumer law that will boost the economy by £4 billion over the next 10 years. It may be helpful if I remind your Lordships of what the Act does and if I say a little about what we are doing to ensure that consumers and businesses are aware of their rights and obligations under the Act.
The Consumer Rights Act is a major part of the reform and simplification of UK consumer law. It provides clear consumer remedies for goods, services and digital content so that consumers know what their rights are and what they are entitled to if something goes wrong. This will help increase consumer confidence so that people try new products and services and also shop around. It will also help businesses more readily to understand their responsibilities.
It is crucial that consumers and businesses know about their rights and obligations. We have therefore been working closely with trading standards to help businesses prepare for the changes, including the provision of clear guidance on the Act on its Business Companion website and the development of a consumer rights summary which businesses can voluntarily display in their shops at the point of sale. To help consumers better understand their rights, we have also been working closely with Citizens Advice, MoneySavingExpert and Which?. The consumer rights summary will be published on the TSI website before 1 October.
Alongside the Act, on 1 October, when the business information requirements of the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes Regulations 2015 come into force, we will also complete implementation of the alternative dispute resolution directive. By ensuring that ADR is available in every sector, we will make it easier to resolve disputes between consumers and traders. This will help reduce costs for businesses by reducing the number of these disputes being brought before a court.
I would also like to update your Lordships on our review of product safety. In March this year, because of concerns about the effectiveness of consumer product recalls raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and others during the passage of the Consumer Rights Bill in this House, the Government launched an independent review led by consumer campaigner Lynn Faulds Wood. This is looking at how we can make the product recall system more effective, with a proper understanding of what a good recall system looks like. A small stakeholder focus group met on 4 December to discuss 10 recommendations and we anticipate publishing the review’s findings later this year.
As a result of amendments made in this House, the Consumer Rights Act includes new rules on the regulation of the online secondary ticketing market, which came into force in May. The first order enables the enforcement bodies to share information and work together more effectively to complement the investigatory powers that came in in May. BIS and the DCMS are still committed to reviewing the secondary ticketing market and we anticipate announcing the chair very soon. Given the level of interest in this matter and the presence of my noble friend Lord Moynihan, I thought that I should make that clear. The launch of the review will follow shortly, along with an invitation for interested parties to provide evidence on the market and consumer protection measures.
As part of our productivity plan, the Government are reviewing trading standards to ensure that our consumer enforcement capability effectively supports competition and better regulation goals. We have, however, decided to delay the coming into force only of the services provisions of the Act in relation to mainline rail, aviation and maritime consumer services until 6 April 2016. The DfT is rightly concerned about the interplay between the new Act and specific provisions, such as the arrangements for a refund due to train delays. Therefore, we will be consulting with businesses and consumers shortly to determine whether the detailed sector-specific consumer remedies should be retained and how the new Act might apply. The other chapters of the Act, including provisions on competition, will come into effect for these sectors on 1 October.
I now turn to the two orders themselves. As I mentioned, these orders form part of the implementation of the Consumer Rights Act. They simply make consequential amendments to the existing legal framework. First, the draft Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) Order adds the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 to the list of legislation in Schedule 5 to the Act. This will mean that public enforcers of those regulations have access to the investigatory powers that they need.
The order also amends the Uniform Laws on International Sales Act 1967. That Act implemented the convention on international sale of goods, which enables parties from different countries to decide that the standard terms set out in the convention apply to their contract. This means that, where the contract is for the sale of goods to a consumer, provisions of the Consumer Rights Act, such as the right that goods must be fit for purpose, will be treated as mandatory elements of the contract.
The order also amends Schedules 14 and 15 to the Enterprise Act 2002 so that public bodies have the power to disclose and share information obtained through, or for the purposes of, enforcing the unfair terms and secondary ticketing provisions contained in the Consumer Rights Act, as I mentioned. Lastly, the order amends Schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 to enable a local authority to be a “primary authority” and take a role in co-ordinating enforcement of provisions of the Act.
The second order, the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order, amends the Enterprise Act 2002. This enables enforcers, such as trading standards, to use civil enforcement powers for certain breaches of the Consumer Rights Act where such breaches affect the collective interests of consumers. For example, trading standards could seek an enforcement order when a business refuses to give refunds to a number of customers where faulty goods are supplied.
I commend the draft orders to the Committee.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for referring specifically to Chapter 5 of Part 3 of the Act and for the interest shown, both in Committee and in the House, in the subject of the secondary market for tickets. As I understand it, the powers that are proposed should be seen as complementary and, indeed, supplementary, because there will be greater information sharing as a result of the order, which is narrow in scope.
I would like to ask my noble friend whether the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 apply to the secondary ticketing market as well. If they do, they stand well alongside the proposals before the Committee and, indeed, the powers in the CRA 2015.
Before I may appear a little concerned about and critical of the pace at which a number of commitments that were given to the House seem to be progressing, I say straightaway that I could not be more grateful to the Minister personally for her commitment and the level of interest, time and diligence that she showed on this subject. However, as I hope she will be the first to agree, while investigative powers are clear, a prerequisite for those investigative powers to be effective is enforcement. If there is a lack of clarity over exactly what needs to be enforced, we have a problem. One reason why the review was due to be set up was to provide clarity over enforcement and how it would be implemented. As long ago as May, the Minister was hopeful that we would have that review. Many of us who are interested in the subject have waited with bated breath during the Summer Recess, week by week and month by month—May, June, July, August and now into September—and we are still hoping that the review will come very soon.
Under normal circumstances in Parliament, this might not be a major concern. The reason why it is such a concern is because this review was placed in the Act and was time-limited to a year. It concerns me that we are now into September and we do not have a chair for the review or terms of reference for it, nor do we have details of the expert committee that would support that review. All that is absolutely essential. One reason why the measure was pressed so rapidly and given such importance and prominence in Parliament was that having a chair in place to see exactly how the ticket-touting market or secondary ticket market worked during the Rugby World Cup was clearly going to be advantageous. It was going to be able to help that committee to assess the effectiveness or otherwise of the legislation that had been passed in Parliament, and it was also going to provide a good deal of detailed information so that recommendations could be made in the light of direct hands-on involvement with those organising the Rugby World Cup, which already, as we have read in the papers only in the last week, is a matter of great concern to the consumers, many of whom feel that they are being fleeced. In addition to that, we were looking for a strategy for monitoring compliance. The Competition and Markets Authority is clearly important in that context, but we have heard nothing. There is no information on how best to provide requirements for sellers, advice to buyers or recourse to consumers. I understand that the police numbers specifically to tackle touting and associated criminality are very low.
Many rugby fans feel that they are currently being fleeced for tickets, which is a result of the lack of enforcement. The position that they face today is bleak, to say the least. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give us a little more clarity on when this review is going to be established. I hope that there will be an announcement very soon of a chair for the review; it is imperative that that is done and that the review is set up as a matter of urgency. At the Rugby World Cup, so many fans have been unable to get tickets because those who have managed to sweep the market have immediately put those tickets back on at a massive multiple of their face value. When that is directly in contravention to the regulations and rules stated by the organisers of the Rugby World Cup, we have a serious problem, compounded when Parliament has spoken about this issue and when the Government came back with amendments to lead on this issue so that we could protect consumers and not see sports fans fleeced.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, it was very good of the Minister to pay tribute to my hirsute appearance. I like to bask in the idea that I am fashionable at all, let alone fashionably bearded. Of course, it is entirely a summer beard, one of those that grow simply because one is too bored and lazy to take the trouble to shave it off. In my case I had an ulterior motive—I am sorry to bore the Committee in this way—because my son has just reached the age of 20 and fancies himself as a bit of a lad around town, and felt that it would enhance his appearance and approach to the wider world if he was to grow a beard, and we agreed to do it together. I shall not say who has won yet, but it is a fine bonding environment. Also it proves that you do not have to be a former Labour leader or indeed standing to be a Labour leader to wear a beard of some distinction. I hope that does not get too widely circulated by Hansard.
I thank the Minister for giving us a very interesting overview of where things stand with the Bill. For those of us who sweated through the long stages of this issue, it is nice to be refreshed again as to where we have got to on some of these key issues—not least the digital area, which is my particular responsibility, but also in the wider context on which my noble friend Lady Hayter led for us with great skill and expertise. It is her birthday today, and perhaps the Minister might in a spirited moment refer to that.
I have three points. I was intrigued by the announcement that there was to be a review of trading standards. I had not noticed that in earlier statements. When the Minister comes to respond, perhaps she could give us a little more on that. We made a point throughout discussions on the Bill that, while we admired the way in which the Bill set out to draw together and reshape our overall consumer protection, it was heavily dependent on the ability to police and exercise the powers that were being given. There were some doubts expressed by those who spoke in Committee and on Report who had knowledge and expertise in these areas of the difficulties being caused in local government as a result of cuts and changes there. I am interested in the broader approach taken by the review, in particular whether it will deal with the difficulties that have been caused by the reductions in manning levels and resources available, and by changes in local government, which are very complicated. That might take time to get together, but it would repay considerably on the success of the Bill.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her opening remarks and continuing work on this matter.
I appreciate that the Act to which the orders relate is a consolidation Act designed to simplify, and obviously I support that. There are challenges ahead and I hope that the Government will focus on them, in particular the internet. We know that the online retail market is the fastest-growing sale sector. It is now worth well over £100 billion.
The expansion of click-and-collect services and mobile-phone commerce has played a large role in this. Only last night a lady from America sent an e-mail to my website, wanting to know what my opening hours are, because she wanted to buy some clothes. She confused me with Lord & Taylor, the clothing department store in the USA. She was quite happy, however, that I was not in fact Lord & Taylor. This just goes to show that many consumers now are dealing with companies that are outside the jurisdiction and that in many ways the Government are playing catch-up with the internet. They still have to wage the battle against that.
Paragraph 7 of the guidance notes states that the Government consulted extensively on reforming consumer law, and that this was based on broad support for reforms from business and consumer stakeholders. But for many start-up firms the owner is also the person who makes the tea and puts out the rubbish. Keeping abreast of changes in consumer law is a challenge too far. I still feel that there is too big a gap between small business and government, and indeed between consumer and government.
One must look at what the consumer can do when things go wrong. I appreciate that this was in essence a consolidation Bill, but the Government have to be a champion of the consumer. Some argue for a consumer ombudsman, just one person. I do not share that view, but I feel that companies owe more of a duty of care to consumers to advise them on what to do when things go wrong. Caveat emptor, or buyer beware—there is still consumer law, but it is the new language of the internet, not Latin, that is fast taking over. So the Government must take into account that that changes, almost by the minute, the way in which we buy and sell goods.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Well, we are back again. I thank the Minister for not just introducing the draft orders, but for the update on progress on the product safety review, which is of particular interest to me. We had not formally seen it but I had obviously heard about it. The decision that she or whoever made it to appoint Lynn Faulds Wood to chair the review was a brave one, as she is very much her own lady. I have worked with her before, on bowel cancer, which was rather different, but I know that she will take no prisoners. We look forward to that report and trust that it will be out this year.
The EU directive on alternative dispute resolution in a way touches on the area, just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, about whether there should be a consumer ombudsman. In principle, I am more or less with him on that. If you have an ombudsman it is compulsory for the industry covered to allow a consumer to take its complaint there. The problem that we have with the ADR directive, to which the Government signed up in only the most minimalist way, is that there will be alternative dispute resolution organisations in existence. For example, if you were John and Taylor—a wonderful firm, I am sure—but it was in Warwick and you were selling clothes there, you would in future have to say that the clothes-selling ADR provider is that well-known company, Stevenson and Hayter. However, we will not necessarily accept that a consumer should take their complaint there. So we have a very odd situation now which falls short of what the noble Lord would want: basically, anyone can set up an ADR and, as long as it is approved by the trading standards people, it exists but consumers cannot necessarily take their complaints there.
When she replies, perhaps the Minister will confirm when the full implementation of the ADR directive, although it is very minimalist, will take place. I know that it is later than was originally intended, but I missed the date. How many of those ADR schemes have been approved and what proportion of the consumer market does she now consider is covered by some sort of ADR scheme?
I turn to another issue on which the Minister helpfully updated us, which was the announcement made by the Minister in the other place on 29 July—which was, strangely enough, just when we were all going off on holiday and had packed our buckets and spades—of the six-month delay in the services provision of Chapter 4 of the CRA for the rail, aviation and maritime services. It may be that the Government had foreknowledge of what was going to happen at Calais over the holiday and were absolutely sure that they did not want consumers to be able to use their new rights under the Act. I hope that that was not the case.
What concerned me, not in what the Minister said today, but in the letter of 29 July from the Minister in the other House, was the suggestion that the passenger transport sector might be exempted permanently from the Act in certain respects. We would have very serious questions about any suggestion of completely removing the rail sector from the Act. The existing consumer protections under the national rail conditions of carriage are much narrower than those introduced in the new Consumer Rights Act. They basically cover only delays and cancellations, not quality of service, passenger assistance, on-board wi-fi, which gets more and more important, and cleanliness. In fact, they do not cover what the Minister referred to in the rest of the Act: whether the service could be said to be fit for purpose.
Although there are some improvements under the national rail conditions of carriage regulations, in that there is now provision for cash compensation rather than just a rail voucher—which is no use at all if you do not want to go back to where you have been—that compensation is still essentially limited to delays, not those wider issues. We obviously want the Consumer Rights Act to apply to passengers.
The Government had initially reassured the Committee in the Commons that the national rail conditions would be excluded only when they offer equivalent protection to that in the Bill—which is not currently the case. At that point, we were reassured that there was to be no undercutting of what is now the Act. However, the letter from the Minister in the Commons worries us slightly. We know that even with the present level of protection, which is not as good as the CRA, the Office of the Rail Regulator found that more than three-quarters of rail passengers know not very much or nothing at all about their rights to a refund or compensation when trains are delayed or cancelled.
We believe it is vital that the travelling public get the full rights under the Act. Given that the Conservative manifesto pledged,
“to improve compensation arrangements for passengers”,
will the Minister confirm that there is no intention to provide lesser rights for passengers than those in the Bill to which I think she can quite proudly put her name? Will she also undertake that in that six-month pause Transport Focus and other consumer groups are fully consulted and that it will not be just the industry deciding what rights it will deign to give its customers?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Taylor, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for their intelligent contributions to today’s debate. On the subject of beards, two of my sons have grown beards this summer. Of course, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on her birthday. We will not sing “Happy Birthday” to her because I think it would be against the rules of this distinguished place. I also thank her for her kind words about the product safety work that we are doing and about the chair. I will of course pass on her comments.
I shall start with transport. I reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that there was no conspiracy in relation to the transport provisions. Our concern is about the interaction between the existing provisions, to which the noble Baroness referred, and the new provisions in the Act. The delay in the order until April next year will allow us to consult widely and we feel that it would be wrong to pre-empt that consultation. The scope of any exemption will be limited and will relate only to the ability to limit liability to less than the ticket price. All other protections under the Act will apply. The consultation will involve both business and consumer groups. Of course I undertake to pass on the points that the noble Baroness has made during this debate to ensure that my colleagues doing this work in the Department for Transport are well aware of noble Lords’ concerns.
As my noble friend Lord Moynihan helpfully said, the provisions are complementary and supplementary to what we did in the Act and to the investigation powers that are already in place. I think that his question was, “Do both orders affect secondary ticketing?”. My answer to that is yes, so, as he says, that is helpful. However, I emphasise that the main provisions have already come in, including those relating to the investigatory powers. We remain committed to these and to the review, whose object is to make sure that the market works properly. The terms of reference have still to be finalised once the chair can confirm that the ideas that have been put forward are in the right place. I hope that that gives some reassurance. On enforcement, in the mean time consumers who have problems should contact Citizens Advice, which will pass information to trading standards for enforcement. Individuals can also challenge in court terms that they believe to be unfair. Therefore, the provisions are fully in force and there is no reason for anyone in the market not to comply with them. Doing so could attract a financial penalty.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It would be interesting to know who has been consulted on the terms of reference. Certainly we have not seen any draft terms of reference. Again, I trust that it is not just the secondary ticketing people who have been consulted.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. I think that before the election we sent an outline to some of the noble Lords who have been involved in the debate. If those did not come their way, I will make sure that they do. As I am sure noble Lords agree, it will be important that the chair looks at the terms of reference, but a working document was prepared and I can certainly arrange for your Lordships to receive it. We have been making progress in establishing the terms of reference so that we are ready to roll.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it has been important to find an appropriately skilled chair and, obviously, the necessary support, on which I think there is more detail to follow. I can confirm that the review will report to both Secretaries of State. As I said, we expect an announcement soon. The review will take evidence from the Rugby World Cup, as it should do, and we remain confident—this is perhaps the most important point—that it will report on time. As my noble friend explained, there is a time-limited window. We have legislated already and we will be responding to the concerns that have been expressed particularly vociferously in this House and elsewhere.
On the CMA, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said that this was history. However, the CMA, which is an independent organisation, will be contributing to the expert group, will provide evidence for the review, and consider its conclusions alongside the Government and other enforcers when considering action in this sector.
Lord Moynihan
I am grateful to my noble friend for that comment because that is the first time we have heard formally that there will be an expert group supporting the chair of the review. Can she take on board—I do not expect her to respond today—and come back later to confirm that the expert group reflects the key interested parties? That means that the arts promoters and event promoters, who have been particularly concerned for many years about abuse within the secondary market, as well as the leading spectator sports that are keenly interested in this issue, will be represented on the expert group.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
To continue that point, it would be helpful to know how this is to be shaped and organised. I agree that there is a lot of expertise out there but it has not always been brought in. It would be useful if we could be reassured that the range of representation on the expert group will be sufficient to make sure that all the points are picked up.
I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said about the CMA. It is perfectly appropriate for it to carry on its work independently. However, it is the lack of transparency about where it is in the game that causes us the most concern. We were completely unaware that negotiations were taking place between the CMA, or its predecessor body—probably the OFT—and the secondary ticket market. That meant that everything we thought we were hearing needed to be refocused because it was untrammelled by other people’s considerations. The point that I was trying to make was, without in any sense trespassing on the independence of the CMA, it would have been helpful to know whether a programme of work was going on at the same time. The fact that the CMA will be an adviser to the expert group, which presumably will report to the Secretary of State, will make matters a lot easier. I suspect that that is where the matter should lie but I should like confirmation from the Minister.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am grateful for those helpful interventions. We are nearly there. I will reflect on the point about lack of transparency and pass it on to the CMA. I will take away the points that noble Lords have made about the expert group. There is not a lot extra that I can say today but we will make an announcement soon and bear in mind the helpful contributions that have been made.
I shall move on to trading standards. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about the review. It was announced as part of the productivity plan published by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in July. Noble Lords will remember that the plan called for more open and fair markets. Following the Raine review, we have said that we are reviewing trading standards’ ability to deliver the Government’s aims. We aim to make recommendations for a more efficient and effective trading standards service, which will ensure suitable consumer protection in an efficient and financially sustainable way so that business has confidence to invest and grow. That is the link with the productivity envelope and the context in which the review was published. We will not be carrying out a formal consultation but would welcome views from public bodies that rely on trading standards to deliver enforcement, as well as from consumer and business representatives, and local service providers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, to inform our review. The review will report in the autumn, working alongside the LGA.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked supplementary questions about the ADR directive, in particular about when it will fully be in force and how much of the consumer market will be covered. The ADR will be fully implemented on 1 October as a result of these various provisions.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I agree with him. The answer is that we do not believe that that is the right approach because there are lots of existing ombudsmen who are experts in their area.
Lord Taylor of Warwick
The problem is that there are several ombudsmen and they all have different procedures.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That is a fair point, which we ought to reflect on. We have been impressed by the way that the private sector has responded to the ADR directive. An increasing number of ADR providers are entering the market, which will be good for business and for consumers. That will increase choice and drive down the costs of ADR.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It will increase choice only for the provider. The consumer will not be able to choose which ADR provider to go to.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Baroness for making that point. I will reflect on it and come back to her, and to my noble friend Lord Taylor on the general point on ADR. He made a point about how we can align processes so that it is easier for the consumer, a point that I note.
We have had an interesting and helpful debate. I conclude by commending the two orders to the Committee.
Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2015
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the Grand Committee do consider the Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
House of Lords
Deaths and Retirements of Members
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the deaths on 30 August of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, on 31 August of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, and on 4 September of the noble Lord, Lord Moser. On behalf of the House, I extend our sincere condolences to the noble Lords’ families and friends.
I should also like to notify the House of the retirements, with effect from 23 July, of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and, with effect from 30 July, of the noble Lord, Lord Simpson of Dunkeld, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lords for their much-valued services to the House.
I should also like to notify the House of the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, with effect from 30 July.
Debt Management Advice
Lord Sharkey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the thematic review Quality of Debt Management Advice published by the Financial Conduct Authority in June 2015.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the Government are very concerned about the problems in the debt management market, including the quality of advice, which was highlighted by the Financial Conduct Authority’s thematic review. This is why we reformed debt management regulation, transforming responsibility to the FCA’s more robust regime to better protect consumers. Debt management firms are currently going through the FCA authorisation process. Firms that do not meet the FCA’s threshold conditions will not be able to continue in the market.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, the Government are right to be concerned. The fact is that the FCA found that a staggering 60% of fee-charging debt advice cases posed a high risk of harm. The requirement to disclose the availability of free debt advice at first contact was often not done or was rushed, not impartial or not sufficiently prominent. It is not even clear whether cold-calling lead generators are obliged to disclose the availability of free debt advice at all. Cold-calling lead generation is banned for mortgages. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss banning it for debt advice as well?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, although lead generators are independent and not regulated, the FCA requires debt management firms accepting leads from lead generators to satisfy themselves that the business has been procured fairly and in accordance with data protection privacy in electronic communication laws. The FCA is going through the authorisation process at the moment, as I said, and that is one of the things that will be taken into account. It has to ensure that the lead generators do things such as signpost to consumers the availability of free debt advice. The FCA has committed to undertake a review of its rules on unsolicited marketing calls, emails and text messages from consumer credit firms. Lastly, of course I am always pleased to meet the noble Lord.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the House will remember that the Government dithered on tackling the abuses by payday lenders until the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon—the Minister in the Lords at the time—took personal action and drove the change. Will Ministers today consider doing the same, because cold calling is making victims of vulnerable people on a daily basis?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
As I just said to the House, the FCA is looking at this. We are not in a position to instruct the FCA on what to do, but there are actions that can be taken on unsolicited calls that I can go into if noble Lords want.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, on the broader issues of debt, will the Minister confirm that household debt is on course to reach a new level of 183% of GDP by 2020? That is above any level that it reached under 13 years of the last Labour Administration. Is it not clear that this faltering economic recovery that the Chancellor boasts about is being backed by household debt, with serious consequences in the longer run for the economy and for all households?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has decided not to mention that household debt as a proportion of income has fallen to 145% in Q1 of 2015—down from a peak of 169% in 2008 under the Labour Government. We accept the forecast that household debt will rise by 2020, but this is driven by households investing in financial and housing assets. At the moment, three-quarters of debt is secured by property.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, given that the FCA report discovered that not-for-profit organisations were better at giving impartial debt advice, will the Minister tell us what plans Her Majesty’s Government have to ensure that those organisations have sufficient funding to be able to offer that service to the 8.8 million people in the UK who are in need of debt management advice?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The Government have increased funding to the management advice service to £47 million —an increase of nearly 23%—this year. We also accept that there is a position for fee-paying debt advice, but it has to be regulated properly and to treat consumers fairly. That is what the FCA is in the process of doing. The authorisation process will make some decisions on those individual firms by the end of this year. I should mention that the FCA’s thematic review took a sample of eight firms out of approximately 200.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, picking up on the Minister’s reference to quality, have the Government formed an assessment of how debt advice from the Money Advice Service compares, in quality and amount, with what was previously available under legal aid?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I cannot tell the noble Lord that, but I will write to him on the subject.
House of Lords: Membership
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rennard
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to limit the size of the membership of the House of Lords.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, our manifesto recognised that the House cannot keep growing indefinitely, but we must refresh our expertise and experience. My first priority is promoting the purpose of the House and enhancing our accountability to inform our individual responsibility as Members. I also intend to make every effort to build cross-party support in finding the right solution to addressing the size of the House.
Lord Rennard (LD)
Does the Leader of House agree that there should be a moratorium on further appointments to this House until sensible measures are agreed to reduce its size and that seeking consensus through a constitutional convention, involving all parties, is the best way forward for reform of this House in the long run?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I find it a little surprising that the noble Lord suggests—particularly from his Benches—that there should be a moratorium on appointments to this House. It is very important that we continue to refresh the membership of the House, and the new Peers who will be joining us over the next few weeks will add greatly to the work it does. I do not agree with the way forward proposed by the noble Lord: radical reform was tried in the last Parliament. We stood on a clear manifesto and I am now looking forward to talks with other party leaders, informed by things like the debate on this topic scheduled by my noble friend the Chief Whip for next week.
Baroness Trumpington (Con)
My Lords, the Question is very similar to one I already have down on the Order Paper. I am looking for brevity and accuracy. The brevity applies to the Minister as much as it does to the questioner. Can the Minister, as well as those who are asking questions, be more brief in future?
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
Does the policy which the Government outlined in the last Parliament—having membership of this House in proportion to the popular vote in the country—stand? If so, does this imply a moratorium on any particular group?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord points to something which was in the coalition agreement. We are no longer in coalition; this is a Conservative Government and we therefore stand by what was in the Conservative manifesto. I have already made clear my view on the size of the House. The noble Lord directs an interesting point to the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, could not the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and his colleagues lead by example? Believing, as they do, in proportional representation, and having just been inflated into the most unrepresentative party in this House, if he and 40 of his colleagues took retirement, under the advantages of the 2014 Act, then the problem would at least begin to be addressed.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My noble friend is using me as a channel to ask questions to the Liberal Democrat Benches. He is quite right that we are all responsible for the effectiveness of this House and making sure that that happens.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House to act as a channel to the Prime Minister from this House, initially to tell us whether he was accurately reported when it was implied, at least, that he felt that the political majority in the Commons should in one way or another be reflected as a political majority in the Lords. If that is the case, will she ask him to reflect on the fact that in 1997 when the Labour Party had a majority of some 170 in the House of Commons, it was in a significant minority in the Lords; ditto in 2001 after the 2001 election; and ditto after the 2005 election? It was not until 2006 that the Labour Party became the biggest single group in the House of Lords, which was quickly reversed of course by the coalition after 2010? Will she at least make sure that the Prime Minister is aware of those facts?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I can certainly reassure the House that the Prime Minister is not seeking in any way to make a government majority in this House. We recognise that the importance of this House is that it holds the Government to account and that the party in government should not be in a majority. The House should also understand that, even after the introduction of the new Peers announced the week before last, the Government still face a combined opposition of 80 Peers, which is twice the size faced by the last Labour Government when they were in power.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Will my noble friend clarify the position in respect of the appointments of new Peers who are also special advisers to the Government and, in particular, whether it is correct that they will be appointed to this place but not able to speak? That surely would make a nonsense of the importance of the role played by Peers on both sides of the House.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
There is a convention that if a new Peer is a special adviser, they will be able to participate in the Division Lobbies but not contribute to debates. We do not necessarily know what decisions those individual special advisers will make as far as when they will make changes that will allow them to make a contribution, such as the most recent special adviser to join your Lordships’ House, my noble friend Lady Helic, who I am sure all noble Lords will feel has been a very welcome addition to our ranks.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, given that there are now many more people who favour the total abolition of your Lordships’ House than support its retention on an appointments basis, do the Government recognise just what a dangerous game they are playing by resisting all serious democratic reform? Do the Government also recognise that the previous Government succeeded in getting a Bill through Second Reading in the House of Commons with a very large majority? Does the Leader of the House think that the Prime Minister, who says that he regrets the lack of progress of that Bill, has the guts now to reintroduce it?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord and I had exchanges on this matter only recently just before the Recess, when I reminded him that the Bill to which he refers did not succeed in leaving the House of Commons. In our manifesto, we made it clear that that is not a priority for this Parliament. We see it as a priority to address the size of the House, and that is where we will focus our energies
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will have heard the views expressed from across your Lordships’ House about size. I have to say that it is not enough to suggest, as she did in her recent article, that Peers should turn up less often. If we are effectively to address this matter, which we believe we should, it cannot be against a backdrop of more and more appointments. This Prime Minister has appointed more Peers per year than any other Prime Minister, with a greater proportion of Peers to the government Benches and fewer Opposition and Cross-Bench Peers. What discussions has the noble Baroness had with the Prime Minister on this issue? Did they discuss the constitutional convention? Does he recognise that if meaningful change is to be made, he cannot continue with the scale and number of his appointments?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Baroness knows my party’s position on a constitutional convention. We do not feel that that is a priority at this time. For me, as Leader of the House, it is important that we are an effective Chamber and that we make a very important contribution to the legislative process. It is right to focus on attendance rather than absolute numbers because the average rate of attendance is under 500. As effective Peers, we make our contributions when our experience and expertise are relevant to the matter at hand.
Disabled Children: Sexual Exploitation
Baroness Benjamin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect children with learning difficulties and disabilities from sexual exploitation.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest as a vice-president of Barnardo’s.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s report, Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation, sets out the steps that the Government are taking to protect children from sexual exploitation, including children with learning difficulties and disabilities. For example, we are exploring how personal, social, health and economic education training and resources for schools might be tailored for staff and special schools, and have provided £4.85 million for services supporting child sexual abuse survivors, including vulnerable children with learning difficulties.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. This week the report “Unprotected, Overprotected”, by Barnardo’s and other organisations, concludes that children with learning difficulties are particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation. The Rochdale serious case review showed that five out of six children who were sexually exploited over a long period had learning difficulties and disabilities. What action have the Government taken to improve the support for this group of children, who often miss out on the information and advice they need to keep safe? Will they issue new guidelines on how sex and relationship education should be taught to vulnerable young people who suffer from learning disabilities? I hope they will show that they take this case really seriously.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, there are few things that we take more seriously. Existing guidance and training for safeguarding professionals includes reference to the particular vulnerability of children with learning difficulties and disabilities. We are currently revising the 2009 Safeguarding children and young people from sexual exploitation guidance, and we will strengthen it so that professionals are better equipped to support children who are particularly vulnerable to CSE, including those with learning difficulties and disabilities. As I mentioned in my earlier Answer, we are considering how PSHE materials might be best adapted and used by staff in special schools. This Thursday my honourable friend the Home Office Minister Karen Bradley will be speaking at the event hosted by Barnardo’s in connection with the report mentioned by the noble Baroness—I pay tribute to Barnardo’s for its work in this field—and she will reiterate the Government’s commitment to supporting vulnerable children.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I commend the Government for the work they are doing in education, but education alone will not improve the welfare of children. I would like the Minister to say something about what he is doing to support social workers, the people in the front line of this work, who have to pick up such cases and take them forward.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, it is true that this problem is a multidisciplinary one, and involves not only social workers but the police, teachers and the health service. We are trying to co-ordinate that across the piece, and the Prime Minister has appointed a task force chaired by Nicky Morgan, who is going to take the whole issue of child protection and try to bring to bear the necessary government resources, including social workers. That will continue to be a high priority.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest, in that I have an adult son with autism. In the light of the Barnardo’s report, what is the Minister doing to make sure that all educational institutions ensure that independent advocates are available, particularly to those with learning difficulties, when a child or a parent reports sexual abuse? In my experience there are still serious shortfalls in many of our institutions.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The noble Baroness has highlighted a particular instance. The training is constantly being reviewed, and that could of course be taken into account: the ministerial task force will also take such things into account. For example, the Ministry of Justice has just recruited 100 more registered intermediaries to help especially vulnerable children and witnesses go through the criminal justice process, which is a difficult but necessary part of dealing with this problem.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of Mencap on a UK-level and in Wales. Are the Government giving any attention to the possible need for an augmented level of punishment for those guilty of such crimes against people with learning disabilities?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I did not quite catch what kind of punishment the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I have no knowledge of that and have not been told anything, but I will find out about it.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough
My Lords, given that abused children often do not show symptoms for some years, and that children with learning disabilities tend to show symptoms in different ways that are not as easily recognised, does the Minister agree that all children who are subject to sexual harm prevention orders or sexual risk orders should receive assessment of their needs and therapeutic support even before signs or symptoms are shown?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That is a very sensible suggestion. These symptoms take time to manifest themselves. However, we realise that people with special needs have needs which go on beyond the conventional age of adulthood. The relevant statutory guidance for young people with special educational needs and disabilities extends to the age of 25.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, will the noble Lord reflect on the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and tell us what impact he thinks cuts to local authorities will have on the services that are necessary to link up the various agencies helping with child protection that he mentioned?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
As I said, this is one of the Government’s highest priorities. Across the piece, we are spending more money on social services and the police to deal with this problem, so I do not expect a difficult situation to arise. I could give a list of additional money that we have spent in this area; it is one of our highest priorities.
Airports Commission
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spicer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the cost of the Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, including the costs of commissioning and analysing the commission’s final report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, up until the end of August 2015, the cost of the Airports Commission is around £13.4 million across 2012-13 to 2015-16. This covers buildings, staff and IT costs, consultancy, publishing, travel and hosting public consultation events. The final cost will be known once the commission secretariat has been dissolved, following which we intend to publish the final figures. We do not hold estimates of the cost of commissioning or reviewing the findings and conclusions of the Airport Commission’s report.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, would it not therefore be a terrible waste of money if the Government were to reject the unanimous advice of the commission to go ahead with developing Heathrow through a third runway in such a way as to make it again the No. 1 international airport in the world, which it certainly was when I was Minister for Aviation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend makes a very valid point about the detailed work done by the Airports Commission. I again put on record our thanks to Sir Howard Davies and his fellow commissioners for their work. As I said before the Recess, the Government have received the report. As my noble friend will be aware, the Prime Minister has established a Cabinet sub-committee on this issue and will announce the way forward by the end of this year.
Lord Soley (Lab)
Will the announcement be made before the end of the year, and if not, why not?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear to the Leader of the Opposition in the other place that the decision will be made and will be made by the end of the year.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, is it the Government’s view that the Davies commission’s remit gives sufficient consideration to the impact of a third runway on the Government’s plans for a northern powerhouse? Are the Government convinced that the development of Heathrow will not have an adverse impact on, for instance, Birmingham and Manchester Airports?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The Government believe very strongly in the regional airport network. As I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, Manchester announced earlier this year—at the beginning of the summer in June—a £1 billion investment over the next 10 years. Indeed, we have seen further investment in, for example, road surface improvements around Birmingham, Bristol and Doncaster Airports, so various investments are being made which will reinforce the northern powerhouse.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, Sir Howard Davies and his commission have put a lot of work into coming up with their recommendation, which has been decided as the one to go forward with. Why do the Government now have to appoint another sub-committee and take even more time? There is probably need for expansion of both Heathrow and Gatwick, but let us get on with Heathrow because it is affecting our competitiveness as a nation. Could the Minister assure us that this is going to be taken quickly and it will be established and put in place really fast?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord is quite right. I agree with him that this has been a detailed report, which the previous Government, under the current Prime Minister, commissioned in 2012. The report has been received, and I am sure the noble Lord would agree with me that it is time now to give the detailed report considered opinion. It is quite right that there should be a sub-committee of the Cabinet to take this decision forward. I reiterate the point that the Prime Minister has made quite clear: a decision will be made by the end of the year.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister recall that I spent the first two years of the last Parliament dodging this very issue? The reason was the helpful policy input from the Liberal Democrat party. Does the Minister recognise that the Government really will have to make a decision on this matter this year?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I would never accuse my noble friend of dodging anything. If he did so that was his assessment; I thought he handled questions in this respect very ably from the Dispatch Box. I reiterate that the Government—and indeed the Prime Minister—have made it clear that a decision will be made and it will be made by the end of the year.
Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)
Whatever option is pursued, is it not clear that the cost will be enormous? Is not the real issue this: how best and how quickly we can advance British aviation in the best possible way? Surely it is apparent that there is only one answer and it is becoming blindingly obvious—Heathrow.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Again, I feel I am repeating myself. The Government have made their position very clear. The report has been received, it is being considered and a decision will be made. Of course the Government recognise the importance of Heathrow as well as other airports around the country. We continue to regard the importance of aviation in developing, furthering and strengthening the British economy.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, presumably the Secretary of State for Transport from time to time considered the issue of Heathrow and answered one or two questions on it in the other place. It is inconceivable that the Government are acting as if they are in total ignorance of the main features of what the report has been considering. I cannot understand—nor can the House, I believe—the additional delay in either endorsing that conclusion or saying that, in fact, the Government had an alternative strategy all along.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
There is no dithering. Let us be quite clear here: it was the previous Government under the current Prime Minister, the same Prime Minister, who commissioned the report. The report was commissioned in 2012. The findings were received—very detailed analysis I am sure the noble Lord recognises—and there were 70,000 responses contained within the commission’s report. Therefore, it is quite right that a considered opinion is given to the commission’s recommendations, and that decision will be made not in due course, as I say again, but as the Prime Minister—the head of the Government—has made clear, by the end of this year, that is 2015.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister would make an educated guess—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
Order. It is actually the turn of the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, in making the decision on Heathrow or Gatwick, depending on which it is, will the Government publish after the decision the considerations of the legal delays that might occur depending on which decision is taken? It would seem to me that the advocates of Heathrow should surely want for the first spades to start the construction work as soon as possible. However, Gatwick seems more plausible in terms of fewer political and legal interventions.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The Government have already made clear that they wish to proceed on whatever option is pursued on a speedy basis. That is why we set up the commission report in the first place and the Government have made clear that they will take a decision. In terms of the proposal about legal issues or whatever, it would be speculative for me to comment on those on this occasion because that decision has yet to be taken.
Chairman of Committees
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That Lord Laming be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees for the remainder of this Session.
Energy Bill [HL]
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly before the House commences Committee to raise a very serious objection and concern that relates to the Bill. At present we do not have the impact assessment for the Bill, which we were promised before our deliberations began, and they begin now. I would like to hear from the Minister why this delay has happened—in fact, why the Bill was not published with an impact assessment in the first place. I also seek assurances that when the impact assessment is published, it will contain full details of the assumptions on which the Bill is based. Namely, there is the Government’s continued assertion that we are on track to meet our renewables targets, which relates to Part 4. That is incredibly important and sensitive, since we have had many representations from industry about the impact of the Bill. It should be recalled that those elements of the Bill were not subject to public consultation, so the impact assessment is incredibly important for us to be able to consider the impact of the Bill. The other assumption that the Government now seem often to quote is that the levy control framework is spent and there is no more money left. We need to see details of those assumptions and the figures that underlie them but we do not have an impact assessment. I am very concerned about this issue and I look forward to a response from the Minister.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of my noble friend Lady Worthington because this is not just an isolated example of the Government treating this House, and Parliament, in a cavalier fashion. If I may give another example, next week we were due to have a debate on English votes for English laws. It was promised again and again by the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell—I notice that she has disappeared—yet it has been switched. We are to have a debate on the size of the House, which is not an immediately urgent matter, yet the Commons will make a decision at some point about English votes for English laws and we were given the assurance that we would be able to feed into that. My understanding—I hope that the Chief Whip will answer this—is that the decision to move the debate on English votes for English laws off the agenda for next week was taken unilaterally by the Government and that when the Opposition were consulted, we said that we did not want to change. We wanted to have the English votes for English laws debate because it was promised to this House. That is another example of the cavalier way in which the Government treat this House, wanting to bulldoze their business through. It is about time that some people in this House stood up and said that Parliament has a responsibility to challenge the Government. The Leader of the House may think that we should come in only one day a week when we want to say a few words but we are here to hold the Government to account.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
The noble Lord has asked that I say something about the decision to change the agenda for the coming two weeks to allow the House to discuss the whole business of its membership. I think the House is acutely conscious of the issues raised in the media and by other noble Lords. I felt it was right and proper, as did the Leader of the House, that we should have an opportunity to debate this while we are here. As the noble Lord will know, we had promised a debate on EVEL. He made a point about that. Subsequently, this House decided to support very strongly a Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider this matter. There has been no reply to this Motion from the House of Commons and, in the absence of a reply, if I am honest, there is not much that the Government could say in this House on this issue at this time.
I felt it was proper that we should deal with something of immediate concern to this House. That is why the Leader informed all sides of the House. There were consultations and there were reservations about changing business, but nobody does this freely or without proper consideration of what is right and proper. I am sure all noble Lords are pleased that we will have the opportunity to debate in full the future of this House and its future reform in terms of the Motion tabled by the Government and the Motions of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and the noble Lord, Lord Steel, which will be debated at the same time next Tuesday.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may address the points raised quite fairly by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, in relation to the Energy Bill and the impact assessment. I had anticipated that we would have an impact assessment on the Bill by this stage, to be published ahead of Committee. I have been chasing the matter through the Recess, including this morning. I heard just before I came in that it has now been cleared on the Oil and Gas Authority. We have instructed that it be separated because the issue that caused the delay was the dialogue about the grace period on wind. No later than tomorrow, we will publish the impact assessment, which the noble Baroness has rightly been chasing. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness.
Baroness Worthington
“( ) The Secretary of State shall, within one year from the date of coming into force of this section, undertake an assessment of the fitness for purpose of the OGA’s powers in relation to relevant activities, and shall lay before each House of Parliament a report of the findings.”
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and for chasing the impact assessment. Can I take it that the full impact assessment will be published tomorrow, or will it be just the oil and gas part? Perhaps he could clarify that point for me.
Looking at Clause 2, our Amendment 1 is essentially a probing amendment but it is intended to enable us to debate this part of the Bill. At Second Reading, several noble Lords raised the fact that things are changing fast in the North Sea and in the oil and gas sector more generally. We have an undertaking to implement the findings of the Wood review and I am sure the cross-party consensus on that remains strong. However, the Wood review was published in June 2013. Here we are in September 2015 and the pace of change since that date has been quite remarkable.
We are seeing a steady decline in North Sea production. Outputs of oil and gas are already around 40% lower than in 2010 and lower than at any time since 1977. The first quarter of this year marked the seventh consecutive month in which the UK has been a net importer of petroleum, after having been a net exporter since 1984. The figures for 2014 show that the oil and gas sector as a whole lost £5.2 billion—its worst figure since the 1970s—and total revenues were lower than at any time since 1998 at £24 billion. I quote these figures, which were sourced from DECC’s own analysis, to highlight how things are changing in this sector and in the North Sea specifically.
The other new element is that decommissioning is now a reality and is starting to incur costs. There was a feeling a few years ago that decommissioning was the beginning of the end. Now it is being seen as the beginning of a new industry and there is considerable decommissioning activity going on, not least because many of these assets have been in place for decades, perhaps well beyond their imagined timespan. They are therefore reaching the end of their usable lives, even if we wished to keep using them. The purpose of the amendment, then, is to ask for a report to Parliament on the fitness of the powers now being created for the OGA. We have suggested that it should be produced within six months but we do not have a fixed view; a year would be equally fine. However, we must make sure that we set off on the creation of this new quango or arm’s-length body with the right set of objectives.
We will debate amendments later today where we will talk more about the need to update the objectives, particularly in relation to the storage and transportation of waste greenhouse gases. It seems clear that, as we look at the implications of climate change, which are now uncontested—I think it is settled that we need to decarbonise our energy systems—that will change the economics of all fossil fuel activity. If we are to meet our targets, either we will be forced to decarbonise our use of fossil fuels using CCS or we will see a drastic reduction in the demand for those products. Either of those has significant implications for the UK economy and for the oil and gas sector, hence the desire to table an amendment that enables us to have this debate and to require that the OGA be kept up to date with the most recent developments in this sector.
As I have said, oil and gas prices have fallen and there seems to be no sign of their coming back up again any time soon—of course these prices fluctuate but this now seems to be a systemic drop—so we must have a body with the right remit and objectives to do the job of making sure that, while we maximise the economic return from the North Sea, we accept that this may not be solely through the recovery of hydrocarbons but might, of necessity, require a completely new industry that not only extracts hydrocarbons but returns the waste gases to under the sea. We are blessed with a natural repository for many billions of tonnes of waste greenhouse gases, which I am certain we will need if we want to keep the costs of decarbonisation under control and ensure that we are decarbonising cost-effectively.
I shall speak also to Amendment 3 in this group. Amendment 1 requires a report to be made on the fitness of purpose of these powers, but Amendment 3 is more specific and seeks to change the primary objectives of the OGA to include CO2 transportation and storage. It would negate the need for many of the subsequent amendments that we will talk about today because it would bring about a high-level change which would mean that we would not have to catch lots of subsequent clauses and add references to CCS and storage and transportation to the powers being taken here. Many amendments that we will come to today relate to how, as drafted, there is reference back to the principal objective of the Bill and the fact that currently that principal objective does not include the transportation and storage of CO2. Therefore, many of the amendments are trying to reinsert it. We could take another approach, such as the one set out in Amendment 3, which is simply to change the primary objective. There is merit in our discussing that, particularly as CCS offers a lifeline for the future development of hydrocarbon use in the UK by being able largely to decarbonise our use of those fuels.
CCS is essential in that it will enable us to keep using hydrocarbons but, as I alluded to earlier, it is equally important to keeping the costs of decarbonisation contained. At the global level, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that if we do not have CCS on a global scale, we are likely to see the costs of decarbonisation being double what they would be otherwise, while in the UK the Energy Technologies Institute has estimated that without CCS, by 2050 the costs of decarbonising to reach our targets could be in the order of £40 billion to £50 billion a year more than if CCS is deployed.
This is an important and timely subject. We are seeing projects in the UK moving forward to deployment to enable us to make use of the North Sea. I am sure that the OGA will say, “We would rather have our remit nice and narrow; please leave us alone”. That is fine, but we are moving to a time when the social contract between the citizens and taxpayers of the UK and the offshore oil and gas operators is changing. The oil and gas industry largely used to get on with what it was doing—delivering us rather nice, large sources of tax revenue—and everyone was happy. That is shifting. The revenues are falling, as we have seen in recent years, decommissioning costs are rising and the OGA itself, as we will come to debate later this afternoon, will potentially receive public funding to go about its business. This is no longer purely a commercially focused sector and it requires government to intervene to help it. It has the opportunity to receive public funding—the oil and gas operators already receive generous tax breaks that enable them to offset their decommissioning costs. The social licence between us, the citizens of the UK, and the offshore oil and gas operators is shifting. We need to make sure that the OGA reflects that change of balance and takes on a role fit for the 21st century.
We should always consider very carefully when we create new public sector costs. The Government have pointed out on numerous occasions that we are living through a time of austerity, and it seems a bit strange that we should be creating a new area of public spending here without requiring this to be a comprehensive body that takes into account a whole range of views and issues and keeps pace with current events. As good as it was, the Wood review—which I am sure will continue to receive cross-Bench support—is over two years old, and two years has been shown to be quite a long time in the oil and gas sector, hence the need for these two amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I beg to move.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I will say a few words in support of the spirit, at any rate, of this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. I declare an interest as chairman of the Windsor Energy Group, adviser to various energy companies, as in the register, and president of the Energy Industries Council. As the noble Baroness has rightly said, this is a sensible requirement for the future because, as she has also said, the North Sea is a mature province and the industry is clearly undergoing huge change—probably the biggest period of change since the 1970s and early 1980s. Most of the talk in the industry at the moment is about the impact of the halving of the oil price. Even in this morning’s papers, we see some pronouncements by experts on the possibility of whole areas of the North Sea shutting down unless completely new arrangements and management structures can be devised to cope with the new situation.
Obviously, behind this lies the question of whether the price will stay down. My own view is that, barring high-impact events like huge new political upheavals beyond the ones we already have in the Middle East, there will be no obvious bounceback in the price for a very long time. People talk as though the OPEC countries had some choice of policy—they could just cut production and the price would go up. Well of course that would not happen. They have lost control of the price. Russia has no intention of co-operating, and the shale industry in America, although there have been a few bankruptcies, will come back again and increase production as soon as the price rises. So the OPEC countries would gain nothing. Iran of course may be coming on stream as well. All this means that the industry in the North Sea is now facing a period when, on the supply side, there will be a lot more oil. On the demand side, there will probably be rather flat demand, whether from China, from Japan—which is going back to nuclear so will not need so much—or, indeed, from the United States or us, where the demand for oil is flat or even falling.
This is a completely new management challenge. We must have some reassurance, at least in a year’s time but preferably from the start, that the new regulatory authority—the OGA, with its expanded powers into a separate agency, as is now proposed—has the facilities, opportunities and abilities to manage completely new requirements. We have to see a province that is going to adapt to low prices, that develops completely new opportunities and new technologies, not unrelated to the points made by the noble Baroness about the possible disposal of carbon dioxide through CCS techniques, and that learns from other countries. Norway in particular may have a lesson or two for us on how to maintain a mature province and develop new opportunities at sea.
Lord Oxburgh (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 7, 22 and 23 in this group. The main purpose of the Bill is the more efficient and effective management of the remaining resources in the North Sea, and it seems sensibly directed towards that end. However, it is important to remember, as others have touched on, that the Bill has enormous implications for the fledgling CCS industry. CCS is able to use the same infrastructure that was used for production and the same subsurface analysis, and it is important that it has access to those.
Before I go any further I should declare an interest as president of the Carbon Capture & Storage Association. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that I helped to establish this association around 10 years ago, just as I retired from Shell, because I saw no alternative to CCS—no other way of managing the emissions that were going to be produced by the continuing use of hydrocarbons over the coming decades, and avoiding the damaging climate change associated with those, unless we had something like CCS. For that reason, it is important that we bear this in mind today.
I hope that the Government will regard the amendments as helpful; they are certainly intended to be. Their main aim is to ensure that CCS is not inadvertently inhibited or prevented through the application of regulations and procedures that were not designed for those purposes. The Bill is based around the pre-existing Energy Act, by which CCS was not envisaged.
Amendment 7 is designed to remind the OGA that, over time, its priorities may change. The OGA is primarily staffed by people whose backgrounds are in a variety of aspects of hydrocarbon exploration, production, management and regulation. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that CCS is not at the forefront of their thinking. It is quite important that this should be made clear, and that is what the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, does.
Amendments 22 and 23 are both intended to ensure that practitioners of CCS have the appropriate standing and access in order to operate efficiently and effectively when doing their business. It is apparent from the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and other noble Lords that this concern is fairly widely held. Had this debate not been held today there might have been much more opportunity for Members with such concerns to consult with each other, with officials and with Ministers and we might well have ended up with fewer and more coherent amendments. We are where we are, but this is a real concern.
Given that CCS is a central plank in the Government’s energy strategy I hope that they will view these amendments positively. The amendments can certainly be improved and if the same objectives can be achieved in a more efficient way, I and, I am sure, others would be very happy to discuss this matter with Ministers and officials.
My final point is a trivial one in one sense but not in another. The Bill refers in a number of places to existing legislation—earlier energy Bills. It would be enormously helpful if officials preparing Explanatory Notes, who must have immersed themselves in the existing legislation, were able to include links in the Explanatory Notes to the online sources where that existing legislation can be found. We could all save a great deal of time and probably quite a lot of paper by following such links directly.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, I will not delay the House long because what I wanted to say has been said much more eloquently by my noble friend Lady Worthington and by the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Oxburgh. To echo the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, giving us some indication of the reference points in previous energy legislation really would make life a lot easier for all of us.
My primary point is that this is an opportunity for some lateral thinking. For those of us who have been listening to the trailers for Jim Naughtie’s programme about the North Sea over a period of 40 to 50 years of exploration, it is astonishing to recognise the change that has taken place just in the past two to five years, or slightly longer. The major change has been that many of the larger oil companies have reduced their footprint in the North Sea and we have seen the entry of a number of independents. As the Wood report set out the case for setting up a regime of collaboration, it is important to bear in mind that for the independents, who are competitors one with another, it can be harder to get that degree of co-operation at the moment, when the North Sea is becoming more difficult. So would it not make sense to review where we are in a year’s time to make sure that we do not have to have yet another energy Bill before both Houses? The change is phenomenal, and we must be prepared for it at every opportunity.
I greatly admire the work of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, on carbon capture and storage. It is the holy grail for this country, which has so much fossil fuel. I am very concerned about the environmental impact of the continuing use of fossil fuels, but I am also concerned about security of supply issues. The flexibility that fossil fuels can give us when there is a potential security of supply crisis is very important, and we will take a lot of the sting out of the tail if we have operational carbon capture and storage.
This is not a political issue—it should not be a partisan issue across this House. This is a common-sense group of amendments that allows us a bit of lateral thinking and allows us to make legislation at a time when considerable change is still going on, not just in the UK continental shelf but across the energy industry.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Committee on Climate Change. I echo the words of the noble Baroness that this is not a party-political issue but is much wider than that.
As was clearly shown by my noble friend, we live at a time in which the issue of energy, in particular oil and gas, is changing so fast that we have to be extremely careful that we do not set up systems that are not capable of easing alteration to meet new circumstance. It may be that the major Amendment 1, which was proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, is not something that the Government will wish to be tied to; the particular time and so on might well be better expressed. However, I hope that the Government will take seriously the need to have within this legislation the means whereby this House can address the speed with which these things are changing and have the opportunity to make such alterations as become necessary—because we all know that however well one writes legislation, it is surprisingly easy to move to a situation in which you wonder why on earth you did not put that in, or why on earth that was not there.
Secondly, it would be very odd to produce legislation that did not allow specifically for the transportation and storage of greenhouse gases. This will not change in the future; it is central at the present time. The Committee on Climate Change has advised the Government of the importance and centrality of carbon capture and storage for many of the reasons that have already been addressed. However, the noble Baroness was right to say that there may well be an interim period in which we will need to use more fossil fuels than we would like, and the only way we can do that without having a damaging effect on the climate is of course by using carbon capture and storage. Britain has a leadership role in that and has already committed significant amounts of money to seek to ensure that we can do it. It would be simply odd to produce a Bill at this moment without enabling ourselves specifically to talk about carbon capture and storage.
Thirdly, it is important that this is in the Bill itself. I spent a long time as a Minister—some 16 years—and one thing I learned very rapidly was that it is very easy for institutions to say, “It’s nothing to do with us because it isn’t in the Act; that’s not where our responsibility lies”. I remember very nearly having a stand-up row with the person who was then responsible for the gas industry, because what should be done seemed so obvious, and she was determined to say that she could not do it because it was not in the Act. I thought that with a bit of imagination she would be able to do it, but that is a different issue. I do not want the need for imagination to be required here. It is one of the rarest talents and therefore it is a quite a good idea to make sure that we put into the Bill the ability—and also insist that it is part of the responsibility—of the new institution.
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches very much share the concerns voiced in all parts of the House today about this Bill. It may have two main parts—on the oil and gas industry, and onshore wind—but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, that we have been asked to deal with it in a very unsatisfactory way. We had Second Reading on the last day of Parliament before the summer recess, and here we are in Committee today. I find that quite difficult.
In addition, amendments were tabled in the middle of last week and we still do not have some of the information we need to look at the Bill properly in Committee—and it is not just me saying this. Other people may have big offices to help them, but the beauty of this House is that we have lots of Back-Benchers with expertise who would like to take part in debates such as this; if we treat Bills in this way, it is very difficult for them to take part. I feel particularly strongly about energy Bills. Some of us have dealt with several energy Bills in this House, and we often find that very few people take part. That is partly because such Bills are often technical and, if Back-Benchers are going to take part, they need time to look at what the amendments mean and to get advice on them. I hope the House authorities will look seriously at this issue. I can understand some of the reasons why this has happened, but the situation is very unsatisfactory.
As I said, we agree with many of the things that have been said today. In setting up the Oil and Gas Authority, the Government are proposing, as we heard at Second Reading, to give some of their powers to this body. The Oil and Gas Authority will have ownership of carbon dioxide storage licensing but the responsibility for policy and strategy is going to remain, as I understand it, with DECC. The problems associated with this were highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I understand from briefings I have received that DECC and the Oil and Gas Authority have been rather reluctant to consider applying the authority’s expertise to support future strategy development. I hope the Minister will tell us a little more about that. As the noble Lord said, the main reason seems to be that it is beyond the authority’s licensing remit. The problem is that if people do not think that something is within their remit, they do not think outside the box and they will not do anything else. The authority said that it was not very keen on that happening; it thinks that it is outside the scope of its remit and it is not willing to fund it. I hope the Minister will reassure us on this issue and that, as we scrutinise the Bill not just in Committee but on Report, we can deal with some of these matters. I have also received a rather interesting letter from Professor Stuart Haszeldine of the University of Edinburgh on how we might go forward, and perhaps there will be a chance to discuss that at a future date.
It seems to me and my colleagues on these Benches that there is a danger—I am not the only person to say this today—that the Bill might create institutional barriers to the development of carbon capture and storage. Other noble Lords have said today that that does not help us with the purpose of the Oil and Gas Authority, which is to make sure that we make the best of what is in the North Sea. I am sure that the Minister will try to respond to that.
Many of the amendments before us today cover these issues—as everybody has said, we have a whole series of amendments on the same area—and had we not been so rushed into considering the Bill, we might have been able to address them more logically. However, I hope that the Minister will sense the feeling of the Committee and be able to respond positively. I hope he will assure us that he and the department are considering these matters, so that we can put such concerns to rest and come forward with something a bit more sensible on Report.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, perhaps I may first pick up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington on the impact assessment. It is only by splitting the impact assessment between the parts of the Bill dealing with oil and gas, and those dealing with wind, that we are able to publish tomorrow the impact assessment relating to the Oil and Gas Authority. I will update the Committee on Wednesday on where we are on the wind issue and on the dialogue about grace periods.
I thank noble Lords for the amendments and for the non-partisan way in which points have been made. I do not think there is a material difference—certainly not from the speeches I have heard today—between the Government’s position on the importance of CCS and points made by noble Lords today. The best way forward might be if I go through where we stand at the moment in relation to the various amendments, and where we might be by Report.
My noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Howell, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington and Lady Liddell, and various others spoke about the non-partisan nature of getting it right on energy for this country and for the planet—that is a very useful way forward and we certainly have a shared interest in it.
Let me address the pot pourri of amendments in this group. On Amendment 1, I acknowledge that it is important that regulatory measures be kept under review and for Parliament to be informed of the outcome of such activities. I also acknowledge the point made about the rapid nature of change in this area and in many other areas.
The noble Baroness’s amendment would require a review to be undertaken within one year—rather than the six months that she mentioned; perhaps I misunderstood her—of the coming into force of Clause 2. Neither I nor the department think that such a period is sufficient to enable an effective review of the Oil and Gas Authority’s activities, it being a new body in a new area. For this reason, I am not able to accept the amendment. However, the noble Baroness and others have raised interesting and valid points about a review which my officials are already considering, and we will return to this topic on Report. I hope that that addresses the immediate concerns. It is clear that we need to see how the legislation is working, how effective it is and whether there may be a need for a touch on the tiller or more. I accept that there is some need to look at how the legislation is working.
I thank those noble Lords who spoke to Amendments 3 and 23, which are significant and would extend the maximising economic recovery principal objective and, in the case of Amendment 3, the subsequent strategy to include transportation and storage of carbon dioxide. I accept that CCS is central to what we are seeking to do on decarbonisation, but I reassure noble Lords that things are happening—it is not as though we are not doing anything on this issue. The Office of Carbon Capture and Storage is already committed to comprehensive programmes on CCS, perhaps the most comprehensive anywhere in the world, to support the commercialisation of the technology and develop the industry.
My noble friend Lord Howell mentioned Norway, which is indeed important. However, Canada—where it is working on a commercial basis—is especially important in this context. Officials from DECC are going out to look at this on a fairly regular and sustained basis.
It is not as though no work is happening on carbon capture and storage. We are committed to a competition with up to £1 billion capital—that is current, and we will make an announcement on it early in 2016—plus operational support for large carbon capture and storage projects and a £125 million research and development and innovation programme. That is already happening.
I accept that we need to ensure that this dovetails with the work done by the Oil and Gas Authority. From my study of it, the Wood review—I accept that things move very quickly—said only two things about CCS, which perhaps illustrates how quickly it is moving, and both those are being picked up. The review suggested that the Oil and Gas Authority should work with industry to develop a technology strategy that will underpin the UK strategy of maximising economic return, and should include enhanced oil recovery and carbon capture and storage. A draft is already being prepared on that, and it is going to happen. Page 49 of the Wood review goes on to say that the Office of Carbon Capture and Storage should continue to work closely with the Oil and Gas Authority and oil and gas licensees,
“to examine the business case for the use of depleted reservoirs for carbon storage and possibly EOR”—
or enhanced oil recovery. That, too, will be happening. I am sure that that provides some reassurance to the noble Lords who raised this issue.
If I may, I will come back to the purpose of the Bill, which seeks to incorporate all the key proposals of the Wood review into legislation. The Wood review has therefore to some extent tested and explored the new regime envisaged for the oil and gas industry, and the justifications for such changes are set out in the document. There has been no such exploration of how such an extension would affect carbon capture and storage, so I believe that more time is needed to consider fully how the OGA can take forward its role—it does have a role—in supporting carbon capture and storage.
Lord Deben
Would it not therefore be valuable if we give the new authority specifically the powers to do precisely that, rather than say that we will work on it and then do it? After all, if we give it those powers, work on it, and then find that it is not necessary, it will not do any harm. I always wonder why we do not do the things that will not do any harm when they might do some good.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
As my noble friend I think knows, I am always in favour of doing things that would do good and against things that would do harm. Therefore, I will, I hope, be coming on to some points that may provide some reassurance.
Amendments at this stage could cause delays to the strategy that is set out in the Wood review and the legislation enabling the Oil and Gas Authority to carry out the vital functions that we have set out in regulating and stewarding the United Kingdom continental shelf. That said, the Oil and Gas Authority will have a key role in relation to carbon capture and storage. It will issue carbon dioxide storage site licences and approve carbon dioxide storage permit applications. We are also considering—this is important—how carbon capture and storage may be considered as part of a proposed decommissioning plan. The Oil and Gas Authority will take into account the viability of utilising captured carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery projects. I am very happy to engage with noble Lords between Committee and Report, along with officials, to see how we can do that. I hope that that provides some reassurance.
In addition, the transfer and storage of carbon dioxide is an important technology, which is why it is likely to form a key element of the technology and decommissioning sector strategies that will be developed by the Oil and Gas Authority in consultation with industry. These strategies will help to underpin the overarching strategy related to maximising economic recovery. I can therefore reassure noble Lords that we are certainly open to looking at how we move this forward, but I do not want to give the impression that we will change the principal thrust of the primary object of the Act, which is to maximise economic recovery. Certainly, we can explore ways of seeing how we can ensure that carbon capture and storage is incorporated within the remit of the work done by the Oil and Gas Authority.
I hope that I have covered the key points. One point was made by my noble friend Lord Oxburgh and echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, which as a Minister I have much sympathy with. That is making sure that we have some clear reference points on legislation. I hope that we can let noble Lords have that because it is a point well made in this area as no doubt in many others—taxation, company law and pensions spring to mind as just three areas that would benefit very clearly. With my assurance that we are happy to look at how we can move this forward on both of the points made—a timely look at the legislation and how we can ensure that carbon capture and storage is not forgotten, and we certainly do not intend that it should be—I hope that the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Howell of Guildford
Can I press the Minister a shade more on something that we tend to forget when we debate these great issues of carbon capture and the future of the industry, and that is cost? It has been estimated that about £40 billion will be required to handle the decommissioning of outdated, redundant infrastructure in the North Sea. This whole process may be greatly accelerated if, as I earlier predicted, oil prices stay well down or go very much further down than they are already in the next four or five years. There is a huge cost there.
There is obviously vast cost involved in the piping of CO2 into the North Sea, if that is the technology used, although brilliant minds like those of my noble friend Lord Oxburgh have thought of new ways of handling carbon without having to pipe it away into the North Sea into reservoirs. In some cases, reservoirs have to be suitably designed both to enhance oil production and to store the CO2. All of these involve huge sums, which have not been mentioned. On top of that, the Government appear to be thinking in terms of further tax reliefs of all kinds in the North Sea, and I hope a great simplification of tax—it has been obvious that we have needed that for the past five or six years and I am glad that it is coming now, but again that is a lost revenue. Should we not give a little attention, as we push forward with this major reorganisation of the administration of North Sea and UK continental shelf affairs, to the enormous sums and where they will come from? I imagine that the answer is probably from the consumer and energy prices, but the Government have a duty to the public to explain some of the implications of what is now unfolding before us, including that colossal figure for decommissioning.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point about the decommissioning costs and costs in general, which are very much at the forefront of the Government’s thinking. He will be aware that the Oil and Gas Authority is essentially being paid for by the industry. Other than initial seed- corn support of a small amount from the Government and the Government conceivably stepping in in an emergency situation, it is self-financing. But there are aspects that we will come to later in the legislation that talk about the public purse, this being one consideration that has to be borne in mind in relation to relevant activities. I need no persuading that costs are central to what we are looking at here.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has said that he is unhappy about having a review within a year, which is too soon. I can understand that, but can we press the Minister to come back with a suggestion of two years? Having followed other Bills through, I fear that this period will get extended. I hope that serious thought can be given, between now and Report, to putting forward a time before the final stages of the Bill are considered.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank my noble friend. I do not want to give a figure on the hoof; I am sure noble Lords would appreciate that that would be dangerous. We can look at this clearly between now and Report. If we are going to have a review we will have to say when it should take place. I would not anticipate coming back without a definitive idea of that.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, which has demonstrated the breadth of opinion and the cross-party consensus on the need for the Bill to be amended to ensure that carbon capture and storage—or certainly the storage and transportation elements of it—is on the face of the Bill, for the avoidance of all doubt. On these Benches, we will not be content for the Bill to leave this House without that issue being addressed. That said, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I look forward to sitting down and engaging in the discussions he offered with officials and interested parties to see if we can come to an agreement on the review period for the legislation and the objective of the OGA. I understand the points that have been made, but if you create a body that has licensing powers over the storage of CO2, which may well involve itself in meetings in relation to storage and transportation and which may be charging fees, how can this all be possible unless its primary objective includes a reference to that? The potential for judicial reviews or objections from industry would be much wider if we do not make it crystal clear from the outset that this is what we intend the OGA to do. The noble Lord has referenced the fact that this will be self-financing, but government amendments to be tabled today would mean that public money was potentially being given to the OGA. I reiterate that we will not be content unless something appears on the face of the Bill, but I look forward to sitting down with the Minister and his officials and, on that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Oxburgh
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, in thanking those who have participated in the debate and the Minister for his reply. I have one final question for him. Have the officials in his department conducted a study of how the Bill might impact CCS? There are serious questions there: if they have not done that, could they do so? It would be extremely useful as a lead-in to the next stage.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
In answer to the noble Lord, officials have certainly been looking at how CSS fits in and dovetails with the Bill. We will continue to consider that and look at it if we are able to engage in discussions between now and Report. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments.
“( ) Omit paragraph 1(2).”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, Amendments 1A to 1F and Amendment 43 seek to amend the Schedule to the Bill to make amendments to other Acts and the Title of the Bill. Because the power for the Oil and Gas Authority to charge fees is provided for in Amendment 16, Amendments 1A to 1D are required. In particular, we amend the power to charge in Section 188 of the Energy Act 2004 and remove some other powers to charge fees. This illustrates the points that were made about the need for a destination table.
Amendment 1E amends the Schedule to insert a definition of the Oil and Gas Authority into the Energy Act 2011. This is consequential on government Amendments 33 and 34 relating to access to upstream petroleum infrastructure and on the transfer of functions to the Oil and Gas Authority in relation to access to upstream petroleum infrastructure. Amendment 1F amends the Schedule to remove the levy provisions from Section 42 and Schedule 7 of the Infrastructure Act 2015. These will be set out with amendments to this Bill—noble Lords should see Amendments 17 and 18—so that those using the legislation can find all the Oil and Gas Authority provisions in one place. I hope that that is helpful.
Amendment 43 amends the Title to include,
“to make provision about rights to use upstream petroleum infrastructure”,
in consequence to Amendments 35 and 36, which insert new clauses on this topic. I beg to move.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, as these are largely technical amendments bringing into line various pieces of legislation, I have no real objection and we support the government amendments.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that.
“Energy Act 2004(1) Section 188 of the Energy Act 2004 (power to impose charges to fund energy functions) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (7), omit paragraphs (b), (h), (m) and (n).
(3) In subsection (8), omit paragraphs (da), (db) and (f).
(4) In subsection (12), in the substituted subsection (7A)(b), for “mentioned in subsection (8)(db)” (in both places) substitute “for which a licence under Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Energy Act 2008 is required”.”
“( ) In that subsection, omit paragraph (e).”
“(c) subsection (2)(d) does not apply.”
“In section 90(1) (interpretation), after the definition of “gas processing facility” insert—
““the OGA” means the Oil and Gas Authority;”.
“Infrastructure Act 2015The Infrastructure Act 2015 is amended as follows.
Omit section 42 (levy on holders of certain energy industry licences).
In section 55(4)(b) (statutory instruments subject to affirmative procedure), omit “or 42(11)”.
Omit Schedule 7 (the licensing levy).”
Baroness Worthington
“Report to Parliament on decommissioning costs
Within one year of this Act coming into force, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall report to each House of Parliament on estimated decommissioning costs for North Sea oil and gas infrastructure.”
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 2 and 9. Amendment 2 is the requirement on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on an annual basis on the,
“estimated decommissioning costs for North Sea oil and gas infrastructure”.
This amendment has been tabled because an important facet of this debate is that the costs involved are hugely important, which the Minister mentioned earlier. Decommissioning is under way, it is likely to increase over time and we will see bits of infrastructure being removed, which will cause considerable costs to be borne. The upside is that we may well be about to invent a wonderful new industry in which we can get a global lead. The engineering excellence that we have demonstrated in the North Sea will be repurposed and we will apply that knowledge and expertise to the task of decommissioning, which I am sure will stand us in good stead both here and overseas.
However, through the course of my engagement with this Bill, it has come to light that those decommissioning costs will now partly fall on the taxpayer. The Treasury produced an estimate of the costs of decommissioning and how much will be expected to be a burden on the taxpayer. In the five years from now until 2020, HMRC estimates that something in the region of £9 billion will be expended, half of which will fall on the taxpayer. That is not an insubstantial amount of money, particularly as we hear, in the context of energy, an awful lot is made of the cost of the renewables subsidies and the green energy contracts. A levy control framework is applied to those costs. But here we have a liability on the taxpayer for essentially finishing off the job in the North Sea and assisting the oil and gas sector in bearing those costs.
Those costs are quite generous and the way in which they are calculated is that tax can be claimed back through the petroleum revenue tax, the PRT, and the ring-fenced corporation tax, the RFCT. Both provisions are very generous and enable costs to be claimed dating back throughout the time of the activity. They allow the use of retrospective taxation that has been paid to claim tax back against decommissioning costs. This evidently means a loss of revenue to the Exchequer, and therefore extra pressure on taxpayers to make up the difference somewhere else.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, in case any eyebrows were raised over the apparent difference between the noble Baroness’s figure of £9 billion and my figure of £40 billion, which are slightly different, I should make clear that I think the noble Baroness was talking about the next five years whereas I was talking about the next 25 years, over which time it is estimated that £40 billion will have to be spent removing redundant platforms and pipelines as well as plugging spent oil wells.
My noble friend said that the companies would fund all this. I wonder whether that makes reassuring sense in the light of what the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said about these companies being increasingly strapped for cash. If we are only half right about the evolution of world oil and gas prices—and it looks as though we are going into a period of prolonged glut in that field—the North Sea companies will have very tight budgets. This additional cost—whether it is £9 billion over five years or £40 billion over 25 years—will have to be found from somewhere. As we advance into this era and ask the OGA to take on these new responsibilities, and as we work out the practicalities of CCS, which have not yet all been solved, and the costs of it, we must be careful that we do not store up colossal financial problems for the future that will lead people in years to come to ask why we did not make clearer preparations. I wish to make clear the difference between the two figures of £9 billion and £40 billion and suggest yet again that we focus very carefully on where the money will come from.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment and my noble friend Lord Howell for his comments. Without wishing to be too much of a doomsayer, I appreciate that there is always the chance of any business going into bankruptcy or company going into insolvency. The legal position is that decommissioning costs are picked up by industry under the Petroleum Act 1998—and industry does, of course, get tax relief.
I will address the noble Baroness’s points on Amendments 2 and 9. Minimising the costs of decommissioning in the North Sea to both industry and the taxpayer will be a central focus of the new legislative landscape. It is essential that we create an environment that encourages collaboration and co-operation in order to bring down overall costs. The reuse of viable North Sea infrastructure is a top priority for the Oil and Gas Authority. As I outlined earlier, the Wood review suggested that the Office of Carbon Capture and Storage would work closely with the Oil and Gas Authority in moving this forward. That, indeed, is what is happening in line with the recommendations made by Sir Ian Wood in his review.
That said, I understand the thrust of what is being said and can confirm that decommissioning is high on the Government’s agenda. Obviously there are costs associated with it and it is essential that we do it in the most cost-effective way, bringing in the possibility of reusing decommissioned sites in relation to CCS. I hope that noble Lords have had a letter indicating that the Government will bring forward amendments on decommissioning on Report. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to bring them forward earlier, but it is my intention that these amendments will address the issues of decommissioning costs and the viable reuse of infrastructure in the North Sea. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I look forward to debating decommissioning in more detail on Report when government amendments on these issues will be brought forward.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his clarification. He is absolutely correct that, obviously, over a longer time period we will incur higher costs. I thank the Minister for his response. Possibly I did get the letter about the decommissioning amendments. I have to confess it has been a rather chaotic last few weeks so I will look again in my inbox. I would welcome that and I think that this issue must be addressed in the Bill. It is clearly a subject that we are going to see a lot of parliamentary time devoted to. Could the Minister write to me or give me clarification, as soon as possible, about the nature of the liability that taxpayers will face and about any safeguards that will be put in place to prevent it becoming an unlimited liability?
I notice from the industry side that the tax breaks that were granted have been underwritten by private law contracts to avoid any reverses being introduced by subsequent Governments. That seems to be quite a nice safeguard for the industry. As we know, Finance Bills are famous for being quite changeable. In fact, we saw quite a shift from the 2011 Budget where what were described as disastrous tax regimes brought in for the oil and gas sector were rapidly reversed and changed over subsequent Finance Bills. Therefore, one can see why the industry is keen to have these things underwritten and uses private law contracts now for those tax breaks. However, where are the reassurances for the public purse that this will not be a ballooning cost for us over decades to come?
I understand that it should be the industry that pays, but it does receive tax breaks, which amounts to a subsidy from the public purse. However, on the basis that there are amendments coming forward and that we will have another opportunity to debate decommissioning in full, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Byford
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests, which are in the register, and I have shares in oil companies. I also record my thanks to the Minister and his team for the briefing that they gave us prior to Committee and, indeed, for the follow-up work that I have received from them since. My amendment is a very simple probing amendment. The Minister in his letter stated that minimising public expenditure will be limited to that which arises from the relevant activities because this is the only area in which the OGA can have influence. He further stated that in due course a levy and fees will mean that the industry will pay the OGA’s full costs. Indeed, our discussions earlier were about costs.
However, my concern remains. I do not feel that either the wording of the Bill or the Minister’s interpretation mean that those working in and managing the OGA will have a duty to keep their costs as low as possible. As we said this afternoon, the amount of money coming into oil companies at the moment is so low that it is imperative that the OGA sets the standard of making sure that it does its work efficiently but keeps its cost as low as possible. I am concerned, for example, about the nature of office accommodation—it seems very simple—about location, travel, hotels, publicity and all the other parts that go into making the new OGA work properly.
I also share with colleagues that I have been assured that Treasury rules insist that fees should recover full costs and no more. That, however, does not explicitly cover a levy: nor does it limit spending levels. Therefore, in moving the amendment I still seek assurance that the OGA will have a duty to minimise expenditure on its internal operations. I beg to move.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing her amendment. I shall speak to amendments also in this group: Amendments 5, 6, 8, 20 and 21 in my name and Amendments 4, 10 and 11 in the names of my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lord Grantchester. This could be described as another pot pourri of amendments. I echo the noble Lords who mentioned that, had we had a bit more time and not been caught trying to table all our amendments in the last week of the Recess, we might have come forward with a slightly different grid with different groupings. However, we are where we are. What all these amendments have in common is that they relate to Clauses 4 and 9, which set out the core functions of the OGA and—Clause 9 in particular—the matters to which the OGA should have regard.
I do not intend to go over again the importance of CCS and the need to facilitate development of storage and transportation, as we have obviously rehearsed those arguments. However, if we do not change the primary objective, as set out in the Petroleum Act and amended by the Infrastructure Act, we will probably have to amend the Bill in numerous other places to ensure that CCS is properly taken into account. Clauses 4 and 9 are two places where we would expect something in the Bill to reassure us that this will be taken with due seriousness, and that the OGA will have the right legal backing needed to do its job properly.
Amendment 4, which is in my noble friend Lord Whitty’s name, refers to the need for decarbonisation strategies. Having spoken to him, I know that the purpose of probing on this is that it is absolutely clear that, as we face climate change and start to absorb the implications of what we need to do, there is a great need for a holistic view of our pursuit and extraction of hydrocarbons. We are either going to change drastically our demand for hydrocarbons by moving into other sources of energy, or we will be capturing and storing the waste gases and putting them somewhere where they are not released into the atmosphere. I think both have quite profound implications and it is right that the OGA must have regard to the meeting of climate change targets and carbon budgets, and to the need for decarbonisation of energy. This is meant to be a Bill for the 21st century, not for the last century. Therefore, if we are to list specific areas to which the OGA must have regard, it would seem odd if climate change mitigation and decarbonisation were not specifically mentioned.
Amendment 5, which is in my name, is, as I said, an alternate way of ensuring that geological carbon storage is included within the matters to which the OGA has regard. Amendment 6 is similar to Amendment 4 in that it asks for consideration of the Climate Change Act and the targets within it.
We then turn to Amendment 10, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty and refers to energy efficiency. I think I am right to say that my noble friend would have preferred to write a wider amendment about energy efficiency in general, because that is a long-held area of great interest to him. There is certainly a need for any energy Bill to consider the role of demand reduction and energy efficiency but, as the scope of this Bill is relatively narrow as it stands, this amendment relates to increasing energy efficiency within the areas of extraction of oil and gas, as related to the OGA. Amendment 11 relates to carbon capture and storage policy again.
The last two amendments in this group, Amendments 20 and 21, relate to Clause 9. They seek to make sure that the interpretations in the Bill are sufficiently clear that when we talk about licensees and operators, and data sharing and meetings—all the various powers being given to the OGA—we know it is explicit that those powers include those activities that relate to CCS. As I say, this could be made a whole lot simpler if we were to change the primary objectives but it seems that there are many ways of skinning this particular cat, and many of them are presented here today. That is the purpose of tabling these amendments and I look forward to the Minister’s responses to these matters relating to Clauses 4 and 9.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, particularly regarding climate change, carbon-reduction targets and energy efficiency. I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on trying to get energy efficiency into the Bill because it is something that he, I and others on all energy Bills have tried to make the Government look seriously at always including. If we are concerned about reducing demand, which is another area we had to pursue energetically in the previous Energy Bill, we need to look at this if we are to meet a lot of the targets we have signed up to, not only in Europe but internationally. I support the thrust behind this and I admire the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for getting energy efficiency into the Bill.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I also support Amendments 4 and 6 in respect of the matters to which the OGA must have regard, particularly climate change. The Climate Change Act set a statutory target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. In the shorter term, the Committee on Climate Change, under the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has recommended that the UK should have a virtually carbon-free electricity sector by 2030. We are clear that many of these targets will not be met under current scenarios, and this is an area in which it will be pretty strenuous to try to achieve them. Every tool in the toolbox will need to be used.
However, we are at a point where the Government seem to be removing some of the tools from the toolbox. We see in the Bill proposed changes to planning for onshore wind, changes to planning for low-carbon homes, the feed-in tariff support and the renewables obligation, and changes to proposals on tax incentives for low-emission vehicles. There is a concern, certainly in my mind, that if we remove too many tools it will become an even more strenuous and difficult task. That is why management of the oil and gas industry in the future is absolutely vital. It is important that the matters to which the OGA must have regard take account of UK and international obligations for greenhouse gas reduction, decarbonisation of energy and the carbon budgets set by the noble Lord, Lord Deben.
The Minister may say that the OGA already has a prime objective of maximising economic recovery, although I have not heard it put quite that way before. Indeed, one of the matters to which the OGA must have regard is minimising future public expenditure. It would be a bit of a stretch to say that that was a nod towards climate change. So, I ask the Minister to consider whether an explicit reference to having regard to climate change should be added to this list. If we do not make sure that all bodies involved in the energy business also have climate change at their heart, we will see huge effects on public expenditure from the impact of climate change in the future.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken on this group of amendments, which seek to amend Clause 4, in Part 1, and Clause 9, in Part 2, of this Bill. Those amendments are Amendments 3A to 11—excluding Amendments 7 and 9 which are grouped separately—and Amendments 20 and 21.
Amendment 3A, moved by my noble friend Lady Byford, seeks to insert provision into Clause 4 of the Bill which would require the Oil and Gas Authority to have regard to the need to minimise public expenditure relating to, or arising from, its existence. Clause 4 already places an obligation on the Oil and Gas Authority to have regard to,
“The need to minimise public expenditure relating to, or arising from, relevant activities”.
The concept of “relevant activity” is intended to capture activities such as petroleum extraction or gas or carbon dioxide storage in relation to which the Oil and Gas Authority has statutory functions and functions under licences. For example, when taking decisions under licences, it is intended that the Oil and Gas Authority should have to consider whether a licence holder will be able to meet liabilities under a licence if these are liabilities that might otherwise have to be met by the taxpayer.
The question of how the Oil and Gas Authority should spend its own resources is dealt with by other means. However, there are arrangements in place to ensure that the OGA’s spending is controlled. As accounting officer, the OGA’s chief executive is responsible and accountable to Parliament for the organisation of, and quality of management in, the authority, including its use of public money. The chief executive has responsibility for ensuring that the OGA operates in accordance with the guidance set out in the Cabinet Office’s Managing Public Money.
Furthermore, the Department of Energy and Climate Change is establishing a robust governance framework to oversee its relationship with the OGA. This will ensure that any issues which may have a financial impact on government are reported to the Secretary of State at the earliest opportunity. The framework requires the OGA to have the prior written consent of the Secretary of State before it takes any action which will, or is likely to, give rise to an additional funding requirement from the department or gives rise to obligations or liabilities which are not expected to be affordable in terms of expected levy income. The Secretary of State will be the sole shareholder of the OGA and her role in this regard includes assessing and approving the business plan developed by the authority, among other things, to ensure its long-term viability and sustainability and its ability to deliver value for money in light of the strategies of the department and wider government. I hope that this explanation is reassuring.
I turn now to Amendments 4 and 6, which each make reference to responsibilities under the Climate Change Act 2008. While the OGA will be bound by any environmental legislation that relates to the exercise of its functions, it is purposely not an environmental regulator. Perhaps I may refer noble Lords to Clause 4, which refers to those matters to which the OGA must have regard—
“include the following, so far as relevant”—
so, obviously, any pre-existing legislation would be binding in relation to the OGA, and that would include the Climate Change Act.
Environmental regulation responsibilities under the Climate Change Act 2008 will continue to sit within the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which has expertise and experience in this field. There are synergies between the two forms of regulation, and the existing strong relationships between the OGA and DECC will continue. However, it is important that these regulatory functions remain separate, ensuring that the correct focus is placed on each by the different regulators. Noble Lords will also be aware that the amendments raise issues of compliance with the offshore safety directive, which requires a separation of oil and gas licensing and environmental functions, so I am not sure that it is legally possible either. I cannot agree that it would be appropriate to provide the OGA with additional environmental functions, and I hope that noble Lords will not press the amendments.
Amendment 5 includes reference to the development of carbon storage. I thank noble Lords for proposing these amendments because, as I have indicated, between now and Report I should like to look at the whole issue of carbon capture and storage to ensure that there is dovetailing between the existing regime for control of carbon capture and storage and the way that the Oil and Gas Authority will move forward on the matters in the Bill. Clause 4, as I have said, sets out a non-exhaustive list of matters to which the OGA must have regard when exercising its functions. The functions of the OGA include functions relating to carbon capture and storage. A number of the matters refer to “relevant activities”, which is defined as activities in relation to which the OGA has functions. As things stand, the relevant activities therefore include CCS. These matters include the need to collaborate with industry and foster innovation, which should help the CCS sector to achieve its aims. In addition, reference is made under the heading “System of regulation” to encourage “investment in relevant activities”, which once again should include CCS. No other sectors in relation to which the OGA has functions are explicitly referenced by this clause. Making the OGA’s mandate and associated powers on CCS explicit when other sectors are not mentioned could have the effect of prioritising CCS over other areas, which the Government would be against. An example would be maximising the delivery of economic recovery. I hope that on that basis, and with the assurance that we will look at the whole issue of CCS between now and Report, the noble Baroness will be content not to press the amendment.
Baroness Worthington
Before the Minister sits down, although I thought that we had been making quite good progress in this debate in recognising the need to address the OGA’s powers in relation to CCS, I felt that the comments in response to this amendment seemed to be very narrow in their interpretation of what we are going to be considering before Report. I reiterate that our not moving the amendments in this group does not preclude the fact that we want a full and deep discussion about which of those OGA powers need to be amended to address CCS. As we will come on to discuss, that will involve access to meetings, information samples and a whole raft of things that will be needed to facilitate CCS. Although I will not be moving those amendments, I reiterate that we should not be sliding back and we should be looking at the whole issue holistically before Report.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I am happy to do that, as I have indicated, but I do not want to give the impression—I do not want to commit us to this—that we are undermining the focus of the Oil and Gas Authority, which is to maximise the economic return from the North Sea.
Syria: Refugees and Counterterrorism
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows.
“Mr Speaker, before making a Statement on counterterrorism, let me update the House about what we are doing to help address the migration crisis in Europe and, in particular, to help the thousands of refugees who are fleeing from Syria. This issue is clearly the biggest challenge facing countries across Europe today.
More than 300,000 people have crossed the Mediterranean to Europe so far this year. These people came from different countries and different circumstances. Some are economic migrants in search of a better life in Europe; many are refugees fleeing conflict. It is vital to distinguish between the two.
In recent weeks we have seen a vast increase in the numbers arriving across the eastern Mediterranean from Turkey. More than 150,000 have attempted that route since January. The majority of these are Syrian refugees fleeing the terror of Assad and ISIL, which has seen more than 11 million people driven from their homes.
The whole country has been deeply moved by the heart-breaking images we have seen over the past few days. It is absolutely right that Britain should fulfil its moral responsibility to help those refugees, just as we have done proudly throughout our history. However, in doing so we must use our head and our heart by pursuing a comprehensive approach that tackles the causes of the problem as well as the consequences. That means helping to stabilise countries where the refugees are coming from, seeking a solution to the crisis in Syria, pushing for the formation of a new unity government in Libya, busting the criminal gangs that are profiting from this human tragedy and playing our part in saving lives in the Mediterranean, where our Royal Navy has now rescued over 6,700 people.
Britain is doing, and will continue to do, all these things. We are using our aid budget to alleviate poverty and suffering in the countries where these people are coming from. We are the only major country in the world that has kept its promise to spend 0.7% of GDP on aid. We are already the second largest bilateral donor of aid to the Syrian conflict, including providing more than 18 million food rations, giving 1.6 million people access to clean water and providing education to a quarter of a million children. Last week we announced a further £100 million, taking our total contribution to more than £1 billion. That is the UK’s largest ever response to a humanitarian crisis. Some £60 million of this additional funding will go to help Syrians still in Syria. The rest will go to neighbouring countries—Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon—where Syrian refugees now account for one quarter of the population. More than half of this new funding will support children, with a particular priority given to those who have been orphaned or separated from their families.
No other European country has come close to this level of support. Without Britain’s aid to these camps, the numbers attempting the dangerous journey to Europe would be very much higher. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor said yesterday, we will now go much further in the spending review, significantly reshaping the way we use our aid budget to serve our national interest. We will invest even more in tackling the causes of the crisis in the Middle East and north Africa and we will hold much larger sums in reserve to respond to acute humanitarian crises as they happen.
Turning to the question of refugees, Britain already works with the UN to deliver resettlement programmes and we will accept thousands more under these existing schemes. We have already provided sanctuary to more than 5,000 Syrians in Britain and have introduced a specific resettlement scheme, alongside those we already have, to help those Syrian refugees particularly at risk. However, given the scale of the crisis and the suffering of the Syrian people, it is right that we should do even more. So we are proposing that Britain should resettle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees over the rest of this Parliament. In doing so, we will continue to show the world that this is a country of extraordinary compassion, always standing up for our values and helping those in need.
So, Britain will play its part alongside our other European partners. However, because we are not part of the EU’s borderless Schengen agreement or its relocation initiative, Britain is able to decide its own approach. So we will continue our approach of taking refugees from the camps and from elsewhere in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. This provides refugees with a more direct, safer route to the United Kingdom, rather than risking the hazardous journey to Europe which has, tragically, cost so many lives. We will continue to use the established UNHCR process for identifying and resettling refugees and when they arrive here we will grant them a five-year humanitarian protection visa. We will significantly expand the criteria we use for our existing Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme. As we do so, we will recognise that children have been particularly badly affected by the crisis in Syria.
In most cases the interests of children are best met in the region, where they can remain close to surviving family members. In cases where the advice of the UNHCR is that their needs should be met by resettlement in the UK, we will ensure that vulnerable children, including orphans, will be a priority. Over recent days we have seen councils and our devolved Administrations coming forward to express their willingness to do more to take Syrian refugees. This has reflected a wider generosity from families and communities across our country. I commend, in particular, the Archbishop of Canterbury for the offer made by the Church of England. My right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Communities Secretary will now work intensively with local authorities and the devolved Administrations to put in place the necessary arrangements to house and support the refugees that we resettle. The Home Secretary will update the House on these plans next week.
Finally for this part of the Statement, in full accordance with internationally agreed rules we will also ensure that the full cost of supporting thousands of Syrian refugees in the UK will be met through our aid spending for the first year, easing the burden on local communities. This will be a truly national effort, and I know the whole House will come together in supporting these refugees in their hour of need.
Turning to our national security, I would like to update the House on action taken this summer to protect our country from a terrorist attack. With the rise of ISIL, we know that the terrorist threats to our country are growing. In 2014 there were 15 ISIL-related attacks around the world. This year there have already been 150 such attacks, including the appalling tragedies in Tunisia in which 31 Britons lost their lives. I can tell the House that our police and security services have stopped at least six different attempts to attack the UK in the last 12 months alone.
The threat picture facing Britain in terms of Islamist extremist violence is more acute today than ever before. In stepping up our response to meet this threat we have developed a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy that seeks to prevent and disrupt plots against this country at every stage. It includes new powers to stop suspects travelling and powers to enable our police and our security services to apply for stronger locational constraints on those in the UK who pose a risk. It addresses the root cause of the threat—the poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism—by taking on all forms of extremism, not just violent extremism. We have pursued Islamist terrorists through the courts and criminal justice system. Since 2010, over 800 people have been arrested and over 140 successfully prosecuted. Our approach includes acting overseas to tackle the threat at source, with British aircraft delivering nearly 300 air strikes over Iraq, and our airborne intelligence and surveillance assets assisting our coalition partners with their operations over Syria.
As part of this counterterrorism strategy, as I have said before, if there is a direct threat to British people and we are able to stop it by taking immediate action, as Prime Minister I will always be prepared to take that action. That is the case whether that threat is emanating from Libya, Syria or anywhere else. In recent weeks it has been reported that two ISIL fighters of British nationality who had been plotting attacks against the UK and other countries have been killed in air strikes. Both Junaid Hussain and Reyaad Khan were British nationals based in Syria who were involved in actively recruiting ISIL sympathisers and seeking to orchestrate specific and barbaric attacks against the West, including directing a number of planned terrorist attacks right here in Britain, such as plots to attack high-profile public commemorations, including those taking place this summer. We should be under no illusion. Their intention was the murder of British citizens. So on this occasion we ourselves took action.
Today I can inform the House that in an act of self-defence and after meticulous planning Reyaad Khan was killed in a precision strike carried out on 21 August by an RAF remotely piloted aircraft while he was travelling in a vehicle in the area of Raqqa in Syria. In addition to Reyaad Khan, who was the target of the strike, two ISIL associates were also killed, one of whom, Ruhul Amin, has been identified as a UK national. They were ISIL fighters, and I can confirm there were no civilian casualties.
We took this action because there was no alternative. In this area, there is no Government we can work with. We have no military on the ground to detain those preparing plots, and there was nothing to suggest that Reyaad Khan would ever leave Syria or desist from his desire to murder us at home. So we had no way of preventing his planned attacks on our country without taking direct action. The US Administration have also confirmed that Junaid Hussain was killed in an American air strike on 24 August in Raqqa. With these issues of national security and with current prosecutions ongoing, the House will appreciate that there are limits on the details I can provide. However, let me set out for the House the legal basis for the action we took, the processes we followed, and the implications of this action for our wider strategy in countering the threat of ISIL.
First, I am clear that the action we took was entirely lawful. The Attorney-General was consulted and was clear that there would be a clear, legal basis for action in international law. We were exercising the UK’s inherent right to self-defence. There was clear evidence of the individual in question planning and directing armed attacks against the UK. These were part of a series of actual and foiled attempts to attack the UK and our allies. In the prevailing circumstances in Syria, this air strike was the only feasible means of effectively disrupting the attacks planned and directed by this individual. It was necessary and proportionate for the individual self-defence of the UK. The United Nations Charter requires members to inform the president of the Security Council of activity conducted in self-defence. Today the UK Permanent Representative to the United Nations will write to the president of the Security Council reporting this specific military activity in Syria and explaining that this action was taken in the individual self-defence of the United Kingdom.
Turning to the process, as I said to the House in September last year,
“it is important to reserve the right that if there were a critical British national interest at stake or there were the need to act to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, you could act immediately and explain to the House of Commons afterwards”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/9/14; col. 1265.]
Our intelligence agencies identified the direct threat to the UK from this individual. They informed me and other senior Ministers of this threat. At a meeting of the most senior members of the National Security Council, we agreed that, should the right opportunity arise, the military should take action. The Attorney-General attended the meeting and confirmed that there was a legal basis for action. On that basis, the Defence Secretary authorised the operation. The strike complied with international law and was conducted according to specific military rules of engagement, which always comply with international law and the principles of proportionality and military necessity. The military assessed the target location and chose the optimum time to minimise the risk of civilian casualties. This was a sensitive operation to prevent a very real threat to our country.
I have come to the House today to explain in detail what has happened and to answer questions about it. I want to be clear that this strike was not part of coalition military action against ISIL in Syria. It was a targeted strike to deal with a clear, credible and specific terrorist threat to our country at home. The position with regard to the wider conflict with ISIL in Syria has not changed. As the House knows, I believe that there is a strong case for the UK taking part in air strikes as part of the international coalition to target ISIL in Syria as well as Iraq. I believe that case only grows stronger with the growing number of terrorist plots being directed or inspired by ISIL’s core leadership in Raqqa, but I have been absolutely clear that the Government will return to this House for a separate vote if we propose to join coalition strikes in Syria.
My first duty as Prime Minister is to keep the British people safe. That is what I will always do. There was a terrorist directing murder on our streets and no other means to stop him. The Government do not for one moment take these decisions lightly but I am not prepared to stand here in the aftermath of a terrorist attack on our streets and have to explain to the House why I did not take the chance to prevent it, when I could have done. That is why I believe our approach is right. I commend this Statement to the House.”
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lady for repeating the Prime Minister’s statement, which raises the most serious issues of humanity, moral obligations and national security. I would first like to ask about the refugee crisis. I think it fair to say that, until recently, many people were not even aware of the scale of the terror, the crisis and fear facing millions who have been forced to flee Syria. They are not people who want to leave their homes or their country. They are people from all walks of life, forced out in fear of their lives and those of their families. This is a defining moment for our country and for the Government.
The body of a child washed up on a beach has shocked, upset and horrified everyone, but such deaths of those abused by traffickers in seeking sanctuary is not new and has been debated in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions. We must be strong, confident and proud in reaching out to those seeking refuge on our shores.
Among the Syrian children whom we will now take in will be the future hospital consultants at our bedsides, the entrepreneurs who will build our economy and the professors in our universities. They will also be among the strongest upholders of British values, because that has always been the story of refugees to this country, whether it was the Jewish children of the Kindertransport, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, or the Asian families whom I knew when I was younger, driven out of east Africa more than 20 years ago, or Sierra Leoneans fleeing a brutal civil war. The Prime Minister said last week that it would not help to take more refugees because it would not solve the problems in Syria, but that is a false choice. Helping those Jewish children was not part of our efforts to end the Second World War; helping east Asian families did not bring down the brutal dictatorships; but it was the right thing to do. It was a natural, human response.
We welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement that our country will provide sanctuary to 20,000 refugees. I appreciate that it will be over this Parliament, but can the noble Baroness reassure me on the need for urgency, because people are losing their lives today? Can I suggest that it would be helpful now to convene local authority leaders from all over the country to discuss what they are prepared for, what they are able to do to settle those refugees into their areas, and the regional and local distribution to ensure that all areas can play their part—rural as well as urban, towns as well as cities? Many local authorities have already indicated that they are keen to step forward and play their part, which is greatly to their credit. They will need reassurances on additional resources, given the level of cuts they have already faced.
The Government have said that they plan to use the international aid budget for this purpose. Why did they not just use the reserves? Ensuring that refugees can be welcomed, supported and integrated is an issue not just for local government or the Home Office but for transport, education, health, business, tourism and, as we have heard, the devolved authorities. It is an issue also for churches, community groups and so many individuals who have cried out for action from the Government. Beyond what the Prime Minister has told the other place, can the noble Baroness tell us what discussions are planned to guarantee a nationwide, cross-government strategy that will co-ordinate the efforts of those who want to help and have asked the Government to help?
We support aid to existing refugee camps. Does the noble Baroness accept that desperate conditions in those camps have contributed to far too many people risking their lives trying to bring their families to Europe, and that this reinforces the need for greater co-operation across the EU and with the United Nations?
I turn to counterterrorism, because the scale of the threat posed by ISIL is clear. We have witnessed its brutal torture and murder of British citizens abroad and the sickening attacks that it has inspired and sought to organise here at home. The security services, the Armed Forces and our police do immensely important work to try to keep us safe. It is a difficult and dangerous task, and we are grateful to them for their efforts. This is the first time that Parliament has heard of the specific operation on 21 August, when the Government authorised the targeting and killing of a British citizen in Syria, a country where our use of military force is not authorised. We understand that a meeting of senior members of the National Security Council agreed that, should the right opportunity arise, the military should take action, as the noble Baroness said in the Statement. The Prime Minister said that the action was legally justifiable under the doctrine of national self-defence because, first, the man was planning and directing armed attacks in the UK; secondly, there was no other way of stopping him; and, thirdly, the action was necessary and proportionate. The evidence on each of these points is crucial to the justification for the action. Is it significant that the Attorney-General did not authorise this specific action but confirmed that,
“there was a legal basis”,
for it? Was the Attorney-General’s advice given or confirmed in writing, and will it be published? The Statement informs us that the Defence Secretary “authorised the operation”. Why was it not the Prime Minister himself who gave the authorisation?
I want to ask the noble Baroness about the specific target of this attack, although I understand that there may be things she cannot disclose to the House. Inasmuch as she can, can she say what it was about this individual and his action that singled him out, given some of the other reports we have had? Did he represent an ongoing threat, or was the threat based on a specific act that he was plotting? Does she accept that there is a need for independent scrutiny of government action, perhaps by the CT reviewer and the Intelligence and Security Committee? Can she tell me whether they have been asked to look at this?
We are already engaged in the use of force against ISIL in Iraq. However, it is vital that the UK continue to play its part in international efforts to combat ISIL across the region. What is clear from the Statement is that, if the Prime Minister is to propose to join coalition strikes in Syria, he will return to the House of Commons for a vote on authorisation. Although your Lordships’ House will not have a vote, it may be helpful to reiterate the position as set out by the acting Labour Party leader and shadow Secretary of State for Defence on 2 July. She made it clear when she said that ISIL,
“brutalise people, they murder people, and they are horrifically oppressive”.
We will carefully consider any proposals in relation to military action in Syria that the Government bring forward, but we all need to be clear about what difference any action would make to our objective of defeating ISIL, the nature of any action and its objectives, and the legal basis. Potential action must command the support of other nations in the region, including Iraq and the coalition already taking action in Syria.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and thank her for ensuring that there is additional time for questions from Back-Benchers today, given the level of interest in this issue. We look forward to her response.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement on these very profound and serious issues. I also endorse what the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition said—we appreciate the fact that there will be an extended period for Back-Bench questions.
Probably nothing is more important than the Government’s primary responsibility of security of the realm and its citizens. The Prime Minister acknowledges that in his Statement. Clearly, we do not have the evidence, nor would it be appropriate to share that evidence publicly, and therefore we must accept the judgment of the Prime Minster in responding to perhaps one of the most serious calls that has been made on him. However, it would be interesting to know whether this is a matter that the Intelligence and Security Committee will be able to look at.
There is also reference in the Statement to the legal basis. Having worked closely as a law officer with the present Attorney-General, I know that his judgment would be made with considerable rigorous legal diligence and bringing to bear his considerable personal and professional integrity. I do not call for the publication of law officers’ advice; that is not something that, as a former officer, I would readily do. However, the noble Baroness will remember that before the House debated chemical weapon use by the Syrian regime and a possible UK government response, and before we debated last year the position on military action in Iraq against ISIL, the Government published on each occasion a statement setting out the Government’s legal position. If it is felt possible to elaborate on what was said in the Statement by a similar note, I think that we would find that very helpful.
The images of migration that we have seen on our screens and in our newspapers over recent days have certainly touched our common humanity. There has been an outpouring of the view that we must welcome refugees, and that is one that we certainly endorse. The Statement says that,
“the whole country has been deeply moved by the heart-breaking images we have seen over the past few days”.
However, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House tell us whether any of those travelling across Europe at the moment will be accommodated in any way by what was set out in the Statement? We have heard of 20,000 refugees—said very loudly; “over five years” is probably said more sotto voce—but these are people in camps in countries bordering Syria. That is not to dismiss what is being done in that regard, and it is welcome in as far as it goes. However, what the people in this country have been crying out about are the scenes on our television screens of people walking across Europe, fleeing terror and destitution. Yet can the Minister point to one sentence in this Statement that indicates that for those people there is some glimmer of hope that the United Kingdom will be a welcome haven?
We have a common problem and it requires a common response. There are problems in the Mediterranean, on Europe’s borders and in coming across Europe and we should be promoting a common European response. The European Union system has its failings. The Dublin system is not by any stretch of the imagination perfect, but by our stand-offish stance we seem to have forfeited any real or moral authority in being able to give the lead in trying to improve or work out a more coherent European approach to this. Will the Government commit themselves to taking a more active role in co-operating with our European partners, as well as in participating in European Union efforts on relocation?
With regard to those who are coming, we welcome the steps have been taken. Many local authorities have indicated a willingness to take refugees. The Leader of the Opposition asked what would be done to bring these local authorities together, and it would be useful to know what consultations had already taken place. What consideration has been given as to whether there should be a dispersal programme or whether it is better to keep communities together for mutual support? I do not pretend that I have the answer to that, but real issues are involved. What has been done to ensure that there are interpretation services, counselling and support services for English as a second language?
We have heard about the international aid budget being used for the first year to support local authorities, but surely in a situation such as this there is something in reserve that we could use. The Statement itself refers to holding “larger sums in reserve”. Has this been taken from the overseas aid budget for future years or has a separate reserve been taken up?
The Statement says that,
“we will ensure that vulnerable children, including orphans, will be a priority”.
Just before we went into recess, there was a report about 600 young Afghans who had arrived in the United Kingdom as unaccompanied children who were deported after their 18th birthdays because their temporary leave to remain had expired. Many had already established strong roots in the communities where they were living. When we hear about the fact that we will give priority to vulnerable children including orphans, can we have some reassurance from the Government that they will not be summarily sent back after their 18th birthdays?
We will not resolve the Syrian refugee crisis unless there is a wider resolution to the Syrian problem. What steps have the Government taken to try to promote broader engagement with countries that might not at first instance appear likely to help, such as Russia and Iran, whose engagement will be necessary if we are to get a long-term lasting diplomatic settlement and tackle some of the root causes?
There is an immediate crisis on our doorstep. There are 2 million refugees in Turkey, 1.4 million in Jordan, and over 1 million in Lebanon. According to the UNHCR, there are 60 million displaced people worldwide, 46 million of whom are assisted and protected by the UNHCR. Developing countries host 86% of the world’s refugees. While we have an immediate problem, there is a much wider global problem. We have to play our part in the funding that we have given to the UNHCR but we should be trying our best to engage more countries, such as the Gulf states and the United States of America. Are we in a position to give some leadership to look to the future and tackle the global problems that will exist? We will return time and again to this issue, I suspect, because of its global nature.
The Prime Minister said earlier this week that Britain is a moral country. I believe that. I believe from what we have seen from communities and people across the country that we are a moral country, but I rather fear that this Statement falls short of a moral response.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord for their responses to the Statement. I will start by responding to comments that were made about the refugee situation. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness about the contribution that refugees have made to this country over decades. I share her assessment of the positive aspects that we have gained as a country because of our approach to accepting refugees historically.
The noble Baroness asked me quite a few questions about this situation, including whether we would be starting off the new, expanded approach, which the Prime Minister announced today, by treating the matter as urgent. I can confirm that this is indeed urgent. The Prime Minister is right to say that accepting a specific number of refugees will not solve this crisis. We must make a contribution to assisting the people who have been affected so devastatingly in Syria. The country can be proud of what we have done over the last few years in assisting refugees who have been displaced there. Our approach to the numbers who arrive here will be very much informed by the UNHCR process. We will work very closely with them, as they are the experts in this area who will be able to advise on the people we should be accommodating. We will clearly be co-operating with local authorities and we have been in contact with the Local Government Association today. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, the Home Secretary and Communities Secretary will be leading a new Cabinet committee to make sure that we are co-ordinated, across government, in our proper response and in the way we support the refugees as they arrive.
The noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord asked about how the aid budget will be used to support local authorities in their efforts to assist the refugees when they arrive, and there were questions about the use of reserves. The use of the aid budget to support refugees who are given support in the UK is compliant with the rules on the use of that budget. As to whether we would use reserves to do more in this area, the Chancellor will return to this when he looks at the spending review. It is important to stress that the aid budget will increase, in monetary terms, because our GDP is increasing. As I said in the Statement, this will be used to greatest effect where we feel we can make the most positive impact. There will be discussions with the devolved assemblies, via the committee to which I have already referred.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister spoke today to Chancellor Merkel about what he was going to announce in Parliament and she gave her support to our measures. The British Home Secretary was one of the early voices calling for the meeting of European Justice and Home Affairs Ministers which will take place next week and will look at this matter again. I made it clear in the Statement that the UK is not a party to Schengen and that we believe our approach is the right one. In answer to the specific question from the noble and learned Lord, we do not feel it is right to offer refuge in the UK to the refugees who are currently in Europe, but we want to see greater co-ordination within Europe and the countries which operate within the Schengen agreement. We will provide and continue to provide our support to Europe in making sure that its borders are properly policed. The noble and learned Lord asked a specific question about how the rules would apply to refugees when they arrive in this country. The same rules that exist now will apply.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for his comments about the Attorney-General, his approach to his judgment and its being compliant with international law. The noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness asked about publication of the Attorney-General’s advice. As the noble and learned Lord acknowledged, it is not our practice to publish that advice. He also asked me whether we would publish a statement on the general legal position. There is a distinction to be drawn between when we published the legal position that was informing our proposal to take military action in Syria and Iraq, and this occasion when we are informing Parliament of action that was taken to deal with a planned counterterrorism atrocity. A distinction is to be drawn there, but I certainly will look at that.
The noble Baroness asked about the person in question and what distinguished them from others who may be proposing terrible attacks in the United Kingdom. The point to emphasise is that this person was operating in a place where we had no other option as regards the action that we decided to take. We are clear that that action was legal, proportionate, legitimate and the right thing to do.
The noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord asked about scrutiny. By making this Statement and by making himself available to answer questions today, the Prime Minister is being held to account and is subject to some scrutiny. Further scrutiny that might apply—whether that be by the Intelligence and Security Committee or the independent reviewer—is something that we would want to consider. Certainly, we accept that we have undertaken action which is new and has not happened in this way before. Therefore, it is understandable that Parliament will ask questions about the scrutiny of this action.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned that the time limit for Back-Benchers has been extended from 20 minutes to 40 minutes. That is to allow more questions and is not an excuse to make speeches. I remind noble Lords that the Companion is very clear that,
“brief questions from all quarters of the House are allowed”,
and that a Statement,
“should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate”.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, in the summer of 1939, I came to Britain by good fortune on a Kindertransport. At that time, Britain was the only country taking children who came in that way. It showed enormous generosity, which is not being equalled by what the Government have announced today. Will the Government show greater generosity, both in the number of vulnerable people this country accepts and in ensuring that those who come here are given the same welcome and wonderful opportunities that I have had?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Clearly, the noble Lord is a great example of this country’s generosity and of the great contribution that people who have arrived here as refugees can make to this country. I do not accept his description that the Government, in the actions that they have set out today and have taken over the past few years in Syria, are not equalling what they have done in the past. This country has given a huge amount and will continue to do so. The noble Lord is right to emphasise children in this context but it is also right for me to remind the House, and to refer to the comments I made in the Statement, that we will be led very much by advice from the UNHCR. It would argue that in many cases it is not always the right course of action to give refuge to unaccompanied children and that sometimes it is better for the children to remain in the countries in which they are being looked after, rather than being given refuge somewhere else. We will be driven by the experts in this matter.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey (Con)
Will my noble friend draw the Secretary of State for International Development’s attention to the bad conditions, through no fault of the Kurdish people, for those Iraqis who have taken refuge in the Kurdish area of Iraq? They are potentially a further stream of refugees. The conditions in the camps are one of the reasons that so many people have set out to take perilous journeys and cause the great difficulties we have within Europe at present. While I welcome the Statement, it is not enough to look just at what has happened in Syria and the camps that have taken Syrians. We have to look at the whole area. There is certainly capacity to disrupt those camps, which causes other people to flee.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am grateful to my noble friend and I know how much she does to support refugees. She is very experienced in international aid and assistance. While Syria is the priority, we do not give refuge just to Syrians. There are refuge programmes, of which this country is proud, which ensure that others from other countries get assistance, but we are giving priority to those to whom the UNHCR says we should give priority at this time.
Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the extent to which we are increasing our help for Syrian refugees. Is it not time, however, for us to put our considerable diplomatic weight behind serious attempts, with our European partners, to find a political solution to the Syrian crisis that might ultimately enable many of these migrants and asylum seekers to return to their homes? Should we not now accept that there can be no political solution to the Syrian civil war without the involvement of the regime in Damascus? Should we not be telling our Saudi, Gulf and Turkish allies that there are more important priorities than regime change in Damascus? Is it not time to accept that both the Russians and the Iranians can play an important part, not only in encouraging Damascus to work for a political solution but in helping the regime to confront ISIS, which has tragically occupied large swathes of Syria’s sovereign territory? Is there any logical reason why the Russians, who still enjoy a treaty of friendship with Damascus, do not have a right equal to that of the western coalition to protect their own interests in Chechnya and central Asia?
I note that the Statement describes the Syrian refugees as fleeing the terror of Assad and ISIL. We ought to consider more closely the differing objectives of our coalition allies in arming and supporting the Syrian rebels, whether it is the removal of Assad’s Government, part of a wider Sunni conflict or attempts to destroy the PKK. Is continuing our present policies seriously in our national interest?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord has covered a lot of ground in that contribution. Briefly, I would say that he is, of course, right that there has to be a political solution to the crisis in Syria. We agree that that requires the involvement of many, many actors in that region and other powerful regions around the world. I do not agree with his assessment of Assad. As he may recall from my responses to questions on previous Statements before the Recess, the UK is in dialogue with the Russians in order for them to use what influence they have over Assad, but we are very clear that the way in which we progress will not be one in which we are willing to work with Assad.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister realises what a discreditable attempt at press management it is to bring these two Statements together to us this afternoon. On the question of refugees, may I ask her to confirm what I think she said a moment ago—that any child or orphan brought in under this scheme will, as is the case under present legislation, be deported at the age of 18? That is what she seemed to say. Is that correct? And can she please explain the logic whereby the Government say that they will help refugees who are already housed and secure, and already being fed, in refugee camps outside Europe, but will do nothing for refugees who are desperate, and in some cases dying, for want of those things inside Europe? Is the difficult thing, which the Government cannot say, the words “inside Europe”?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am not going to dignify the noble Lord’s comments about press management with a response. In response to the specific questions he asked, the point I was trying to make about the way in which we will support refugees who come to us who are children is that there is a clear legal framework that applies when people arrive here as refugees, which includes, after so many years, people being entitled to residency in the United Kingdom. I am not suggesting that there is a new set of rules, or a change to existing rules, because of this expanded refugee programme at this time. As for those seeking refuge who have already arrived in Europe, I agree with the noble Lord that we have seen harrowing evidence of suffering not just over the last few days but over the last few weeks, but we are very clear in our mind as a Government that the best policy is the one that we are pursuing: to support people in Syria and to offer refuge to those in the camps in the countries on the borders of Syria, in order to prevent more people risking their lives by crossing the Mediterranean to seek refuge. We really believe that that is the right way forward.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
I warmly welcome this start in the response of domestic hospitality, which comes in addition to the very considerable work that we have done overseas through the overseas aid budget and the work of the Royal Navy. It is on that basis that, challenged by this, the churches, starting this morning, are working urgently to add to what they have already been doing locally, and to work together to achieve and support a coherent, compassionate and credible public policy. I have spoken today to Cardinal Nichols about this. Does the Minister accept, however, that 20,000 is still a very slim response in comparison both to the figures given by the UNHCR and the European Commission, and to the other needs we see, and that it is likely to have to rise over the next five years, unless of course the driver, which I hope she accepts is local conditions in the camps, is dealt with significantly? Does she also accept that within the camps there is significant intimidation and radicalisation, and that many of the Christian population, in particular, who have been forced to flee, are unable to be in the camps? What is the Government’s policy about reaching out to those who are not actually in the camps? Finally, does she accept that, regardless of membership of Schengen, a problem on this scale can only morally and credibly be dealt with by widespread European collaboration?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am very grateful to the most reverend Primate for being here today and contributing on this Statement, and for his leadership, and that of other faith leaders, over the last few days and the recent period while we have been observing such terrible scenes. He raises some important points. He described our response as a slim one; he will not be surprised that I do not accept that definition. As I have said, we do not believe that this is just about providing refuge to individuals here in the United Kingdom; we must support people who are in and around Syria and are very much in need, and we have been doing that in a substantial way. No other European country has contributed as we have over the last few years, and I really believe that we should be proud of what we have done to support people in that part of the world. We want to continue doing so, and we are targeting our aid in that area—using the increase, in monetary terms, in the aid budget because of the rise in GDP—so that we can ensure that, as the most reverend Primate highlights, local conditions in the camps are addressed. As for the Christians being among those who are most in need because they are not receiving the support that others are, this is something for us to discuss with the UNHCR. It is important that when the UNHCR considers the criteria for those who are most vulnerable, those should include Christians who are not receiving the kind of support that others may receive.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, since the Prime Minister’s harder line last week, we have seen the tragic photographs of that drowned little boy. Recalling that his family fled from Syria to Turkey and were trying to get to Greece rather than go into a camp, will the Minister confirm that that family would not have been helped in any way by this Statement? Secondly, does the status of the five-year humanitarian protection visa mean that people would be in danger of being deported at the end of the five years, if conditions were to change? Does that accord with our obligations under the refugee convention? What is the legal advice on that? Finally, I want to ask about the letter to the President of the UN Security Council that is said to justify action in respect of a named individual. Does that letter just give a bare assertion that this man was planning action, or has planned action, against the UK, or was evidence supplied that came from our intelligence services? Clearly it would be wrong for this House to ask for the evidence, but surely there must be some evidence, rather than a bare assertion, if we are to convince the UN Security Council that we are acting in accordance with proper legal principles.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I will have to come back to the noble Lord on his last question about the letter to the UN. I am not clear about the specific terms in which a sovereign nation has to inform the United Nations and the detail it is necessary to set out. However, I am confident that we will have complied with the necessary requirements in informing the United Nations. As the noble Lord acknowledges, it is not possible for me to go into the detail of the evidence as that would compromise our security procedures. On his questions about our existing arrangements for refugees, as I am not familiar with the detail of how refugees are supported when they come to the United Kingdom in terms of their status, residency and so on, and as this question has been raised a couple of times, I will place a letter in the Library outlining the situation. However, I reassure the House that the existing arrangements will continue to apply. I am happy to outline that in a letter.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, has my noble friend seen the reports that ISIL boasts that it will infiltrate thousands of jihadists into the tens of thousands of refugees leaving Syria? Will she therefore give a cast-iron guarantee that we will concentrate our priorities on women, children and the vulnerable, and that they will all be thoroughly screened before coming to this country? Will she therefore treat with extreme caution demands that we take some of the fit and well-fed young men we saw fighting Hungarian police, because it seems to me that, if they are willing to do that, they might not be the best fighters for British values?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My noble friend makes an important point. One of the reasons why we believe that the policy we have adopted of giving refuge to people via a resettlement programme that includes a very thorough screening process by the UNHCR is the right one is that it offers us a much better assurance that we do not risk people coming to this country to attack us. We cannot have the same assurances in respect of those fleeing Syria who have been accepted through routes adopted by others in the European Union.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement’s explicit commitment—
Lord Ashton of Hyde
We cannot all speak at once. It is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
The Statement is a Statement, is a Statement, and the Leader has my support and sympathy. There are many things in the Statement with which I agree. However, I am puzzled by what it does not say. In particular, I am puzzled by the noble Baroness’s answers to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lords, Lord Ashdown, Lord Dubs and Lord Anderson. We are saying that we will not help one of the 366,000 people who are now in continental Europe and that had the little boy on the beach at Bodrum lived, he would have been no concern of ours. Unlike our friends in Dublin, who are not bound by Schengen any more than we are but are voluntarily taking some of these tragic refugees, we are saying that we will take not one of them, however awful their case, and that is what we will say at the European Union meeting this week. Are we sure that reflects the spirit of the country? Are we sure that is in the national interest? Are we sure that a little magnanimity might not come in handy?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am clear that we as a nation have decided that the best way of supporting—
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
If your Lordships prefer, I will say “Government”. This democratically elected Government have decided that this country will support those in need through the approach that I have outlined. Indeed, that has been our policy for a considerable time. We have given refuge to 5,000 people from Syria since the crisis started. Alongside the refuge that we are offering, we have made a huge contribution to support those people affected by this crisis in the region. That is not something that can be said about all the other member states in the European Union. We think that our approach is the right one for the refugees, and the right one in the long-term interests of achieving stability in that area and supporting people in need.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I regret deeply the absence of any reference in the Statement by the Government to co-operation with other countries. At least in July before we rose, the Prime Minister’s Statement referred to the need for Britain to operate within a broad international coalition. Does not the noble Baroness accept that this is a common problem that we share above all with our neighbours on the European continent and that there has to be common action, particularly European action? Does she not accept, for example, that what is happening in Calais, which directly affects us, is part of this same movement of peoples across Europe; that we depend on co-operation with the French and others in this respect; and that co-operation, not unilateral action by Britain alone, is where we have to take things forward from here?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord makes a good point about Calais. Clearly, we have co-operated with the French over the summer to address the situation that worsened earlier in the summer. The Home Secretary was one of the Home Affairs and Justice Ministers who called for the meeting that will take place next week because we think it right that Europe should co-operate more. However, those within the Schengen agreement are not operating in a co-ordinated, coherent way. We want to support them but we are very clear that we do not believe it is in the best interests of this country or those who are most in need to join the action that has been taken by other member states. We are co-operating all the time with our partners in Europe by helping them strengthen their operations on the borders and trying to provide them with the expertise they need. However, in the end they have decided that they want to pursue the course they are following. We believe that by pursuing that course they are increasing the flow of refugees from Syria and that is putting people’s lives at risk unnecessarily. We think that a much better approach is the one we are pursuing, which is to provide refuge but to do so for people from the camps directly.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, can we please have order? I am afraid that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, arrived in the Chamber not only after the Statement had been read but also after the contribution had been made from her own Front Bench. In the circumstances she ought to follow the Companion and not speak. It is the Labour Party’s turn and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is on his feet.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, on the basis of the admittedly limited evidence that we have, the Government were absolutely right to take a decision to eliminate those three terrorists. I think that in similar circumstances they will have the support of almost the whole country in taking action when it is necessary and clearly called for in instances of that kind.
Is it not the case that we badly need a debate on refugees, not just a Statement, not least because of the longer-term consequences and almost certainly a great increase in the number of refugees and immigration applicants from all sorts of places as a result of the drama of the last few weeks? Is it not however, sadly, really rather nauseating for the Prime Minister to congratulate himself on a policy of “extraordinary compassion”—that is the phrase used in the Statement this afternoon—when, in fact, we are taking none at all of the refugees from Syria who are currently on the move? We are taking only up to 20,000 over five years. Have not the Germans, who have undertaken to take 800,000 almost immediately, thoroughly put us to shame on that? Is there not also the rather unpleasant sense that on this very important issue, as in so many others, the Government’s policies seem driven by a PR agenda? Ten days ago when immigrants or refugees were bad news generally in many people’s minds in the Government, the Government were not prepared to take a single new Syrian refugee. Then the media published pictures of dead children on the beach—
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am sorry to interrupt but can the noble Lord please be brief and ask a brief question?
Lord Davies of Stamford
Is it not very unfortunate that the impression should be given that it is a PR agenda rather than a matter of principle or even a long-term analysis of national interest on which the Government’s decisions in this area have been based?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
As regards the noble Lord’s request for a debate, my noble friend the Chief Whip has already scheduled time for a debate on the humanitarian situation. That is scheduled for a week on Wednesday. Regarding the other points made by the noble Lord, I can only repeat what I said before. This is a policy that the Government have adopted over the last few years. We believe that the contribution we are making to support people in and around that region is significant. It is much greater than any other European country. As far as expanding the refugee programme, the policy remains the same; we are simply expanding it because we see an increased need at this time.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, it is very important that migrants in danger of drowning in the Mediterranean should be rescued. However, at present after being rescued they are then disembarked in the European Union, thereby adding to the number of people coming across the borders. Does my noble friend agree that it is not really compatible with our policy that we should continue to do that, because at the moment the traffickers are able to say, “Don’t worry if the boats look unseaworthy. You’ll be rescued by the navy and taken to your destination anyway”? Therefore, they are encouraged even more to take the risk. More broadly, do we not have a definite interest in the Schengen agreement, which results in the situation in Calais, as has been pointed out? Should we not take a much stronger line in persuading our European partners that they ought—at any rate on a temporary basis—to suspend Schengen because it is not compatible with having external borders that are clearly not effective?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My noble friend remarked on those crossing the Mediterranean. I think we were right to provide assistance via the Royal Navy to those who require rescue from the crossings. However, he raised an important point that I do not think I have yet addressed in response. There are criminals involved in taking advantage of these very vulnerable and desperate people. They are making money out of people in great danger. By following our policy, we are trying to make it clear that there is another way to refuge that does not require the risk. It should also mean, therefore, that we are able to disrupt the criminal behaviour of people abusing the weakness and vulnerability of people.
On my noble friend’s point about Schengen, he is absolutely right that it is very important that the borders of the European Union are properly held and policed and that we, although we are not a member of Schengen, should do all that we can to make sure that those borders are strong. That is where we make a very strong contribution, have done for a long time, and will continue to do, because we do not think that Europe is doing all that it should in maintaining its borders.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again. It is actually the turn of the Cross Benches and then we can come to Labour.
Lord Green of Deddington
My Lords, first, I warmly endorse the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. Both he and I are former ambassadors in Damascus. We have first-hand knowledge of that country and its regime. We have been long concerned about the Government’s policy towards Syria and we think it is time for it to be reviewed. That said, does the Minister agree that the focus of the debate has been entirely on refugees, which of course is right? However, not all migrants are refugees. We have to keep in mind that a significant number—we do not know how many and we will not know until their cases have been considered—are in fact economic migrants.
It is very important that the actions taken by Governments in Europe and in the UK do not have the unintended effect of causing a very large flow of people into the Union and this country who have no right to be here. Does the Minister therefore agree that this is exactly the wrong moment to cut the resources available to the Home Office and the Border Force to distinguish between genuine refugees and economic migrants? They should be doing the exact opposite. We have a new and major crisis on this whole front and that should be recognised in the way we address it.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord raises an important point—that not all those arriving in Europe are refugees, and some are economic migrants. That is another reason why we believe that our policy is better than the one that others in Europe are adopting because, informed by the specific advice from the UNHCR, we are able to make sure that those to whom we give refuge are not seeking a better life for themselves for only economic reasons while not at immediate risk. Regarding the other points raised by the noble Lord, clearly it is essential that we maintain our borders and that is something that we continue to do.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify a couple of points in the Statement. It makes the point that this country has provided sanctuary for more than 5,000 Syrians so far. It goes on to say that we will settle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees over the Parliament. Are we in total proposing to settle 25,000 or are the 5,000 already subsumed in the 20,000 mentioned later in the Statement?
The Statement also says that we will play our part,
“alongside our other European partners”,
and then goes on to say that we will decide our “own approach”. While I did not altogether welcome the tone of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, he does have a very strong point indeed. Surely a child who has drowned on a beach in Europe does every bit as much to excite our compassion as a child washed up on a beach outside our borders. The response of the British public in the last 10 days or so has shown that actually people are not that concerned whether we are taking people solely from the refugee camps pinpointed in the Statement. Surely it is right that if we really are demonstrating compassion we extend it to people who are suffering every bit as much in the countries of Europe of which we are a part. I hope the Minister can assure us that that point will be kept under constant review and that the Government will keep listening to what the British people say about this, because I for one do not believe that the Government have quite got the message yet.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I can confirm for the noble Baroness and the House that the 20,000 mentioned in the Statement are in addition to the 5,000 refugees that we have already given sanctuary to, so that number will not be absorbed into the 20,000. As far as her other comments are concerned, I agree that the people of this country do not draw a distinction when looking at the plight of people in desperate need. We are all moved by those in need of help and support, and by the tragic circumstances of those who have sought refuge and, on the way, have lost their own children. But alongside their not drawing a distinction between where people are coming from, at the same time, what people in this country look for—and what we as a Government are trying to do in our response to this situation—is for us to combine two simultaneous requests from the public. They are that we show our compassion by providing support for people in desperate need but do so in a way which is well organised, is actually sustainable and, in the long term, will not make matters worse; and that we have a policy that will ultimately help to bring an end to the situation causing all this desperation. I think that they look for something which is comprehensive, and that is what we are trying to deliver.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, as we have already said, many local authorities up and down the country have been preparing contingency plans to assist them to make room for the refugees. Many of these local authorities have growing lists of residents who are in temporary accommodation but are nevertheless willing to help. All local authorities should be able to say how many refugees they will accept, and central government must say what it will do to make sure that the refugees get the funding needed. Will the noble Baroness say in what way the Syrian refugees are to be dispersed throughout the country and how their children are to be integrated into our schools and education system?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The discussions between central government and local government are only just starting, although there is already very much a partnership in place with those local authorities that have been giving assistance and refuge to those whom we have already helped over the last few years. I assure the noble Baroness that we will work with the local authorities and, as I say, adopt a partnership approach.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, we have very little time. It is the turn of the Conservatives.
Lord Deben
Does my noble friend accept that the words of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, remarking upon the fact that many Christians cannot stay in the camps because of intimidation, mean that the policy of the Government, which may be logical in every way, ought to be reconsidered in such a way that we can take those refugees who have had to leave the camps and find themselves on the continent of Europe? To refuse to do that would not represent or respect what the British people want.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My noble friend heard what I said in response to the most reverend Primate and I do not really have anything to add to that. I have tried in my responses today to demonstrate that the Government are providing refuge to people in desperate need. We are building on a programme of support that has been extensive and very much at the forefront of what else is being provided by other members of the European Union. We will continue to do all that we can. I am sure we will continue to discuss this on other occasions, and I very much look forward to that.
Energy Bill [HL]
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Worthington
“( ) are necessary in order to inform the OGA’s role in developing and promoting carbon storage,”
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, thank you for returning to Committee. Amendment 12 in Clause 5 relates to the Secretary of State’s abilities to give directions to the Oil and Gas Authority. Again, I fear that we are now retreading familiar territory in our discussion of the Bill and some of the concerns that we have with it. The amendments in this group are probing and designed to give the Minister an opportunity to respond on how he considers that these powers might be used by the Secretary of State. We revisit the two issues that we talked about earlier today, which are that the Oil and Gas Authority should have explicit mention of carbon storage and transportation in its objectives and in the matters to which it has regard. For consistency’s sake, we therefore believe that the Secretary of State should also have those powers.
The purpose of these amendments, particularly Amendments 12 and 14, which are in my name, is to ask the Minister whether he could give us a little more information about the circumstances under which he envisages the Secretary of State needing to use these powers. Perhaps he could also give us an example of what kind of direction he imagines the Secretary of State might be giving the Oil and Gas Authority in relation to its functions under these powers. There is clearly not much in the public domain to help me get a handle on the thinking behind Clause 5, so it really would be an illuminating contribution from the Minister if he were able to give us some examples of the circumstances, particularly the exceptional circumstances referred to in the Bill, and the examples of direction.
We had a discussion prior to the break about the primary purposes of the OGA. I remain convinced that there is a clean and very succinct way of doing this, which is to refer to the Oil and Gas Authority’s primary objectives and to include within them explicit reference to activities that go beyond maximising economic recovery, as it is perhaps formally or informally understood. At the moment, it is interpreted as meaning that we will extract the maximum volume of hydrocarbons from our natural resources which fall within our territorial waters offshore, and indeed onshore. But it may be that that definition of MER, while it still of course has cross-party support, needs to be revisited and revised.
In the previous discussion, we saw reference to new matters to which the OGA should have regard being added to Clause 4. The Minister’s response in that debate was that there is no need to be explicit about these matters and that climate change is taken care of elsewhere, as indeed is the need to decarbonise and CCS. But if that logic were to apply, it is the case that one of the matters stated in Clause 4 is the need to have regard to a secure supply of energy, so if we are being true to ourselves and saying that we should have a narrow focus for the OGA and do not need to reiterate these things, there is no need for any reference to security of supply in that part of the Bill either. However, I do not think that is correct. Indeed it was helpful that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who is no longer in his place, made reference to the fact that to avoid doubt it is always better to be explicit about these things, for fear that people with slight imagination —he used that phrase but perhaps it should be “lacking in imagination”—might mean that there is a narrow interpretation of what the OGA is created to do and what is within its powers and remit.
That is a very lengthy way of saying that we look forward to hearing more from the Minister on Clause 5, which is clearly an important part of the Bill. However, as I read it, I am left wondering what these exceptional circumstances are and what these directions could look like. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in his response. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, but I also want to apologise to the Committee because, due to my attendance at my Select Committee, I was unable to be here for the previous debate, during which, as my noble friend said, the case was made for ensuring that the OGA—while it may well have principal objectives—has to operate in the context of wider energy policies. Issues of climate change, energy security and affordability are relevant to how the OGA fulfils its main functions. Indeed, if its main function is in terms of maximum economic recovery, what happens on those other dimensions of energy policy affects the actual economics in MER. Therefore, it is important that the OGA, as set out in the earlier clauses, has some regard to those broader objectives of energy policy. It is also important that the Secretary of State can intervene in those areas.
Amendment 13 would allow the Secretary of State to give directions where it would be necessary to meet the terms of the Climate Change Act and the budgets promulgated under that Act. Amendment 15 relates to the Committee’s discussion before the break about carbon capture and storage, so that directions could relate explicitly to the storage of gas and oil and the storage of carbon dioxide as part of a carbon capture and storage scheme. The amendments previously discussed relating to Clause 4 need to be complemented with the ability of the Secretary of State to intervene on those same subjects. That is what these amendments would do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in this group and I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate for speaking to their amendments. Amendments 12 to 15 relate to Clause 5 of Part 1 of the Bill, which concerns directions the Secretary of State may give to the Oil and Gas Authority. As the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said at the outset of our consideration in Committee, most of what we are looking at in the non-government amendments relates to carbon capture and storage. That is certainly a point well made. As I have indicated, we have undertaken that we will look at the issues relating to carbon capture and storage prior to Report.
As has been said, Clause 5 gives the Secretary of State power to direct the Oil and Gas Authority in the exercise of its functions if the Secretary of State considers the directions in the interest of national security or otherwise in the public interest. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, asked for examples of that and I will try to provide a couple. First, if a licence is applied for by a person who is suspected of corruption and whose possession of a licence the Secretary of State thinks would lead to reputational embarrassment or political damage to the United Kingdom, the intention is that the Secretary of State should be able to direct the Oil and Gas Authority not to issue a licence to such a person.
Secondly, another instance may be if there are other competing uses for a particular area of the seabed in respect of which the Oil and Gas Authority may grant licences. The intention then is that the Secretary of State should be able to give a direction to the Oil and Gas Authority as to over which areas it should or should not exercise its licensing powers so as not to prejudice those other uses.
Finally, another example may be that the Secretary of State should be able to direct the Oil and Gas Authority not to grant further consents for development in the face of public concern about the scientific evidence in relation to the methods used or a change in government policy. Clearly, that is not an exclusive list but those are some situations that may be covered by it.
The amendment makes it clear that the power in Clause 5 can extend to the Oil and Gas Authority’s functions in relation to the carbon capture and storage sector. We believe that it is unnecessary to do this because the Secretary of State’s power to give directions to the Oil and Gas Authority as to the exercise of its functions already applies to the carbon capture and storage sector in so far as it is in the ambit of the Bill.
Baroness Maddock (LD)
I thank the Minister for allowing me to ask a question on this issue. At Second Reading I asked how much the Government had looked at the way Norway had organised its oil and gas industry. When Norway looked at these areas, I wondered how far it looked at carbon capture and storage and whether we have learnt anything from that in relation to what we are discussing at the moment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I have no direct knowledge about lessons we have learnt from Norway, but I can certainly reassure the noble Baroness that we look closely at the Norwegian experience and the Canadian experience of carbon capture and storage. If I may, I will drop her a line on that and copy it to other Peers who have participated in today’s debate.
We believe this amendment is unnecessary as the Secretary of State’s power to give directions to the Oil and Gas Authority in the exercise of its functions already applies to the carbon capture and storage sector, as I have said. On that basis, we do not see the need for this amendment. Similarly, Amendment 15 makes it clear that the Secretary of State’s directions to the Oil and Gas Authority may include requirements on the development of storage facilities for gas and oil, or storage of carbon dioxide, as part of a carbon capture and storage scheme. Once again, the Secretary of State’s functions of licensing the storage and unloading of gas and the storage of carbon dioxide are being transferred to the Oil and Gas Authority by the Bill. As such, the Secretary of State’s power to give directions to the Oil and Gas Authority in the exercise of its functions already applies to these sectors. Were additional functions to be added to the Bill, they, too, would be covered by this provision and an amendment would not be necessary.
Turning to Amendments 13 and 14, the Oil and Gas Authority will be established formally so that it is an effective, robust and independent regulator. As part of this, it will deliver on the strategy to maximise the economic recovery of petroleum from the United Kingdom continental shelfs. The Oil and Gas Authority is purposely not an environmental regulator and environmental regulation will continue to sit within the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which has the expertise and experience in this field. There are synergies between the two forms of regulation and the existing strong relationship between the Oil and Gas Authority and the department will continue. The department will continue with its vital mission of seeking secure and diverse energy supplies, including renewables, nuclear and indigenous resources. The United Kingdom has adopted ambitious climate change targets, committing us to an 80% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2050. Emissions are already down by 29% on those levels.
As I indicated on a previous amendment that was brought forward on environmental concerns, these amendments also raise issues of compliance with the offshore safety directive, which is legally enforceable against us. This requires a separation of oil and gas licensing from environmental functions. So it may not be legally possible to do this either.
Lord Whitty
I do not believe that either my amendment or the other amendments intend to designate the OGA as a drafter or an enforcer of environmental legislation. They seek to ensure that anything the OGA does will not jeopardise—preferably, they would further—the broader objectives of the Government. This does not mean that it is a regulator; rather, that the Secretary of State would have the ability to intervene if some of the economic decisions taken by the OGA jeopardise its legal obligations under the domestic climate change Acts, or indeed jeopardise its international legal obligations under EU or any global climate change agreements. We are not arguing that the OGA should be an environmental regulator.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. We will have another look at the position, and indeed I am probably using the term “environmental regulator” in something of a shorthand sense. We have legal concerns on this, but I undertake to take a second look and possibly we will come back to it on Report.
In the light of my comments and the undertakings that I have made previously, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Worthington
I thank the Minister for his reply and my noble friend Lord Whitty for his contribution to the debate. It is helpful to have specific examples of when the Secretary of State may need to take powers to direct the OGA. I have to say, though, that they do not really reassure me. I should like to read Clause 5 again in more detail because it seems that when it comes to the licensing of activities, competition and scientific evidence, it will give the Secretary of State quite a high degree of enabling power. I wonder whether the process as outlined in the Bill, which is just to notify Parliament with no debate, is sufficient in the circumstances. I could fast forward and imagine a time when there might be a part of, shall we say, a constituency which may not wish to have a particular oil and gas activity taking place. It might suit the Secretary of State to exclude that objection, and in these circumstances it seems that the Secretary of State could simply ask the OGA to do so without any debate about it.
The examples are helpful and it may be something we come back to on Report. However, before I withdraw the amendment I should like to reiterate my point that if we are going to take the line of defence that the OGA is narrow and does not need to have all these matters cluttering its mind, this seems to be a situation where it is being expected to have some sort of regard to security of supply, even though it is not a security of supply expert any more than it is a climate change expert. In terms of the trilemma, which we all know and love, of energy security, affordability and decarbonisation, to make explicit reference to security of supply in Clause 4 but not to affordability or climate change issues seems to suggest that one leg of the stool is more equal than the others. Again, we will probably want to come back to that, even if it is just to take out the reference to security of supply, which might be the most obvious solution.
At this stage I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but as I say, I will read Clause 5 with a greater degree of understanding and scrutiny now that we are back from the Recess. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Powers of the OGA to charge fees
(1) The OGA may charge fees—
(a) for making a determination under Schedule 1 to the Oil Taxation Act 1975; (b) on an application made to it under section 3, 15, 16 or 17 of the Petroleum Act 1998;(c) on an application of a prescribed description made to it by the holder of a licence granted under—(i) section 3 of that Act (searching for, boring and getting petroleum), or(ii) section 2 of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 (licences to search for and get petroleum);(d) on an application of a prescribed description made to it by the holder of an authorisation issued under section 15 of the Petroleum Act 1998;(e) for carrying out or attending any test, examination or inspection of a prescribed description;(f) on an application made to it under section 4 or 18 of the Energy Act 2008;(g) on an application of a prescribed description made to it by the holder of a licence granted under section 4 or 18 of that Act;(h) for the storage by it of samples or information in accordance with an information and samples plan (see section (Information and samples plans: supplementary) (2) of this Act).(2) The fees—
(a) are to be determined by or in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, and(b) are to be payable by such persons as the regulations may provide.(3) The OGA must pay into the Consolidated Fund any amount which it receives in respect of fees charged by it under this section.
(4) Subsection (3) does not apply where the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, otherwise directs.
(5) Where in relation to any matter the OGA has a function mentioned in subsection (6), that function is treated for the purposes of this section as carried out pursuant to an application made to the OGA (whether or not there is any requirement to make such an application).
(6) The functions are—
(a) extending the term of a licence;(b) giving its consent or approval in relation to any matter;(c) objecting in relation to any matter.(7) The Secretary of State must consult the OGA before making regulations under this section.
(8) In this section “prescribed” means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I will now speak to the government Amendments 16 to 19, which relate to the funding of the Oil and Gas Authority, including the provision of payments and financial assistance to the authority. The Oil and Gas Authority will be formally established so that it is an effective, robust and independent regulator of petroleum recovery. As part of this, it will deliver on a strategy to maximise the economic recovery of petroleum from the United Kingdom territorial sea and the United Kingdom continental shelf. The new body will be funded by industry. This is consistent with the user pays principle because industry will be benefiting from the work and expertise of the regulator.
The Oil and Gas Authority is providing a range of services to industry. These services include the issuing of licences as well as issuing relevant consents and permits, for example, to begin petroleum production. It is correct and in compliance with the Treasury’s Managing Public Money remit that the costs of these services should be recovered via direct fees rather than via the general levy. This will ensure that only those who require and benefit from the service will bear its costs.
Amendment 16 inserts a new clause into the Bill which will ensure that the costs of the relevant services provided by the Oil and Gas Authority may be recovered via a direct fee. Details of the fee mechanism and the method of calculating the full cost of the service will be set out in regulations. Amendments 17 and 18 insert new clauses allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for a levy on industry to meet the costs of the authority; that is, the indirect costs of administration and so on. These new clauses are in similar terms to the levy provisions set out in Section 42 of and Schedule 7 to the Infrastructure Act 2015, but they reflect the fact that the functions will be carried out by the Oil and Gas Authority as a government company rather than as an executive agency, where in law the functions are with the Secretary of State. We thought it would be more helpful to those using the legislation to find the levy provisions in this Bill, and I hope that noble Lords are reassured by that. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, who is not now in his place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, both referred to the need to simplify access to some of the provisions in this area, so I hope that the fact that they will all be contained in this Bill rather than in the Infrastructure Act 2015 is helpful.
To allow the regulator to recruit and retain the best candidates, particularly those with specialist experience, we need to ensure that the regulator has financial flexibility and sufficient funding. Amendment 17 enables the Secretary of State to provide by regulation for a levy on the holders of specified licences. The levy will fund the costs of the regulator, but it must not exceed the costs incurred in carrying out the relevant functions. The amendment also allows the levy to be imposed to cover the costs of the Oil and Gas Authority exercising its functions, including those relating to the new powers we are conferring on it, such as dispute resolution, data acquisition and enforcement. Amendment 18 sets out illustrations of the way in which the levy power may be exercised. This is in similar terms to Schedule 7 to the Infrastructure Act 2015. Regulations will set out the detail, including the amount payable by different categories of licence holders. Just by way of explanation, it is intended that those licence holders who are actually exploiting the area will be paying more than those who have not yet taken up the opportunity.
Some consequential amendments to the schedule are necessary, such as Amendment 42, which amends the schedule to the Bill to remove the levy provisions from the Infrastructure Act 2015 as set out in Section 42 of and Schedule 7 to that Act. These amendments are covered separately with Amendment 1, which seeks to amend Clause 2, which introduces the schedule. In fact the amendment has already been dealt with, so I fear that my notes are out of date.
I turn now to Amendment 19, which provides a general power for the Secretary of State to make payments and provide financial assistance to the Oil and Gas Authority. The power is not restricted to the specific functions of the authority, and therefore payments may be made at the discretion of the Secretary of State to fund any of its functions. As well as covering statutory functions, it will cover those which are contracted out to the Oil and Gas Authority. The authority will be funded through a levy on the holders of certain energy industry licences and by fees which will be paid for the carrying out of particular services. The Secretary of State may also need to provide funds to the authority to cover any unforeseeable events. The amendment will allow the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to the Oil and Gas Authority in the form of grants, loans, guarantees and indemnities. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, first, obviously the details will be set out in the regulations. Does my noble friend have any idea when those regulations may be available, or if they are available already? That would be helpful to us in our discussions as we go through the Bill. Secondly, I particularly welcome the flexibility that has been given to the Secretary of State to make payments which might unexpectedly be needed. Having that sort of provision makes good sense.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction of these government amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for her contribution. However, I disagree with the noble Baroness slightly on her last comment. It may be necessary for the Government to make financial support available, but I worry that that creates yet another unbounded public spending commitment, and I know that the noble Baroness is very keen to try to constrain such commitments, as are the Government. I question the need for government Amendment 19, but at this stage I am not sufficiently briefed to know how extraordinary these clauses are. Maybe this is a very common thing, and we always create these abilities to give grants to quangos with no further detail, but perhaps we do not. I would be very grateful if the Minister could provide a bit more context, when he replies, about the need to provide for grants, loans and other financial provisions.
I ask because I am concerned about the growing costs of decommissioning, which we have talked about in previous debates. Similarly, I am slightly nervous about unbounded liabilities on the public purse at a time when so many people are being asked to tighten their belts. The profits of the offshore oil and gas industry are well known, and it would seem odd for it to be given special provision while everyone else is seeing their budgets cut. In particular, I am slightly worried that these unforeseeable events are not defined and that there would be, as I read it, very little in the way of opportunity for debate or questioning of the Secretary of State if such financial provisions were made. I would like further clarity on how much scrutiny there might be on that aspect. Those are the main points at the moment, and I look forward to a response from the Minister.
Baroness Byford
Perhaps I could express myself slightly more fully before the Minister responds. I looked at government Amendment 19 in terms of a national emergency—something out of the ordinary—and I was not quite sure, if it did not come in within the new clause, whether there was another way in which that sort of money can be accessed for the OGA. That was the presumed context within which I raised the issue. The noble Baroness is quite right that I am very keen to make sure that the Government live within their means. However, there are times—as we have seen in the international field when we have had major oil spills or something has gone really wrong—when emergency money has to be made available and I wondered whether that was within the context of the new clause in Amendment 19.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I will try to address the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and my noble friend Lady Byford. The first was about when the regulations for the charging regime will be laid. They will need to be in force when functions transfer to the Oil and Gas Authority next summer, assuming the passage of the legislation. We have an indication of how much the levy will cost industry and the distinction to be made between those that are currently exploiting oil and gas fields and those that are not. The cost of the levy for the first six months for licence holders that are not exploiting is £2,759.30p—which seems pretty precise—and for those that are exploiting, it is £30,422.92p. I am sure we would reserve the right to vary that somewhat, but it gives an indication of how much the levy will cost. I think the regulations relating to the activities that are subject to the direct costs have not yet been laid, but I will restate the point that the aim is to recover the costs: it is not make a profit, but to ensure that the costs are covered. That should provide some reassurance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and my noble friend Lady Byford both raised points in relation to Amendment 19, on financial assistance. I think this is intended to cover two situations—if there are others, I will make sure that I deal with them in writing. First, it is intended to cover any shortfall in the levy and charge regime in the short run. I suppose this relates to cash-flow issues and is to ensure that things are kept running. That would presumably be a short-term measure and not involve a great amount of money in the scheme of the authority.
The second point relates to unforeseeable situations. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, asked for examples. In a sense, it is difficult to give examples because they are unforeseeable, but it could include some massive oil spillage where immediate funding is necessary or, God forbid, some terrorist incident where money is needed. That is the sort of situation. Those are two examples, but there will clearly be others, as this is about the unforeseeable. The unpredictable nature of the scenarios is clear there, but in addition there is the cash-flow element. I think it is fairly standard in these situations to have something of this nature. I hope that provides reassurance and that I have satisfied the noble Baroness.
“Levy on licence holders
(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide for a levy to be imposed on, and be payable by, one or more of the following kinds of persons—
(a) persons who hold licences (other than excluded licences) granted under section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998 (searching for, boring and getting petroleum);(b) persons who hold licences (other than excluded licences) granted under section 2 of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 (licences to search for and get petroleum);(c) persons who hold licences granted under section 4 of the Energy Act 2008 (unloading and storing gas);(d) persons who hold licences granted under section 18 of the Energy Act 2008 by the Secretary of State or the OGA (storage of carbon dioxide).(2) The Secretary of State must exercise the power conferred by subsection (1) so as to secure—
(a) that the total amount of licensing levy which is payable in respect of a charging period does not exceed the costs incurred by the OGA in exercising its functions in respect of that period, and(b) that no levy is payable in respect of costs incurred in the exercise of functions—(i) for which fees are charged under section (Powers of the OGA to charge fees), or(ii) which the OGA is authorised to exercise by virtue of an order under section 69 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.(3) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) the total amount of licensing levy payable in respect of a charging period, an amount of levy payable in respect of that period may be ignored if (during that period or subsequently)—
(a) having been paid, it is repaid or credit for it is given against other licensing levy that is payable, or(b) having not been paid, the requirement to pay it is cancelled.(4) The amount or amounts of licensing levy payable by licence holders must be—
(a) set out in the regulations, or(b) calculated in accordance with a method set out in the regulations.(5) The licensing levy is payable to the OGA.
(6) The OGA must pay into the Consolidated Fund any amount which it receives in respect of the licensing levy.
(7) Subsection (6) does not apply where the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, otherwise directs.
(8) The Secretary of State must consult the OGA before making regulations under this section.
(9) Section (The licensing levy: regulations) does not limit the provision that may be made by regulations under this section.
(10) In this section and section (The licensing levy: regulations)—
“charging period” means a period in respect of which licensing levy is payable;“excluded licence”, in relation to a charging period, means a licence that, if granted at the beginning of the period, would fall to be granted by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers (and for these purposes a licence within subsection (1)(b) is to be treated as granted under section 3 of the Petroleum Act 1998);“licensing levy” means the levy provided for in regulations under this section.”
“The licensing levy: regulations
(1) Regulations may provide for the licensing levy payable in respect of a charging period to increase or decrease over that period.
(2) Regulations may provide for an amount of licensing levy payable by a licence holder to be calculated by reference to the size of an area to which a licence held by that person relates.
(3) Regulations may provide for different categories of licence holders to pay—
(a) different amounts of licensing levy, or(b) amounts of licensing levy calculated, set or determined in different ways.(4) Regulations may provide for a category of licence holder to be exempt from payment of the licensing levy.
(5) Regulations may provide for interest (at a rate specified in, or determined under, the regulations) to be charged in respect of unpaid amounts of licensing levy.
(6) Regulations may provide for unpaid amounts of licensing levy (together with any interest charged) to be recoverable as a civil debt.
(7) Regulations may confer a function (including a function involving the exercise of a discretion) on—
(a) the Secretary of State,(b) the OGA, or(c) any other person, apart from the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.(8) Regulations (including regulations of the kinds mentioned in subsections (3) and (4)) may provide for a category of licence holder to consist of persons who hold a kind of licence that is specified in the regulations.
(9) The regulations may (in particular) specify any of the following kinds of licence—
(a) licences granted under a particular enactment;(b) licences of a particular description granted under a particular enactment;(c) licences, or licences of a particular description (including a description falling within paragraph (a) or (b)), granted—(i) before a particular time,(ii) after a particular time, or(iii) during a particular period.(10) In this section—
“licence” means a licence falling within section (Levy on licence holders)(1);“licence holder” means a person who holds a licence (whether the person was granted it or has, after its grant, acquired it by assignment or other means);“regulations” means regulations under section (Levy on licence holders).”
“Payments and financial assistance
(1) The Secretary of State may make payments or provide financial assistance to the OGA.
(2) The payments or financial assistance may be made or provided subject to such conditions as may be determined by the Secretary of State.
(3) In the case of a grant such conditions may, in particular, include conditions requiring repayment in specified circumstances.
(4) In this section “financial assistance” means grants, loans, guarantees or indemnities, or any other kind of financial assistance.”
Lord Whitty
Lord Whitty
My Lords, in moving Amendment 24, I will speak to the others in the group. We move on to information and samples. These relatively small amendments are intended to ensure that the information and sample regime takes account of the role of carbon capture and storage: in other words, that it is reflected within this part of the Bill in the way that it should be reflected—the Minister has indicated some sympathy towards this—in the earlier clauses relating to the activities of the OGA.
Amendments 24 and 25 are very small and are intended to ensure that the definition of “petroleum-related information” is kept as broad as possible, so that it is not limited to the fulfilment of the principal objective—it is narrowly defined at present—and not time limited to activities which continue to be relevant to that objective. In other words, it could be used, either in parallel with extraction processes or after they have taken place, to provide samples and information to CO2 licence holders and storage operators. The use of “and” between the two subsections creates an ambiguity here, and if the Government’s intention is to ensure that the information could be provided to and required of CO2 storage operators, they need to make these amendments.
Similarly, on Amendment 25, which relates to the transfer of such information, there are many within the potential CCS market who regard the inability to access samples as one of the barriers to using former gas and oil facilities for carbon storage. In order to ascertain whether the facility is appropriate and can technically be operated as a storage area, information that is held by the OGA as a result of it having been provided by the extraction operators ought to be made available to the CCS operators. Amendment 25 is designed to ensure that that can happen and that the Government have the powers to transfer such data. The Government have already indicated that they hope to be able to transfer such information, and this would give a proper legal base to that and make it enforceable. In addition, Amendment 28 clarifies that the OGA could require information and samples for the purpose of carrying out any of its relevant functions, not just its principal function. Again, that would ensure that storage licensing was included in that provision.
I hope the Government can look at these amendments and, taking account of the points made earlier in Committee about CCS, consider whether these relatively minor amendments to the Bill would help to encourage and give some degree of confidence to potential operators of CCS making use of our North Sea facilities. I beg to move.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, we are all getting very excited about these amendments so we are anxious to speak. I want to add a couple of sentences. There is a history in the oil and gas sector of not sharing information, for whatever reason: sometimes it is competitiveness but sometimes, although I hate to say it, it is sheer awkwardness. Although CCS technology has been around for a long time and has been proven, there is nervousness about transmission, so it would make a great deal of sense if the OGA had the authority to require the sharing of this information, whether for safety reasons or any other reason. Those of us who have had to deal with the oil and gas industry know that it is very shy about passing on the kind of information that my noble friend Lord Whitty has spoken so eloquently about.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 26A and 30A. As we discussed earlier, the OGA may well choose to encourage small innovative companies to come into the business. The termination of rights under a licence, for whatever reason, may result in the failure of a company. The wording in the Bill seems to imply that the duty to retain information and samples will continue, but I am not sure how long that continues for. If a company ceases to continue in business for whatever reason, what happens to those samples? Is the implication of the clause that the OGA will be bound not to encourage innovation—which would be regrettable—other than in companies that are part of or allied to others and which would pick up the pieces in the event of bankruptcy? In other words, does this subsection of the Bill in practice restrict the OGA’s duty to have regard to,
“The need to encourage innovation”?
I turn to Amendment 30A, picking up on the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, about data sharing. In many businesses, not just the oil business, people are very wary about data sharing, and in many cases I quite understand why. My amendment goes to the other end of the question: what happens to some of these data? Do they get passed on, and what restrictions are there on data being shared and pooled for the benefit of everyone? Over the years, Governments and businesses have been required to release data, which have then been passed on to third companies in a way I am sure the Bill does not intend. My second amendment refers to that. In his letter to me, the Minister stated that,
“information may be disclosed if any one of the factors listed under 27(5) applies”.
However, I still do not understand in what circumstances the OGA would disclose protected material simply because the person who had provided it had consented, although there was no need for disclosure under Clause 27(b), (c) or (d). Is there an implication that permission to disclose will be a standard part of any relationship with the OGA? Really, my amendment comes between the previous contribution relating to the concern that we should share data, which is quite right, and the question of how those data are used, not abused, in future.
These are two very simple amendments, and I am delighted to have spoken to them.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Oxburgh. Here again we have an example of a slight lack of communication at the end of the Recess, but I am certain that by the end of Report we will have all this ironed out.
We are addressing similar points to those addressed by the previous amendments, as described very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Whitty. This gets to the nub of our concern about the OGA’s remit not being sufficiently broad to ensure that it is able to carry out its functions in a rapidly changing world, in which conversations about carbon capture and storage may be happening more often than conversations about the exploration of new wells or life extensions of existing ones. It is about ensuring that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the very sensible powers that have been taken to enable activities in the North Sea to be well organised from applying to those activities when they relate to carbon capture and storage.
We—and, I am sure, others—have received excellent representations from academics and the CCSA on the issue of information sharing and samples, which requires careful attention. I was very interested to find out about the issue of samples. Over the past 50 years of exploration and production in the North Sea, and indeed offshore all around the UK, the oil and gas sector has acquired rock core data. In the drilling and exploration of wells, a core of rock is extracted and then maintained, curated, labelled and well looked after. That core sample contains all sorts of information that might be relevant for people wishing to repurpose sites in the North Sea or to continue their use in other forms. I believe that at the moment there is an obligation to maintain these physical samples. However, if a company abandons a hydrocarbon field, that requirement is no longer in place, and I am told that those physical samples can therefore literally be landfilled. The samples have cost millions, if not billions, to acquire, and should be valued as such.
We would therefore like to see something in the Bill that acknowledges that, when it comes to information and samples, we are discussing a very great resource that has practical implications for the development of CCS when it comes to understanding rock strata, and this information should be available. The Minister might say that the British Geological Survey retains an archive of these rock cores, but that is only an archive: you are not able to take samples from it and cannot use it to do the kind of sampling or study and research that you might want to, so that would not be sufficient. There is a need for something that will keep these cores that are owned by the oil and gas companies in a good state and available for people who may find them useful in future.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, these amendments seek to amend Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Bill, relating to information and samples. This is another smorgasbord of amendments and I shall attempt to do justice to the contributions that have been made.
Amendment 24 seeks to broaden the definition of “petroleum-related information” that is used throughout Chapter 3 of Part 2. The broadening of this term is to include information acquired by relevant persons in the course of carrying out activities that were once, but are no longer, relevant to fulfilment of the principal objective. I confess that we are not certain what the gap is that the amendment seeks to fill, but I am very happy to engage with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to see specifically whether there is a gap and whether we need to fill it. We feel that, as drafted, the clause provides the Oil and Gas Authority with the power to acquire all the information that it is likely to require to fulfil its role.
Amendment 25 seeks to ensure that the two definitions of petroleum-related information are not interdependent. It is our view, having looked at this and having had lawyers look at it, the provisions, as drafted, are not interdependent. Any information that an offshore licensee acquires or creates that is relevant to the principal objective will fall within paragraph (a) and anything a licensee acquires in the course of carrying out activities under their licence which is not relevant to the principal objective would fall within the scope of paragraph (b). This is clarified in the final part of that paragraph, which specifies that in order to fall within paragraph (b) the information cannot also fall within paragraph (a). So I do not think that they can be interdependent, but I am happy to have another look to make sure that we are right. We feel that the clause allows the Oil and Gas Authority to access any information that licensees acquire under their licences, including information which is not relevant to the fulfilment of the principal objective.
I thank those noble Lords who spoke on Amendment 26, which seeks to insert a new subsection into Clause 19 for the purpose of confirming that the provisions within Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Bill, relating to information and samples, apply for the purpose of data sharing with carbon capture and storage operators. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, made some telling points on samples in general. We will look at the points she made about access to the archive and so on—however, we believe that nothing within Chapter 3 prevents the Oil and Gas Authority disclosing information and samples to carbon capture and storage operators, outside the general restrictions provided for in Clause 27. These general restrictions apply to the disclosure of all protected information acquired by the Oil and Gas Authority under its powers in Chapter 3, to any person. Similarly, carbon capture and storage operators are given no special treatment by the clauses, in so far as there is no provision allowing disclosure to them and not to others. Once restricted information is publishable it may be disclosed to any person, including any carbon capture and storage operator.
Amendment 26A relates to Clause 21, which provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing obligations on offshore licensees to retain information and samples where there has been a termination of rights under the licensee’s licence. This information can be of significant importance to the Oil and Gas Authority and the rest of the UK continental shelf, and it is therefore important that the Oil and Gas Authority can continue to access this information and samples after a licence is terminated. Clause 21 states that regulations may provide for the requirements to retain information to continue following a termination of the licensee’s rights under the licence, but the amendment would nullify these obligations if the licensee whose licence rights had been terminated ceases to be in business.
The most frequent ground for termination of a licensee’s rights under a licence is where a licensee transfers interests in a licence to another party. In that case, the rights granted under the licence continue for the party to whom they have been transferred but are automatically terminated in respect to the transferring party. Where a licence is revoked, the obligations and liabilities in respect of that licence continue, even in cases where a licensee becomes insolvent. This is done to protect the regulator from acquiring onerous and costly liabilities which may result from that licence.
This amendment is particularly relevant to information and samples plans, as provided for by Clause 23. These plans are intended to safeguard petroleum-related information and samples during licence events, such as the revocation of a licence after a company becomes insolvent. In such a case it would be imperative for the rights and obligations requiring the retention of information and samples to continue past the termination of rights and until the information and samples plan can be put in place. The amendment would prevent this and allow those companies which cease to be in business legitimately to dispose of the petroleum-related information and samples which they hold. This would be a significant and severe loss for the Oil and Gas Authority and the UK continental shelf as a whole. That is something to which we cannot agree and I am sure that it is not the intention of the amendment. I hope, in those circumstances, that that point will be taken on board.
Amendment 27 seeks to specify that an information and samples plan, as provided for by Clause 23, may provide for the transfer of petroleum-related information or samples to a new licensee or a new carbon dioxide storage licence holder. The policy intent of the information and samples provisions is to ensure that petroleum-related information is accounted for and safeguarded against loss during licence events, such as the surrender and expiry of licence rights. That said, nothing within the existing provisions would prevent a plan providing for the transfer of information to any other person, including a carbon dioxide storage licence holder, and for that person to take on the obligations that are imposed by that plan. The amendment makes presentational but non-material changes to the Bill and I therefore undertake to take it away for further consideration.
Amendment 28 seeks to insert a new subsection into Clause 25 for the purpose of confirming that information and samples plans shall also provide for the sharing of petroleum-related information with carbon capture and storage operators. As I have explained, the information and samples provisions are intended to ensure that petroleum-related information is accounted for and safeguarded against loss during licence events. They are not specifically intended to facilitate the sharing of information between parties. However, I confirm that nothing within the existing information and samples provisions prevents petroleum-related information being shared with carbon capture and storage operators.
Amendments 29 and 30 seek to broaden the scope of the Oil and Gas Authority’s power to acquire information and samples as set out at Clause 26 by either removing the requirement for the Oil and Gas Authority’s function for which the information is requested to be relevant to the fulfilment of the principal objective, or to add an alternative requirement that the function is relevant to the promotion and development of carbon capture transport and storage. Clause 26 is in response to recommendations made in the Wood review, which noble Lords will be aware focused virtually solely on oil and gas exploration and production offshore. The clauses are therefore drafted very specifically to cater for offshore oil and gas, and the focus on the principal objective and offshore licences reflects that. This is an important focus, and any expansion of these powers beyond it may have significant repercussions for other areas of the Oil and Gas Authority’s functions. Much of the information acquired under this power, although relevant to maximising economic recovery in the United Kingdom, will also be of interest and importance to other industries, such as carbon capture and storage. Nothing within the Bill restricts access to that information by any person once it has been published under the disclosure provisions.
The noble Baroness’s Amendment 30A requires that the cases in which protected information may be disclosed by the Oil and Gas Authority, which are detailed in Clause 27(5), must apply in defined circumstances. Clause 27(5) seeks to set out a clear set of circumstances in which protected material may be disclosed under Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Bill. I feel that we do this, but I will be happy to write to my noble friend Lady Byford to seek further to clarify this issue.
Furthermore, Clause 27(8) provides that protected material may be published or made available to the public at such times as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. I therefore consider that there is sufficient detail within the clause to ensure that the circumstances under which protected material may be disclosed are understood.
On the point made by the noble Baroness on stifling innovation, we do not believe that that will happen. The obligations continue indefinitely or until an information and samples plan is put in place. If a company ceases in business, the plan can provide for the ongoing obligations to end, and the information is then handed to the Oil and Gas Authority.
I will look closely at the proceedings in Hansard to ensure that we have looked in detail at those points. As I say, with regard to the one point where the matter seemed to be largely presentational, I will have a look at that to consider whether an amendment is advisable. However, with that, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, comes back on his amendment, perhaps I may return to Amendment 26A. It certainly was not my intention to make things very difficult. My question was on the samples. If a company goes out of business and is not taken over or linked to another, I understand that parts of the samples that are taken are held by the British Geological Survey. However, in response to my earlier inquiry, I was told that the remainder of the sample is required to be retained by the company. I tabled this amendment because of the problem of how that will happen if the company no longer exists. The amendment was not meant to be disruptive but concerned a practical issue: if the company no longer exists, how can it continue to hold a sample? How would that work? Again, I would be very happy for the Minister to take that away to consider it. I did not know the answer to what seemed a very ordinary question.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I know that my noble friend was not seeking to be difficult or disruptive in any way; I know her too well to think that. I am happy to write further on the issue, but if the company goes into liquidation, basically, proceedings under the Insolvency Act would apply, and the liquidator—I believe this is the case, although this is on the hoof—would then have to act in response to any request from the Oil and Gas Authority to make the samples or the information available. However, I will write to my noble friend on that issue and will ensure that other noble Lords are copied in as well.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for such a detailed response to my amendments and the others in this group. Obviously, I will have a very close look at what he said in Hansard and will consult those who were concerned about these issues. Certainly there is concern that the overlap between “principal objective” and “petroleum-related” could exclude things that were not currently related to the extraction—or exploration of the extraction—of petroleum, and therefore could exclude carbon capture and storage. However, the Minister has given various reassurances on that, some of which I will require some legal advice on. I am quite happy to arrange for a meeting with him or his officials. However, I repeat that I am very grateful that he has taken these amendments seriously and I hope that we can reach some accommodation on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(4) In determining the time to be specified in respect of protected material in regulations under section 27(8), the Secretary of State must have regard to the following factors—
(a) whether the specified time will allow owners of protected material a reasonable period of time to satisfy the main purpose for which they acquired or created the material;(b) any potential benefits to the petroleum industry of protected material being published or made available at the specified time;(c) any potential risk that the specified time may discourage persons from acquiring or creating petroleum-related information or petroleum-related samples; (d) any other factors the Secretary of State considers relevant.(5) In balancing the factors mentioned in subsection (4)(a) to (d), the Secretary of State must take into account the principal objective.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (4)(a), the owner of protected material is the person by whom, or on whose behalf, the protected material was provided to the OGA under this Chapter.”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, in moving Amendment 31, I shall also speak to government Amendments 32 and 36. I am extremely grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its consideration of the Bill and the detailed work it always does. These amendments are made to implement some of the recommendations set out in the sixth report of the committee.
Amendment 31 amends Clause 28 to include factors the Secretary of State must have regard to before making regulations under Clause 27(8). Such regulations would determine the periods of confidentiality that are to apply to protected material before it can be published or made public. When balancing these factors the Secretary of State must take into account the principal objective of maximising the economic recovery of United Kingdom petroleum. The regulations made under Clause 27(8) are to be subject to the affirmative procedure as a result of Amendment 36, which amends Clause 61 to this effect.
Amendment 32 amends Clause 40, subsection (2) of which requires the Oil and Gas Authority to issue guidance on the matters to which it will have regard when determining the amount of a financial penalty. In line with the committee’s recommendation, this amendment requires that the Oil and Gas Authority lays any guidance or revised guidance produced under Clause 40 before each House of Parliament. I am most grateful to the committee for its recommendations, but I should say that the Government have not additionally sought to apply any parliamentary procedure to the guidance, as that is not established practice; for example, we followed that practice in relation to the supermarkets adjudicator and the data commissioner.
Before I move these amendments, I should say that I have heard that the impact assessment with regard to the Oil and Gas Authority has in fact been published, which is good news. It should be available online now, but we will undertake to get it round to Peers who participated in this debate no later than tomorrow. I apologise for the lateness of that. I beg to move.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these government amendments. Indeed, we—Labour—had also tabled an amendment following the Delegated Powers Committee’s recommendation; of course, that will now be withdrawn in the light of the Government’s decision to table amendments. We are obviously pleased that the Government have listened to that committee and taken on board its recommendations in regard to the use of the affirmative resolution procedure. We think that is an important addition to the Bill and has improved it—we are grateful.
Before we conclude today’s debate, I am encouraged to hear that we will, finally, see an impact assessment. When we sit in Committee and we dedicate our time to scrutinising these important matters, having an impact assessment in front of us at the time is much more useful than having it after the Committee’s deliberations have concluded. We have a number of groups that we will talk to on Wednesday, so at least we will have some information for that. In the light of the impact assessment’s late arrival, I would not be surprised if some of the contributions on Wednesday revisit ground that we visited today without the benefit of the impact assessment. That aside, we look forward to seeing it and I am grateful to the Minister for confirming its arrival. These amendments, as I have said, are implementing recommendations that we support and we have no further comment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Baroness very much for those comments—I fully understand and sympathise with her position on the impact assessment. I agree that it would have been much more desirable to have the impact assessment in considering the amendments today. I thank her for her support on the amendments in relation to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendations.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I can confirm that this debate is now the last business and that we will not return to the Energy Bill today.
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
That this House regrets that the Government are introducing the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 without having undertaken a review of the impact and coherence of the cuts to litigators’ fees; agrees with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s analysis that there is too little evidence to establish what effect the fee reduction would have; and regrets the Government’s lack of engagement with the profession and those affected by its reforms (SI 2015/1369).
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests registered as an unpaid consultant with my former law firm.
Last year, the Government reduced the fees payable for criminal legal aid work by 8.75%. On 25 June this year, they published the regulations which are the subject of this regret Motion and which implemented the planned imposition of a second cut of 8.75%, effective for new cases begun after 1 July. However, the Bar was exempt from this second, further cut, at least for the time being. Therefore, it affects essentially solicitors.
The regulations also prescribe new fixed fees, effective from next January, for police station and magistrates’ court work and in Crown Court cases involving up to 500 pages of prosecution evidence—the new PPE. Alongside these changes, the Ministry of Justice is pressing ahead with radical changes to the process of bidding for contracts.
The regulations evinced from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee a critical report of the kind with which the Ministry of Justice is by now all too familiar. In its report of 25 June, the committee highlighted concerns about the lack of detail about the effect of the first instalment of the 17.5% cut and the deviation from the original timetable. It pointed out that the so-called Explanatory Memorandum gave no information about the effect of the first cut despite the statement in the memorandum accompanying the original cut that that there would be continual monitoring and a review.
The impact assessment—again, typically—is described by the committee as “very short on detail” and as offering,
“nothing about quantification of the impact on legal aid providers”,
whereas the Law Society was quoted as claiming that 120 providers—about 8% of the total—were facing bankruptcy as a result of the previous round of cuts.
An exchange of correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the Minister is recorded in the committee’s report of 2 July and reflected the customary complacency of the Ministry of Justice. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, concluded the exchange by asking two questions: first, what evidence could be provided as to the maintenance of quality, promptness and reliability of the service and how the department would ensure that these were maintained and monitored; and, secondly, given that 1,099 bids had been made for 527 contracts, what would happen to the unsuccessful applicants and was there a risk of market distortion. Perhaps when he replies the Minister could enlighten us as to these matters.
The background to these regulations is of course the Government’s determination to secure further reductions in the legal aid bill, the effects of which have so often been a matter of concern in this House and the world outside. Since 2010, the legal aid bill, civil and criminal, has fallen from £2.2 billion to £1.7 billion—that is over 20% in cash terms and more in real terms—and appears, even without the anticipated saving of £55 million from the measures which are the subject of this Motion, to be falling further to some £1.5 billion. Of course, all these figures include VAT.
Before the Minister does so, I should say that the Labour Government also implemented cuts in legal aid and froze criminal legal aid fees. Indeed, I first came to be acquainted with my noble friend—my now good friend—Lord Bach as a result of securing a debate at the Labour Party conference criticising such cuts. The Government, however, appear determined to reduce the number of law firms able to undertake legal aid work— although they have temporarily, as I indicated, spared the criminal Bar from the second 8.75% cut—heedless of the potential impact on clients and the future of the profession.
In the north-east, for example, seven firms will obtain contracts north of the Tyne and five south of the Tyne. These are very large geographical areas such that access to lawyers will become more difficult for many clients and attendance at police stations more difficult for practitioners. Moreover, the fees payable for different categories of work vary widely. The fee for attendance at a police station, which could well be in the middle of the night—as I shudder to recall—varies between £118.80 in Hartlepool to £160.88 in Durham. The rationale for this does not appear self-evident.
There is great concern about the so-called two tiers of contract under which firms can opt to act only for their own clients or in addition undertake duty solicitor work, whether it be at police stations or at court. There is a widely held view locally and indeed nationally that the former group will fall away because of the limited number of cases in what is in any case a declining number of cases overall, as testified by the court closure programme—in itself controversial but justified by the Government because of lack of demand. National and civil legal aid expenditure fell by 11% in the last quarter of 2014 compared to the same period in 2013. The number of magistrates’ court cases fell by 17%, committals for sentence by 29%, and all non-Crown Court crime by 7% in volume and 14% in value.
I discussed the situation with partners in my old firm, where the criminal department is a relatively small part of the practice, and with the senior partner in another practice where it is much more significant. During my 35 years as a partner, and since, the criminal department made a very modest contribution to the firm’s profits but was maintained because we felt we ought to offer the service. It would appear that the average profit margin on criminal legal work is around 5%. An experienced solicitor might expect to earn only around £40,000 a year, significantly less than in other areas of practice, even in firms with a larger criminal department. Firms are not recruiting trainee solicitors and, even if they wanted to, it is unlikely that many would apply when there are much more financially rewarding areas of law in which to practise. There is therefore likely to be a shortage of able solicitors in future, and of course the Bar, which has temporarily escaped the second round of 8.75% cuts, faces the same potential problem, with adverse consequences ultimately for recruitment to the judiciary, as senior judges have pointed out. The Justice Minister Mr Vara’s suggestion that work could be carried out by legal executives underlines the point while ignoring the fact that many firms cannot even now afford to employ legal executives as well as solicitors.
The difficulties that I have outlined are not, of course, restricted to the north-east. A particularly illuminating article by Steven Bird was published by the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association. It demonstrated that some areas in the south-east would see some police station fees cut by more than 30% and that magistrates’ court fees, falling into what would have been the higher fee band, would be cut by an average of 52.7%. In London, a flat rate of £200.93—I love the precision of the 93p—will mean a cut varying from lucky Bexley of 8.67% to Heathrow of 33.25%. In the complex new arrangements for Crown Court cases where the new PPE applies, with different fees for each band of 100 pages up to 500 and 11 different categories of offence, fees could be cut by 50% or more.
Members will be aware that the measures now under way evoked both a strike, in effect, by solicitors and an unusually close degree of joint working between the Law Society and the Bar, as evidenced by the material published by the Criminal Bar Association. The irony of this latest assault on our cherished system of legal aid and access to justice, already compounded by the ludicrous criminal charges order which is the subject of another regret Motion that I have tabled, in the year when we have celebrated the anniversary of Magna Carta, is clearly lost on this Government. We learnt not to expect more of Mr Grayling, but had hopes of Mr Gove. It is not too late for him to think again about the changes due to take effect next January. He acted, after all, to abandon Mr Grayling’s vanity project for the secure college at Glen Parva.
In the mean time, perhaps the Minister, if not tonight then perhaps by way of a letter to be placed in the Library, could answer some questions. What, if any, contingency plans are in place if an insufficient number of firms of solicitors accept contracts for duty solicitor work in police stations or courts? How will the Government react if the contract process is disrupted by legal challenges from unsuccessful bidders? What plans exist to deal with the situation arising from contracts becoming unviable during the period for which they are to run? What assessment has been made of the ability to survive of firms with only an own-client contract and, in the event of a significant number of firms failing to do so in any locality, what contingency plans exist to deal with the problem? What assessment has been made of the impact of the changes on the number of solicitors needed to provide an efficient and accessible service and upon recruitment?
Will the Minister look into the parallel matter of the emerging problem of long delays in trials proceeding because of short staffing in the Crown Prosecution Service? What future does the Ministry of Justice foresee for the Public Defender Service? How many advocates does it plan to employ and on what terms? Will the service be required to compete with private firms or is it seen as a resource of last resort where insufficient private firms fail to survive the new regime? When will the workings of the new structure be reviewed?
Finally, what assurance can be given that it is not part of the Government’s intention for criminal legal aid work to be consigned to oligopolies, such as the likes of G4S, Serco or Sodexo, upon which they increasingly rely to provide public services?
Concern about access to justice in general, and the future of legal aid in particular, has been a regular feature of this House’s deliberations in the five years that I have been privileged to serve in it. We seem to be witnessing the slow death of legal aid. I hope that we will not, in the near future, be obliged to act as a coroner’s jury, performing an inquest on its ultimate demise. I beg to move the regret Motion.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interest as a practising barrister, though not undertaking work in the criminal field.
The fact that this Regret Motion is being debated at all is evidence of a problem that has bedevilled the relationship between the legal professions and government for many years now. Governments of all complexions have failed to seek consensual solutions to the challenge of providing a publicly funded criminal justice system that will work successfully both for the public and for the two essentially private sector professions. A mutually supportive and trusting relationship between the professions and government is essential if our criminal justice system is both to be effective and fair and, at the same time, to command public confidence. There is a crying need for the Ministry of Justice to work more closely with the professions to reach an acceptable agreement—a compact—for fees and future allocation of work. The constant war of attrition over recent decades has damaged government and the legal professions and should not continue. This was a view held and often expressed by my noble friend Lord McNally when he was a Minister, although of course he was bound by the constraints placed upon him by being part of the coalition Government with the overwhelming need to find cost savings. This Government are also so constrained, and we understand that.
I will speak of the reductions affecting criminal work, and my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew will speak largely about the changes affecting work for prisoners.
The background against which the implementation of the second stage of the 17.5% reduction in fees is being imposed is a great deal more favourable than it has been for some years. Sir Bill Jeffrey summarised this at the start of his extremely helpful report, Independent Criminal Advocacy in England and Wales, published in May 2014. He wrote that:
“The landscape of criminal advocacy has altered substantially in recent years. Recorded and reported crime are down. Fewer cases reach the criminal courts. More defendants plead guilty, and earlier than in the past. Court procedures are simpler. There is substantially less work for advocates to do. Its character is different, with more straightforward cases and fewer contested trials. In the publicly funded sector (86% of the total), it pays less well”.
The climate should, therefore, present us with opportunities to make improvements to the criminal justice system, to make it work better and more cost effectively by collective and collaborative effort and working on a clearly evidenced-based approach. Yet the introduction of these regulations has been far from that.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on moving this Regret Motion. I sit as a magistrate in London in the family courts, the youth courts and adult criminal courts and I frequently hear cases where the defendant or applicant is a litigant in person. From the court’s perspective, some litigants in person represent themselves very well. They understand the advice that they receive from the clerks and manage both the legal process and the practical aspects of navigating the court system through to a conclusion that they believe is satisfactory. However, some—I would say many—litigants in person have difficulty understanding the guidance that they are given when in court. They struggle with the whole procedure and, at the end, do not feel that they have been treated justly by the system that they have grappled with.
I want to tell noble Lords an anecdote from about a year ago. It concerns a woman who turned up in court charged with fraud against her employer. She was a litigant in person. She came into court and was correctly identified. The clerk then asked her whether she was guilty or not guilty. Her reply was, “I am guilty but I want to plead not guilty”. When asked to explain herself, she did indeed have a rationale for saying that. She was imminently due to have a medical operation. If she had pleaded guilty she would lose her employment and not be able to have the operation, so she was going to delay the finding of guilt until a trial.
It could be argued that the defendant had told us that she was guilty and that she was planning to commit a further fraud on her employer. But as a court we were limited in the advice that we could give to her other than to advise her of the benefits of a guilty plea. We had 30 other cases to deal with that day. We filled in the necessary forms and the matter was indeed put off for trial. If that lady had had some robust defence advice, she may have decided to plead guilty as she had indeed told us she was guilty. But her right to plead not guilty trumped everything else, resulting in the additional cost of the trial.
The overwhelming point that I want to make is that we see many vulnerable people in courts—people who are not able to represent themselves. There is a concern. The Magistrates’ Association, together with other interested bodies, has tried to judge whether the justice system is functioning properly with this increase in litigants in person. I draw the House’s attention to a survey of magistrates published on 13 January this year. Views were taken before costs came in in February 2014 and again in November 2014 after the increase in litigants in person. The survey shows a noticeable increase in the dissatisfaction expressed by magistrates because they felt that the system was not being as just as it should be.
I understand that there are a lot of surveys, but the current chair of the Magistrates’ Association, Richard Monkhouse, was a statistician in a former life and this is a robust piece of work. I have looked at it myself and I have a scientific background. I hope that the Government will look at these figures carefully because they raise a worrying growth in uncertainty and dissatisfaction with the increase in the number of litigants in person.
A wider point should be made. Other aspects of the legal and court system also feed into the general sense of dissatisfaction and the feeling that the court system as a whole is not properly offering justice to people. We have heard from my noble friend about the imposition of the criminal courts charge. In the family courts, we have had cuts to legal aid and an increase in the costs of drug and alcohol testing, which reduces access to fairness for people. We have had the increase in tribunal fees and cuts to CABs. These are off-topic for the purposes of this debate, but they add to the sense of many vulnerable people feeling that the court system as a whole is not open to them as it should be.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who brings a rich vein of evidence from his experience as a lay magistrate to your Lordships’ deliberations. I declare the interests of having been a barrister practising criminal law for 45 years and having spent 28 years, until I retired from these roles at the end of last year, as a part-time judge at various levels and, particularly for this debate, as a former president of the Howard League for Penal Reform.
In a few moments, I shall talk about prison law specifically, but I wanted to address some issues about the generality of this debate, if I may. I agree with the broad thrust of what has been said about the effect of the regulations. However, I want to commend the Lord Chancellor for his willingness to engage with the legal profession, both the Bar and the solicitors, during recent weeks and months. This has been appreciated. Other things could be done than cutting criminal legal aid in the way which has been described.
Lord Cotter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for introducing this Motion to Regret, which I and many others hope will lead to a sustained examination of legal aid now and in the future, as a result in particular of the cuts proposed by the Government. My intervention will be very brief because I have no legal background whatever. I saw that this Motion was proposed for today, and I came to listen and to say a few words as, one may say, an ordinary member of the public.
I have listened to those who have a detailed knowledge of this field. I do not have that knowledge but I have had it put to me that there are grave concerns for the ordinary member of the public, who could be said to be at the bottom of the pile and might be induced—because of pressure and of feeling vulnerable—to shorten court proceedings and say, “Yes, I was guilty”. I may be wrong on that; others more expert than me may say, “No, that is not the case”. Is it the case that vulnerable people will suffer as a result of these proposals, as has been mentioned tonight?
My other concern is whether it is likely that fewer people will train for the legal field, which I trust the Government will look at. That is of great concern because there could be a shortage of legal practitioners, with the result of the service not being fit for purpose. With my lack of knowledge, I will sit down. Others have great knowledge to which I have listened, but I have great concerns on behalf of the ordinary public.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging and helpful debate. Although the Government have been criticised, there have been some positive suggestions. I assure all noble Lords that the Lord Chancellor and the Ministry of Justice listen to what is said in this House. I shall certainly report back what has been said during this debate.
The Motion gives me the opportunity to set out the background to the making of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration etc.) (Amendment) Regulations, which were laid before the House on 10 June, concerning the fees payable in respect of criminal litigation services funded by legal aid. The coalition Government consulted twice on the proposed fee reduction. The first consultation, Transforming Legal Aid: Delivering a More Credible and Efficient System, ran from 9 April 2013 to 4 June 2013. The second, Transforming Legal Aid: Next Steps, was published on 5 September 2013. The September consultation proposed the staging of the fee reduction plus a number of legal aid reforms, including changes to the way in which criminal legal aid services are procured and a reduction in the fees for criminal legal aid services.
The response to that consultation, Transforming Legal Aid—Next Steps: Government Response, was published on 27 February 2014 and set out the decisions taken in relation to the procurement of criminal legal aid services and fee reductions for criminal legal aid services. These regulations introduce a further fee reduction for work done under a criminal legal aid contract. This follows an earlier 8.75% reduction that was introduced in March 2014, making a total reduction of 17.5% from the April 2013 figures.
As the House will be aware, the Government consider that there is a continuing need to bear down on the costs of legal aid to ensure that we are getting the best deal for the taxpayer and that the system continues to command the confidence of the public, particularly in the light of the continuing financial challenge faced by all government departments. The House will be aware that the Ministry of Justice has no ring-fence around it, and is subject to particular pressures in this respect.
The phased introduction of the fee reduction was intended to mitigate its impact while enabling realisation of necessary savings. The second fee reduction applies to new cases starting on or after 1 July 2015, and there will therefore be a period of time before it has an impact on the legal aid income of providers.
The Government also believe that the current remuneration mechanism for criminal legal aid services is overly complex and administratively burdensome. These regulations introduce fixed fees for Crown Court cases with fewer than 501 pages of prosecution evidence, and simplify the fixed fees for police station work and for magistrates’ court work. The new fixed fee schemes are being introduced for services under the new criminal legal aid contracts governing criminal litigation services from 11 January 2016.
The Motion says that the House regrets that the Government made these regulations,
“without having undertaken a review of the impact and coherence of the cuts to litigators’ fees; agrees with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s analysis that there is too little evidence to establish what effect the fee reduction would have; and regrets the Government’s lack of engagement with the profession and those affected by its reforms”.
As I set out in my Written Ministerial Statement repeating the Statement made by Mr Vara in the House of Commons, the Government listened very carefully to the concerns of the profession in considering the programme set in train by the coalition Government for the criminal legal aid market.
We must ensure—this point has been made during the debate—that the high quality of service provided by litigators remains sustainable in all parts of England and Wales. We recognise that changes in the litigation market have the potential to affect the provision of advocacy, and we will work with the profession to preserve and enhance the high quality of advocacy that generally obtains within the system.
In March 2014 the coalition Government agreed that, prior to putting before Parliament the second fee reduction, they would consider and take into account the following factors. The first was Sir Brian Leveson’s review, to which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred, aimed at identifying ways to streamline and reduce the length of criminal proceedings. I entirely accept his observations about the need to do that. This is part of the overall improvement that the Government hope to achieve in saving costs, but not at the expense of achieving a fair trial. The two other factors were criminal justice reforms such as digitisation, which will increase efficiency and affect how advocates work, and any impacts from earlier remuneration changes.
At the same time the coalition Government told legal aid providers that they should plan and bid for duty and own-client contracts on the basis of a second reduction of up to 8.75%, as they would be expected to demonstrate that they were capable of delivering at that level. Also in March 2014, the coalition Government announced that they had worked with the Law Society to agree additional support for litigation providers that would assist with the transition to the new regime. The ministry agreed to implement interim payments at plea and case management hearing stage in summer 2014 —earlier than had previously been planned. We introduced interim payments for trials at the same time—cash flow being, of course, very important to the legal profession in this area, which I wholly accept is not over-remunerated compared with other fields of law.
The present Government fulfilled the commitment given in March 2014 to,
“consider and take into account”,
the factors set out by the coalition Government. There was no commitment to any formal review or public consultation, but the Government considered the findings of Sir Brian Leveson’s report on the efficiency of the criminal courts, the impact of broader criminal justice reforms and the impact of changes already introduced. We examined changes to our forecast legal aid expenditure, changes to the existing market, provider withdrawal rates—that is, whether people were leaving the market—and reasons, contract extension acceptance and early information from the duty provider contract tender. We also considered the implications for quality, promptness and reliability of the first fee reduction. The Legal Aid Agency has monitored, and will continue to monitor, the quality of the delivery of services through its well-established audit and peer review programmes.
All the further consideration undertaken reassured us that the legal aid reforms so far have not had any substantial negative impact on the sustainability of the service. I should perhaps pause here and remind the House that a defendant is eligible for legal aid just as he always has been; the issue is, of course, whether the changes will result in there being legal aid deserts or professionals leaving the profession, thereby endangering defendants’ ability to secure their entitlement to legal aid. The level of interest in duty contracts—when the likely reduction in fees was already known—suggested that there remained an appetite to undertake criminal legal aid work under the new regime. Having considered all these matters, we decided to press ahead with the second 8.75% reduction in litigators’ fees that was first announced by the coalition Government.
I cannot accept there has been a lack of engagement in this process. There have been three consultation exercises over a period of almost two years, two of them relating specifically to the fee reduction. There have been numerous discussions with the legal sector, many at ministerial level. The previous Lord Chancellor worked closely with the Law Society to shape the proposals for the new contracting regime. The present Lord Chancellor and Minister for Legal Aid have continued, and will continue, to engage with a broad range of legal aid providers.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to the exchanges between the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and Mr Vara and remarked on the continuing correspondence and the failure to give what he inferred was a satisfactory response. I remind him what the Minister said on 10 July in answer to the outstanding questions from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. This is particularly relevant to the audit and peer review programmes. The Minister stated:
“The LAA uses a wide range of monitoring tools”.
Although he accepted that there were no published figures, he explained:
“Ongoing monitoring is precisely that, it is not a process with a beginning and end. As a qualitative process, it is not one that generates a significant volume of statistics”.
In terms of the number of providers, which was one of the issues raised generally in the debate, Mr Vara said:
“A reduction would cause concern if the level of that reduction was likely to reduce future competitive tension. The precise level of that reduction that would cause concern, or acute concern, would depend on the design of a future competition, for example the number of contracts being tendered, so it is not possible to provide precise figures. After a great deal of analysis we concluded that we should offer 527 duty contracts. We have received 1,099 bids for those contracts. As I said in my previous letter though, it is important to bear in mind that the 527 duty contracts does not equate to 527 firms providing work under such contracts. Some providers who obtain duty provider contracts to deliver the work under that contract will do so in conjunction with other firms (either as delivery partners or agents)”.
So they may very often still have a future but not in precisely the same capacity, and of course they will still always have the possibility of own-client work. The need was to consolidate the duty provider part of the legal aid services provided by firms of solicitors.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to a number of aspects of efficiency and he was right to do so. He also referred to various suggestions which I think were almost all contained in the Liberal Democrat party manifesto as to other improvements that could be made. Some of these have already been considered. Those matters will receive ongoing consideration. At the moment, the Government are not, for example, satisfied that it is a good idea to have compulsory insurance. The coalition Government considered this and concluded that there were strong policy reasons not to make it compulsory. The coalition changed legislation to enable the recovery of legal aid costs after conviction and after a confiscation order and any compensation to victims had been paid. I accept the noble Lord’s suggestion that we could go further. It is a matter for consideration, but at the moment there are no plans to respond in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, indicated that many magistrates were not happy with the situation as regards litigants in person. I am sure that litigants in person can present a challenge to particular courts. However, of course, as I say, the eligibility for legal aid has not been changed by any of these instruments that we are considering, which are the subject of this regret Motion. Some people simply may not have applied for legal aid but many of them will be eligible for it. I have sat as a judge with litigants in person and I sympathise with such tribunals as they present particular challenges in questions of plea and advice, but these do not, as it were, arise directly out of the matter which is currently before your Lordships’ House.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, focused considerably on prison law. He will be aware that the coalition Government made some changes to the availability of legal aid for prison law, focusing very much on cases where the liberty of individuals was threatened, and took the view that, as he rightly points out, prisoners are in a particularly vulnerable position and may well need representation. However, I am sure he would accept that in many cases prisoners use legal aid when an objective view would consider that they should not do so. Equally, identifying precisely the cases where liberty is truly in issue is important. I undertake to take back the detailed comments the noble Lord made about that. However, the overall principle of the Government’s approach remains a good one—namely, that we should focus legal aid on aspects of prison law where individuals’ liberty is at stake rather than on some of the more trivial aspects which, unfortunately, were sometimes pursued.
As to the availability of prison law generally, the new model would still mean that specialist law providers would get a contract. They would not have to provide all the services at the same time. Those already awarded own-client contracts have the opportunity to bid for prison law as part of the tender process and will also be given authority to undertake appeal and review work.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am grateful to all Members who have spoken in this debate and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on taking advantage of the occasion quite reasonably to raise matters which are not quite within the terms of the Motion, or indeed of the general subject of criminal legal aid fees. However, the points they made were telling and I hope that the Government will in one way or another respond to them with some proper consideration in due course. I endorse much of what they said and the very constructive suggestions made, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in citing a number of cases in which it might be possible to find savings.
Incidentally, I do not object at all to the Minister failing to reply to the long list of questions that I threw across the Table at him. I know that he is very able to respond after proper consideration to such matters and I look forward to hearing from him with that rather long list in mind. But with all due respect to the noble Lord, I find that there is a note of complacency in his approach to these matters. One of the factors which I think the noble Lord, Lord Marks, mentioned is the matter of choice. Choice is going to be very restricted, given the relatively small number of firms of solicitors which will be engaged in the business of providing criminal legal aid. The likelihood for those who opt for just the own-client contract, from all the evidence around the profession and as perceived by the Law Society, is that after a relatively short time it will implode—and those firms engaged in that part of the legal world will simply go out of existence.
In addition, the Minister referred to consultation. While consultation took place in form, in my submission it did not really do so in substance. I cite in support of that contention two letters written by the president of the Law Society, one to the Lord Chancellor and the other to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Dealing first with what I suppose is the more important of the two letters, the one to the Lord Chancellor, the Law Society’s president said that he was,
“writing on behalf of the membership … to express our disappointment and concern about this decision”—
that is, the decision following the announcement of the department’s plans. He said:
“The administration of justice is a fundamental duty of government and access to justice is an essential part of that responsibility … Today’s decision further undermines the role of criminal legal aid solicitors in our justice system … You gave us an opportunity to explain our reasons for opposing the plans. We provided evidence from over 120 firms of the dire impact of the previous cuts, and the likely impact on the criminal defence service of proceeding with this further cut. I know that many criminal legal aid solicitors … will be concerned on behalf of the public at the implications”,
of this decision,
“as well as worrying for their businesses”,
and employees.
The president wanted to raise a number of points on behalf of the profession. First, he said:
“There is extensive and compelling evidence that criminal legal aid practitioners cannot sustain a second fee reduction”.
Secondly, he said:
“The Ministry of Justice’s … own financial assessment of the tender submission”,
would in its view,
“underline the fragile nature of firms’ finances”.
Thirdly, he said:
“Making a further fee reduction … may jeopardise the savings the MoJ wishes to make in the broader criminal justice system”.
Finally, and importantly, he said:
“Any decision should be deferred until there has been a full review of the evidence as to the effect of the first round of fee reduction in light of the financial reporting made to the Legal Aid Agency”.
Given that the new system is in any event to come into place in January, I cannot understand why it is necessary to impose on the solicitors’ and barristers’ profession a fee increase half way through this period.
The society noted,
“the announcement of a review of the system after 12 months rather than assessing the evidence now”,
and deplored that. Its view is that,
“a large number of firms will have closed during this time, and many others will…withdraw from this market”.
It said that a review 12 months hence would be,
“too late to save many firms … This will be very difficult … for particularly the small, specialised firms”.
The fear is that the impact of these changes,
“could create advice deserts where the most vulnerable members of society will be unable to access the legal advice they desperately need”.
A lot of that advice, of course, is at the police station stage rather than the court stage. Drawing on memories from long ago, I cannot say I was enthusiastic about driving down at three o’clock in the morning to Jarrow police station to interview clients. Given that not only has this reduction in criminal legal aid fees taken place but fees effectively have been frozen for over a decade now, I think that the supply side is likely to be very seriously affected. Indeed, that was the subject of the letter to the Business Secretary, pointing out the danger to the firms in this sector and telling him—not reminding him—that it had been suggested to the Ministry of Justice that a decision should be deferred until there had been a full review of evidence.
Rather like his predecessor—and I hope this is not a precedent because I think Mr Gove, as others have said, has rightly attracted some approval for his more open-minded and better thought-through approach in many respects to some of the inheritance he acquired—it does not seem that he has listened to that view from the profession. I suspect that this debate will look a little pallid when compared with the one we will have about the perhaps more publicly controversial issue of legal aid charges, which we will come to when the House resumes later in the autumn.
However, I think it is important that the views expressed tonight should be considered further by the Government. I am afraid the course they are taking is very likely to fulfil the fears expressed in the Chamber tonight by those with whom they have consulted after a fashion. Nevertheless, we are not in a position to divide on this Motion—in fact, I do not think that there will be any Divisions in the next fortnight. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion, but look forward to the next round.