House of Commons
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
1. What steps he is taking to ensure that the UK defence industry benefits from his Department’s procurement decisions.
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Mr Philip Dunne)
The strategic defence and security review will shortly set out for the hon. Gentleman and the House how we will invest more in bigger and stronger defence for Britain. The British defence industry plays a vital role in delivering more planes, ships, armoured vehicles and battle-winning capabilities for our armed forces. We are looking at how we can drive greater innovation into defence procurement, maximise the use of small and medium-sized enterprises, and ensure that investment decisions contribute to a more dynamic and productive economy.
Nick Smith
The important Ajax armoured vehicle programme for the Army has been in the pipeline for years, yet it will use Swedish, not British, steel. We are told that our specialist steelmakers are up to the task, so when did the Government ask British firms whether they could produce the steel?
Mr Dunne
As with all major defence equipment programmes, the contractors determine the materials, which includes sourcing steel on the basis of competitive cost, time and quality. In 2010, no UK steel manufacturer was able to meet the prime contractor’s requirements, so no UK bids to supply steel for the Ajax programme were forthcoming. I can confirm for the hon. Gentleman, who takes a great deal of interest in this matter because the Ajax vehicles, after the 100th vehicle, will be assembled in Merthyr Tydfil, next to his constituency, that some 2,700 tonnes of steel—about 30% of the total requirement —remains open to competition, and that a competition is under way to supply sets of training armour that is open to applications from UK firms.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
A number of colleagues and I visited our magnificent new aircraft carriers in Rosyth last week. It was therefore with some interest that we learned this morning that the Government apparently intend to order a large number of joint strike fighters to equip not only those aircraft carriers, but the Royal Air Force. Will my hon. Friend confirm the truth about that substantial increase in our fighting capability?
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
It was excellent to welcome the Minister to Barrow-in-Furness again last week and make another show of the bipartisan support across the House for renewing the UK’s nuclear deterrent submarines. Is there still a prospect of having the maingate vote before Christmas?
Mr Dunne
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House that on Thursday last week, I accompanied him to his constituency to recognise the signature of the contract for the fifth Astute boat, Anson. It was good to be able to thank many of his constituents who have been involved in its construction. With regard to the investment decision for Successor, I think that that subject will come up shortly.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Of course, it is true that the defence industry can no longer source its requirements from the UK steel industry in many instances because of a loss of capability. Will the Minister work with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the defence industry and steel producers to put in place a long-term plan to ensure that UK steel develops the capability to meet the needs of the defence industry?
Mr Dunne
The Ministry of Defence is participating in the working group that was established last month by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General. Although steel is clearly a significant and important component in much defence manufacturing, the steel involved in all our current major programmes represented less than 1.5% of the steel manufactured in this country in 2013. Relatively speaking, although defence is important, it is a small contributor to the total steel output of this country.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
We are a maritime nation, so I welcome the newspaper reports—we will see whether they are true shortly—that the Prime Minister is to reverse his own decision and procure maritime patrol aircraft that are able, among other things, to defend our submarine fleet. One of the most visible signs of the botched 2010 strategic defence and security review was the photographs of our Nimrods being cut up into pieces, which we all saw in the newspapers at the time. When will the first of the new Boeing P-8s enter service?
Mr Dunne
The hon. Lady may recall that the programme she refers to, which was commissioned by the previous Labour Government, was more than £1 billion over-budget. It was reduced in scale by that Government to nine aircraft—more than half what was originally procured—and the prototype aircraft that was produced had more defects than any previous aircraft in production. We were not sure whether it would ever fly. That was the right decision to take at the time, and now it is the right decision —if the Prime Minister is about to announce it—to have a replacement capability. We will have to hear when that will be available.
Maria Eagle
The UK has been without that vital capability for four years as a result of the 2010 decision—right or wrong—to which the Minister refers. Today we read that Britain had to call on our French and Canadian allies to provide aircraft to search for a Russian submarine off our shores. Can the Minister at least give the House a definite date by which we will again have our own maritime patrol aircraft?
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
2. What his policy is on the role of the UK in the security of the Arctic and High North.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Julian Brazier)
The UK respects the sovereign responsibilities of the eight Arctic states while promoting our own interests in the region. We engage with the security of the region through the Arctic security forces roundtable, and directly with Arctic nations. We maintain naval and air assets capable of deploying to the region, and Arctic trained and equipped forces, including elements of 3 Commando Brigade.
Douglas Chapman
The Minister for the Armed Forces recently confirmed to me in a parliamentary answer that the Russian spy ship, the Yantar, passed through UK waters unhindered by the fleet ready escort. Scotland is on the front line of emerging threats from the High North, yet our defence footprint continues to shrink. Will the Minister confirm when UK naval surface ships will be rebased at Faslane and Rosyth, and say when we will see the re-establishment of RAF Leuchars?
Mr Brazier
I cannot confirm what the hon. Gentleman asks for about RAF Leuchars, but if he waits until half-past 3, he should hear some excellent news for Scotland.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
There can be no question but that the retreating ice provides significant commercial opportunities, and that will lead to military stresses if we do not handle it correctly. The UK has a fantastic offer—namely, the Royal Marines who are trained in the Arctic; I have seen their work—so can we expand that capability? Secondly, we have not used under-ice submarines for a number of years. We have that capability so is it time that once again we used our submarines to operate under the Arctic ice?
Mr Brazier
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but he will have to wait until half-past 3 for confirmation of the future of our amphibious capability. I take on board his point about under-ice submarines, and I will write to him about that.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Perhaps I can help the Minister with a question that does not involve waiting until half-past 3. A lot of our focus is currently on the middle east and north Africa. Does he agree, however, that with two Russian Tupolev bombers off our coast recently, as well as a Russian submarine, it would be naive for us to take our eye off the strategic risk to the UK from the High North and Arctic region?
Mr Speaker
May I gently implore Members to proceed a little more quickly? We have a lot to get through, and questions and answers have been lengthy.
Mr Speaker
One of the finest parliamentary answers in the course of the hon. Gentleman’s 28-year career to date.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Maritime patrol aircraft featured large in last year’s referendum, but does my hon. Friend agree that they are pretty pointless, either manned or unmanned, unless there is the data-gathering and analysis technology to go with it, and the wherewithal to respond to any threats that emerge—something that the SNP failed to offer last year?
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) says, the High North is becoming one of the world’s strategic hotspots. Does the Minister agree that, for a nation with a maritime history such as ours, seeking the assistance of France and Canada in locating a possibly hostile submarine is deeply embarrassing? Will he confirm that this is the third time the UK has had to call on such assistance?
Mr Brazier
The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until 3.30 pm for the detail, but I just remind him that the Defence Committee shared the Government’s view that the Nimrod programme was dying. I am very glad that it should be possible to give some better news a little later today.
Brendan O'Hara
The lack of naval capability in the High North is indeed a worry. Given that just 14 months ago the workers at Scotstoun and Govan were guaranteed a bright future should they vote no to independence, will the Minister like to take this opportunity to make sure the promise made to them of 13 Type 26 frigates, is kept? Does he agree that if, at 3.30 pm, that promise is not kept, it will be a shameful betrayal of that workforce?
Mr Brazier
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot give him a detailed answer. I can, however, say that the future for Scotland will look even brighter after 3.30 pm. We have just completed, in the past few months, the largest far north exercise in NATO history.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
3. What contribution the UK is making to international efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
17. What contribution the UK is making to international efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
The United Kingdom is already making a significant contribution to the international counter-ISIL coalition, with strike aircraft, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and in helping to train Iraqi forces. In addition to the intelligence co-operation and border security support we have offered to France, the House will wish to know that yesterday I authorised the use of RAF Akrotiri as a diversion airfield for French aircraft striking in Syria.
Richard Benyon
Many of us, on all sides of the House, will support the Government as they make the intelligent case for extending the air campaign into Syria, and we reject totally the accusation that such a move would be a gesture. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our allies—not us, our allies—have been diminishing ISIL’s command and control, restricting its ability to move en masse, and restricting its ability to take control of more ground? Is it not time to stop subcontracting our security to our friends?
Michael Fallon
I agree with my hon. Friend. We should not leave the fight against ISIL to French, American or Australian aircraft. While we are working through the Vienna talks, which aim to help to establish an inclusive transitional government to end the civil war and build more security for the Sunni areas of Syria, that should not either delay or deter us from degrading ISIL in eastern Syria, from where ISIL is directing the war in its region and directly threatening us.
Stephen Metcalfe
The Chief of the Defence Staff has said that not striking ISIL in its heartland in Syria is like a football team trying to win a match without entering the opposition’s half. Is it not long overdue that we pushed up the pitch and stopped defending our goal line?
Michael Fallon
Yes. ISIL does not recognise the border between Iraq and Syria, and moves between both while the RAF can currently strike only in Iraq. It is illogical for us to be hitting ISIL targets in Iraq, while not targeting ISIL’s core leadership, its lines of communication and its oil revenue base, which are all to be found in Syria.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
20 . What steps is the Secretary of State taking to squeeze ISIL’s supply chain, particularly with regard to munitions and ammunition? ISIL is not just supplied by organisations in the region; countries and establishments outside the region must be supplying ISIL with arms.
Michael Fallon
Yes, we are intensifying our effort to cut off ISIL’s sources of finance, in particular its ability to sell oil on the international market. We are also directly targeting its supply routes between Syria and Iraq, particularly in the region around Sinjar.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
23. The Democratic Union party—the PYD—holds political power in all three provinces of Rojava, in northern Syria, including the war-torn province of Kobani. Will the Government be communicating or liaising with the PYD as it continues to resist Daesh in the region?
Michael Fallon
Yes. I discussed this matter in Ankara recently with the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Defence Minister of Turkey, who obviously want ISIL/Daesh pushed back from their own border in the remaining Manbij pocket between the two Kurdish areas. I emphasise, however, that all parties in Syria—Kurds, Shi’a, Sunni, Alawite, Christian and Druze—have to be brought into the process to deliver in Syria a more inclusive Government that can end this civil war.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
History gives us practically no examples of a determined enemy surrendering in response to conventional air bombardment, so what ground forces are credibly and seriously fighting ISIL/Daesh in Syria, other than some unpleasant Islamist groups, the Kurds—in a limited area—and the Syrian Government army?
Michael Fallon
There are moderate forces fighting Daesh in Syria that have also been engaged in the civil war. The key is to bring the civil war to an end as quickly as possible so that we can focus on dealing with Daesh. Troops are already involved in the conflict. We have been helping to train them and supplying non-lethal equipment to them, and we will continue to work with them to ensure that Syria is rid of both Assad and Daesh.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State will be aware of a report published today in The Independent stating that in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris, Islamophobic hate crime in the UK increased by 300%, the vast and overwhelming majority of victims being young Muslim women. When will the Secretary of State join the cross-party consensus in the Chamber and follow the example of President Hollande, who refused last week to give the terrorists the legitimacy they craved and instead rightly described them as “Daesh”? Does he not accept that the language we use is important and that language connecting Muslims and terrorism is dangerous and misleading?
Michael Fallon
I agree with almost all of that, although I am afraid I have not had time to read the report in The Independent. I myself prefer the term “Daesh” because it is more accurate and does not embrace the word “Islam”, but “ISIL” and “ISIS” have become accepted terms in the British media, and it might be too late to make that change.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
19 . Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a direct threat to the UK and that we should now consider all necessary steps to stop it, across military, diplomatic, domestic and, indeed, humanitarian fronts?
Michael Fallon
I agree, and I know my hon. Friend will have noted the UN resolution passed to that effect. We have to confront this terror organisation with all means at our disposal, not simply by defending our territory here but by striking at its roots and dealing with it politically, culturally, financially and ideologically.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
People on both sides of the House will welcome the UN Security Council resolution passed on Friday night calling on member states to take all necessary measures against ISIL/Daesh, but will the Defence Secretary reassure Members on both sides of the House that, along with any proposed military action in Syria, there is also a parallel plan to secure peace, end Assad’s reign of terror over his own people, put in place a timetable for a transitional Government in Syria and for the protection of religious and ethnic minorities?
Michael Fallon
Yes, I fully accept we have to persuade those with doubts about military action that there is a political track as well. Towards the end of the week, the Prime Minister will be replying to the questions posed—quite legitimately—by the Foreign Affairs Committee that deal with exactly that point: how a transitional Government can be put in place that has the support of all sections of the different communities in Syria and how that can lead to the provision of security, particularly in the Sunni areas, in northern Syria. However, that should not delay our dealing with a terrorist menace that has already brought slaughter to the streets of Paris and resulted in the deaths of our own citizens on a beach in Tunisia and one in Paris itself.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
24. Further to the answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), it is dangerous to wound an enemy and not kill him, especially if fighting a wild beast. Given that no air campaign alone has ever dislodged a determined enemy, what is the plan after we have bombed Syria? Where is the strategy? What ground troops are we going to put in?
Michael Fallon
In Iraq, we are assisting the legitimate Government of Iraq, the Iraqi forces and the Kurdish forces to push ISIL out of Iraq, and we are having some success in that. Of course in Syria we will in the end need ground forces that are local and locally supported. Prime Minister Abadi in Baghdad does not want British troops or American troops on the ground; that would further radicalise opinion, particularly in the Sunni areas. On the ground, the battle has to be won by local forces that have the support of the local population, but that should not deter us from making a start in dealing with ISIL’s headquarters, from where this terrorism and slaughter is being directed.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
4. What his policy is on ensuring the use of UK-produced steel in items procured by his Department.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
10. What his policy is on ensuring the use of UK-produced steel in items procured by his Department.
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Mr Philip Dunne)
Steel is sourced by our contractors from a range of UK and international suppliers, reflecting the need to ensure a competitive price and delivery at the required time and quality. UK suppliers have provided significant quantities of steel for major defence equipment procurement programmes, whenever they have been able to meet specified standards. Our new Government guidelines, published last month, will help UK steel suppliers to compete effectively with international suppliers for major projects, including those in defence.
Grahame M. Morris
The Minister will be aware that Swedish steel was used in the construction of offshore patrol craft and also in Scout armoured vehicles. Many in the steel community feel that that is a betrayal. Does he, like me, feel that British-produced steel should be specified in defence procurement contracts in order to protect steel, a strategically important industry?
Mr Dunne
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the steel that is specified needs to be the steel that can do the job. We are open-minded about who can supply that, but we are adopting the new Government guidelines. For the offshore patrol vessels, some 20% of the requirement—about 775 tonnes—was sourced through UK steel mills.
Kelvin Hopkins
Public procurement policies should seek to assist British industry, especially steel. It is clear that other countries support their own industries in that way. Why not Britain?
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
You can bet your bottom dollar, Mr Speaker—or rather, your bottom euro—that European countries will not be abiding by European Union law as far as procurement is concerned. Can my hon. Friend confirm—I am sure he can—that we will do all we can to procure British steel, providing it is of the right quality?
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
No one who has listened to the Minister’s answers today would have any confidence that he was going to take any serious steps to ensure that British steel was used in the purchase of the line of Type 26 frigates, which we expect to hear about shortly. Can he say a little more about what serious steps he will take, to justify the answer he has just given to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant)? Let us support the British steel industry through this very important Government contract.
Mr Dunne
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the Type 26 procurement programme as the next major platform where there will be a significant steel component. We are determined, as a Government who are keen to support our steel industry, that defence contractors will have the opportunity to source that steel from the UK, and we will do as much as we can to help them in that endeavour.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
5. What steps his Department is taking to monitor the effects of the Lariam form of mefloquine on service personnel who have taken that drug.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Penny Mordaunt)
Clinical studies and audits have been undertaken by the Ministry of Defence to assess the effects of Lariam. Those reports and their conclusions are a matter of public record. Lariam is not our first-line treatment and makes up about 1% of our anti-malarial stocks, but for some people, deployed in certain parts of the world, it will be the best drug to protect them from malaria.
Jim Shannon
It is becoming patently obvious that those who have had Lariam were not assessed fully before using it. Some of my constituents are those who are suffering most. Given the high level of potential suicide among service personnel, increased mental health concerns and stress-related issues, can the Minister confirm that the MOD will do a thorough review of the use of Lariam and that all service personnel will be assessed before Lariam is used again?
Penny Mordaunt
Before any drug is prescribed, an individual risk assessment of the patient is undertaken. In addition, as soon as a prescription is entered on to the electronic records system, a warning is flagged to ensure that the prescriber is absolutely sure that the recipient has not had a mental health problem. That policy is audited by defence primary healthcare organisations. If Members have constituents about whom they are concerned, they should encourage them to see their GP or their medical officer.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I very much endorse what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said and I welcome the Minister’s reply. Having suffered the consequences of Lariam myself, I ask her to look at the alternatives, of which there are several that have far fewer negative side-effects.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend and I can reassure him that Lariam is not our first-line drug. However, in certain parts of the world and given the particular medical history of some individuals, the drug is sometimes currently the only course of action. A new drug is coming on line, and it will be looked at.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
6. What resources the Government has supplied to the Free Syrian Army in the last 12 months.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
Supporting moderates is a key part of our work to resolve the Syrian conflict, so that they can take their place in the inclusive transitional Government needed to defeat ISIL and provide security throughout Syria. In the last 12 months, we have helped train vetted members of the moderate armed opposition and provided support to help save lives, bolster civil society, counter extremism and lay the foundation for a better future in Syria.
Graham Jones
Do the Government not recognise that as part of the solution to the ISIS issue we need peace in Syria? Do they not recognise that what they are proposing is a failed policy, and that by investing in a client as a proxy in a civil war, all we are doing is simply escalating the war and perpetuating a greater number of deaths?
Michael Fallon
I do not wholly agree with that. The work we are doing in Iraq to support the democratic Government of Iraq at their request has stemmed the onrush of ISIL and has started to push ISIL back, north up the Tigris and west of the Euphrates. We need to do the same in Syria, coming to the aid of moderate forces there who want to be free both of Assad, who is bombing his own civilians, and of ISIL, which represents a threat to us all.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Following the Russian intervention, what evidence is there on the ground that the Free Syrian Army is recalibrating its efforts—increasing them against ISIL and reducing them against Assad?
Michael Fallon
The picture in northern Syria in particular is confused; it is not a simple conflict with front lines as we would normally understand them. It is our long-term objective for Syria to be free of both Assad and ISIL, and we continue to work with moderate elements in Syria to provide them with the equipment they need and, where we can, with training outside Syria.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
7. What plans he has for consolidation of Royal Air Force stations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
Any consolidation of Royal Air Force stations is being considered as part of the Ministry of Defence footprint strategy. The attacks in Paris remind us that the threats we face are growing in scale, diversity and complexity. We are therefore determined to configure our defence estate to optimise our support of military capability.
Stephen Phillips
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. He will know that Lincolnshire is the home of the RAF, and while I appreciate that he cannot give definitive answers today, he will no doubt agree that that should remain the case and that there are very good reasons for consolidating more personnel and assets in our great county.
Mark Lancaster
My hon. and learned Friend is a champion, not only of his constituency but of Lincolnshire. He is right to say that that county has had a long association with the RAF. He is right that I cannot give any further details today—not even after half-past 3—but I hope to be able to provide further information in due course.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
8. What steps he is taking to support military veterans.
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
16. What steps he is taking to support military veterans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
The Government provide a comprehensive programme of support for ex-service personnel. For those returning to civilian life, that includes an excellent resettlement package, a high-quality pension and compensation schemes and measures to meet veterans’ health and welfare needs. The armed forces covenant stresses the importance we place on ensuring that veterans are not disadvantaged as a result of their service in the armed forces.
Craig Tracey
Research shows that veterans represent the largest single cohort in the overall prison population. What is the Department doing to address the issue, and will the Minister acknowledge the significance of charities such as Care after Combat, whose Phoenix project is intended to reduce reoffending in this important group?
Mark Lancaster
As my hon. Friend will know, armed forces veterans in prison are the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, but the latest figures that I have suggest that approximately 3.5% of the UK prison population are veterans. All prisoners with a military history are eligible for the full range of interventions and services that are available from the National Offender Management Service, and armed forces charities, including the Royal British Legion, SSAFA, Care after Combat and Combat Stress, send caseworkers to support veterans in some prisons.
William Wragg
Members of our armed forces not only put themselves in great physical danger but subject themselves to great psychological pressures in order to protect our country and our people. What is being done to help veterans of my excellent local regiment, the Mercian Regiment, and others who are struggling with mental health issues?
Mark Lancaster
The MOD is determined to ensure that veterans with mental health issues are given appropriate support. NHS England spends £1.8 million a year on mental health services for veterans, including the provision of 10 veterans mental health teams. Up to a further £18 million is funding the Combat Stress six-week intensive post-traumatic stress disorder programme. Subject to the forthcoming spending review, a further £8.4 million of Government funding will be provided over the next five years.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
21. What conversations have taken place with the Chancellor to discuss the impact of tax credit cuts on military families, including the families of veterans?
Mark Lancaster
I am sure that the issue has been discussed, and that it will be addressed later this week when the Chancellor makes his announcement.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
What support is the MOD able to give local authorities such as my own, Sutton council, which are keen to establish “homes for heroes”?
Mark Lancaster
I recently announced that we were about to undertake a review of best practice. Following conversations with the chair of the Local Government Association, we intend to carry out that review to ensure that best practice is spread across local authorities throughout the United Kingdom.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The social care crisis is affecting people all over the country, including those who have sustained an injury or condition while serving our country. Those who were injured on or after 6 April 2005 receive a payment under the armed forces compensation scheme, which local authorities disregard when assessing them for social care, but those who were injured before that date receive the war pension, which is not disregarded. When will the Government address this inequality?
Mark Lancaster
That is primarily a matter for the Department of Health. I have been engaging in a series of negotiations with my counterpart in that Department, and I am sure that we will report to the House in due course.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
9. What steps he is taking to increase the proportion of his Department’s procurement expenditure which goes to small and medium-sized enterprises.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
11. What steps he is taking to increase the proportion of his Department’s procurement expenditure which goes to small and medium-sized enterprises.
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Mr Philip Dunne)
We expect small businesses to take an increasing share of our increasing defence budget, as they provide a vital source of innovation and flexibility in meeting defence and security requirements. In October, we announced a new target to increase the proportion of Ministry of Defence procurement spent with SMEs to 25% by the end of this Parliament. That target is 10% higher than the one that was set during the last Parliament.
Pauline Latham
What role are SMEs playing in the Trident replacement programme—for example, in the Rolls-Royce propulsion supply chain?
Mr Dunne
The Successor submarine programme will be one of the Department’s largest projects, and we expect about 850 suppliers across the UK to be involved. They will employ thousands of people in what is a very high-skilled domain, using cutting-edge technology. That will include the supply chain for Rolls-Royce nuclear propulsion systems based at Raynesway. Many of those companies will be SMEs, and I am sure that many of them will be from my hon. Friend’s constituency in Derby.
Seema Kennedy
Will the Minister explain how the many small businesses in the defence supply chain in Lancashire can gain access to the £70 million innovation investment fund that the Secretary of State announced last month?
Mr Dunne
I pay tribute to the workforce in Lancashire, especially in view of the work that they will do in contributing to every single one of the F-35s. That is the largest defence procurement programme on the globe. Further particulars about the innovation fund will be announced in due course, and some may even be announced in the next hour.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
What difference would the renewal of Trident make to the defence supply chain?
Mr Dunne
As I have just indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), the Successor submarine programme will be the largest UK procurement of military capability for decades to come. That will filter through; I have referred to the 850 suppliers that we think will be participating, but the number may be greater than that. It will be an enormous programme that will last for many years and sustain thousands of jobs across the breadth of the country.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
12. What plans he has to strengthen the armed forces covenant.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
18. What plans he has to strengthen the armed forces covenant.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
The covenant came into force under the Armed Forces Act 2011. Since then, the Government have undertaken a range of actions to build the covenant. Our fourth annual report to Parliament is due to be published in December 2015 and that will detail the progress we have made during the year. The Government are committed to continuing to honour our pledges and encouraging wider society to think about their contribution.
Paul Scully
I welcome the fact that all local authorities have signed up to the community covenant. How will the commitments be measured so that Sutton council and others can learn from the best and most proactive and we can encourage others to up their game?
Mark Lancaster
I, too, am grateful for the support that councils, including Sutton, have demonstrated to our armed forces community. All have signed the community covenant and many are extremely proactive. I recently had a meeting with the chair of the Local Government Association and the Minister for Housing and Planning to discuss what more we can do to encourage local authorities as they look to support our armed forces community. As a result, I understand that the housing Minister intends to write to all local authorities setting out examples of best practice and reminding them of the need under the covenant to honour their commitments.
Michael Tomlinson
A veteran in my constituency suffers from mental health issues as a result of military service. He is on the local council housing list, but is one or two steps away from priority status. May I urge the Minister to beef up the military covenant to ensure that our veterans are given priority status for housing as a matter of course?
Mark Lancaster
The Government are determined to honour the commitments made by the armed forces covenant to ensure fair treatment of veterans and their families in need of social housing. That is why this Government changed the laws so that seriously injured serving personnel and veterans with urgent housing needs must always be a high priority for social housing. It is, however, for local authorities to make judgments about the competing housing priorities in their areas, but if my hon. Friend writes to me with the details of this case, I will of course raise it with my Department for Communities and Local Government colleagues.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
Ten thousand of our homeless are military veterans, as are 10% of our prison population. How is the covenant tackling this problem?
Mark Lancaster
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the £40 million invested in the veterans accommodation fund. I work very closely with a number of charities to ensure that we address this issue. He can see for himself at the Beacon home in Catterick, for example, or the Mike Jackson House in Aldershot, if he wishes to visit, and I would encourage him to do so.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
In the past five years, we have seen the pay and pension entitlements of service personnel cut in real terms, 30,000 redundancies and a failure to recruit the number of reserves that the Government planned to fill the gap. Now we read that annual increments and special allowances are also to be cut. Does the Minister accept that treating service personnel so shoddily will impact on morale and can be seen as a breach of the military covenant?
Mark Lancaster
I was hoping to avoid these words, but the hon. Lady will have to wait until 3.30 pm. I am confident that the remuneration package will remain an excellent package for our service personnel, but she will just have to wait a few more minutes to find out exactly whether or not to believe all the press reports she reads.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
13. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of UK withdrawal from the EU on defence and national security.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Julian Brazier)
This Government believe we can, and indeed will, succeed in reforming and renegotiating our relationship with the EU. The cornerstone of our security is NATO, but the EU plays an important role complementing NATO, for example recently in imposing sanctions on Russia. Defence remains a sovereign issue.
Ian C. Lucas
The UK, together with other EU partners, has worked hard in areas—such as in Mali on EU training missions—which have made a significant contribution to defence. Will the Government give close consideration to how such missions would continue if Britain were to withdraw from the EU?
Mr Brazier
I can only repeat my earlier answer. We are confident that the renegotiation will succeed. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the mission to which he refers, and others including the anti-piracy mission off the horn of Africa, have been a success.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
If this county were to vote to come out of the EU, would not the Minister welcome the tremendous advantage of that to the armed forces? The UK sends £350 million to the EU each week, and some of that money could be diverted to the armed forces. Would that not be a good thing?
Mr Brazier
My hon. Friend is not going to tempt me into speculating about what might happen after a withdrawal. I will say, however, that I am delighted to be part of a Government who are committed to spending 2% of GDP on defence, and I think that he is going to enjoy the announcement at 3.30 pm.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
14. What assessment he has made of the threat that ISIL poses to the UK.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
15. What assessment he has made of the threat that ISIL poses to the UK.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
We have seen ISIL attacks in Tunisia, Ankara, Sinai and elsewhere around the world, including on British citizens, most recently in Paris, as well as plots to commit murder on our own streets. ISIL poses a very direct threat to the United Kingdom, which is why we need to work with the international coalition to degrade and destroy ISIL in Iraq and why we need to consider what more we can do to deal with its headquarters and heartland in Syria, from where this threat comes.
Gareth Johnson
Given that ISIL is using its base in Syria to plan attacks on the UK, does the Secretary of State agree that it is absolutely absurd to restrict the British armed forces to acting only in Iraq, and not to empower them to act against those who threaten Britain and who are based in Syria?
Michael Fallon
I agree that there is a compelling case for us to do more in Syria, not least because it is illogical to tackle ISIL only in Iraq. Those borders are meaningless to that organisation. As the Prime Minister has said, we must tackle the head of the snake in Raqqa, and we will be making our case to the House and to the country, starting with his response to the Foreign Affairs Committee report later this week.
Andrew Rosindell
When major cities such as London are targets of terrorism, how is the Secretary of State collaborating with the Home Office to deal with out-of-London areas, including the shopping areas in constituencies such as mine, which could easily be under just as much threat as central London?
Michael Fallon
We work closely with the Home Office, particularly on counter-terrorism and on providing assistance to back up civil capacity. We have 5,000 troops trained and ready to support armed police officers at 24 hours’ notice, and we will be increasing that number shortly. In the end, we can guarantee the safety of the United Kingdom only by defeating ISIL in Iraq and Syria, and I hope that my hon. Friend shares the new confidence of the Chairman of his Committee that the Committee’s conditions can be met following the murders on the streets of Paris.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the concept in international law that when a sovereign state is unable or unwilling to take action against a non-state actor carrying out acts of aggression from its territory, there may be a justification for action. To what extent does he think that that applies to Daesh, and what comparisons would he draw between this situation and the operation of the Taliban in Afghanistan when it was supporting al-Qaeda?
Michael Fallon
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to say that there is already a clear legal basis for military action against ISIL in Syria which does not require a United Nations resolution. None the less, I hope he will welcome UN Security Council resolution 2249, which provides clear and unanimous political endorsement by the entire international community for the military action already being taken by the counter-ISIL coalition.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Why are the Government turning a blind eye to ISIL selling off its oil to our NATO pals?
Michael Fallon
The Government are not turning a blind eye. On the contrary, we are doing our best to interdict those supplies of oil and to stop ISIL selling its oil on the international market. I have discussed this with Syria’s neighbours. We also need to stop ISIL selling its oil to the Syrian regime itself.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
My immediate priorities are our operations against ISIL and the strategic defence and security review. July’s announcement that the defence budget would increase in every year of this Parliament and that we would continue to meet the NATO 2% target means that we will be able to decide very shortly on what further capabilities and equipment we need to keep this country safe.
Chris Green
In March, I was delighted to host the Secretary of State on a visit to MBDA in my constituency. Is it not a sign of the Government’s commitment to national security and economic security that they have signed a £300 million contract to equip our Typhoons with the latest missiles and that these will be manufactured at a new MBDA site in Bolton, thus safeguarding 400 high-tech jobs?
Michael Fallon
Yes. I do recall my visit and this is part of our now £178 billion equipment plan to provide the very best capabilities for our armed forces. These advanced, short-range, air-to-air missiles will equip our Typhoon jets with battle-winning technologies, helping to protect British airspace, to defend our NATO allies and to sustain hundreds of highly skilled jobs in MBDA’s new £30 million plant in Bolton.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
One of the many things briefed officially to The Times and The Daily Telegraph this morning was that the MOD will only purchase five fewer frigates than planned. Does the Minister share my concern about needing enough frigates to protect our carriers on operations, with any reduction to this fleet meaning that the capability to operate the carriers will be impaired?
Michael Fallon
Yes, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, whom I am delighted to see in his place, that we will have enough frigates to protect the carriers. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making the frigate replacement programme very clear in just a few minutes’ time.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
T2. Will the Minister advise the House on how central innovation is to the work of the MOD? Will he take this opportunity to spell out the role he sees the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down playing in the future strategy of defence in the UK?
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Mr Philip Dunne)
We fully recognise the importance of innovation, and DSTL does vital work with industry and academia in leading science and technology initiatives to provide capability advantages for our armed forces. We expect it to continue to do so, including through the support it gives the university technical college and the proposed Porton Down science park in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
T4. Médecins sans Frontières has reported that one of its hospitals in Damascus was hit in an aerial attack on Thursday, further increasing the number of civilian casualties from air strikes in Syria. In the light of Friday’s UN resolution on Syria, will the Secretary of State detail the additional measures that will be taken to provide safe passage and resettlement for civilian refugees should the UK vote to participate in air strikes?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Penny Mordaunt)
Prior to that incident, I met a number of non-governmental organisations to discuss a range of issues that the hon. Lady touches on, and I can assure her that this is at the forefront of our minds. Part of the reason for wanting to do more in this space is to prevent innocent civilians from being brutally slaughtered.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
T3. Given recent media coverage about the different views across this House on Trident renewal, will my right hon. Friend tell me who is responsible for deciding Government policy, specifically on that?
Michael Fallon
Let me reassure my hon. Friend that policy on this side of the House is decided by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet—indeed, the whole Government and the whole parliamentary party are united on the manifesto commitment we made to renew the deterrent. I urge moderate Labour Members to turn up tomorrow and vote to support a deterrent that every previous Labour Government have supported since it was introduced.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
T5. What assessment have the Government made of Assad’s high-tech military capability, provided by Putin, for example, surface-to-air missile systems; where they are located; and what risk there is of those missile systems or other high-tech equipment falling into the hands of ISIS?
Michael Fallon
We make sure that our own aircraft are equipped with the defensive aids that are necessary in each particular theatre. What we need to do is bring the civil war in Syria to an end and then focus on the task in hand, which is degrading and destroying ISIL in its heartlands. Syria needs to be free of both Assad and ISIL.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
T6. With Blandford Camp at the heart of my constituency, will the Minister assure me that, with the evaluation of the defence estate being undertaken, its socioeconomic importance for Blandford Forum as an important market town in North Dorset is taken into consideration?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
Although the defence estate is primarily configured to support military requirements, the Ministry of Defence does support local authorities in understanding any potential impact of changes, particularly when it comes to the opportunities to provide local resources as part of future town planning.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
T9. Lockheed Martin submitted a bid for the new maritime patrol aircraft contract. With the proposed C130 multi-mission aircraft costing around 40% of Boeing’s, which also would have seen 80% of the project carried out by a UK workforce, will the Minister please enlighten the House about the process that was undertaken to award that contract ultimately to a costlier alternative that is not supporting British jobs?
Mr Dunne
Again, this is another occasion on which I have to tell the hon. Lady that she will have to wait for a few moments to be enlightened by the Prime Minister. What I can say is that, in the event that an MPA were to be procured as part of the P-8 programme, some billion dollars’ worth of the programme is supplied by British companies.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
T7. I personally agree with the Government that ISIL/Daesh must be crushed in Syria as well as in Iraq, but the Secretary of State has made it clear that he wants to see the Syrian army forces defeated, too. We are reportedly being told to be more like Churchill than Chamberlain. Does the Secretary of State recognise that Churchill’s great strength was that he knew when to recognise which is the greater and the lesser of two evils, and that is why he was willing sometimes to fight alongside unsavoury allies against a common deadly enemy?
Michael Fallon
I have always thought that Churchill’s greatest strength, when confronted by a very direct threat to this country, was to be determined to do something about it.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
T10. With the UK armed forces being the smallest they have been since the middle of the 19th century, will the Minister accept that, if the UK were to exit the European Union, it would significantly undermine our intelligence and security relationships with our European partners at a time when we need those relationships the most?
Michael Fallon
No, I do not accept that. Of course the membership of the European Union has enabled us to be as one in Europe in imposing sanctions on Russia for the action it took in Crimea and in the insurgency it stirred up in Ukraine, but the bulk of our defence rests on our membership of the NATO alliance.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
T8. At a time when it is clear that our nuclear defence is key, will the Minister update us on the progress that the MOD is making in delivering our nuclear-powered Astute submarines?
Mr Dunne
Yes, as I have already said, I was delighted last Thursday to announce, in Barrow, the £1.3 billion contract to complete the build of the fifth Astute-class submarine. We will save money for the taxpayer and deliver the submarine ahead of the schedule of the previous one, and we are on track.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I agree with the Defence Secretary that ISIL poses a very direct threat to the UK, but does he agree that, if the Government are to take military action against Syria, that action should be framed within a wider strategy? Military action can serve as only one strand of that wider campaign. The Government will also need to leverage the political, diplomatic, economic and cultural tools that they have at their disposal.
Michael Fallon
I completely agree. Any military strategy to deal with ISIL in Syria as well as in Iraq has to be embedded in a wider campaign to win the struggle against ISIL, politically and diplomatically, to construct a moderate Government in Syria who have the support of all sections of Syrian society and to show how that will lead to greater security in the Sunni areas in particular in northern Syria once ISIL is defeated in its heartland.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
What impact is our non-involvement in airstrikes over Syria having on our reputation among international partners?
Michael Fallon
Non-action—the decision to do nothing —has consequences, and, as my hon. Friend implies, has had severe consequences not simply for the reputation of this country among its allies but in Syria itself, where we have seen a vicious civil war with hundreds of thousands killed and millions displaced as a result of a decision by the west not to get involved and begin to put a stop to it two years ago.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
It seems strange that we give high-level British forces training to those fighting ISIL but we do not give them any of our equipment, so they end up fighting with Russian or other weapons. Will we look at changing that, so that they get body armour, medical supplies and, perhaps, more hardware?
Penny Mordaunt
I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that as well as providing excellent training, we are gifting non-lethal equipment.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that to say that we can eradicate Daesh through negotiation alone is at best a dishonest diversion, and that if we want to tackle this issue we need to use all the force at our disposal?
Michael Fallon
I agree, and that is reflected in the United Nations resolution. ISIL made no demands of those whom it went to slaughter in Paris the week before last. This is not an organisation with which we can possibly negotiate or employ diplomacy; it has to be defeated using all means at our disposal, including military means.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Having seen at first hand the brilliant veterans breakfast clubs which were first established in Hull and run by Dereck J. Hardman and Peter Barker, what more can the Government do to support those initiatives started by veterans themselves?
Mark Lancaster
Having been to several such events myself, I have to agree with the hon. Lady that they are an excellent scheme, and something on which I hope to make progress over the coming months.
National Security and Defence
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the national security strategy and the strategic defence and security review.
Our national security depends on our economic security, and vice versa, so the first step in keeping our country safe is to ensure our economy is, and remains, strong. Over the last five years we have taken the difficult decisions needed to bring down our deficit and restore our economy to strength. In 2010, we were ordering equipment for which there was literally no money. The total black hole in the defence budget alone was bigger than the entire defence budget in that year. Now it is back in balance. By sticking to our long-term economic plan, Britain has become the fastest-growing major advanced economy in the world for the last two years.
Our renewed economic security means that today we can show how we can afford to invest further in our national security. This is vital at a time when the threats to our country are growing. This morning I was in Paris with President Hollande discussing how we can work together to defeat the evil of ISIL. As the murders on the streets of Paris reminded us so starkly, ISIL is not some remote problem thousands of miles away. It is a direct threat to our security at home and abroad. It has already taken the lives of British hostages and carried out the worst terrorist attack against British people since 7/7 on the beaches of Tunisia, to say nothing of the seven terrorist plots right here in Britain that have been foiled by our security services over the past year.
Of course, the threats we face today go beyond that evil death cult. From the crisis in Ukraine to the risk of cyber-attacks and pandemics, the world is more dangerous and uncertain today than even five years ago. So while every Government must choose how to spend the money it has available, every penny of which is hard-earned by taxpayers, this Government have taken a clear decision to invest in our security and safeguard our prosperity. As a result, the United Kingdom is the only major country in the world today which is simultaneously going to meet the NATO target of spending 2% of our GDP on defence and the United Nations target of spending 0.7% of our gross national income on development, while also increasing investment in our security and intelligence agencies and in counter-terrorism.
In ensuring our national security, we will also protect our economic security. As a trading nation with the world’s fifth biggest economy, we depend on stability and order in the world. With 5 million British nationals living overseas, our prosperity depends on trade around the world, so engagement is not an optional extra; it is fundamental to the success of our nation. We need the sea lanes to stay open and the arteries of global commerce to remain free-flowing. So the strategy which I am presenting to the House today sets out a clear vision for a secure and prosperous United Kingdom, with global reach and global influence. At its heart is an understanding that we cannot choose between conventional defences against state-based threats, or the need to counter threats that do not recognise national borders. Today we face both types of threat and we must respond to both types of threat.
So over the course of this Parliament our priorities are to deter state-based threats, tackle terrorism, remain a world leader in cybersecurity and ensure that we have the capability to respond rapidly to crises as they emerge. To meet these priorities we will continue to harness all the tools of national power available to us, co-ordinated through the National Security Council, to deliver a full-spectrum approach. This includes support for our armed forces, counter-terrorism, international aid and diplomacy, and working with our allies to deal with the common threats that face us all. Let me take each in turn.
First, the bottom line of our national security strategy must always be the willingness and capability to use force where necessary. On Friday evening the United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed resolution 2249 calling on member states to take “all necessary measures” against ISIL in both Syria and Iraq. On Thursday I will come to this House and make a further statement responding personally to the Foreign Affairs Committee. I will make the case for Britain to join our international allies in going after ISIL at its headquarters in Syria, not just Iraq, and I will explain how such action would be one element of a comprehensive and long-term strategy to defeat ISIL, in parallel with a major international effort to bring an end to the war in Syria.
But today I want to set out how we will ensure that our armed forces have the capabilities to carry out such a task, and indeed any other tasks that might be needed in the years ahead. We will invest more than £178 billion in buying and maintaining equipment over the next decade, including doubling our investment in equipment to support our special forces. We will also increase the size of our deployable armed forces.
In 2010 we committed to an expeditionary force of 30,000. Today I can tell the House that by 2025 we are increasing that number to 50,000. As part of this, we will create two new strike brigades, forces of up to 5,000 personnel fully equipped to deploy rapidly and sustain themselves in the field. We will establish two additional Typhoon squadrons and an additional squadron of F-35 Lightning combat aircraft to operate from our new aircraft carriers.
We will maintain our ultimate insurance policy as a nation, our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, and replace our four ballistic missile submarines. We will buy nine new maritime patrol aircraft, to be based in Scotland at RAF Lossiemouth. They will protect our nuclear deterrent, hunt down hostile submarines and enhance our maritime search and rescue. And we will buy at least 13 new frigates and two new offshore patrol vessels. These will include eight Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates. We will design and build a new class of light, flexible general purpose frigates as well. These will be more affordable than the Type 26s, which will allow us to buy more of them for the Royal Navy so that by the 2030s we can further increase the total number of Royal Navy frigates and destroyers. Not one of these capabilities is an optional extra. These investments are an act of clear-eyed self-interest to ensure our future prosperity and security.
Secondly, turning to counter-terrorism, we will make a major additional investment in our world-class intelligence agencies to ensure they have the resources and information they need to detect and foil plots from wherever they emanate in the world. So as I announced last week, we will invest £2.5 billion and employ over 1,900 additional staff. We will increase our investment in counter-terrorism police and more than double our spending on aviation security around the world. And I can tell the House today that we have put in place a significant new contingency plan to deal with major terrorist attacks. Under this new operation, up to 10,000 military personnel will be available to support the police in dealing with the type of shocking terrorist attacks we have seen in Paris.
We will also make a major new investment in a new generation of surveillance drones. These British-designed unmanned aircraft will fly at the very edge of the earth’s atmosphere and allow us to observe our adversaries for weeks on end, providing critical intelligence for our forces. We will also do more to make sure the powers we give our security services keep pace with modern technology, as we will see through the draft Bill we have published to ensure that GCHQ, M15 and our counter-terrorism police continue to have the powers they need.
Thirdly, we will use our formidable development budget and our outstanding diplomatic service to tackle global poverty, promote our interests, project our influence, and address the causes of the security threats we face, not just their consequences. So alongside the strategic defence review, I am also publishing our strategy for official development assistance. At its heart is a decision to refocus half of DFID’s budget on supporting fragile and broken states and regions in every year of this Parliament. This will help to prevent conflict, and, crucially, it will help to promote the golden thread of conditions that drive prosperity all across the world: the rule of law, good governance, and the growth of democracy. The conflict, stability and security fund will grow to over £1.3 billion a year by the end of this Parliament, and we will also create a new £1.3 billion prosperity fund to drive forward our aim of promoting global prosperity and good governance.
Building on our success in tackling Ebola, we will do more to improve our resilience and our response to crises, identifying £500 million a year as a crisis reserve and investing £1.5 billion over the Parliament in a global challenges research fund for UK science to pioneer new ways of tackling global problems like anti-microbial resistance. We will also invest £1 billion in a new fund for the research and development of products to fight infectious diseases, known as the Ross fund, and £5.8 billion in climate finance to play our part in helping poorer countries switch to greener forms of energy.
Taken together, these interventions are not just right morally—they are firmly in our national interest. They mean that Britain not only meets its obligations to the poorest in the world, but can now focus our resources on preventing or dealing with the instability and conflict that impinge on our security at home, investing at scale to create the economic opportunities that lead to long-term stability across the world and responding rapidly and decisively to emerging crises overseas. Acting on all of these fronts gives us greater influence in the world.
Finally, Britain’s safety and security depends not just on our own efforts but on working hand in glove with our allies to deal with the common threats that face us all, from terrorism to climate change. When confronted by danger, we are stronger together. So we will play our full part in the alliances that underpin our security and amplify our national power, and we will work with our allies in Europe and around the world, as well as seizing opportunities to reach out to emerging powers.
History teaches us that no Government can predict the future. We have no way of knowing precisely what course events will take over the next five years; we must expect the unexpected. But we can make sure that we have the versatility and the means to respond to new risks and threats to our security as they arise. Our armed forces, police, and security and intelligence services are the pride of our country. They are the finest in the world, and this Government will ensure they stay that way. Using our renewed economic strength, we will help them to keep us safe for generations to come. I commend this statement to the House.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement.
As I said last week in the House, the first duty of a state is to protect its own citizens. At the moment, this country’s overwhelming focus is on the threat we face from terrorism and how we can best ensure the defeat of ISIL. Labour supports the increased expenditure to strengthen our security services that the Prime Minister has announced to protect against the threat of terrorism. However, faced with the current threat, the public will not understand or accept any cuts to front-line policing. Everyone will be very concerned about the warnings we know that he has had from security officials and the police that the cuts will reduce very significantly the ability to respond to a Paris-style attack. Cuts affecting neighbourhood policing will damage the flow of vital intelligence that helps prevent such attacks. Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking now that police budgets after the spending review will be sufficient to guarantee no reductions in police or police community support numbers and to protect areas such as helicopter cover?
Will the Prime Minister also confirm that the Government will meet in full the request from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and his advisers for the further resources they say are required to counter attacks such as those in Paris? The public, quite rightly, expect that.
We are naturally focused on the immediate threats today, but it is disappointing that there is insufficient analysis in the national security strategy of the global threats facing our country and people around the world, including inequality, poverty, disease, human rights abuses, climate change and water and food security—[Interruption.] I have no idea why Conservative Members find food security such a funny subject. The flow of arms and illicit funds enables groups such as ISIL to sustain themselves and grow.
Let me join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the men and women who serve in the services. We must look after their interests in the decisions we make and pay particular attention to their welfare while serving and, just as importantly, when they have retired. Is the Prime Minister concerned that the latest Ministry of Defence survey showed that 25% of those serving plan to leave as soon as they can or have already put in their notice, and that the number dissatisfied with service life has risen to 32%? Does he think it is a coincidence that those results come at the same time as the Government have capped armed forces pay and changed pension arrangements?
Although the Prime Minister is talking tough about defence spending today, the facts are that under his Government it has fallen in real terms by 14% and we saw many soldiers with many years’ operational service putting their lives on the line being sacked days before becoming eligible for full pensions.
Does the Prime Minister not agree that changes proposed by the Chancellor to tax credits breach the spirit of the armed forces covenant? Will he confirm that the plan to cut the annual income of a corporal with two children by £2,300 a year will now be reversed and that such a family would not be made worse off by any other welfare cuts the Chancellor may be planning? What damage does the Prime Minister think will be done by the big cuts being planned to the civilian support of the armed services?
The country is united in its respect for those who serve, but there is widespread concern about how far lessons have been learned from recent military interventions. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he will update and revise the review in the light of the forthcoming findings of the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war? What is his response to this month’s United Nations report that all sides in the continuing conflict and anarchy in Libya are committing breaches of international law, including abductions, torture and the killing of civilians, and that ISIL militants have consolidated control over central Libya, carrying out summary executions, beheadings and amputations?
Last week, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg)—the former Deputy Prime Minister—wrote:
“Britain failed to provide meaningful backing to Libya in the wake of our air strikes there…We must learn from our mistakes.”
What lessons has the Prime Minister learned from the intervention in Libya in 2011, which, regrettably, has been followed by appalling chaos, persistent violence and the strengthening of ISIL?
Does the Prime Minister believe there is any prospect of Afghanistan maintaining its own security in the near future? How does he see Britain’s role in helping to ensure that that happens, given the huge commitment made over the past 14 years and the ultimate sacrifice paid by 456 members of the British forces? How will he apply lessons learned in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere to Britain’s role in the escalating war in Iraq and Syria, ensuring that further disastrous mistakes are avoided?
Britain does need strong military and security forces to keep us safe and to take a lead in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions, working with and strengthening the United Nations. I recognise the increased commitment to the UN in the Prime Minister’s statement. There is no contradiction between working for peace across the world and doing what is necessary to keep us safe at home—in fact, the very opposite is true.
My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) will be leading a review about how we deliver that strong, modern protection for the people of Britain. Our review will seek to learn the lessons from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and look at our military capabilities and requirements in that light. We owe it to the members of our armed forces and to the country as a whole to engage in the kind of review which is sadly lacking today.
The review will consider carefully and fully, on the basis of evidence and with the widest consultation and expert input, whether it is right for the UK to commit so much of the defence budget to continuous at-sea nuclear patrols, and if not, what alternative investments in our security and military capabilities would be required to meet the threats we face and ensure skills and jobs in our defence industries are fully protected. It will focus on the failure of the last Government to replace the Nimrod MR4A, leaving Britain to rely on asking for French planes for its airborne maritime capability. Why have the Government now chosen a replacement with virtually no UK defence content when it is in service?
Will the Prime Minister confirm—he was just talking about this—that the reduction in the number of Type 26 frigates we are procuring from 13 to eight will not impact on the Navy’s ability to protect the carriers? Can the Prime Minister give some reassurance to the workers on the Clyde? Last year, they were told that 13 ships would be built; now it is eight. Can he confirm this is simply a first batch and the commitment of 13 frigates still stands?
Our review will question the wisdom of British arms sales to repressive regimes with links to the funding of terrorism, and be firmly founded on the importance of human rights across the world. It will recognise that security is about much more than defence, and look to fulfil the huge potential this country has to lead the way in peacekeeping, conflict resolution and peace building.
We have a highly professional and experienced diplomatic corps—some of the best diplomats in the world—as well as world-class peace and conflict research academics. Does the Prime Minister not agree that the severe cut in the Foreign Office budget is clear evidence of the Government’s determination to sacrifice our place in the world on the altar of misplaced austerity? Will he commit to a human rights adviser in every embassy?
I return to everything that is uppermost in people’s minds—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think the Leader of the Opposition is approaching his last question.
Jeremy Corbyn
Indeed, Mr Speaker. I am saying that we must have the police and security services fully resourced and able to do what is necessary to protect the public. I ask the Prime Minister to think very hard about the remarks made to him by senior police officers and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in this respect, and to assure the House today that those cuts in policing services will not go ahead.
The Prime Minister
I think the best that can be said about that is the longer the right hon. Gentleman went on, the less he had to say.
Most of the right hon. Gentleman’s statement was spent talking about the importance of having troops within the UN, the importance of shipbuilding on the Clyde, the importance of investing in defence, and the importance of having high morale among our armed forces. Yet only two months ago, he said:
“Why do we have to be able to have planes, transport aircraft, aircraft carriers and everything else to get anywhere in the world? Why?”
Is that the same right hon. Gentleman who is now sitting opposite us thinking of all these uses for our armed forces, when just a few months ago he thought there was none?
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the police. Let me tell him that we are safeguarding investment in our counter-terrorism policing, and indeed increasing the capabilities that they have. There will be a full statement on Wednesday on all the spending decisions that we make. He might want to have a word with his shadow Chancellor, who very recently signed up to a proposal, at a time when we face this heightened security threat, to
“Disband MI5 and special police squads”
and to “disarm the police.”
The Leader of the Opposition thinks that they should not use their weapons; the shadow Chancellor thinks they should not have any at all. That is presumably what passes for a defence policy.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions. Let me answer them all. First, he asked how we set out the threats. We publish a risk assessment. The whole point of a national security strategy is to bring together all the threats we face as a nation—state-on-state threats, terrorism, pandemics, climate change and others—and set out in one place how we evaluate them and how we will respond to them. That is something that never previously happened.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about morale in our armed forces. There are no proposals here to reduce the proposals we have made on pay and increments in our armed services or to change the very generous pension arrangements. One of the best things for morale in our armed services is that those serving in our Army, Navy or Air Force and those who are planning to join our Army, Navy or Air Force can see that there will be a bigger Navy with more ships, there will be a bigger Air Force with more planes and people, and our armed services will be better equipped and supplied than they ever have been.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why we do not have human rights advisers in all our embassies. To me, advising on human rights is part of the role of an ambassador.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about learning lessons from previous conflicts. We are determined to do that. That is part of what the inquiry into the Iraq war should be about. However, we have not waited for that inquiry to learn the lessons. That is why, as I will explain on Thursday, it is so important that we bring together military strategy with diplomatic strategy, political strategy and development strategy. All those things should go together.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what lessons were learned from the Libyan conflict. Clearly we need to make sure, in such situations, that there are Governments and states that can continue, but I do not apologise for one minute for stepping in, with France, to prevent Colonel Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his own country.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the maritime patrol aircraft. It is right that we order them not only to protect the deterrent, which he, of course, wants to get rid of, but to make sure that we have greater safety, greater security and greater search and rescue functions.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the frigates. There is a real opportunity for Britain here. We are ordering at least eight Type 26 frigates, which have the full capabilities, but we will also look at developing a new multi-purpose frigate not only for ourselves, but, hopefully, to sell overseas. That opens the possibility that the number of capital ships in the Navy will go up, rather than down.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about ship workers on the Clyde. We have seen a great boost in naval shipbuilding because of the carriers. We want to keep that going, which is why two maritime patrol vessels will be built even before the frigates start being built.
The right hon. Gentleman told us a bit about his review. We look forward to that review, which will be carried out by Ken Livingstone—someone who has absolutely no idea about defence, but every idea about attacking hard-working Labour Front Benchers who try to do their jobs.
Finally, on a day when we are discussing a better equipped Army, a bigger Navy and a bigger Air Force, perhaps we ought to end with a quotation from the right hon. Gentleman who, as recently as August, said:
“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if every politician around the world instead of taking pride in the size of their armed forces did what”
others
“have done and abolished the army and took pride in the fact that they don’t have an army”.
I know that it is depressing for Labour Members, but they might as well know about it. That is the view of the Leader of the Opposition.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Some difficult decisions were taken in the 2010 defence review so that our armed forces would be able to grow in the second half of the decade. May I welcome unequivocally the purchase of the new maritime patrol aircraft? If I may remind the Prime Minister, there was a gap because of Labour’s catastrophic management of the Nimrod programme. I also welcome the purchase of more F-35s. What impact will the decision to man the two carriers have on naval personnel numbers? What impact will the decision on the F-35s have on the future of the Tornado?
The Prime Minister
Because we want to operate both carriers and because of the great amount of equipment coming through in the Royal Navy, this defence review will see an increase in personnel in the Royal Navy of 400 people. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the maritime patrol aircraft. We did have to take difficult decisions in 2010 to get rid of the black hole in the defence budget. The Nimrod project was over time and over budget, and it was not clear that we would have been able to get it back on track. We have therefore had a gap in that capability, but today’s announcement shows how we will fill it.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to a contingency plan that will allow 10,000 members of the armed forces to support the police in the case of a terrorist attack. How long will it take to train those military personnel to allow for interoperability, and will he revise his plans to cut police numbers? One without the other is nonsense.
The Prime Minister
The thinking here is that just as in France it was necessary to surge the number of uniformed personnel on the streets—perhaps to provide a security cordon or keep people safe—so we should get rid of the divide that has existed for many years about the deployment of military personnel on the streets of Britain. The right hon. Lady asks when these people will be trained. The first 5,000 are already able to fulfil that function should it be necessary, and we will get to the figure of 10,000 that I announced. This is not about members of the armed forces supplanting or taking over from the police; it is about them being at the disposal of the police, perhaps to provide a security cordon or a certain amount of safety. In the past we had a rather artificial divide between those two functions, and it is time to get rid of that.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Defence Select Committee will be assessing the SDSR against a checklist of the threats and vulnerabilities that were published in our report at the weekend, but I am sure that most Members will find at least some relief in the plugging of gaps such as naval aviation and maritime patrol aircraft, and especially in the emphasis on flexible and versatile armed forces to deal with our inability to predict crises before they are upon us. Will the Prime Minister say a little about press reports concerning the pay of armed forces, and will he indicate when the maingate contracts for the successor to the Trident submarines will be brought before the House for debate and decision?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that members of the Defence Committee have a checklist and will scrutinise that document thoroughly, and I look forward to their conclusions. We are keeping the annual pay upgrade and the increments that our armed forces have. A package has been set out for new joiners, and I am sure the Committee will consider that carefully. My right hon. Friend welcomed the maritime patrol. On the maingate decision, we will be moving ahead with the four submarines and at the appropriate moment we will hold a vote in this House.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing the effective Opposition four minutes to respond to it.
Let me reiterate our support for measures in the SDSR that were pre-announced following recent terrorist incidents, including support for intelligence agencies, as well as other counter-terrorism capabilities such as special forces and cybersecurity. The Prime Minister has announced a 2025 target for two deployable strike brigades, which is welcome in support of UN-sanctioned operations. Holding an SDSR every five years is a worthwhile exercise as it provides context and allows analysis of policy decisions. In the 2010 SDSR, there was no mention of the northern dimension, the High North or the Arctic—not a single mention when considering risks, opportunities or necessary responses, and not a single mention about our immediate northern backyard.
Five years ago, the Prime Minister made the disastrous decision to scrap and waste the entire fleet of Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft, throwing away £4 billion of taxpayer investment. That meant that—uniquely among the armed forces of our northern European neighbours— the UK has had no MPA and has had to muddle through. Among other things, the Ministry of Defence has had to urge Scottish fishing vessels to report on passing Russian forces. The previous Defence Secretary confirmed that social media was a helpful source of information about Russian naval forces and—as is currently the case —the UK has been relying on French, Canadian or American MPA assets to patrol and screen around UK waters.
Not only has there been an MPA deficit, but the MOD has not been taking the northern dimension seriously. With the Atlantic to our west, the Iceland gap to our north and the North sea to the east, one would have thought that was a basic requirement. However, the UK has never, ever provided a single fast jet for NATO northern air policing from Iceland. Similarly, in recent years the Royal Navy has not provided any assets— not one single vessel—for NATO northern maritime patrol groups. These are facts. Today we learn there is some good news and that we can rectify the capability gap. It is welcome that there will be maritime patrol aircraft and that they will be based at RAF Lossiemouth. Will the Prime Minister say more about their in-service date?
Staying with the northern dimension, the UK does not station a single ocean-going conventional patrol vessel anywhere except the south coast of England. We have been told over a number of years that in Scotland we should be delighted that 13 Type 26 frigates will be built on the Clyde. In fact, voters in Scotland were promised 13 Type 26 vessels just so long as people voted no in the independence referendum. That was a clear promise. It is just over one year since the referendum, and no voters and shipyard workers are being betrayed in this SDSR, with a 40% cut in Type 26 vessels.
Under this Prime Minister, we have seen defence decimated in Scotland. Two out of three air bases have ceased flying operations. There has been a disproportionate cut to units and manpower. Tory Ministers promised an Army super-base in West Lothian and the doubling of Army numbers in Scotland with returns from Germany. Instead, that was dropped. Army headquarters in Scotland was downgraded and service personnel numbers in Fife and Moray are down considerably. Total personnel numbers are at a record low in Scotland.
The extended lifespan for fast jets is to be welcomed, but may I raise safety issues relating to traffic collision avoidance systems, which have still not been installed? Will the Prime Minister confirm that they were first recommended in 1990 and have still not been installed in all Tornado and Typhoon aircraft?
Moving on from issues relating to necessary and sensible conventional defence spending to the elephant in the room, Trident replacement, a weapons system of mass destruction that can never be used, we learn that the cost of its replacement is ballooning and squeezing out defence alternatives. How expensive does Trident need to be for this Government to realise that it is a super-expensive vanity project that does not deter? It has not deterred terrorism, cyber-attack or conventional attacks on the UK, its allies and friends. Even at this late stage, I appeal to the Government and to the Labour party to realise that it is a huge mistake to renew Trident. I remind them both that in Scotland an overwhelming majority of our parliamentarians and civic organisations, from our national Churches and faith groups to the Scottish Trades Union Congress, are all opposed. What kind of family of nations with a respect agenda imposes something on one of its members against its will?
The Prime Minister
Listening to the right hon. Gentleman, one would not think that Scotland was getting more Typhoons, more maritime patrol aircraft and more ships. The truth is this: the United Kingdom punches above its weight in the world and Scotland punches above its weight because it is in the United Kingdom and such a proud partner in our defence.
Let me answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question about maritime patrol aircraft very clearly. The fact is that in 2010 we had to take difficult decisions. This was an aircraft that was not properly in service. We acted on advice because the costs were not clear and the capability was not clear. In any event, it was, as he would put it, guarding a deterrent that he does not want in the first place. He should welcome its replacement and he should welcome the fact that it will be based at RAF Lossiemouth.
On the in-service date, at least three of the aircraft will be in place by the end of the Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the role we play in defending northern Europe. We are looking very carefully at some of the patrolling missions, but UK Typhoons already provide Baltic air policing missions, which are hugely welcomed by those countries.
Finally, let me answer the question about naval issues and Trident. On the shipbuilding programme—we will be publishing a paper in 2016 on our shipbuilding strategy—the fact is that Scotland now has the opportunity to build more than 13 frigates because of the changes we are making. There will be eight of the Type 26 frigates and at least another five of the new type of frigate, probably more. They can be built in Scotland if the conditions are right. The only way these ships would not be built in Scotland is if Scotland was independent and did not have the national resources of the Royal Navy. That is what the right hon. Gentleman should be saying to ship workers in Scotland: the UK and our defence budget help to keep their jobs safe.
Finally, Trident is clearly not squeezing out other defence requirements, as today’s document clearly shows. Here is the rub: the SNP describes itself as the effective Opposition—yes, they are wholly opposed to Trident and therefore wholly unsuited to government.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly his comments about the extra investment in counter-terrorism and his reiteration of the money going to the intelligence and security agencies. In that context, will he help the House in identifying how the Government will carry out the necessary audit process—both for that massive expansion and for other expansion in expenditure—to ensure value for money?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. The new NSC sub-committee, which we will establish under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), will ensure that these commitments are properly delivered and, along with other governmental organisations, that there is good value for money.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I also welcome the additional resources for counter-terrorism. We have the best counter-terrorism officers in the world, and this is the right time to increase the budget. Last week, the global terrorism index showed that last year 32,600 people were killed in terrorist attacks in 67 countries. In his statement, the Prime Minister is integrating what is happening in this country with our strategy abroad. He mentioned Tunisia, for example. How will the Tunisian Government be assisted by a national security strategy in our country, bearing it in mind that what happens on the streets of Tunisia or Sana'a, in Yemen, ends up on the streets of London?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Countries as diverse as Tunisia, Yemen, Nigeria and Somalia can take heart from our strategy, because we recognise that their security and our security are inextricably linked. We want to help with things such as aviation security, on which we are massively extending our budget, and with building their armed services, policing and counter-terrorism capabilities. In the coming years, there will be an important role for our Army to play, in terms of forming training battalions, and for our intelligence services, as they increase their capabilities and trust in partner agencies, which can play an important role in keeping us safe.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much welcome the statement, particularly the commitment to naval platforms and manned and unmanned airframes, but to what extent do the through-life costings for the F-35 reflect the likelihood that UAVs will render the technology therein obsolete by the end-of-service date?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a considerable expert on this. What we have, particularly with our partnership with the French, is a plan for the next generation of fighter aircraft being unmanned combat systems. The research is there, the work is being done—with the French and Americans—and choices about that will have to be made, but I think it is too early to say whether the next generation of fighter aircraft will be manned or unmanned, which is why it is right we are developing the F-35 Lightning with the Americans and that we think seriously about whether to move to fully unmanned platforms in the future. Personally, as an amateur rather than a professional, I have my doubts.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has said that he will come back to the House on Thursday to respond to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Will he also ensure a full day’s debate in Government time on this issue, well before the Government table a motion on military intervention, so that we can have a full debate, not only on the day of a vote, but well in advance, and so that the House can give this proper consideration?
The Prime Minister
I will consider what the right hon. Lady says, but obviously we have a statement on Thursday, when I will be publishing our response to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and then, depending on the reaction of the House and the sense that right hon. and hon. Members have about whether we should move ahead with this, my intention would be to have a full day’s debate and a vote subsequent to that in the coming days and weeks. I think there is also a debate, I understand on Monday, in Back-Bench time for people who want to make further points about this issue, but I would put it like this. I do not think we are going to be under-spoken or under-considered before we take this step. We had the statement last week, we have had the statement today, which obviously has links to Syria, and we will have the statement on Thursday and then a debate in Government time, with plenty of time for people to air their views and then, I would hope, have a vote.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
As one of the most outspoken and robust critics of the Government over the last five years for the very unfortunate defence cuts they have had to make for economic reasons, may I now be among the absolute first strongly and warmly to welcome the tone of the Prime Minister’s announcement this afternoon, in respect both of the general direction and the 2% of GDP and also quite a number of the other detailed announcements, such as the nine maritime patrol aircraft? Does he agree that, in a fast-changing world, the last SDSR was out of date more or less by the time it was printed and that this one, too, will change rapidly? Will he commit to ensure that the SDSR and the national security strategy, on which it is based, should not be set in stone and unchangeable, but should be reviewed regularly?
The Prime Minister
First, may I thank my hon. Friend for his warm support for this approach? We did have to take difficult decisions in the last Parliament. I think it was right to freeze our defence spending in cash terms, at around £35 billion, but now we can see it increase. That is a choice we are making. We do not have to make this choice; it is an active choice we are making in order to deliver greater security.
My hon. Friend is right that these documents are not set in stone: they are living and breathing documents. However, I think it is sensible every five years to hold a defence review, but then to get on and implement it. If we endlessly re-examine and re-cook it, we will find that we have lots of people doing analysis and not enough people actually delivering the strategy, which in the end is what this is about.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The very first duty of the Prime Minister of the day, and indeed the Leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, should be to ensure the protection and defence of the people of this country, here and abroad. On behalf of my party, I warmly welcome the fact that the Prime Minister at least is living up to that requirement in the House today. In that context, I welcome his decision to commit to 2% funding for defence and the extra money and resources going into the security services. On maritime surveillance, I welcome the nine new aircraft being deployed, plugging the gap that has existed for too long. Finally, will he give an unambiguous commitment that the two new carriers will both be deployed as strike carriers going forward?
The Prime Minister
Both carriers will be brought into service and both will be crewed, and that is one of the reasons why we are looking for an increase in Royal Navy personnel of 400. They will be a very big addition to British power and will be the largest ships that the Royal Navy has ever had under its command.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Government strengthen controls at our borders and integrate that properly with the new intelligence—which I must welcome —that my right hon. Friend is going to get? There is a clear danger at the moment that military action in the middle east could displace terrorists, who might shift tactics and want to seek either legal or illegal entry to our country.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that having border controls only helps if we are also sharing intelligence with others about the people trying to cross those borders, and there are weaknesses in the European Union system on that, which we need to strengthen. I was discussing that with President Hollande this morning, but I would stress again—to be clear—that we have borders where we are able to stop and detain people and not let them in our country, even if they are European Union citizens, if we think they are a threat to our national security. That exists now for Britain. Some other countries in Europe are introducing borders like that on a temporary basis; ours are like that on a permanent basis.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister accept that the continued existence of the so-called caliphate is itself probably one of the most important drivers of radicalising young people here and elsewhere, in Europe and the wider world? Does he accept that before the public can be convinced of the need to take further action, particularly in Syria, a clearer case needs to be made about what the aims are and what the scale would be?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The fact that ISIL is a so-called state and is committing these appalling acts both locally in Syria and Iraq and around the globe is one of the most important dangers that we face. He is also right that we will not degrade and destroy ISIL, as we need to do for our own national security, simply through the exercise of military force. We need to combine that with the proper diplomatic and political activities of backing a proper Government in Iraq and backing, over time, a transitional Government in Syria. Both those things need to happen. The point I shall make on Thursday is that I do not think we can wait for the political process to be completed in Syria before we start taking some of the action to degrade and destroy this organisation, which poses such a threat to us today.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and I know it will be welcome in the Shropshire defence sector—both the private and public sectors.
Going back to the subject of Africa, as the Prime Minister seeks to reform the European Union and given that some of the causes of terrorism can be the lack of prosperity and unemployment, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, what more can the EU do, working with the Economic Community of West African States, the Southern African Development Community and the east African community, to ensure that we have a pan-African continental free trade area in order to reduce migration, increase prosperity and increase security?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on this issue. The fact is that we need to see more development, more growth, more jobs and employment in Africa, and Europe can have a real influence on that—not only through aid programmes, which can make a difference, but by making sure that there are fair trade arrangements in place not just between African countries and Europe but between African countries themselves. We have done a lot of work to promote intra-African trade because creating those sorts of markets, which ECOWAS is trying to do, will make a huge difference to the lives of people on that continent.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
May I welcome the Prime Minister’s spending commitments on defence and overseas development, and ask him to ensure that in his statement on Thursday, he sets out how both will be used to take immediate action against ISIL and plan for the long-term reconstruction that Syria so desperately needs?
The Prime Minister
Let me pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who was arguing for increases in defence spending earlier this year. She was absolutely right about that. She is also right that we need to combine our overseas aid budget with our defence budget, because it is equally important to make sure that we build security, governance and systems through which countries can see that their countries are working for them. We will not solve the problem in Syria through missiles and bombs alone; it has to be solved by helping the Syrian people to have a Government and a country in which they can put their trust.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
RAF Coningsby, from which both Typhoons and the battle of Britain memorial flights fly, is in my constituency. As we have remembered this year the 75th anniversary of the battle of Britain, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the investment in fast jets and the increased number of Typhoon squadrons will ensure that we retain world-class capability?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I think that the Typhoon is proving itself, not just in Britain but elsewhere in the world, as an absolute world leader in terms of its capabilities. What this review delivers—my hon. Friend will be able to read about it more detail—is a further upgrade of the Typhoon aircraft with the vital e-scan radar and the more modern weapons systems that it needs, so that it is good both as an air-to-air fighter and as a ground-to-air fighter. With that and the news about the extra Typhoons, I think Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend can look forward to very strong defences in the years ahead.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
As we know, the UK is bombing ISIL in Iraq and we know that the Government want to bomb ISIL in Syria, so we have to ask the question whether the Government want to bomb ISIL less in Iraq or are they currently not bombing ISIL in Iraq to their full capability?
The Prime Minister
The point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that the border between Iraq and Syria is not recognised by ISIL. It is literally a line in the sand, so it makes no sense, if we want to degrade and destroy ISIL, to restrict our activities—given that we have some of the most professional and dedicated pilots and some of the most efficient equipment anywhere in the world—purely to Iraq.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
As the Prime Minister has already recalled, owing to the dire economic straits in which our country found itself thanks to the present Opposition, the 2010 review was a pretty bloody and painful exercise. I warmly welcome today’s announcement, which has been delivered partly by the Prime Minister and partly by the Defence Secretary, but may I ask some specific questions about the strike brigades, which I also welcome? I understand that they are additional to the three brigades that we established in the 2010 defence review. Can they be delivered within the constraint of 82,000 regular Army personnel, and why will it take 10 years to deliver them? Can the Prime Minister expedite their creation?
The Prime Minister
Let me say first, in defence of the 2010 review, in which my hon. Friend was involved, that we did have to make difficult decisions, but I would argue that the moves that we made—reducing the number of battle tanks and focusing on such elements as flexible armed forces and information, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—resulted from our making the right judgments. Those were the things that we needed more of, and now we are able to supply even more of them.
My hon. Friend asked about the strike brigades. As he knows, we currently have the capability to deploy a brigade anywhere in the world and sustain it indefinitely. With the new armoured vehicles, such as the Ajax vehicles, and given the new way in which we are going to rotate armed forces personnel, instead of being able to deploy only one brigade we shall be able to deploy two, with greater mobility. Obviously the time that this takes will depend on how soon some of the new equipment comes on board, but my commitment to the House is to make sure that the strike brigades are ready as soon as they can be.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Before the Prime Minister makes his statement on ISIL and Syria on Thursday, may I urge him to listen carefully to Labour Members who have an open mind on this question, but want reassurances on specific issues—chiefly reassurances about humanitarian protection and the need to prevent further displacement and suffering, but also a specific commitment to long-term reconstruction and stabilisation once the conflict has ended?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. My aim is to bring together the biggest possible majority on both sides of the House in favour of the action that I think is necessary. I am not saying that we will solve the problem simply by crossing a line from Iraq into Syria. We will solve the problem if we have a political strategy, a diplomatic strategy and a humanitarian strategy. Britain is leading the way in that regard, not least by organising next year’s conference with Norway, Germany and Kuwait to raise the funds that are necessary to help the Syrian people wherever they are—and the more of them we can keep in Syria, the better.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister confirm that today’s statement is good news for RAF Marham, the home of the Tornado force and the future home of Lightning II? Obviously the Tornadoes and Brimstone missiles are playing a vital role in the campaign against Daesh, but does he agree that there is now an overwhelming case for extending those strikes into Syria itself?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that I believe the statement is good for RAF Marham, because it means more Lightning aircraft more quickly, and I think that that will be very good for the air base. As for what my hon. Friend said about Iraq and Syria, he knows that I agree. We must marshal all the arguments that we can on Thursday.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
I welcome the strategic review, much of which is common sense, but will Ministers do more to reform defence procurement and ensure that our limited defence budget is spent in the interests of our armed forces, giving them the equipment that they need rather than enriching a cartel of defence contractors?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly do all that I can on that basis. This issue is always difficult, because on the one hand we want to procure as speedily and swiftly as possible, while on the other hand we want to have a care for Britain’s vital defence industry and the opportunity to help our allies with their capabilities; but yes, I think that, overall, ensuring that procurement was more swift and more speedy would be a good thing.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for stating unequivocally that the British Army might be placed on the streets of the United Kingdom. I remind the House that it has been operating on the streets of the United Kingdom for more than 40 years. I think the public will be very sympathetic to the idea, and will take great comfort in times of peril when they see our wonderful soldiers on the streets protecting them.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. During the flooding problems and during the Olympics we saw a number of British troops on our streets. The point I am making is that up until now there have been some rather arcane and old-fashioned barriers to stop this happening, for all sorts of very good historical reasons, but I think we are rather over that now. I think that if there were a terrorist attack and we needed to surge uniformed personnel to keep us safe, people would be very happy to see the military perform that role.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
In respect of the reorganisation of the Army, what consideration is being given to home-basing the Welsh regiments in Wales, all three of which are currently home-based in England?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to look carefully at that. Obviously, what is happening in terms of basing is that we are bringing a number of people home from Germany, so there are more basing opportunities in the United Kingdom.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. With the threat to our hard-won freedoms as clear today as it has ever been, I welcome the Government’s efforts in the SDSR. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the ever-changing security and defence environment, our most critical asset remains our men and women who serve, and that within the framework of this SDSR looking after our men and women both during and after their service will be a priority not only for him personally, although I know it is now, but for his Government?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend, with his considerable experience, is absolutely right to say this. We can talk about all the equipment in the world, but at the heart of it are men and women who are prepared to serve and put their lives on the line for us, and they should be looked after. I think when he looks through this SDSR, he will see we are committed to doing that. Indeed, what we have done with the military covenant—putting it on a legal footing, passing it into law, improving its terms every year—means there will be help for people for the rest of their lives.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
It is obviously right that our armed forces have both the equipment and personnel needed to protect our country and our people, but hard power and soft power go together, so may I press the Prime Minister further on the decision he is shortly to bring before the House about military action in Syria? Will he ensure that this is not just a decision for the House to say yes or no to the use of hard power—although, of course, it will be that—but that it is also a decision to use every diplomatic means we have, not to negotiate with ISIS but to forge a sustainable future for Syria thereafter?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely want to give that assurance. There is obviously the diplomatic work that is being done through the Vienna process to bring about a transition and political change in Syria. There is also the humanitarian side—Britain is the second largest aid donor in the world on a bilateral basis—to help Syrian refugees, and we will continue with that work. I very much see all these things as part of an overall strategy. There is not simply a plan to extend military action; there is a plan to step up in all of these areas.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and congratulate him on increasing resources for our armed forces. May I add one tiny cautionary note? In my day we talked about divisions, but we are now talking about brigades. Can he reassure me that in the future the Army will not be reduced below 82,000, so we can do our job effectively around the world?
The Prime Minister
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I found reducing the size of our Army to 82,000 the most painful part of the defence review in the last Parliament. That is why it did not go ahead to begin with; I wanted to find every way to try to and avoid it, so I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that it is not going below 82,000. One of the interesting things about this report is that, because of the way we are changing how the Army works, we would have the ability if necessary—I hope it will not be—to deploy an entire division of our armed services in one go. That is a higher number—50,000—than the 30,000 envisaged at the last SDSR.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Like many Prime Ministers before him, this Prime Minister is already talking about a decision that he is going to put before the House to wage war in Syria. Has he got an exit strategy? Nobody else has ever had one.
The Prime Minister
The exit strategy is a Government in Syria who represent all its people. I would just make the point that when I first became Prime Minister we were nine years into an Afghanistan deployment, and I delivered that exit strategy by setting a time and a date by which our combat troops should leave that country and by which we should be training up the Afghans to take over. So yes, there must always be an exit strategy, and there will be a very clear one for this.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
May I take this opportunity to welcome the Prime Minister’s statement? I had the privilege of visiting the two aircraft carriers, including the Queen Elizabeth, in Rosyth last week, and I welcome today’s announcement on them. Will he give me, as the Member of Parliament representing Warton, an assurance that the future of unmanned aerial combat vehicles will involve more than simply buying them off the shelf?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have set out a separate budget item for working with the French and the Americans on unmanned combat vehicles for the future. As I have said, we cannot know exactly what form they will take, but the commitment, the money and the research are all there. I want Britain to stay at the cutting edge of these technologies. That is why we invested in Typhoon and that is why it is important to have this programme too.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Like the Prime Minister, I pay tribute to the men and women who put their lives on the line every day in the name of our national security and defence. My constituent, Lance Bombardier Ben Parkinson, is the UK’s most severely wounded surviving soldier. He has been greatly helped in the past nine years by the specialist healthcare and other treatments and services that have been afforded to him, but his family are worried that this might end when he is forced to leave the armed forces. The Prime Minister has pledged his support for Ben before. Will he arrange a meeting for me with a senior Minister and Ben and his family, so that we can secure his future?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to do that for Ben Parkinson and for the right hon. Lady. It has been an immense privilege to meet Ben. He is one of the bravest people I have ever met, and he always seems to have good humour and optimism about the future despite how much he has suffered. With the military covenant and the LIBOR fines, we have tried to put in place progressive improvement, year on year, in the services that we give to our armed forces personnel and their families. We have to recognise that, after the Iraq war and after 14 years of deployments in Afghanistan, we need to look after these young people for the rest of their lives. They do not simply want tea and sympathy; they want fulfilling lives. They want the best possible prosthetic limbs and the best healthcare. They want to go on and do great things, and it should be our ambition as a country to help them to do just that.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. It is a very welcome declaration of long-term strategic intent on behalf of our country to remain a global nuclear power with armed forces that have global reach. May I remind him, however, that our defence industries are among our largest export earners because of what Her Majesty’s Government have invested in research and technology over the years? If we are to sustain that, and the ability of our industries to help us to produce the capability we need in times of emergency, we will need not only to continue but substantially to increase the amount we invest in those industries.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. He has spent a lot of time in this Parliament and the last one talking about the importance of clear strategy. To me, strategy is about setting the goals we want to achieve and then, crucially, making the choices that will make that happen. This document is all about choices. They are not choices that we have to make; they are choices that we have decided to make in order to maintain our global reach and power, for reasons not of national vanity but of hard-headed, cold-eyed national interest. We are a country that is engaged in the world and that needs to play that role.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s point about research and development in the British defence industry, but we have to make sure that the industry understands that the Ministry of Defence is not simply a customer to be sold ever-more expensive equipment. It should be a core customer that can be used to develop the things that will be needed not only by our armed forces but by our partners, so that we can ensure that we have export earnings from these platforms that we have created ourselves.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
I hear unconfirmed reports that President Obama has already welcomed news that our MPA will be built in the USA. The lack of MPA has been a glaring and immediate gap in our capability, one felt particularly hard in Scotland. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the UK will initially borrow P-8s from the USA? Will he also confirm that there will be no capability gap between when the Rosyth-built carriers go to sea and the full deployment of F-35s on both carriers?
The Prime Minister
First, on the MPA, we have said that we will be buying the Boeing version. That is a US aircraft, but it is going to have a major British component; sometimes it is right to choose what is available rather than to start all over again from scratch. The hon. Gentleman can read all about what we are saying about the Lightning aircraft in the document. We are actually increasing the numbers that will be available for our aircraft carriers.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Today’s announcement represents a commitment to invest in the necessary capabilities to defend our country. It is undoubtedly true that the simultaneous wise deployment of aid budgets and soft power assets is desirable, but does the Prime Minister agree that effective defence relies on not only the necessary budget, but an unswerving commitment to deploy those assets when this country’s defence requires it?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right; our allies want to know and, when we are threatened, people want to know that we are not just prepared to invest in our defence assets, but prepared to use them. However, our defence and our overseas aid commitments go together, because they are both things that help to keep us safe.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
With support for the Union in Northern Ireland growing ever stronger, may I help to assuage the concerns of the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) by saying that we have lots of loughs and lots of ports, and that if the Government ever need a new home for Trident, Ulster is there?
The Prime Minister
I know that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) and I are united as one in hoping it never comes to that.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
Today’s SDSR is very important for the Royal Navy in Portsmouth. Does my right hon. Friend remain committed to a fleet of 19 destroyers and frigates? How many more may he get of the lighter frigates? Will they be based in Portsmouth?
The Prime Minister
First, my hon. Friend can be secure in the knowledge that Portsmouth will have a very strong future, not least as the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier will be based there. I have already seen where it will go, and what a magnificent site and resource it will be. Today’s announcement about commissioning a new multi-purpose frigate enables us to increase over and above from the 19 frigates and destroyers we are already committed to, because it will be a more affordable programme. Having seen all the work that our frigates do, we know that it is essential that we have that core anti-submarine task, but when we think of all the other work—drugs interdiction, helping off the coast of Libya and all the other tasks—I think we see that we would benefit from having a bigger Royal Navy fleet, with more different sorts of frigates for those tasks.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the Prime Minister set out how the national security strategy and strategic defence and security review will bolster the UK’s ability to participate in the international diplomatic and military coalition for Syria and ensure that the UK can play a significant role in any post-Daesh stabilisation process in Syria and Iraq?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to do that. Obviously, there are some capabilities here that we have and are building that would be useful in the prosecution of the attacks on ISIL in Iraq and on Syria, but the right hon. Gentleman makes a wider point: because we have committed to this aid spending and because we are funding our diplomacy, we are able to play a much wider part in making sure that Syria has a secure future.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today. Does he agree that there are at least three issues that enable us to defend our country? The first, obviously, is a strong Government who are willing to show and recognise the importance of defence. The second is a strong economy able to fund that. The third is the excellent companies we have throughout the country—companies such as the Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group in my constituency—which have the experience to deliver the defence that we need?
The Prime Minister
My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to say that crucial to our defence is a strong defence and aerospace sector that can keep us at the cutting edge of capabilities, because that is essential for our future.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
We are living through a time when there are worrying gaps in our capabilities, so today’s announcements are very welcome, but may I press the Prime Minister on pay for the armed forces? Is he saying that new joiners will receive an inferior package, and, if that is the case, how will that affect morale?
The Prime Minister
We are trying to design a package for new joiners that is attractive for people in the modern workforce. We have to ask questions about how people want to be housed and what sort of flexibility they want at work during their lives. The fact that we are seeing so many more women join our armed forces will also have consequences that we need to consider. The new joiners’ package is about taking all those things into account.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
To have an exit strategy is important, but, for me, the entrance strategy became compelling when we saw what happened on the streets of Paris on 13 November. It is important that we have effective resources for our armed forces, and that the RAF has extra Typhoons and Joint Strike Fighters. It is vital that it has the right kit, and emphasises the important manufacturing skills of the people working at Warton and Samlesbury at BAE Systems.
The Prime Minister
I have been to see those factories, and I know the incredible technical expertise that we have. The workers can be proud of the fact that Typhoon is absolutely a first-rate aircraft, and that it has a very strong future.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
The Ministry of Defence employs civil servants as nuclear scientists and nuclear engineers, and in a whole range of tasks, including logistics, training support and maintenance, as well as in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. I understand that there is a cut of 12,000 to the MOD’s civil service. How will the Prime Minister ensure that critical roles and tasks are not lost to the Ministry of Defence?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady makes an important point. There are civilian roles in the MOD that are hugely important, and she mentioned some of them. What we have done with this budget is say that we will meet the 2% of defence spending and that we have created this joint security fund that can be bid for by our intelligence services as well as our defence services. We said to the military, “Every penny you can save through efficiencies, you now know will go into extra capabilities.” That is why I can stand here today and talk about new squadrons, more members of the RAF and more people joining the Royal Navy, but all of that should be done without damaging any of the vital capabilities that civilians provide.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Of course Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have concerns about action in Syria. In that respect, we look forward to my right hon. Friend’s statement on Thursday. Does he agree that, every day we delay action in Syria, it not only lets down our allies and the Syrian people, but has the added effect of heaping confidence on, and boosting the morale of, ISIL fighters?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that we do not want to let down our allies. We also should not allow dangerous terrorist organisations to build their strength by not intervening against them, but, to be clear, I do not wish to bounce the House into a decision. That is why I was very deliberate last week when I spoke about replying to the Foreign Affairs Committee, the report of which will be issued on Thursday. Members of Parliament will be able to take it away and consider it over the weekend. We can then have a full day’s debate, proper consideration and a vote. That is a proper process. I do not want anyone to feel that they are being bounced into a decision. I want this House to take the decision deliberately, but we should not take too long over it, because, as my hon. Friend says, every day that we spend is a day that we are not getting to grips with the ISIL menace.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
The Prime Minister has announced £178 billion in procurement over the next 10 years. Will that lead to an increase in the procurement of equipment that can be used for the clearing up of landmines and the other detritus of war, which is so essential if development is subsequently to take place?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the £178 billion is to be invested in defence equipment, aircraft carriers, frigates, destroyers, the new Ajax vehicles for the Army and such like. As for removing mines, that is something on which we can use our aid budget, and we do. For instance, we fund the Halo Trust and other such organisations, but I accept that there may be opportunities to do more.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
May I, as others have done, warmly congratulate the Prime Minister and his Defence Ministers since 2010 on turning round the economy of the Ministry of Defence and its procurement regime, and thank him for committing to the 2% NATO expenditure target? Beyond that, I urge him to consider finding the additional two brigades not from existing troops with new insignia but by increasing the size of the Army from 82,000 to 102,000.
The Prime Minister
An ingenious idea was tucked away at the end of that question, but I think that we are capable of delivering these new strike brigades within the level of 82,000. As I said, we are seeing a small increase in the RAF and in the Navy. What is important is that we make sure we get everything out of the resources that we put in, and that is what this review is about.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and it is doubtful that I will be able to accommodate everybody. The Prime Minister is giving very pithy answers. Perhaps colleagues could follow suit and pose pithy questions.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
A regional solution involving all means at our disposal underpinned by the United Nations is essential if we are to defeat ISIS in its heartland. So too is the taking of all steps necessary in our homeland to protect the security and safety of British citizens. Will the Prime Minister think again, therefore, before proceeding with major cuts to front-line policing, because neighbourhood policing is the eyes and ears of the counter-terrorism effort?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he says about Syria. It is about bringing together the United Nations, the aid and development efforts that we can make, the political solutions that we want to pursue and diplomatic efforts, together with the military action that we want to pursue. I have said what I said about counter-terrorism policing, and the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the statement on Wednesday to see the overall settlement, but I am in no doubt that all our police play a role in keeping us safe, and in the last Parliament we demonstrated that, with efficiencies, we can get more for less out of our excellent police force.
Mr Speaker
Perhaps the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) can be as short as his name.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
There is a tradition in the House that when there is a national crisis and our country is in great danger, the Leader of the Opposition comes to Downing Street to talk to, and then support the Prime Minister. Is the door to 10 Downing Street open to the Leader of the Opposition?
The Prime Minister
My door is always open to the Leader of the Opposition. He is a Privy Counsellor and is able to get Privy Council briefings on any subject he likes, and I have said from the moment that he was elected leader of the Labour party that if he wants to have a briefing by or a conversation with me, I will always make myself available.
Mr Speaker
We are extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) for his chunter from a sedentary position.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) said, there is a close link between our defence and security capability and our research, innovation and manufacturing capability. Yet the Prime Minister will know of the problems in the UK steel industry which show how vulnerable we are to losing for ever large chunks of our manufacturing supply chains—chains that could be used for defence and security purposes. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how he expects the defence growth partnership to evolve with the SDSR, and what steps he is taking to ensure we can maintain the skills, capability and competitiveness in our industrial supply chain so that we can meet our future security and defence requirements with British industry and British innovation?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the partnerships that we formed with the defence industry and the aerospace industry are the basis of a long-term plan to work with them, and they can now see our long-term commitments on defence spending. We want to see more British steel procured for Government expenditure such as this. Almost all of the 82,000 tonnes involved in the carrier programme was sourced from British steel, and I very much hope that that can be the case with these future procurements as well.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
The global challenges research and Ross funds are superb ideas of the Prime Minister’s. Can we get on with them, please?
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. He is very knowledgeable about these issues, and I am glad he thinks we made the right choices.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
There is much to welcome in the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly what he said about deployable forces, but like some Members on the Government Benches, I have concerns about whether 82,000 regular Army personnel are enough to meet some of the challenges, and the scale of those challenges, particularly given what we have seen happening in reserve recruitment. Can the Prime Minister see any circumstance in which he may feel a need to increase regular personnel to meet the challenges out there?
The Prime Minister
Remember that the figure of 82,000 was always on the basis that we would have the 35,000 reserves. Recent figures have shown that we are now getting ahead of the targets that we set, and I pay tribute to the hard-working ministerial team. We need to make sure that we reach that 35,000. What the report today shows—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to look at it in detail—is that because we are changing the way that the Army works, over time we will be able to deliver two strike brigades, rather than one, and a force of 50,000, rather than a force of 30,000, showing that we can get more for the 82,000 than we had set out.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
In his review of overseas development strategy, will the Prime Minister find resources to promote British values so that the woman in a country where she has to fight for the right to work knows that we are on her side, those of a minority faith have the right to worship their God, the gay man has the right to look forward to a loving future and, most of all, people with minority ideas have the right to express those freely without repression?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that our aid budget is not simply about spending money; it is also about trying to help build what I call the golden thread of conditions—the rule of law, rights of minorities, growing democracy—that helps to deliver inclusiveness and development. I spent some of Friday with the excellent Christian charity Open Doors, which promotes exactly that sort of work and was full of praise for what the Government are doing. It wants us to do more to protect the freedom to worship and that is something we should focus on.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
While we have been discussing the SDSR and listening to the Prime Minister, it seems that No. 10 has been briefing journalists, who are reporting that the Government intend having only a debate, and not a vote, on Trident maingate. Is this true?
The Prime Minister
No. I am very keen that we should have a vote. I think the hon. Gentleman is going to have a vote on Tuesday and if I am here, I will certainly —[Interruption.] Believe me, I would like a vote on gate, maingate, after-gate, pre-gate—the hon. Gentleman can have as many votes as he likes. I know one thing—all my hon. Friends know which gate to go through.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The timely deployment of international aid and now of our armed forces can play a significant part in preventing difficult situations globally from deteriorating. With respect to the deployment of aid and our armed forces, can my right hon. Friend give a commitment that his Government will act thoughtfully but decisively?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that is the right approach to take. One should never approach these questions too hastily or without thinking through the consequences, but the question for us will be, “Will the world be safer—will we be safer—if we can act faster to degrade ISIL in Syria as well as in Iraq?” Because its headquarters are in Syria, it seems to me that the answer to that question is yes.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
For those of us who will have to make the decision in the very near future about British military involvement in Syria, will the Prime Minister say something about what lessons he thinks we can draw from the recent and current action in Iraq, and what that might tell us about what we might be about to see in Syria?
The Prime Minister
There are so many lessons that we need to draw from recent conflicts that it is not possible to set them all out at the Dispatch Box now, but let me take one. One of the mistakes that was made in Iraq was the sense that the entire state and establishment had to be dismantled after the invasion of Iraq. That left a vacuum that has now been well documented. In saying that we believe that Assad cannot play a part in the long-term government of Syria, we are not saying that all the institutions of the Syrian state have to be dismantled. Indeed, quite the opposite. It will be very important to have a transitional plan so that Syria has a state and institutions. They need to be institutions that can represent all the country, but it should not be part of our plan to dismantle them in a year-zero approach. That would not work and we must learn the lesson from the past.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
My right hon. Friend made some welcome comments about the deployability of a division in the imminent future. As he looks across the Opposition Benches, will he comment on the importance of allies and friends at times like this? What France is looking for now is an ally in its time of need, and what our friends in the middle east are looking for is our commitment to our allies around the world.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend, who has great experience of these things, makes a very important point. Britain and France have been allies for so long, our militaries are so close, and our intelligence and security co-operation is so deep that it would be very disappointing for the French and for us if we had to say that we simply could not join them in helping them out, because helping them out is helping us out. As far as I am concerned an attack on Paris is an attack on us. It is an attack on our way of life—an attack on our values. Standing outside the Bataclan theatre this morning, you feel that with every sense of your being: this was an attack on the values we all hold dear. He is also right that the countries in the region that look to Britain for defence, support and protection will be concerned if we do not go to the aid of our closest neighbour and one of our oldest partners. That would raise questions about our reliability. That is one of the many considerations that everyone in this House should take into account when we come to this.
Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), I am delighted to hear about the MPA programme, which is a new and welcome asset to the fishing fleets of Fraserburgh who for the past five years have been doing the job with regard to the submarines from Russia.
On page 3 of his statement the Prime Minister says: “to meet these priorities we will continue to harness all the tools of national power available to us”. Does he accept that nowhere does he mention the Government’s reliance on the reservists and failure to meet reservist recruitment numbers? Does he therefore agree with the Defence Committee that the structure in Future Force 2020 is
“manifestly the wrong structure for this new environment”?
Mr Speaker
No one could accuse the hon. Gentleman of excluding from his text any consideration that he thought might at any time be in any way material, and I am sure we are all deeply grateful to him.
The Prime Minister
We are very much targeted on getting the 35,000 reserves that we need. This has been a huge programme to turn around the performance on encouraging people to stand up and join, but it is now working well, and if we keep going with it, I am confident that we will get to 35,000.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I welcome the SDSR, as I suspect it will be welcomed across Hampshire and its significant defence interests. Will the Prime Minister confirm that when it comes to our security, whether it be shoot to kill, hunting our enemies wherever they are in the world, or renewing our independent nuclear deterrent, every Member of this House, wherever they sit, can find safe haven under the leadership of this Government?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I hope that people will look at the arguments and at the current status that we have with ISIL, put aside party considerations and other considerations, and try to answer the question internally, as it were, and then through their vote, about whether Britain will be safer, our people will be safer and the world will be safer if we take more concerted action against ISIL.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I also thank him for the investment in security and intelligence announced last week, but restate that the frontline in intelligence and in responding to a terrorist attack is our local police forces. My local police force now regularly has only seven armed police officers on duty, and calls for help to neighbouring police forces have gone up by 43%. Can he assure the people of Brighton and Hove, who have a long history of dealing with terrorism, that should another terrorist attack happen, the local force can cope without calling on neighbouring forces?
The Prime Minister
We are looking at the number of armed response vehicles and armed officers that are available. I do not want to see the routine arming of the British police force, but it is possible to see a growth in the pool of armed experts that can be called on. As for forces sharing resources between each other and going to each other’s aid, that has always been part of the way that British policing has worked.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
The extra investment announced by my right hon. Friend will be welcome in Fareham and along the south coast, particularly by firms in my constituency such as Boskalis Westminster Ltd, which is already making preparations for the arrival of the two new aircraft carriers in Portsmouth. Does he agree that the SDSR safeguards training for our Navy personnel, which is vital in the years ahead for the demanding role now expected of them?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about how important it will be to make sure that we have sufficient trained personnel to man our carriers and the new generation of destroyers and frigates. That is one of the reasons why we are seeing an increase of 400 in the number of Royal Navy personnel. I think there is now a great offer that the Royal Navy can make to new recruits to encourage people to join, which is that we are going to have some of the most advanced equipment anywhere in the world, and it is going to be a great service to join.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. There are logistical issues to be addressed for two new strike brigades. What new funds are being given to the Army to generate that new capability? What will be their fitness to move and how will they be moved to the conflict area, bearing in mind that our lift capacity is limited?
The Prime Minister
The aim of the new strike brigades is to try to make them more manoeuvrable themselves so that they are less dependent on lift from the other services. Today I visited RAF Northolt and talked to some of our Army personnel about the new Ajax class of armoured vehicles, which were formerly known as Scout, and the new generation of Warrior armoured vehicles. They have longer reach, more capabilities and faster speeds in order to increase not just the deployment but the flexibility of our Army brigades.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The security and intelligence agencies, including those in my constituency, play an absolutely vital role in identifying terrorists and keeping us safe, and the emphasis in the SDSR on strengthening our agencies is very welcome. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will press on with legislation to ensure that, underpinned by robust judicial oversight, they have the powers as well as the resources they need to protect our country?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. He represents Cheltenham, and GCHQ is an amazing national resource. Many countries are extremely envious of the expertise we have built up over the years, and we should be very proud of what it does. We will invest in cyber—we will, I think, double the amount of money we put into cyber by the end of this Parliament—and establish a new cyber-command centre, which will also make a big difference.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
In an increasingly uncertain world in which we cannot seem to predict the security measures needed in five years’ time, let alone 30 or 40 years’ time, does the Prime Minister agree with the Defence Committee’s report, which came out over the weekend, on the need for the SDSR to be flexible in its response to known and unknown threats? Does he also agree that that has to be underpinned by a renewed nuclear deterrent, because unilateral nuclear disarmament is not the answer?
The Prime Minister
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s last point. We should renew our deterrent, because in a dangerous world we want to have that ultimate insurance policy. I also agree with him that it is not possible to predict all the threats we will face over the coming period. That is why the report and my statement were so clear that we have to expect the unexpected and be flexible enough to prepare. That should not be an excuse, however, for not drawing together the threats we do know about and not making choices based on those threats. If the hon. Gentleman looks at page 87 of the document, he will see that we have set out tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 threats. They will provoke a great debate among the experts about whether we have made the right choices, but at least we are setting out what the choices are.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
With David Brown Gear Systems in my constituency playing a key role in the supply chain to the Type 26 frigate programme, will the Prime Minister continue to ensure that UK companies in the supply chain, as well as the shipyards, continue to benefit from today’s procurement announcement?
The Prime Minister
I will do my very best to deliver on my hon. Friend’s request. That is what the defence growth partnership is about. Like any good customer, we are trying to say to defence companies large and small, “These are what our requirements are in the coming years. Work with us so that you can be a part of delivering their success.”
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
As the Member for Glasgow South West, I will work with anyone to protect jobs on the Clyde. Can the Prime Minister assure me that Ministers will keep me and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) updated on the procurement timetable for the Type 26 frigates? I impress on him that any delays might lead to short-term job loss, which I am sure he would want to avoid.
The Prime Minister
Having visited the shipyards in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and seen the incredible technical expertise of the people working on the aircraft carriers and other projects, of course I want to see that happen. We will produce a shipbuilding strategy in 2016, so he can play a full part in looking at that. What we are doing, because of the timing, is having two offshore patrol vessels built in the coming period, to make sure that there is plenty of work to be done on useful vessels that have a real purpose. Then there are the Type 26 frigates, which are almost ready to go ahead, and then we will have the new generation of frigates, which will be more cost-effective and could lead to the opportunity for Glasgow shipbuilders to build ships for other countries as well as for the UK. We have not actually managed to sell many of our warships in recent years. That might be because we have been creating ever more expensive and ever more complex warships, rather than also thinking about slightly more flexible vessels that others, such as the Australian and New Zealand navies—old friends of ours—might want to buy.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
While the Leader of the Opposition appears a very lonely figure on the other side of the House, I can say that my right hon. Friend has the full support of the Conservative Benches. I welcome his statement. I also welcome the decision to refocus our aid budget on fragile and failing states. Does he agree that that will not only prevent conflict in the future, but provide an important tool in bringing stability to the middle east and north Africa and really put our national interest in much clearer focus?
The Prime Minister
I believe our aid budget is the act not only of a moral nation, but of one that cares about its own security, because broken or conflict states tend to produce huge problems and issues for us at home as well. Not only will focusing that budget make sure that we can reduce those risks, but by having such a substantial budget, we are able to act quickly and decisively, which also gives us influence in how these problems are solved.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has delivered an important and comprehensive statement to the House. Does he not agree that the defence and security of our country is enhanced and indeed strengthened by our membership of the European Union?
The Prime Minister
I believe that Britain’s membership of a reformed European Union is in our national interest. At a time when we face great dangers and great uncertainty in our world, I think it is worth looking at all the organisations of which we are members, such as the G7, the G20, NATO, the EU, and indeed the Commonwealth —there will be a major summit this week—and recognising that these friendships and partnerships help to keep us safe.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Following on from that question, does my right hon. Friend think that our membership of NATO is more important to our national security than our membership of the EU?
The Prime Minister
In my view, NATO is the organisation that has kept us safe since the second world war. It has been a very successful alliance. If we can secure a reform of the European Union we will not have to choose between belonging to NATO and belonging to a reformed European Union; we will be able to belong to both. I can see the advantages of that because we will increasingly see—as we see off the coast of Libya—British ships involved in trying to deal with potential threats to our country as part of European Union work that is also at the same time sanctioned by NATO.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
In his statement, the Prime Minister correctly identified cyber-attacks and Daesh activities as the two biggest threats at the moment. Is it not the case that, for each of those activities, Trident is not a deterrent? With nuclear warheads travelling across Britain by road, is it not a £167 billion liability and target, not a deterrent?
The Prime Minister
Trident is not supposed to be a deterrent against cyber-attack. Trident is the ultimate insurance policy, in an unsafe and uncertain world, that we can never be subject to nuclear blackmail. That is why, if we look across the United Kingdom, we can see that people support having this ultimate insurance policy in a dangerous world.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the many small firms in the defence supply chain in my constituency of South Ribble and all over Lancashire? Will he tell the House how the review harnesses the ideas of such small firms?
The Prime Minister
Small firms play a very big part in keeping us safe and providing our defences. What they can see from this is a long-term commitment—we had the defence review in 2010 and another in 2015, and we have repeatedly committed to those key platforms that will keep us safe—so small businesses can work out, through the defence growth partnership, how to become part of that success.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government will maintain their commitment in grants to the Aerospace Technology Institute?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the outcome of the spending review—he only has to wait another 48 hours. The partnerships that we have put in place for the defence industry, the aerospace industry and other industries have been successful in generating growth, jobs and intellectual property.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly the reaffirmation of his personal commitment and our commitment as a country to the 0.7% spending target for aid. Will he reassure my constituents that their hard-earned cash will be spent only where it is squarely in our national interests to do so?
The Prime Minister
I certainly give that assurance. When my hon. Friend reads the overseas development document that we are publishing today, he will see the clear guidelines and aims that we are setting. Of course we want to tackle extreme poverty. That should be at the heart of everything we do. I would argue that that is in our national interest too, but broken, fragile and conflict states should be a greater focus of our aid and development effort.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Having the right balance between the appropriate equipment and sufficient available appropriately trained personnel must be a priority if the planned strike brigades are to be a successful operational reality. The Prime Minister said that the armed forces are the pride of our country. Does he understand that his plan to cut almost 30% of the civilian jobs will inevitably lead to front-line troops doing back-room jobs, which will undermine our defence capability and our commitments in the military covenant?
The Prime Minister
I obviously do not believe that that is the case. We asked our armed services and the Ministry of Defence to look carefully at what savings they could find, in order that we could put as much of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money as possible into the military capabilities that we need. In the end, the purpose of defence is to defend our nation. If we can find back-office savings and put them into the equipment we need, we should do it.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The other week, I was privileged to see the good that UK aid is doing in refugee camps in the middle east and the good that the RAF is doing in helping to defeat ISIL/Daesh in the skies over Iraq. Closer to home, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Sussex police and crime commissioner, Katy Bourne, and her officers on the work that they are doing to tackle extremism in our communities?
The Prime Minister
I certainly join my hon. Friend in doing that. This is not something that we have discussed today, but in defeating the scourge of Islamist extremist violence, as well as doing more overseas or upstream to combat it and investing in our counter-terrorism and intelligence capabilities here, it is crucial that we fight the extremist narrative. We must take on the extremists, out-argue them and demonstrate that what they are doing bears no relation to the true religion of Islam.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for giving the whole House advance sight of his statement through the national press over the past two days. He says that he will increase the deployable armed forces by 20,000 personnel to 50,000 by 2025. How is that consistent with cutting the Regular Army by 20,000 by 2020?
The Prime Minister
We have moved to an Army of 82,000 and an Army Reserve of 30,000. We are trying to make sure that as much of that is deployable as possible. That must be in our national interest. When we take money off taxpayers and spend it on defence, we must spend it as effectively as possible. Clearly, we want as much of our military to be deployable as possible. Because of these reforms, we will be able to deploy a force of 50,000 if we ever need to. I argue that that is good progress.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the announcement on the SDSR and the fact that we will once again have a carrier strike capability. However, carriers cannot be deployed on their own; they need to be part of a group. Will the Prime Minister reassure me that the Royal Navy will have the resources and the fleet to provide a carrier group?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly provide that assurance. It is important that we have the frigates, submarines, helicopters and other things that are necessary to protect our carriers.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The review has thrown up a shopping list of £178 billion over the next decade. Firms in Northern Ireland are capable of delivering anything from missiles to uniforms. What specific steps does the Prime Minister intend to take to ensure that firms have the opportunity to bid and be part of the supply chain?
The Prime Minister
The Defence Secretary will set out an SME target for procurement. I also encourage firms in Northern Ireland to take part in the defence growth partnership, which is an opportunity for us to be a good customer, as I have said. A good customer talks to their suppliers long in advance of the order being made, so that they can prepare to bid for the work that is coming.
Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
Members of the House rise to support Government spending commitments and often ask for more money, yet when it comes to cuts in Government expenditure they are not as enthusiastic. Can the Prime Minister do more to ensure that all Members of the House understand that we can have national military security only if we have national economic security?
The Prime Minister
At the end of this long statement my hon. Friend brings us back down to earth. None of these choices is possible if we do not have a strong economy that can support them. That is crucial.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
Does the Prime Minister agree that the replacement of the Trident nuclear weapon of mass destruction should be a matter of serious consultation with the people of this country, including the people of Scotland who are expected to live next door to it? Is he scared of what the result of that consultation might be?
The Prime Minister
Of course this issue must be carefully thought through, but we have been clear that the decision on Trident is necessary. It has been part of Government programmes for many decades, it supports many thousands of jobs in Scotland, and I believe that it helps to keep our country safe.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The interface between the police and the armed forces is crucial when events such as those in Paris take place. How does my right hon. Friend see that interface developing in the years ahead to ensure a rapid response anywhere in the country where it is required?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful that my hon. Friend has asked that question because it enables me to clarify a point that was raised earlier. Whatever the outcome of the spending review with the police, and however many police we have available, given the dangerous times we live in and the possibility of mass casualty attacks, it makes sense to break down barriers that were previously put in the way of the military being able to deploy rapidly on to the streets of our country. We have this plan for 5,000 trained military personnel—soon to be 10,000—on whom the police can call. That does not in any way undermine the police; it gives them an additional power to bring to bear at a time of great need.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
It is good that there will be more investment in the cyber-security programme, but the industry sector says that there is a skills shortage of staff to work in applied intelligence. How will the Government attract and train more specialists to address that critical skills gap?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Hiring and maintaining people at GCHQ, and not losing them to what are now very well-paid industries, can be difficult. We must ensure that we train more people in maths and science, and that more girls study those subjects through to A-levels and degrees. That is beginning to happen in our country, and we must build on it.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I know that any talk of co-operation between our defence forces and another European country brings some of our colleagues out in hives, but does my right hon. Friend agree that France is a country that shares our world view and has good armed forces? We must build on the Lancaster House agreement, and I hope that the Prime Minister’s discussions with President Hollande went in that direction.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. Britain and France are two European powers that have a similar place in the world, a similar belief in strong defence, and a similar understanding that that is an essential part of their global reach. That is why it makes such good sense for us to co-operate and work together. The Lancaster House agreement has us co-operating on even the most sensitive areas of nuclear technology, as well as more straightforward deployments, but I am still convinced that there is more we can do. There should be a great affinity between the British and French military. As we have seen from the successful French campaign in Mali, and from all the work we have done in countries as far afield as Afghanistan and Nigeria, there is a lot we can do by learning from each other and working together to make the world a safer place.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Will DFID’s departmental budget be cut to fund the increase in the conflict stability and security fund? How much of the spending announced today will be double counted in both the 0.7% aid target and the 2% NATO target?
The Prime Minister
I can confirm that the DFID budget will go up. Of course, if one is spending 0.7% of gross national income on aid in a growing economy, one does not have to be Einstein to work out that the aid budget will go up. It is absolutely right that we use some of the aid budget for the conflict, stability and security fund, which is allowed under the overseas development aid rules. It is also right that we spend some of our aid budget on vital science and research, which, again, is allowed under the rules. We were very clear about that in our manifesto and that is exactly what we are delivering.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all colleagues for devoting two hours to this. I know it has been a long time, but these are very serious matters and they have been treated very seriously by the House.
I had been advised of a point of order, but Members have been afflicted by a bout of sudden reticence. It appears there is no such point of order at this time.
Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill (Allocation of Time)
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 276 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill:
Timetable
(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration, and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be completed at today’s sitting.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) Where paragraph (2) or (4) of Standing Order No. 83L (Reconsideration of certification before Third Reading) applies in relation to the Bill, the Speaker shall, where it is not possible to do so immediately in accordance with paragraph (7) of that Order, announce the Speaker’s decisions under paragraph (2) or (4) of that Order no later than 15 minutes after the conclusion of proceedings on the previous stage of the Bill.
(5) Where a legislative grand committee decides on a Consent Motion under Standing Order No. 83M to withhold consent to the Bill or any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill since Second Reading, the House shall proceed to Reconsideration of the Bill and any proceedings on consequential consideration without any Question being put.
(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
(7) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(9) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(10) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(11) (a) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10).
(b) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.
(c) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith:
(i) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(ii) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
(d) The Speaker shall then put forthwith:
(i) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(ii) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
(e) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
(f) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(g) As soon as the House has:
(i) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or
(ii) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,
the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments that are moved by a Minister of the Crown and are relevant to the Lords Amendment.
(h) Where a single Question would be put under sub-paragraph (c)(i), (d)(i) or (g) in circumstances where some or all of the Amendments concerned are certified under Standing Order No. 83O (Consideration of certified Motions or Amendments relating to Lords Amendments or other messages) in relation to a particular part or parts of the United Kingdom, the Speaker shall put forthwith—
(i) a single Question on any Amendments for which the certification is in relation to England,
(ii) a single Question on any Amendments for which the certification is in relation to England and Wales,
(iii) a single Question on any Amendments for which the certification is both in relation to England and in relation to England and Wales, and
(iv) a single Question on any Amendments for which there is no certification.
(i) Where a single Question would be put under sub-paragraph (f) in circumstances where, if there were (or are) separate Motions to agree in relation to each of the remaining Lords Amendments, some or all of the Motions would be (or are) certified under Standing Order No. 83O (Consideration of certified Motions or Amendments relating to Lords Amendments or other messages), the Speaker shall put forthwith—
(i) in the case of any remaining Lords Amendments for which there would be (or are) Motions certified in relation to England, the Question that this House agrees to those Lords Amendments,
(ii) in the case of any remaining Lords Amendments for which there would be (or are) Motions certified in relation to England and Wales, the Question that this House agrees to those Lords Amendments,
(iii) in the case of any remaining Lords Amendments for which there would be (or are) Motions certified both in relation to England and in relation to England and Wales, the Question that this House agrees to those Lords Amendments, and
(iv) in the case of any remaining Lords Amendments for which there would be (or are) Motions which would not be (or are not) certified, the Question that this House agrees to those Lords Amendments.
(j) If a division is held on a question put under sub-paragraph (h) or (i), the Amendments shall be agreed to only if, of those voting in the division—
(i) in a case falling within paragraph (i) of that sub-paragraph, a majority of Members and a majority of Members representing constituencies in England
(ii) in a case falling within paragraph (ii) of that sub-paragraph, a majority of Members and a majority of Members representing constituencies in England and Wales,
(iii) in a case falling within paragraph (iii) of that sub-paragraph, a majority of Members, a majority of Members representing constituencies in England and a majority of members representing constituencies in England and Wales, and
(iv) in a case falling within paragraph (iv) of that paragraph, a majority of Members,
vote in support of them.
(k) Paragraph (9) of Standing Order No. 83O shall apply to a decision made by virtue of sub-paragraph (j) above on a Question as it applies in relation to a decision made by virtue of paragraph (7) of that Order on a Motion.
Subsequent stages
(12) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(13) (a) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (12).
(b) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.
(c) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(d) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(e) The Speaker shall, subject to sub-paragraphs (f) and (g), then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
(f) Sub-paragraph (g) applies where, if there were (or are) separate Motions to agree in relation to each of the remaining Lords Proposals, some or all of the Motions would be (or are) certified under Standing Order No. 83O (Consideration of certified Motions or Amendments relating to Lords Amendments or other messages).
(g) The Speaker shall put forthwith—
(i) in the case of any remaining Lords Proposals for which there would be (or are) Motions certified in relation to England, the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in those Proposals,
(ii) in the case of any remaining Lords Proposals for which there would be (or are) Motions certified in relation to England and Wales, the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in those Proposals,
(iii) in the case of any remaining Lords Proposals for which there would be (or are) Motions certified both in relation to England and in relation to England and Wales, the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in those Proposals, and
(iv) in the case of any remaining Lords Proposals for which there would be (or are) Motions which would not be (or are not) certified, the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in those Proposals.
(h) If a division is held on a Question put under sub-paragraph (g), the Proposals shall be agreed to only if, of those voting in the division—
(i) in a case falling within paragraph (i) of that sub-paragraph, a majority of Members and a majority of Members representing constituencies in England,
(ii) in a case falling within paragraph (ii) of that sub-paragraph, a majority of Members and a majority of Members representing constituencies in England and Wales,
(iii) in a case falling within paragraph (iii) of that sub-paragraph, a majority of Members, a majority of Members representing constituencies in England and a majority of Members representing constituencies in England and Wales, and
(iv) in a case falling within paragraph (iv) of that sub-paragraph, a majority of Members
vote in support of them.
(i) Paragraph (9) of Standing Order No. 83O shall apply to a decision made by virtue of sub-paragraph (h) above on a Question as it applies in relation to a decision made by virtue of paragraph (7) of that Order on a Motion.
Reasons Committee
(14) (a) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chair.
(b) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(c) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(d) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (c), the Chair shall:
(i) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair, and
(ii) then put forthwith successively Questions on Motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
(e) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
Miscellaneous
(15) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
(16) (a) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
(17) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(18) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(19) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(20) The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(21) (a) This paragraph applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(b) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
(22) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(23) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 7.00pm, 4.00pm or 2.00pm (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between 7.00pm, 4.00pm or 2.00pm (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.
In the course of my brief remarks, I also propose to address amendment (a).
From the outset, let me say that the Government fully accept that what we are asking the House to do today is exceptional. We agree that taking all stages of the Bill through the House in a single day is not ideal and I fully understand that a number of right hon. and hon. Members will have misgivings about it. I would very much prefer not to have had to take this approach. I note the amendment tabled by the Social Democratic and Labour party. However, I can assure the hon. Members who tabled the amendment and the whole House that the Government are embarking on this procedure only because we view it to be absolutely necessary in this specific case.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State may, like me, be a little reticent today, but will she reflect on the huge irony that on 5 September Martin McGuinness said it would be a huge mistake for the Secretary of State to be legislating on this matter, yet today he now welcomes it?
Mrs Villiers
I very much welcome the fact that there is now a broadly based acknowledgement among the Northern Ireland parties that the financial sustainability of the Executive is crucial for the success of devolved power-sharing government, and that that requires the implementation of welfare reform. This has been a long and involved debate, but I am glad we have got to the right destination in the end.
I believe it is necessary to adopt this fast-track procedure to ensure that welfare reform is no longer an issue that is undermining the political process in Northern Ireland, as it has done over the past four years. I believe it is necessary to take this approach if we are to implement the agreement reached at Stormont last Tuesday, and I believe it is necessary that we take this approach to underpin the stability and survival of power-sharing devolved institutions at Stormont.
The proposed legislation is a fundamental part of the agreement reached last week. If we do not get it on to the statute book and continue with the implementation of last week’s agreement, there will be a very serious risk that devolution would collapse, leading to a return to direct rule. A resumption of direct rule would inevitably mean many items of long and complex primary legislation being taken through by Order in Council month after month, potentially year after year. Not only would that mean denying such legislation the scrutiny in the Assembly, but it would inevitably take up large amounts of parliamentary time.
I do not propose to detain the House for long on this procedural matter, but it is important to understand some of the background to the Bill in order to emphasise its crucial significance and the crucial importance of getting it on to the statute book as soon as possible.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The Secretary of State has chosen her words very carefully and very deliberately, describing rushing through all the stages of a welfare reform Bill in one day as “exceptional”, “not ideal” and “absolutely necessary”. Where does she think the emergency comes from? Who is going to renege on last week’s very welcome agreement? Which party is going to renege on it? Why should we have emergency procedure today and rush through all the stages?
Mrs Villiers
As I will explain, the primary legislation enabled by the Bill has had extensive scrutiny over the last four years. The Order in Council published alongside the Bill reflects the proposed welfare legislation in the Northern Ireland Assembly that fell as a result of the tabling of a petition of concern. That proposed legislation had a First stage, a Second stage, a Committee stage, a Consideration stage, a Further Consideration stage and a Final stage, and there was an extensive debate on a legislative consent motion. It has, therefore, had extensive scrutiny, including 21 weeks of cross-party talks this year and last year. It is not an ideal way to legislate, but the proposed legislation, at its heart, has had extensive scrutiny.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has outlined what debate there has already been on the terms of the Bill. Will she accept that one reason for urgency is that, until the Bill is passed, Northern Ireland will continue to lose money by the day to the Treasury by way of payments that have to be made back because of the differences in the welfare arrangements, and the Northern Ireland budget cannot sustain that?
Mrs Villiers
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The difference between the level of benefits in Great Britain and Northern Ireland is £2 million a week, which is a drain on the resources of the Executive that they can ill afford at this difficult time for the public finances. Successive attempts to resolve the welfare question over the last four years have foundered, which has contributed largely to a political crisis in Northern Ireland and the Executive’s finances. By early autumn, it looked increasingly likely that the issue would bring down the devolved institutions themselves. As he points out, this has been costing the Executive money—approximately £2 million a week. That is the difference between what the Treasury is prepared to pay—to fund up to parity with Great Britain—and the cost of continuing to run an old, unreformed welfare system in Northern Ireland. The Executive estimate that the cost to their budget will rise to more than £200 million next year and to more than £500 million a year by the end of this Parliament. That is simply unaffordable, and the figures do not even take into account the costs of IT.
Although welfare is technically a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, up to now it has always retained parity with the rest of the UK and been fully integrated into the UK system, through the Department for Work and Pensions. Once Great Britain moves entirely to the new system, based around universal credit, Northern Ireland will no longer have access to the DWP computer systems on which it currently relies to assess and deliver people’s benefits. It would be left with no option but to devise, implement and maintain an entirely separate and more expensive system and meet the massive costs of the IT needed to support it. For a small devolved Administration, that cost would be prohibitive.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Secretary of State is explaining well the need for emergency legislation, and although it is not desirable to pass legislation in one day, it is far more desirable than the Assembly collapsing from not having a viable budget and all legislation having to come back here.
Mrs Villiers
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We have to get a move on with implementation. We do not want the “Fresh Start” agreement to suffer the same fate as the Stormont House agreement, implementation of which stalled relatively early on. It is important we do all we can to move ahead with implementation.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
Is this not a massive climbdown by the Government? I say good luck and well done to the parties that stood out against the Government and their nasty welfare reforms. Should the Government not now fund a welfare system on the mainland in the same way as they are funding one in Northern Ireland with a £500 million bung to places such as Newry, Belfast and Omagh?
Mrs Villiers
I would describe the outcome of the cross-party negotiations as a sensible compromise. The welfare reforms we have introduced in Great Britain, which we think are a better system, will be implemented in Northern Ireland, but from its own resources—from the block grant. The Northern Ireland Executive have made the reasonable and legitimate decision to top up some of those benefits.
I go back to my previous remarks. The cost of a computer system would be massive. Budgets for other Departments would have to be cut significantly to pay for a more expensive welfare system, with an inevitable impact on front-line services and capital spending available for crucial infrastructure such as road improvements, almost all of which would probably be swallowed up by the need to build a new computer system. That scenario would undermine the credibility of the devolved institutions but, even more importantly, do irreparable damage to the political relationships that are central to making power-sharing devolution work in practice.
Last December in the Stormont House agreement, the Northern Ireland parties agreed to take forward welfare reform as part of a wider package of measures. It is well known, however, that by March this year progress had begun to founder, when the two main nationalist parties withdrew their support for the Assembly legislation on welfare reform. On 26 May, that legislation passed its final stage, with the backing of three of the five main parties then in the Executive, but was blocked by the other two parties using the petition of concern, meaning that it did not have the necessary cross-community support, so by June we were once again faced with almost complete deadlock. The Executive then passed a budget that was based on an assumption that welfare reform would ultimately be adopted, but which would exceed the controlled totals available from the block grant if it was not.
Ian Paisley
The Secretary of State might add that Northern Ireland has achieved a better deal in terms of welfare payments, and it could have done so a year ago if parties had not tabled the petition of concern and instead supported the changes. Now we have people on the mainland complaining that we have a better deal, but that is because we negotiated it, and it could have been operational a year ago. It is Sinn Féin that has done the U-turn, no one else.
Mrs Villiers
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the arrangement could have been reached some time ago, but the important thing is that we have got to a sensible compromise. As for this being a good deal for Northern Ireland, I agree that the combined financial package—£2 billion under the Stormont House agreement and a further half a billion pounds or so under this agreement—will help Northern Ireland and will be a good deal, but it is aimed specifically at the challenges that are unique to Northern Ireland, such as dealing with peace walls, paramilitary-related crime and the terrorist threat.
Lady Hermon
I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene a second time. I wonder whether she could enlighten the House as to what exactly persuaded Sinn Féin, after all these weeks of arguing, rowing and opposing the welfare reforms, to do the deal last week? What was the turning point?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. This debate is on the allocation of time motion and we have Second Reading to come, so it might be helpful if we can try and stick to one point before we move on to the next.
Mrs Villiers
I promise to speed through the remainder of my remarks. The hon. Lady may wish to direct that question to Sinn Féin, but at the heart of it I think Sinn Féin, like the other parties in the Executive, really wanted to make devolution work and realised that, without compromise on welfare questions, the Executive would not have a sustainable budget and that pretty soon that would mean no effective devolution at all.
Last year we made it clear that, if the welfare issue were not resolved, we would have to legislate here to deliver welfare reform in Northern Ireland, even without the consent of the Assembly, but we acknowledged that that was a last resort, and we made resolving the issue a key goal of the talks getting under way. As the House will be aware, they began on 8 September and successfully concluded 10 weeks later, last Tuesday, resulting in a new agreement, called “A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan”, which has been endorsed by the Northern Ireland Executive. In that agreement the Executive made a commitment to passing a legislative consent motion asking Westminster to legislate on its behalf for welfare reform. That motion was debated and passed by the Assembly last Wednesday with a majority of 70 to 22. It was supported by the First and Deputy First Ministers, and because it was backed by their respective parties—the DUP and Sinn Féin—it had the necessary cross-community support to succeed. The LCM therefore represents the clearly expressed will of the Northern Ireland Assembly that we in Westminster deliver this legislation.
The Assembly has moved quickly and decisively to deliver on its side of this crucial aspect of the “Fresh Start” agreement. It is now the responsibility of the Government to deliver on our side of that deal. We need to retain that momentum in the House; we cannot afford another stalled implementation process of the kind that occurred earlier this year. As both sides of the House acknowledged during my statement last week, if that were to happen, it is likely that early Assembly elections would result, followed by a real risk of suspension and direct rule. After all that has been achieved in Northern Ireland in recent years, that would be a very severe setback. It could take several years to re-establish devolution.
I urge the House to support the motion and the Bill that we shall debate shortly. In tabling this allocation of time motion, the Government have guaranteed six hours on the Floor of the House today for consideration of what is a very short Bill. I believe that will give us the opportunity to scrutinise all the tabled amendments and new clauses. With that in mind, I cannot support the SDLP amendment to the allocation of time motion, and if it is pressed to the vote, I must ask my colleagues to oppose it.
The motion as drafted reflects the long-standing practice of the House. Expedited legislation for Northern Ireland is by no means unusual. In fact, the last Northern Ireland Bill was very unusual and did not involve an expedited timetable. Withdrawing the amendment to the motion would allow us more time for debate on crucial amendments and new clauses as the debate continues this evening.
I also highlight the fact that the six hours of today’s debate is just one part of a much longer process. If the Bill passes, it will be followed by debates in both Houses to approve the Order in Council to be made under the powers contained in the Bill. It is also the case that the welfare legislation that it will enable us to introduce has been considered in depth in the context of its application in Great Britain and debated in this House on many occasions. The order, published alongside the Bill, reflects the draft legislation for Northern Ireland that was debated at very great length in the Assembly. As I said earlier, it went through no fewer than six stages of scrutiny stretching over three years, plus the recent debate on the LCM.
These measures have therefore been very extensively considered and scrutinised in the Assembly, as well as being the major focus of two sets of cross-party talks lasting for a total of 21 weeks this year and last. None of the contents of the measures will come as a surprise. They are a crucial part of an agreement that is vital to the stability and survival of devolved government in Northern Ireland—an agreement that genuinely offers a fresh start for Northern Ireland and its devolved institutions. It is vital that we implement it as a matter of urgency. That is why I am asking the House to adopt this emergency procedure today. I commend the motion to the House.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I beg to move amendment (a), after sub-paragraph (6)(b), at end, insert—
“(ba) the Question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Chair for separate decision;”
I am glad to move this amendment, which stands in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) as well as mine.
The Secretary of State has tried to explain the circumstances in which we face this programme motion. The amendment does not alter the time taken by the House in respect of that motion—I wish it did. We would have liked to have more time, just as our colleagues in the Assembly—not just SDLP Members, but Members of other parties—wanted more time to debate the issue last week. The original vote in the Assembly—on whether the business should be taken there this week to give the Assembly parties time to digest things—was 58 to 33. That meant that the legislation would have come here following what happened in the Assembly.
The Secretary of State suggested that the legislative consent motion followed standard practice. It does not. Paragraph (6) of the timetable motion makes it clear that at the conclusion of the Committee stage, no amendment or new clause tabled by anyone other than the Government can be put to a vote. The right of the House to vote, properly, on an amendment has been completely circumscribed by the timetable motion as it stands.
The Secretary of State actually had the neck to say that if the amendment were withdrawn, that would allow more time for debates on crucial amendments and new clauses. By providing only two hours for the Committee stage and Third Reading, the Government have ensured that there will not be any significant time in which to debate any amendments or new clauses, and also—in paragraph (6)—that no new clause, and no amendment other than a Government amendment, can be put to a vote. That is a very unusual procedure, which Members should not tolerate. If they do, they will risk creating a precedent that they will regret.
Sammy Wilson
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is advancing this argument. Does he not accept that the legislative consent motion sent legislation back to this House for this House to pass on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly? Is he saying that he would prefer this House to override the wishes of the people who are elected in Northern Ireland? That is what his argument amounts to.
Mark Durkan
It is not what my argument amounts to. If the Assembly is saying in the legislative consent motion tabled by Sinn Féin and the DUP that it wants the legislation to come here, we should do our legislative business in proper order. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should not be any debate at all, and that we are lucky to have the right even to table amendments.
Let us look at what the legislative consent motion says. Members of other parties might like to know what they are being asked to support. If they are being told, “Take this on foot of the legislative consent motion”—if they are being told that the legislative consent motion is holy writ—they should bear in mind the fact that it says:
“That this Assembly consents to the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill 2015 being taken forward by the Westminster Parliament”—
that is a reference to the Bill with which we are dealing today—and
“approves the welfare clauses of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill as initially introduced at Westminster”.
Many of us in this House did not approve those clauses as initially introduced. Many of us, in a number of parties, voted against aspects of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Is the idea that we must now, on foot of the legislative consent motion, turn ourselves inside out—members of the Labour party, the SDLP, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, and the Green party Member—and say, “We opposed the Bill when it was debated in this House, but we no longer oppose it? We now approve the welfare clauses that were in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill as initially introduced at Westminster.” Well, my position on those clauses has not changed, the position of my hon. Friends in the SDLP has not changed, and I should be very surprised if the position of members of the other parties had changed.
The legislative consent motion goes on to approve
“the draft Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015; and the Executive’s proposals to enhance payments flowing from the agreement announced on 17 November 2015.”
Members might want to take a careful look at just what is in the legislative consent motion, and note that they are being asked to contradict their position in relation to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill as initially introduced here.
Some of us are trying to use the Committee stage to table due amendments which would be relevant to the Bill. The Secretary of State again tried to confuse things by referring to the amount of scrutiny that had been given to the Bill that was before the Assembly, which has now been largely transposed into a draft Order in Council running to 126 pages. What we are being asked to consider today is not that draft Order in Council, but the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill, all 58 lines of it. Meanwhile, we are being asked to nod through 237 lines of a timetable motion so that we will not have the right to table amendments and put them to the vote. If the Secretary of State really meant what she said about time for debate on crucial amendments and new clauses, she would not be resisting this amendment; she would be agreeing to it so that paragraph (6) would be amended and the Chair could put other matters to the vote if that is what Members and the House so wished. This is about good parliamentary procedure.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Is the hon. Gentleman saying he would have been happy enough for the situation to continue as it was, with massive fines being paid back to the Government? Surely that is not his argument.
Mark Durkan
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not sure how far you are treating some of these arguments as relating to the matters of substance as opposed to procedure, but the Secretary of State talked long on those points, as did others.
Let us be clear: a couple of different arguments have been used as to why everybody should just pass this through today as a matter of urgency. One has been that if we do not scramble this through fast, the institutions are in danger of collapse. Who was bringing the institutions to the brink of collapse? It was the very people who are being celebrated as heroes. The SDLP never threatened to bring the institutions down; we never once on any of these issues in the last number of years have used the word “crisis” or threatened the existence of the institutions. We have never said we would make this a make-or-break issue and the institutions would crash if we did not get our way. Sinn Féin and the DUP have variably and respectively, and sometimes collectively, said that at different times over the past couple of years, but it was never the position of the SDLP. We have adhered to our position on welfare reform without at any stage threatening the institutions. The position of Sinn Féin and the DUP came to threaten the institutions—because, after all, who else can threaten the institutions or bring them to the point of collapse but those two parties?
The second argument in relation to the exigency is the money argument. We heard it repeated again in the last intervention. Let us remember: the money argument arose because the Treasury chose to respond to the Assembly’s failure to pass the legislation by imposing what it at one stage called fines and also called penalties—indeed, DUP Finance Ministers used those words as well—but later we were told, “No, you can’t call them fines or penalties; they are savings forgone.” The fact is that it was a Treasury tactic: “Unless you pass this legislation—this karaoke Bill—through the Assembly on the same terms as we had it in Westminster, we will fine the block grant.”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We will have these debates later. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, he is moving an amendment to the allocation of time motion, but we are in danger of opening up the entire debate at this stage, which I do not want to do, as I want to save something for the next part.
Mark Durkan
Yes, but I am partly answering points that the Secretary of State spent some time on and others made interventions on.
We must remember this point about the fines and the pressure that puts on the budget. It was the Treasury that chose to create a budget stress in the hope it would induce the Assembly to pass the legislation. That budget stress became a budget crisis, and that budget crisis in turn contributed to the political crisis which the Secretary of State now tells us will be resolved by this Bill and this programme motion.
I will not stray into the areas where we are seeking to amend the Bill through the amendments tabled for later—I hope we can discuss those in Committee—but I want to make the point that Members of this House should not be under the illusion that they have to adopt a procedure with a timetable motion in relation to this Bill that they would not adopt for anything else because it is safe to do so as it is in the name of taking forward the peace process or the “Fresh Start” agreement.
There are parties that support some parts of the “Fresh Start” agreement but not other parts, and there are parties that support the welfare reform changes but do not endorse the whole of the “Fresh Start” agreement. Other Members in this House from parties outside Northern Ireland should not think they have to turn their own position on welfare reform and the current Welfare Reform and Work Bill currently going through Westminster inside out as a way of supporting progress and stability in Northern Ireland. Progress and stability in Northern Ireland can easily be supported in the context of this House following its due procedures and not accepting the almost unprecedented provision that means in Committee nothing other than clauses stand part or Government amendments can be voted on.
It is wrong that we are circumscribed by time, and it is wrong that we are being muzzled. This is all courtesy of Sinn Féin. It is to make sure we cannot table amendments that capture some of the amendments we tabled when the Assembly Bill came forward earlier this year. They were rejected by a petition of concern tabled by the DUP, and they were rejected by the votes of Sinn Féin as well. [Interruption.] Yes, and Sinn Féin and the DUP voted down SDLP amendments to the Assembly Bill that—[Interruption.] Yes, they voted down amendments that were in the same spirit as the amendments the Conservatives had voted down in this House to the original Bill on welfare reform. The DUP voted down amendments and petitions of concern against amendments that were in the spirit of amendments it had supported in the original legislation, so it has turned it inside out, and that is up to it to do, and Sinn Féin.
No parties in this House need abandon their own positions. We should be able to take amendments in this House and vote on those amendments. The Government are in a compact with Sinn Féin and the DUP to make sure the amendments cannot be voted on. They do not want the embarrassment of the Tories having to vote down these same amendments that Sinn Féin voted down in the Assembly earlier this year: the picture of the Sinn Féin -Tory-DUP axis would then be complete because we would be able to show who had voted down which amendments consistently. The case would be that the Tories voted them down originally, then Sinn Féin and the DUP voted them down, and then the Tories voted them down again now. It is to avoid that picture. That is why we have this kangaroo parliamentary procedure that is being used.
From Sinn Féin, a party that in the past supported kangaroo courts, we now have a kangaroo parliamentary procedure whereby things were rushed through in the Assembly the other day by the legislative consent motion; and now, not only are measures being put through on a timetable motion here, but the rights to table amendments with a view to their being voted on are being supressed by this programme motion. Members should resist that by supporting the amendment.
The amendment to the programme motion will, if passed, not cost any time or add any delay, so it does not relate to any of the concerns that the Secretary of State raised. The programme motion could be passed with the amendment and there would be absolutely no jeopardy to the timetable that the Secretary of State has tried to impress upon the House.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I know that there is an attempt by the SDLP and others to try to derail what has been agreed by parties in the “Fresh Start” document. The amendment before us today is an attempt to do that and also shows the inconsistencies that have existed since this impasse was reached in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We support the programme motion because we want this issue dealt with and we want it dealt with quickly. We want it dealt with for the following reasons.
First, despite what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, there is urgency given the financial consequences of delay for Northern Ireland. The issue is not just the haemorrhaging of money to the Treasury on a daily basis because of the differences between benefit rates in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the United Kingdom. I must also say that it is not unfair of the Treasury to be asking for this money. The parity principle has always applied when there have been changes in welfare and benefits in the rest of the UK. Although the matters had been devolved to Northern Ireland, the principle applied that provided Northern Ireland replicated and reflected the changes that occurred in the rest of the United Kingdom, the payments would be made in full by the Treasury, and as part not of the block grant but of annually managed expenditure. It was always clear, however, that if Northern Ireland decided that it wanted the luxury of having a different system—the Secretary of State has described the problems that that would cause—that difference would have to be paid for. When the SDLP and others blocked welfare reform changes in Northern Ireland, they knew what the penalty would be. That penalty is being paid today, and it will be paid tomorrow and every day for as long as the delay lasts. That will have an impact on the amount of money available for dealing with hospital waiting lists, for schools, for roads and for everything else.
Another problem has arisen as a result. It is not just a question of money haemorrhaging to the Treasury. There has also been an impasse in the rest of the budget, so money that should have been allocated as a result of monitoring rounds has not been allocated, and budgets that should have been set have not been set. We were heading for a budget overspend, which would have brought devolution to a halt. There cannot be devolution if there is no money to pay for the work of the Departments and the expenses that the Departments incur.
Ian Paisley
Does my hon. Friend accept that the sooner we get this legislation done, the sooner we can apply to the Treasury to reclaim some of those overpayments?
Sammy Wilson
I do not think there is any chance of reclaiming those overpayments. I wish that there were, but there is not. Unfortunately, we just have to pay. This issue needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency today, and we support the Government’s proposal for the limited time.
The second reason for dealing with these matters quickly is that we have already had a debate on them in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I listened to the SDLP Assembly Member for West Belfast, Mr Attwood, talking in the Assembly for about 60 hours about his opposition to the measures and giving us his fanciful ideas on how we could avoid having to implement welfare reform in Northern Ireland—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. This debate is on the allocation of time motion. I know that the hon. Gentleman is building the basis of his argument, but I am a bit bothered that he is going to tempt other Members to talk about the same issues. I want to be able to get everybody debating the depth of the Bill.
Sammy Wilson
I hope that what I am saying is relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The relevance is this: we do not need an extensive debate here in this Chamber because these matters have already been extensively debated, and decisions made on them, in Northern Ireland. The irony is that, only last week, the SDLP was arguing that there should not be a legislative consent motion because welfare reform should be decided in Northern Ireland. Now that the Bill has been shaped and agreed on by the parties in Northern Ireland, SDLP Members want Members of this House to be able to change it. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot argue that they do not want anyone else to get their sticky fingers on welfare reform, only to argue when the Bill arrives here that the House of Commons should make decisions that override the Northern Ireland Assembly.
For that reason, we support the Government’s allocation of time motion, which will allow these matters to be dealt with quickly. It will not allow amendments to be tabled that would change the Bill or the will of the Assembly. We want the will of the Assembly to be reflected. The Secretary of State knows what the will of the Assembly is, and the Bill reflects the views of the majority in the Assembly. We should therefore get this done quickly tonight.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I rise to support the amendment tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell).
Subsection 6(c) of the motion refers to
“the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown”.
This seriously undermines the principle of parliamentary democracy and throws into question the role of the Cabinet, the Executive and Parliament. In proposing this, the Government are seeking to subjugate the role of Parliament in making decisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle has said, this instrument has been used incredibly rarely, and we must ask why the Government have decided to use it on this occasion. What secret deals took place in the meeting between the Prime Minister, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on 6 November? Perhaps this is unsurprising, given the rushed nature of this process. If we cast our minds back to Wednesday of last week in the Northern Ireland Assembly, we remember that the legislative consent motion was discussed, and that the draft Bill—all of whose stages we will debate tonight—and the Order in Council were published during that debate. Members across the Assembly therefore had little time to consider those matters.
Ian Paisley
Will the hon. Lady explain why, when her party was given every opportunity to put the boot into Sinn Féin for its mishandling of these matters and its U-turn, it is turning on the Government and everyone else instead?
Ms Ritchie
I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a debate on the allocation of time motion. This action has been taken by the Government with the acquiescence of the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Féin.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The hon. Lady asked why this procedure was being used. The quick, honest truth is that it is being used to get this measure through in order to help Northern Ireland and the Assembly. I cannot see why she has a problem with that.
Ms Ritchie
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but we believe that this instrument is an abuse of parliamentary democracy, an abuse of this House and an abuse of the role of Parliament and of the Cabinet. This should not happen. There will be no diminution of the time available for debate on other aspects of the Bill. This is a matter of procedural priority and propriety, and of the accountability of this House. In any liberal democracy, there will be questions about accountability and about the role of Parliament and the Cabinet. The Cabinet should not seek to subjugate Parliament in this regard. We believe that this matter has serious implications for devolution in Northern Ireland, and that it could set a difficult and dangerous precedent for other devolved institutions in Britain as well as in Northern Ireland.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Lady recall that last week, in a flurry of rhetoric, her own spokesman on this issue in the Northern Ireland Assembly asked, in terms, “How dare anyone take this issue, which we have fought for so long to have devolved, to the House of Commons so that people outside this jurisdiction can make decisions about what happens in Northern Ireland?” Is she now saying that he was wrong, and that she wants this House to make those decisions, over the heads of Assembly Members?
Ms Ritchie
The hon. Gentleman is trying to direct me down a certain path. That debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly dealt with the measures in the Bill and with the legislative consent motion. Tonight, we are debating my party’s amendment to the allocation of time motion. I remind Members of the motion’s statement that
“the Question on any amendment moved or Motion”
can be made only “by a Minister”.
That means that we can debate our amendments but we cannot move them. Is that not unquestionably undemocratic, in this particular House? Therefore, I second and support our amendment.
Mrs Villiers
I think I covered most of the key points in my opening remarks. The motion, as drafted, is not unusual, and there is a fairly broad consensus on the need to progress with this legislation quickly. Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of the grouping and selection, and I am sure they will be keen for us to debate everything we can in the hours ahead. I welcome the opportunity—
Mrs Villiers
No, I am not giving way. I welcome the opportunity to debate the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) at the Committee stage, and I am sure he will have sufficient time to put on the record these points as he so wishes. Obviously, he has also had considerable time during this discussion to make a number of useful points.
Mark Durkan
I still wish to press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Welfare is a devolved issue in Northern Ireland. Over time, the agreed principle has been that welfare policy, spending and administration in Northern Ireland maintain broad parity with that in place in the rest of Great Britain. The parity principle has served Northern Ireland well. It means that benefit claimants have been able to avail themselves of the same rates of benefits as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. The UK Government have been clear that they will not fund a more generous welfare system in Northern Ireland than that in place elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Over the past three years, the Northern Ireland Assembly has been unable to implement welfare reform legislation that mirrors that of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, which is in place in the rest of the UK. The Assembly’s Welfare Reform Bill was introduced in October 2012, but was stalled at Committee stage in February the following year. Following a petition of concern, the Bill fell at its final stage in May this year.
The Secretary of State has outlined the implications of this failure to maintain parity, and the various steps that have been taken to bring us to where we are today, with Westminster having to legislate for welfare reform in Northern Ireland. As welfare is transferred, clause 1 provides the Government with a power to legislate for welfare in Northern Ireland via an Order in Council.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Will the Minister expand on the petition of concern? Is it an abuse of the parliamentary process, and is it anti-democratic?
Mr Wallace
Clearly, the use of petitions of concern is a matter for the Northern Ireland parties and for the Northern Ireland Assembly. All I ask is that parties in Northern Ireland recognise that the petition of concern is related to community concerns, and should not be used for things such as caravan legislation, or other such matters.
Taking this power enables the Government to implement Northern Ireland-specific flexibilities in the welfare system. When the 2012 welfare reform measures were first introduced, Northern Ireland’s Department for Social Development negotiated certain administrative flexibilities with the Department for Work and Pensions. They included, for example, a slightly different sanctions regime and the ability for welfare payments to be made to claimants on a fortnightly rather than a monthly basis.
In addition, as part of commitments made under last year’s Stormont House agreement, the Northern Ireland parties agreed a range of so-called top-up measures, which were designed to compensate claimants who were losing out as a result of the welfare reforms. The Assembly’s Welfare Reform Bill—the one that fell in May—was amended to reflect the various administrative flexibilities and top-up measures.
In providing a broad power, the Bill allows the Government to implement these Northern Ireland-specific flexibilities and top-ups. That reinforces the fact that the Government’s intent is not to impose Great Britain’s welfare system on to Northern Ireland. Instead, we are proposing to use the power provided by this Bill to legislate for the Northern Ireland-tailored welfare system agreed by the Northern Ireland parties.
The Order in Council that will follow this Bill, if passed, will make that clear. The order is based largely on the Assembly’s Welfare Reform Bill that fell at its final stage in May. It therefore includes the reforms made in Great Britain by the Welfare Reform Act 2012; the various flexibilities agreed between the Northern Ireland Department for Social Development and the Department for Work and Pensions; the amendments agreed during the passage of the Assembly Welfare Reform Bill; and provisions that allow for Northern Ireland Executive-funded top-ups.
The second reason for opting for a broad power in this Bill is that it enables the Government to implement other potential welfare reforms, such as those contained in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill currently being considered by the Lords.
The Northern Ireland Executive have just endured almost four years of political instability owing to their inability to implement the last major set of welfare reforms. It is important that the fresh start envisaged by the Northern Ireland parties is given time and space to grow and strengthen. If the Assembly considers the 2015 welfare reforms too soon, it could jeopardise this new-found consensus in Northern Ireland. It is therefore necessary for the Government to legislate for implementation of these measures.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The Minister is being very pragmatic in explaining the history behind this and why the Government are behaving as they are. Does he believe that it is desirable in the medium term that the welfare arrangements for Northern Ireland should mirror those of the rest of the United Kingdom, or does he think that this Bill will hold sway in the long term?
Mr Wallace
It is of course desirable that the welfare package and policy that this Government have come up with over the past four or five years is implemented across the United Kingdom. It is a good and well-needed reform. We also accept that, within the parameters of the devolved settlement, some devolved institutions have the ability to top up or be flexible in order to be able to deliver. In the long term, it will be interesting to see which delivers the best results for the people of those countries and whether our welfare reforms without flexibilities produce a better outcome than those that are adopted elsewhere.
Ian Paisley
Will the Minister state very clearly that there has been no change to parity? These are flexibilities that Northern Ireland has achieved. There are about a dozen very positive flexibilities and about 105,000 hard-working, low-paid families in Northern Ireland who will benefit as a result of the huge effort that has been put into resolving this issue.
Mr Wallace
It is absolutely the case that those flexibilities may turn out to suit the people of Northern Ireland, but it is also the case that the flexibilities and top-ups will be funded by Northern Ireland from the block grant. The UK Government will not fund on top of the existing UK roll-out, as has been clearly set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is important to get the message across that the funding to push forward with those flexibilities is coming out of the Northern Ireland block grant.
Ian Paisley
Will the Minister clarify another point? When the Minister for Social Development introduced this in the Assembly at the end of last week, he put it on the record that the Executive will be able to reclaim some of the financial penalties that the Treasury has already taken from the block grant. Is that the case?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is right. Certainly, in the negotiations, some of the penalties due for not implementing the welfare legislation will be returned to Northern Ireland. I am happy to write to him setting out the envisaged amount and the exact timing of when it would start to be rebated.
It is important to stress three important considerations at this point. First, the Bill does not affect the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. In other words, if the Assembly can agree to do so, it can continue to pass welfare legislation. The Bill therefore creates a situation in which welfare is both devolved—meaning the Assembly can legislate for it—and effectively reserved, meaning the Government can legislate for it as well. That situation may be unusual, but it is not without precedent, certainly when it comes to Northern Ireland. For example, there is similar concurrent legislative competence over regulations governing the flying of flags in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, the legislative approach outlined in this Bill has arisen at the request of the Northern Ireland parties. The Assembly last week granted its consent, by an overwhelming majority of 70 votes to 22, to this Bill. Consent was also granted to the Order in Council that will follow this Bill, and the welfare clauses of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill as initially introduced at Westminster. Thirdly, I can assure the House that the UK Government have no intention or desire to legislate on an ongoing basis for welfare in Northern Ireland. Welfare is properly devolved to Northern Ireland and will remain so. That is why clause 3 time-limits the power so that an order cannot be made after 31 December 2016.
As already noted, an Order in Council will follow this Bill. The order will make provision for welfare reform in Northern Ireland equivalent to the Welfare Reform Act 2012, and as I have pointed out, will provide for the various Northern Ireland-specific flexibilities and top-ups. First, legislating in this way, by an Order in Council, is the normal convention for secondary legislation with a devolution aspect. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has commented, it is essential that welfare reform is implemented in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. Given that speed is crucial, the only way to have the necessary legislation in place in the desired timescale is to delegate the detail of the welfare provisions to secondary legislation. Members should, however, be comforted by the realisation that the content of the Order in Council largely mirrors that of the 2012 Act, debated at length and in great detail in this House. There will be an opportunity to debate the order next week. I trust Members will reserve any detailed questions regarding welfare reform for that debate.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Given the complexity of an Order in Council in any circumstances and of the Bill that is being taken through the House at breakneck speed this evening, will the Minister please express some element of regret that neither the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee nor the Work and Pensions Committee had an opportunity to scrutinise them and report to the Northern Ireland Office before the Bill came to the House?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that nearly all the provisions in the order have been thoroughly debated in the Northern Ireland Assembly over a long period, and this House has given considerable scrutiny to the 2012 welfare reforms and is doing so for ongoing reforms in the 2015 Bill. I am happy to arrange for the hon. Lady, should she so wish, to meet officials from the Northern Ireland Office and the DWP to discuss in detail any concern she has about the order between now and the debate next week, if that satisfies her.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Minister touched on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. It is not really covered in the Order in Council. Will it be the subject of a different Order in Council subsequently under this legislation, or do the Government intend to amend the Bill to extend it to Northern Ireland?
Mr Wallace
The answer is that, yes, it will be subject to an order different from this one, which is due next week, as far as I understand.
In conclusion, I emphasise the points made by the Secretary of State. This is a good Bill for Northern Ireland, a Bill which will help resolve the long-running, politically divisive stalemate over welfare reform. The Bill is a crucial element of establishing and building on the “Fresh Start” announced last week. The Bill and the subsequent Order in Council do not guarantee political stability in Northern Ireland, but without them political stability and progress are, frankly, impossible. Our approach may appear unusual or unconventional, but it does have the cross-community support of the vast number of Northern Ireland’s elected representatives. This Bill offers the only realistic prospect of resolving Northern Ireland’s welfare reform impasse, and I commend it to the House.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for opening the Second Reading debate. Let us remind ourselves that the last few months in Northern Ireland have been very difficult. The murders in the summer and the budgetary stalemate on the issue of welfare led to a political crisis with potentially massive consequences for future governance. Months of talks throughout the year, culminating in the last 11 weeks, seemed at times to be going nowhere. So notwithstanding the failure to come to a conclusion on how to deal with the past—to the huge disappointment of all of us, not least the victims —there is huge relief that an agreement has been reached. All those involved— the Secretary of State, the parties, the Irish Government and many, in fact all, Members here—deserve credit for getting us to this point.
Without an agreement there was the real risk of the collapse of devolution or indeed the return to direct rule, either of which would have been unthinkable. However, that has been avoided and that is why I think the agreement is significant. As part of the agreement on welfare, a consent motion was agreed by the Northern Ireland Assembly to allow us to legislate for welfare reform here at Westminster, with a measure designed to ensure that the reform can take place as soon as possible without further financial penalties to allow stability to return and normal government arrangements to proceed. Of course, welfare reform is devolved to Northern Ireland, but the Assembly has consented to our legislating in this instance.
We should not forget that the agreement reached has also allowed other very significant measures, aside from welfare reform, to be adopted and other moneys released for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland: measures such as additional funding to the Police Service of Northern Ireland to combat the continuing terrorist threat, and money and increased efforts to tackle paramilitarism and cross-border crime. I want to highlight the funds for community initiatives such as bringing down the peace walls.
Today we are being asked to agree primary legislation that will enable the Secretary of State to reform the welfare system to apply the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and welfare aspects of the 2015 Bill to Northern Ireland. We will not oppose this legislation, but let us be clear: we have over recent years opposed much of the Tories’ welfare reform agenda and we will continue to do so. We accept, however, that the agreement does allow Northern Ireland certain welcome exemptions and the ability to mitigate the impact of these cuts. For example, there is the exemption from the bedroom tax and the £585 million to be made available over four years from the block grant to help with that; and to lessen the impact on the working poor, £240 million will be used to relieve the impact of the tax credit cut on the 120,000 families affected by it. That demonstrates clearly that the Tory Government’s welfare cuts, and indeed their austerity programme, are as much a problem for Northern Ireland as they are for any other part of the UK. However, as I said, we support the welfare mitigation measures as they recognise something I believe the rest of the UK understands as well, namely the special and particular circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland. Preserving the principle of parity in social security between Northern Ireland and Britain is more than just a convention. The Good Friday agreement specifically cited social security as an area where parity is normally maintained, and that principle remains important.
Many of the problems of significant mental illness, long-term worklessness and dependency on sickness and incapacity benefits exist in many parts of England, Wales and Scotland, but we know that Northern Ireland is a society coming out of conflict, so these welfare problems and issues are more complex and must be handled with greater sensitivity. Poverty remains a feature of life for a variety of groups, with a significant number of people in Northern Ireland still living in absolute poverty. Northern Ireland still has the highest disability living allowance claimant rate among working adults at 10.1%, according to the latest figures, whereas the average across Britain is 4.9%. Mental health remains a huge issue, with one in six people affected, and the suicide rate is 70% higher than the UK average. That is why we will not oppose the flexibility in the implementation of the welfare changes that this legislation and subsequent orders will allow.
Alongside any welfare reform programme there must be a jobs and growth programme. I urge the Secretary of State and the Government to work much more rigorously with the Northern Ireland Executive and business to give such a programme greater urgency. Reforming welfare is more than cutting benefits; it is about training, skills, opportunity and tackling low aspiration and educational underachievement. This has to be recognised, and new programmes are needed as part of increased efforts by the Treasury in regard to how the new National Infrastructure Commission, for example, affects Northern Ireland, the potential consequences of the EU referendum and the impact of poor broadband access. Welfare reform coupled with attention to such aspects would make a much greater difference.
I will ask the Minister some questions, which may help in his summing up and in future deliberations. First, he set out the timetable for one of the orders, but can he spell out the timetable for the Orders in Council which will follow from this paving legislation and the process that will apply to them in view of the consultation that was asked for and the meetings that he referred to? Secondly, what scope is there for that consultation with respect to these orders? In the Assembly debate on the legislative consent motion, the Minister for Social Development spoke of agreement in principle to the change to the welfare system in Northern Ireland being introduced at Westminster. Will the Minister explain what that agreement in principle means? Thirdly, so that we can all be clear, will he outline which welfare parts of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill this legislative process covers? Fourthly, can he confirm that the plan is that any regulations necessary to implement the Evason group’s recommendations for mitigation will be subject to Assembly scrutiny and approval before they are made in this House?
This has been a tough road and nobody doubts that, with such a high level of welfare need in Northern Ireland and huge reliance on incapacity benefits, change is needed. As I have said, we will therefore not oppose these measures, but change in Northern Ireland has to reflect its special circumstances. All the parties have sought to convince the Government of this, some would say with much success. However, in Northern Ireland as well as in the rest of the UK, a different Government programme of jobs, growth and investment alongside reform would be of greater benefit.
This legislation falls at the end of 2016. Will the Minister explain why that date was chosen? Given that sunset clause, let us hope we can all build a secure future in Northern Ireland so that we do not find ourselves in yet another crisis in a year’s time. We will not oppose the Bill as the dangers of an agreement not being reached were huge, with potential restoration of direct rule. This has been averted. Northern Ireland’s political institutions are stabilised, notwithstanding the continuing debate, so let us ensure that as the UK Government work with the Irish Government and all the parties, we continue to support the building of a peaceful Northern Ireland where there is prosperity, fairness and opportunity for all. That has to be our continuing task.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It provides us with a brief opportunity to examine the provisions of the Bill in some detail, but I cannot help thinking that the much more appropriate place for such a debate and decision making would be the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is no secret that welfare reform has proven a contentious issue not just in the last round of talks, but for some time. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary will be familiar with the many arguments that I and colleagues made, not only over the past 10 weeks, but in the annual crisis talks that we have held over the past three years.
On a point well made by the shadow Secretary of State, focusing on welfare reform in isolation and neglecting the serious challenge of joblessness will simply fail. It will not work. Punishing and sanctioning people for a failure to get a job that does not exist, without looking at the wider economy, is economically illiterate. The Secretary of State will no doubt assure us that the proposed changes to corporation tax will solve all our problems, but I do not believe they will and a large number of experts agree with me. Corporation tax is a valuable tool at our disposal, but it is not the silver bullet. It will not solve all the problems. The SDLP has always agreed with the need for welfare reform, but never at the cost of crucifying some of the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society.
Over 10 long weeks of negotiation the Secretary of State has heard me and other colleagues repeat the need to move away from welfare reform and start to address the serious issue of joblessness. Although our hard-won peace process helped transform Northern Ireland, it was never meant or expected to be the final chapter. The majority of sensible people believe that if we are to see our society and its people fully emerge from conflict, we need another kind of transformation. We need a prosperity process that produces training, skill development and economic opportunity. We need to do something about the vicious downward spiral of low skills, low wages and low productivity that strangles much of our economic hope.
At the core of our prosperity process has to be strong collaboration between business and third-level education, linked in turn to research and development investment, in line with best practice in Britain, the south of Ireland and right across Europe. It never ceases to shock me that Northern Ireland has a population of 1.8 million and a mere 700,000 of them—much less than half—are economically active. We are falling much too far behind our neighbours on this side of the Irish sea, in the south of Ireland, and across Europe. A massive programme of sustainable economic regeneration is urgently needed to generate the revenues we need to build prosperity in Northern Ireland. If fewer than half of our population are economically active, how can that not have a devastating impact on living standards for so many?
We must tackle the low level of economic activity in that adult population by seeking to provide a wide range of regionally balanced economic opportunities. Our goal must be to get at least 1 million of those 1.8 million people across Northern Ireland into meaningful and worthwhile work. Lifting our economy is one of the best ways of helping those on welfare to get the hand up that they are promised. We must put meaningful economic regeneration at the heart of our devolved Administration. Only then can our people realise their hopes, aspirations, ambitions and full potential.
I am deeply disappointed that the “Fresh Start” agreement made no reference to job creation, economic development or prosperity, despite these issues being raised repeatedly at every plenary session of the recent talks. The biggest challenge that we face is getting people into work or into meaningful apprenticeships and genuine skill improvement as a pathway towards jobs. I repeat that we are caught in a vicious downward spiral of low skills, leading to low wages, and, in turn, to very low productivity. This cycle has to be broken.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that low skills and unemployment would hardly be helped if this Bill were to be stopped and £10 million a month of penalties reinstated?
Dr McDonnell
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comment, but the point I am making—I hope he would take it because it affects his constituency as well as mine—is that it is all very well to talk about moving people from welfare into work in places like the south-east of England or London, where there are jobs, but we cannot move people from welfare into work if there is no work for them to go to.
The vicious cycle has to be broken, but it will not be broken by pious platitudes or wishful thinking; it can be broken only by active intervention by both the Government here and the Executive at Stormont. I repeat my previous calls to the Secretary of State and to the Northern Ireland Executive to honour commitments that we have discussed across the negotiating table over the past 10 weeks, and plead for each of us to play whatever part we can in generating prosperity. If we fail to create prosperity, we run the risk of the institutions failing again, with recurrent crises and a return to the process through Stormont House 3, which none of us wants.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I think it is worth reflecting on the fact that there are 30,000 more people in work in Northern Ireland, compared with 2010. The Northern Ireland economy is growing again—it is recovering—and the Executive should take some pride in that because they have obviously contributed strongly to it.
Dr McDonnell
I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments and the commitments she has made. I know that she probably has empathy with much of this.
This is not just about my constituency. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) is sitting behind me. I look at a town such as Ballymena, which will apparently lose some 5,000 jobs in the next two or three years. That is horrific to me; I grew up not far away from it. That is the problem I am looking at. These people need our attention and need some hope, because there is nothing there but despair. However, I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to make that point, as he has done so very well on many occasions.
The SDLP has tabled amendments that would provide some flexibilities. They are a reflection of, and very compatible with, some of the amendments we made during the consideration of the Welfare Reform Bill at Stormont that was voted down by Sinn Féin and the DUP. These flexibilities would limit the Secretary of State’s power and influence in making a benefit cap in Northern Ireland and reduce the maximum period of the sanction from 18 months to six months. We are deeply concerned by the outcome of the sanctions in Britain, which have treated claimants extremely unfairly. We feel that this is a matter properly to be dealt with in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
It is now time that this Government recognised the unique circumstances of people living in Northern Ireland, who are crying out for fair play and an economic opportunity. Put simply, they are crying out for hope and a better future for themselves and their children. Seventeen years after the Good Friday Agreement, it is time to make good on the promises made at that stage of prosperity, peace and hope for all our people.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I want to take the hon. Gentleman back to his point about the amendments. Clearly, if they went through, that would again break parity, so there would be a financial cost to all that, and the IT systems in Northern Ireland would have to compensate as well. Who would pay for that?
Dr McDonnell
I think the amendments are cost-neutral and do not break parity, and they would work for all our constituents—not just mine but the right hon. Gentleman’s.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
First, I welcome the fact that we now have this Bill before the House of Commons. Had the Government listened to us some time ago, we might have saved a year in which we would we have saved the money that is now being returned to the Treasury. More importantly, we would have saved the damage that has been done to devolution. Apart from the costs involved, the stalemate that has arisen from the failure to agree the welfare reform proposals that we thought had been agreed this time last year in the Stormont House agreement has led to a budgetary crisis in the Assembly. During that stalemate, many of the spending proposals could not be undertaken, with a budget that we knew would have been overspent had we gone through to the end of the year. All that has played out badly in Northern Ireland with regard to the credibility of the Assembly.
This agreement, and the fact that we have now removed one of the most toxic issues that was affecting the work of the Assembly, namely welfare reform, is therefore to be welcomed. I am glad that we have now got this issue on to the Floor of the House.
Lady Hermon
The hon. Gentleman is a very senior member of his party, and rightly so—he has been in it for an awfully long time. Will he therefore give us some insight into the negotiations which—thank goodness, after all this waiting—managed to persuade Sinn Féin to agree to this deal? What was the turning point? What was the significant agreement with Sinn Féin whereby it agreed to welfare reform? I am intrigued to know what his new leader, or future leader—[Interruption.] I would be delighted, in fact, if there was a new leader, but will he just answer the question instead of speculating about the leadership?
Sammy Wilson
If the hon. Lady had thought of the trend that there has been since the DUP became the largest party in Northern Ireland, she could easily have identified the reason why this has happened. We were told that we could not get devolution because Sinn Féin would never divorce itself from violence, and then it did; we were told that we could never get policing and justice devolved because Sinn Féin would never support the police, and then it did; and we were told that we could never get welfare reform through because Sinn Féin was opposed to it, and we faced it down on that. The record of the DUP should not be compared with the record of the Ulster Unionist party when it was the largest party in Northern Ireland, because it rolled over to Sinn Féin whereas we have stared it down on all these issues and succeeded. I cannot get into the mindset of Sinn Féin. All I know is that a year ago it was saying that under no circumstances would it accept Tory diktats on welfare, and now it has asked the Government to bring forward this legislation, to take it through the House of Commons, and to implement the changes.
I welcome that, because our party never accepted that the devolution of welfare was necessary. Given the parity principle, we would always have been caught in a position whereby we either reflected Westminster legislation or paid the cost of it, which, even in terms of different systems, was never going to be sustainable. Now we are where we are, and I am pleased about that, because it removes one of the biggest barriers to making devolution work in Northern Ireland. I hope that we have now laid the foundation for more workable devolution in future, because we are a party that believes in devolution and wants to see it work. I think that the sacrifices we have made indicate that.
Secondly, this measure brings immediate benefit to Northern Ireland. It removes the toxicity that existed around welfare reform, but also enables us now to move on to deal with the issues that need to be dealt with.
The hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) said that one of the reasons he is not happy is that the agreement does not provide for jobs. I want people in my constituency to be off welfare and to have the dignity of work, but the hon. Gentleman said that the deal does nothing to get people into employment. However, it paves the way for corporation tax changes in Northern Ireland, which will be a job creation measure. Half the savings made from fraud and error in welfare can be retained by the Northern Ireland budget. The agreement specifically says that we can deal with training and youth unemployment. A capital financial package will be available for shared education and shared housing, which will create jobs for people in the construction industry. The Northern Ireland Executive will also be able to keep some of the capital receipts from the sale of assets, and they can be ploughed back into the economy.
The hon. Gentleman was, therefore, wrong to say that the Bill does nothing but penalise people on welfare without giving them an alternative. The Executive now have in their hands the means to provide some of the things that he and I are concerned about. I know that he was not making a cheap political point, because he has a record of being concerned about unemployment not just in his own constituency, but right across Northern Ireland. At least this agreement secures the resources by which some of those issues can be addressed.
Thirdly, although we cannot deviate from parity without there being some cost to Northern Ireland, the Executive have taken it upon themselves to look at where we could change some of the welfare issues and put our own imprint on the Northern Ireland welfare system. Over the next few years, £585 million will be devoted to just that. On cuts to the spare room subsidy, for example, we took the view that we did not have the housing structure to allow for the flexibility required in the housing market, so we have put money into exempting people from the benefit reduction that would have incurred. On the changes to rates—or council tax, as it is known in the rest of the United Kingdom—we have put £17 million aside so that low-income families will be supported and not lose out. Money has also been put aside for tax credit changes. The approach has been tailored. The Bill will go through—as has been agreed by the Executive, and asked for by the Assembly—with those flexibilities. It is a good deal, which is one of the reasons we will be pleased to go through the Lobby tonight in support of the Bill passing through this House.
Finally, there are still those who wish to conduct guerrilla warfare against the institutions in Northern Ireland. Some of them do so because they want to score points against other political parties. We have seen an example of that today. Last week, the Social Democratic and Labour party criticised Sinn Féin in the Assembly, saying, “How dare they dilute devolution by asking for this welfare reform Bill to be taken to the House of Commons? The House of Commons should have no say over it, because it’s a devolved issue.” Now that the Bill has come here, however, SDLP Members are complaining because the House of Commons cannot have a say on making changes. That was, of course, a convenient way of beating Sinn Féin.
Others, such as Traditional Unionist Voice, would have liked the Bill to have been delayed, because they hoped the whole deal would unravel as a result. They want to destroy devolution, despite all the benefits it has brought to Northern Ireland. For that reason, it is important that we address the issue urgently. It has taken long enough to strike the deal, and now that it has been struck let us deliver it for the people of Northern Ireland. Tonight the House of Commons can play a role in helping to improve conditions in Northern Ireland by passing this Bill.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about this most extraordinary Bill. It is so sad that it has become necessary, not because of what it does—we welcome much of what is in it and the fact that it can now happen, and it takes us out of the quagmire of inactivity that I spoke about in the Chamber a few weeks ago—but because our legislators in Northern Ireland are unable to do it themselves and are happy to pass the buck to Westminster. It is also a worse deal than that offered in the original Stormont House discussions, and it shows that the Government are happy to listen to only the two main parties in Northern Ireland, rather than the five that are in the coalition or the opposition coalition.
Mrs Villiers
I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Ulster Unionist party was one of a number of parties that I listened to. It repeatedly said that the Executive had to have a sustainable budget, and that was undeliverable without welfare reform, so the agreement reflects input from the UUP.
Danny Kinahan
I take that on board, but only to a certain point. We were not listened to as much as we wanted, and we were certainly ignored quite a bit at the end as the two main parties took control.
Danny Kinahan
Not at the moment.
Was it a case of, “Any deal will do,” perhaps to keep the Prime Minister happy or, more importantly, to fit in with the First Minister’s resignation and glorification at his party conference last weekend? That is deeply worrying.
Some five weeks ago I spoke about the Stormont crisis in an effort to show this House that the present Stormont devolved system does not work. The current Government do not work and I intend to show why that is the case. During that debate we highlighted the fact that, out of the £80 million in the social investment fund, only £1 million had been spent. I also showed that shared education, the racial equality strategy, same-sex marriage and many more things were all stalled by the Executive. I also raised the fact that welfare reform could not be agreed, because Sinn Féin had pulled out of the Stormont House discussions after initially agreeing with them. The consequence is that all our Departments are grinding to a halt; no budget was agreed as a result of welfare not being agreed. So, here we are, passing it over to Westminster to do it for us.
I remember it being made very clear in the Stormont Chamber that, in effect, all the Finance Minister had to do was allocate the Barnett formula funds to the various Departments and that she was no more than a glorified accountant. It seems that we cannot even do that. We have had to hand over the responsibility to Westminster so that it can do the allocation for us.
Stormont is a legislative Assembly—its job is to legislate. May I make it absolutely clear that my party—the Ulster Unionist party—has all along been against handing power back to Westminster? Yet here we are, handing back to Westminster the power to legislate. It is very sad that Stormont cannot even do what it was set up to do.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Could the hon. Gentleman brief the House on exactly what suggestions his party made in the negotiations?
Danny Kinahan
I would also like the hon. Gentleman’s party to say what it agreed with Sinn Féin along the way. [Interruption.] I was not involved at that point.
In this fresh start—or should we call it a false start?—Stormont cannot sort out paramilitaries, so it sets up a panel to advise us on how to deal with them, and it cannot decide who the vulnerable are, so it sets up a panel to advise us, and so it goes on. Stormont can legislate, so it legislates to give that very power away. In my time at Stormont, I saw nothing but strategies, reviews, reports and, in so many cases, parked initiatives, which are now all sitting on shelves and gathering dust. That shows Stormont unable, as ever, to take action; unable to act; unable to do what it is there for; and unable to make things happen.
If we read through the overlong false start document, we can see many examples of exactly that. It is all buried in the language of stall and inaction, and all stuck in the quagmire of indecision. The agreement has wording such as that it
“has the potential to nudge history forward”.
I do not want the word “potential”; I want a document to say that it “will” nudge history forward. The document sets up a strategic taskforce body to report and bring forward recommendations for a strategy. We need not strategies, but actions. It sets up a trilateral ministerial meeting that will set out goals. That is an improvement of the wording, but we need more on how we can achieve goals and how we can get actions.
On community engagement and prevention, the document talks of three programmes on vulnerable people, participation and influence, and women and reducing offending. Those programmes are yet to be produced; again, we need actions. I hope those programmes proceed with actions, not strategies. Furthermore, to deal with paramilitaries, we are setting up a panel to produce a strategy. That is another strategy, but at least this one has a written promise to put into action the panel’s recommendations. There is much more. Today’s action is an abdication of responsibility. Indeed, one of the Sinn Féin Members of the Legislative Assembly has said that the
“suggestion that responsibility for administering the benefit system should be returned to Westminster would be a betrayal of the most vulnerable in society.”
This deal is a worse deal than the one supposedly agreed in the Stormont House agreement—or Stormont Castle deals—of 11 months ago. Sinn Féin Members, who reneged on that deal, must feel pretty silly: they held up the whole agreement and the budgets of every single Department, to the point where nearly every person in Northern Ireland felt the pain—all, we believe, so they can be seen to oppose austerity in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
We now have this Bill handing power over to Westminster so that parties can blame the Brits, blame the English for the cuts and blame all of you in Westminster for good housekeeping. That is the same good housekeeping that the Stormont Finance Minister argued for and accepted only three years ago. That seems to be in the past: DUP Members are now happy to hand the power over so they too can blame Westminster. I wonder why —there must be an election coming. They are as bad as Sinn Féin at times, ducking their responsibilities and playing politics with our fantastic little country.
This deal is worse. DUP Members are happy to accept £345 million in full mitigation, minus the tax credits, rather than the £564 million in the original Stormont House discussions. They are happy to accept £500 million for shared education, but it is now aimed not just at shared education, but at shared housing. They are happy to tie themselves to the unknown welfare cuts through Westminster that may arise this Wednesday or in next year’s Budget. It seems that no one thought of that. They are happy to lose the return of welfare fines that we have already paid owing to their inaction: some £100 million in 2013 to 2015, and I believe a further £29 million of wasted welfare fines from this year—money we could have better spent in so many other areas.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one reason why we paid money back was that his party, when it was having its Jeremy Corbyn moment, was prepared to oppose the welfare changes and was therefore responsible for some of those payments? He cannot run away from that and blame it on somebody else; his own party took that stance.
Danny Kinahan
We had very good reasons for taking that stance at the time. We can certainly complain because we are where we are today.
We really need help on welfare in Northern Ireland. It pains me to say so, because I do not want to be part of a begging bowl Government. I want to see Northern Ireland thrive. We have the high-tech skills, the best schools and the entrepreneurs, but we also have the unemployed, the disadvantaged and mental health problems that the years of troubles have left us with. As other hon. Members have said, we do not have the jobs and skills base for those at whom the welfare reforms are aimed. We need reskilling and the right manual jobs for this new welfare system to work.
The roll-out of universal credit in Northern Ireland has experienced major delays and other problems while dealing only with the easy cases. On the disability living allowance and personal independence payment, Northern Ireland has a higher proportion of DLA claims for poor mental health than in Great Britain: in 2010, mental health issues were the disabling condition for 23% of all DLA claims in Northern Ireland, whereas the equivalent figure was 12% in Great Britain. When it comes to tax credits, the changes will hurt far too many, and even with the Chancellor’s minimum wage plans, the childcare help and housing plans, 121,000 people will still be left short by just under £1,000 a year, which will affect our economy, our health service and, of course, our mental health numbers. We need to mitigate the tax credit cuts. With Westminster as yet not changing its plans, Stormont will have to pick up the effects of these cuts. That is one reason why this deal is not as good as it could be. As I have said, it is worse than the original Stormont House agreement.
The Bill really shocks me in that it is only agreed by the two main parties. It is almost as though the Government wanted a deal at any cost, but many have felt that we needed a whole new deal—not a Stormont House agreement, but a complete reworking of all post-Belfast agreement deals. We could have done not with a fresh or even a false start, but with a new start to tie up all the loose ends, such as the legacy issues; better government with a proper opposition; proper action not just on speaking rights and finance, but on a change in the committee structure; and a reworking of the petition of concern, but not into the damp squib of what looks like an effectual code.
So much more could have been included in the deal. I wish we had seen it as a way of drawing a line in the sand. I believe today is a sad day for Northern Ireland. We have shown how big a failure our Stormont is in its present hands and how it cannot agree on anything. I want to see Northern Ireland really thrive. It has the skills, and if we could have more action and more decisions, it can get there. I am grateful for what we have got today, but it could have been so much better.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I do not know where to begin in following the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan). I must say that to him with the greatest sincerity. I suppose I have the advantage of being in politics a little longer than him. I have a long memory, and when people start to rewrite history, as he has this evening, it beggars belief. I was a member of the party to which he now belongs, and I witnessed that party’s failure of leadership at critical times in Northern Ireland. Many of the problems we have today are the result of that failure of leadership, such as on the Belfast agreement.
The hon. Gentleman talked about post-1998 agreements, but the core issue and problem with Stormont is what the Ulster Unionist party created in 1998. That is the difficulty we have. Would that we could change it and get the reforms that we desperately want. The DUP has been out ahead consistently arguing for reform at Stormont from 1998, and it continues to argue for that reform. I note that one of the reforms he did not mention is the reduction in the number of MLAs. My party supports that and would like it to happen now. There are lots of ways in which we can make Stormont more effective and tidy up the mess that others have created.
I believe that this is a better deal for Northern Ireland. I am absolutely convinced of that. It is a better deal for the people I represent for a number of reasons. It will create an opportunity to bring prosperity to Northern Ireland. We need that. I am proud of a Northern Ireland that stands on its own two feet, not a Northern Ireland that is on its knees. That is the kind of Northern Ireland that I want for the people I represent in Lagan Valley—a constituency that was once the heart of the Irish linen industry, which created employment, generated prosperity and gave people hope. That is where we want to get to. I want people to have employment and the dignity of work. The agreement provides part of the framework that will help us to achieve that. On that, we are most certainly with the Government.
I believe that welfare reform, which is the purpose of our debate this evening, is needed. Even the SDLP supports the principle of welfare reform. We have supported the Government on some aspects of welfare reform and opposed them on other elements, because we recognise that there are different circumstances in Northern Ireland arising out of more than 30 years of conflict, which have left us running behind the rest of the United Kingdom. We have a higher level of post-traumatic and conflict-related illness, which means that we have more claimants than other parts of the United Kingdom. Our economy has also been affected. The slowness of the recovery is due, in part, to the many years of under-investment. A lot of the money that we needed for investment went into security in Northern Ireland. We are beginning to move beyond that. We are looking to build a Northern Ireland that is about prosperity.
I say with the greatest of sincerity to the hon. Member for South Antrim, if we keep talking Northern Ireland down and talking in negative terms, how on earth do we ever hope to attract investment to South Antrim and other parts of Northern Ireland? How on earth will we send out a positive message in a very competitive world, where many countries are looking for investment, if we go around with long faces and talk down the little country that we belong to? That is negativity. It is not the true spirit of the once-proud Ulster Unionist party.
When I hear the hon. Gentleman saying that his party does not agree that this Parliament of the United Kingdom should legislate for Northern Ireland, I have to pinch myself. Is that the party of Jim Molyneaux? Is it the party of Enoch Powell? Is it the party that argued from these Benches over the years for a Northern Ireland that was proudly part of the United Kingdom and of this Parliament? The Ulster Unionist party is now reduced to decrying the idea that this Parliament should legislate for our part of the United Kingdom. It is incredible that a Unionist would argue that this Parliament has no right to legislate for Northern Ireland. It is a Sinn Féin argument that I did not think I would hear a Unionist utter. This Parliament has the right to do it and should do it. That is why we support the Bill that is before the House this evening. The Assembly had the opportunity to debate it and a number of parties oppose it.
Interestingly—I am drawing towards a close, Mr Deputy Speaker—the hon. Member for South Antrim talked about tax credits and the need to protect the vulnerable. When it came to the vote on tax credits, the Democratic Unionist party went into the No Lobby and the hon. Gentleman abstained. In the other place, when there was the opportunity to do something about tax credits, the Ulster Unionist party was nowhere to be seen. Its peers disappeared. When I hear the cant that comes from some of these Benches about the need to protect the vulnerable in our society and the need to protect working families in South Antrim, I wonder where the hon. Gentleman was when some of us took the stand that needed to be taken for those vulnerable people in South Antrim.
My party fully supports what is happening here this evening because we want to move on; we need to move on. We have been bogged down for far too long. We want prosperity for Northern Ireland—let’s get on with it.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, but I regret the fact that the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill is not being discussed in the place where it should have been discussed: the Northern Ireland Assembly. All of us should have the higher ambition of ensuring the fulfilment of a meaningful devolution process. As one of the parties that negotiated the Good Friday agreement along with both Governments, supported by the majority of people on the island of Ireland through the two referendums that established the political institutions, we believe that this debate on welfare reform should be taking place in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
As a party, we believe in the principle of welfare reform, but we recognise that people do not choose to be on benefits. It is not a lifestyle choice, as was pointed out during the debate on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill back in July.
For a party that has always supported devolution, it is not just a matter of regret but the cause of a deep sense of anger that the power to deal with this welfare legislation has been passed back to this Chamber from the Northern Ireland Assembly through a legislative consent motion, simply to save the blushes and electoral fortunes of Sinn Féin, with the acceptance and acquiescence of the DUP.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) referred to tax credits. I recall us all going through the No Lobby, but it is interesting that this enabling legislation will facilitate in-work tax credit reductions. The DUP will support that, which is something of an anomaly. That is a difficult situation that it will have to explain to the electorate.
Mr Donaldson
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that 105,000 families in Northern Ireland will, as a result of this agreement, be protected in respect of tax credits. That is what the DUP has delivered.
Ms Ritchie
It is interesting to note that, according to research carried out by the Library, 112,500 people in Northern Ireland are in receipt of tax credits and the annual £60 million of tax credit top-ups for the next four years will meet only 40% of what Northern Ireland will lose.
Sammy Wilson
I do not mean to cut the hon. Lady off during a flourish of rhetoric, but does she accept that the welfare reform legislation does not include changes to tax credits? Those have been made through other legislation that is totally separate. It is wrong to set up a straw man by indicating that there is a connection between this legislation and tax credits.
Ms Ritchie
My understanding is that the British Government, whose representatives are here today, including the Secretary of State, are claiming that that is the situation.
The people of Northern Ireland fought long and hard with political parties and both Governments to secure the democratic political structures. The SDLP wants to see the bedding down of those institutions through political stability; economic prosperity; greater devolution in respect of fiscal flexibilities, broadcasting and telecommunications; and the deepening of the north-south and British-Irish structures that were facilitated by the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. We do not want to see power removed from the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive to be given to the Secretary of State and this Chamber. That was not the purpose of the Act that we voted for in 1998, when power was given to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive.
Lady Hermon
Will the hon. Lady just reflect on the past few months? If she and her colleagues have ever listened to the Stephen Nolan show on Radio Ulster, they will have realised that the prolonged arguments over welfare reform have, most regrettably, managed to bring the Assembly into disrepute. As a committed devolutionist—I know the hon. Lady shares my views—does she agree that unless we settle the argument over welfare reform, the majority of people in Northern Ireland might prefer direct rule? I am sure she would not want that, and it is not something that I wish for, but the issue has to be settled and the Bill will do that.
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. As a committed devolutionist I want to see devolution in Northern Ireland, and I want it to grow and deepen. That is why I do not like the fact that the Bill is being discussed in this Chamber. As for what happens on the Stephen Nolan show, I would say that the people of Northern Ireland are sick, sore and tired of in-and-out Ministers who lasted for 10 minutes, and who did not bring a certain level of judgment and decision making to urgent issues such as waiting lists and other things that impacted on the daily lives of our constituents. Let us hope that from this day forward we can all move on and have the ability and capacity to deliver for all the people.
I welcome the top-ups and the mitigation measures, and I hope that they will still exist after the Chancellor’s comprehensive spending review. As the Secretary of State will recall, during questions on her statement I asked her about that specific issue, and she confirmed that that would be the case. I hope that those measures will not be cancelled as a result of cuts that might flow from the comprehensive spending review, or as a result of announcements that the Chancellor might make about mitigation for tax credits that will allegedly come from decisions that were made in the House of Lords on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill some weeks ago.
Mr Gregory Campbell
The hon. Lady is waxing eloquent about top-ups, and the DUP agrees with her. Does she find it difficult to reconcile her effusive support for the top-ups in the Bill with her party’s attempt to derail it?
Ms Ritchie
The SDLP never tried to derail the top-ups or mitigations. I well recall meetings that we had in 2012. In February 2012 a delegation, including my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), met the then Minister in the other place—Lord Freud—to deal with these issues. We suggested that one top-up could deal with the eradication of the bedroom tax, and it took many months for the then Minister for Social Development to come to that realisation. We had a further meeting in November 2012 with Lord Freud at the DWP, and at that stage we again understood from him that a top-up for the bedroom tax would be one mitigation measure. We had no problem with that because we support those mitigation measures and we want to ensure that they are retained and bring a level of comfort and solace.
Let me emphasise again that nobody chooses to be on benefits. It is not a lifestyle choice; it is due to force of circumstance. For example, people do not necessarily have access to employment in the area where they reside, or the necessary travel arrangements to get to particular places of employment; or sadly, as in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), many people have lost their jobs, and do not find suitable employment that corresponds with their academic, engineering or vocational qualifications. That is a matter of deep regret.
The Government, working with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly, must ensure that resources are invested and projects equitably distributed to afford balanced regional development throughout Northern Ireland in a way that allows job opportunities in the west and the south-east to compare with those in the city of Belfast.
This Bill should not be being discussed in Westminster, and its Second Reading and further stages should have been dealt with by the Northern Ireland Assembly. In that respect, the power of devolution has been removed. We have tabled amendments to curtail the Secretary of State’s power over our welfare system—power that has been handed over by Sinn Féin and the DUP. We have heard much about Sinn Féin and Tory cuts, and they are happy to allow the Tory Government to implement those cuts along with the support of the DUP. Devolution was hard fought for and hard won in Northern Ireland, and the SDLP unquestionably refuse to give it up.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Rather than reflecting on where we are this evening, would the hon. Lady not do better to spend her time focusing on the SDLP’s failure to promote any consensus on welfare over the past three years in Northern Ireland? If she had focused on those actions, we would not be here tonight.
Ms Ritchie
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised when I say that I disagree with his viewpoint. The SDLP tabled amendments to the Bill in the Assembly, and those revenue-neutral amendments were refused and declined by the DUP and Sinn Féin.
Mark Durkan
Does my hon. Friend recall that in 2011 in the Northern Ireland Assembly, when the Welfare Reform Bill was going through this House, the SDLP proposed in the Assembly that a special committee should be set up to undertake parallel scrutiny and to anticipate the implications of that Bill, so that we could have consensus and address Whitehall? That was voted down by the DUP.
Ms Ritchie
I thank my hon. Friend. I well recall that because I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly at the time, and I was party to that proposal. I clearly remember that we were trying to achieve consensus on the best way to ensure that the best mitigation measures were put in place. That proposal was refused by the DUP and Sinn Féin—the cosy partners in government who deliver only for themselves and not for the wider public.
I speak as a former Minister for Social Development who had direct responsibility for benefits, and I well remember introducing a household fuel payment Bill, which was separate from measures that existed in Britain. That Bill sought to address fuel poverty and ensure that people who felt it would be difficult to pay for both eating and heating—we agreed with them—did not have to make that choice. The SDLP has always stood by the people and by the principle of consensus, and it is a matter of deep regret that others did not do so. I regret that the Bill is not being dealt with in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and that the power of devolution on these matters has been removed from our colleagues in the Assembly on a cross-community basis.
Mr Wallace
We are not taking away the power; we are taking the power in parallel. The power remains in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and should Ministers there wish to do so at any time in the future, they could bring forward welfare legislation. We are not removing the power, we are sharing it in a parallel process.
Ms Ritchie
I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention, but it would be much more helpful if he and his colleagues supported our amendments, which would help to clarify matters and to further delineate such measures. Before he winds up the debate, will the Minister reflect on our amendments as we move to the Committee stage?
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Lady does at least engage in debate on these issues. We might appreciate her anger against the welfare reform proposals were it not for the dual standards that her party has adopted. She is railing against some of the measures in the Bill. For example, her party opposes the bedroom tax, as she calls it, but it was her own Minister who introduced the removal of the spare room subsidy for people who live in the private sector. On the one hand, she condemns the Government for picking on people in the public sector, but her own Minister introduced it for people in the private sector, where rents are even higher.
Ms Ritchie
I well recall that measure being debated and it related solely to the private rented sector.
I regret that the Bill has not been taken in the Assembly, where it rightfully belongs. I hope the Minister will reflect on our amendments in his winding-up speech and provide greater clarity. I hope Northern Ireland can be a place of work, endeavour and prosperity. That is our job, the job of Parliament, the job of Cabinet and the job of the Northern Ireland Executive.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and I thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am reminded of the passage in Scripture from Ecclesiastes chapter 3, verses 1 to 8:
“To everything there is a season”.
I believe the season for change is now and that the Bill can deliver that change for people.
I would like to start by paying tribute to the outgoing First Minister and DUP leader, the right hon. Peter Robinson. The DUP has been at the forefront of securing a new future for a new Northern Ireland, striking the right balance between bringing those of us more sensitive to the past along with those who found it easier to move on. It is thanks to people such as Peter Robinson who made difficult decisions and were willing to sacrifice themselves personally and politically, and even in terms of their health, that we have had the longest ever sustained period of power-sharing. We provided free travel on public transport to everyone over 60 and secured the single largest ever investment in Northern Ireland by supporting Bombardier’s £520 million investment in the new C-Series aircraft. In difficult economic times, when heating prices were escalating, we made payments totalling £22.5 million to 150,000 households, which each received a £150 fuel payment. Devolution, with the DUP and Peter Robinson at the helm, has delivered for Northern Ireland.
I put on record my thanks to the Secretary of State and the Minister for their patience, good temperament, energy and civility, and for staying the course. I say well done to the Secretary of State and to the Minister.
It is fair to say that the welfare reforms passed in this place in 2012 have plagued the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly over the past three years. Since the restoration of devolution in 2007, no other proposed legislation has had such a troubled passage through the Assembly, including other welfare reform. Indeed, the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) guided a welfare reform Bill through the Assembly in 2010, despite the fact that it included some controversial changes to the employment and support allowance and the introduction of the bedroom tax for the private rented sector.
The failure to pass equivalent legislation to the Welfare Reform Act 2012 in the Northern Ireland Assembly has undermined political stability in Northern Ireland and threatened the very existence of devolution, largely because of the impact it was having on public finances and the sustainability of the Executive’s budget. Consistent with the statement of funding policy, Her Majesty’s Treasury began fining or penalising the Executive two years ago for the savings forgone as a result of the failure to pass welfare reform at Stormont. In 2013-14, £13 million was lost. Last year, the Executive’s coffers lost £87 million. This year, it has been approximately £9.5 million each and every month. In such tough financial times, that was money the Executive could ill afford to squander.
I am sorry to say that Sinn Féin and the SDLP failed to live up to their responsibilities. They even failed to live up to the commitments they made in the Stormont House agreement just last year. They were content to see the Executive lose more than £150 million, with one SDLP MLA even telling the Assembly that it was a price worth paying. Have we ever heard anything as nonsensical as that? A price was certainly paid, but it was paid by every person in Northern Ireland. It was paid by vulnerable people in Northern Ireland who were deprived of services for which the Executive could not afford to pay. The £9.5 million a month that the Executive have been losing could have paid for 1,800 knee operations and 2,100 hip operations. The self-styled defenders of the vulnerable—we have them here, sitting in front of us—were, by their inaction and irresponsibility, hurting and harming the vulnerable.
This past week, a way forward has been agreed. The “Fresh Start” agreement, forged after 10 weeks of talks, reaches a resolution on welfare reform. The agreement will see welfare reform enacted in Northern Ireland—what we are debating today—but recognises Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances via various flexibilities. The agreement explicitly rules out the introduction of the social sector size criteria, or bedroom tax as it has become commonly known. That is an appropriate reflection of the fact that Northern Ireland’s social housing profile has been skewed towards three-bedroom family homes and that in certain places, especially Belfast, moving from a three-bedroom home in one part of the city to a two-bedroom house elsewhere may involve crossing a peace wall. It is not, therefore, a simple or straightforward option for many.
The agreement also sets aside £345 million, an average of approximately £86 million a year over the next four years, to mitigate the worst impacts on Northern Ireland of welfare reform, including the bedroom tax. Professor Eileen Evason will head up a small working group to bring forward proposals within this financial envelope to maximise the use of those resources. The £345 million, and the very welcome £240 million set aside to compensate those hardworking people also adversely affected by the Government’s proposed cuts to tax credits, comes at a cost to the Executive, but we believe it will protect the most vulnerable. This party is out to ensure that we protect the vulnerable.
Some, in essence those who have resisted welfare reform from the start, have turned their attention to the fact that the Bill is passing into law through Parliament, as opposed to the Assembly. We have heard that from previous speakers. The Assembly, of course, passed a legislative consent motion last week. The argument that this legislation is not being scrutinised properly is false. In the past few weeks, it has been debated and debated and debated, in the Assembly, in its Committees and on the airwaves like no other issue in the history of devolution. The truth is that welfare reform needs to pass in Northern Ireland or else the existence of devolution will be in serious and immediate jeopardy. That is the fact of it. Without the enactment of the deal reached last week, the Executive’s budget will not work. More public money that could be spent on health and education will head back to the Treasury. Financial flexibility secured at Stormont House will collapse and the long-term sustainability of the Executive’s finances will be fatally undermined. On the whole, the agreement looks like a good deal for stability, for Unionism, for all parties and for Northern Ireland. We have a chance to go forth and build on all that has been achieved to date and to continue to build a new Northern Ireland for all our citizens.
I hope that the fresh start can be just that, but for now it is important that we make the transition from agreement to implementation as smoothly as possible. We have been waiting months for the agreement to cement Northern Ireland Assembly’s future, and today we are playing our part in that process, ensuring that—to use a recently used phrase—we are not on the wrong side of history. As our First Minister said in his last speech to the party conference as leader on Saturday, Ulster is no longer at the crossroads, but on the motorway to a better future. Building on the achievements of the Northern Ireland Executive, led by the DUP and Peter Robinson, we have secured the exemptions, subsidies and incentives we need to keep Northern Ireland moving forward: the promise of more than £500 million; formal structures that deal with the scourge of paramilitarism and confine that episode to the history books—where it belongs; more help for health, including financial commitments, including for those with mental health issues and other vulnerable people in our society; and, of course, the devolution of corporation tax, which, as many of us know, is a game changer.
David Simpson
My hon. Friend will have heard the speech from the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), who said that corporation tax was not a silver bullet. Is it not ironic that during the negotiations on the financial bail-out, one of the things the Republic of Ireland held on to was the corporation tax level?
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know corporation tax is not a silver bullet, but it would make a big, big difference to Northern Ireland. We see it as the catalyst for more jobs, a better economy, improved opportunities and the wage packets that people need in Northern Ireland, so we would like that issue resolved as well. As he said, Northern Ireland has for too long been at a competitive disadvantage from the Republic of Ireland’s much lower rate of corporation tax.
Mr Gregory Campbell
The day after the agreement was signed, the headline in one of the main newspapers in the Irish Republic was that the battle was on for jobs. They obviously appreciate the nature of the competition and the advantage that Northern Ireland will now have over them.
Jim Shannon
The battle is truly on, and the battle for us, as MPs, is to ensure that the jobs come to Northern Ireland, and that is what we will do. With Northern Ireland enjoying relative peace and a highly educated and motivated workforce, we now have the power to revolutionise its economy.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) misconstrued my argument. I said that corporation tax was a useful tool but not a silver bullet and that we could not continue to do without the necessary skills, apprenticeships and general training. Major companies, including Almac in his constituency, are having to move abroad. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, along with corporation tax, we need the necessary third-level education and skills?
Jim Shannon
For the record, the money to upskill the workforce to do those jobs is provided in the agreement. When it comes to further education or upskilling in companies or factories, the agreement gives us the chance to do something. We have to realise the good things about the agreement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) talked about people in the House and outside too often talking down Northern Ireland. That talk frustrates and scunners me. We need to consider the positives.
The Northern Ireland economy needs to bring in the quality and world-class jobs that too often our young people seek on other shores. We need to bring them home and give them the chance to do those jobs in Northern Ireland. The agreement does just what it says on the tin: it gives us a fresh start. Let us finish the job and keep Northern Ireland on that motorway to a better future. Moving forward, we do not want Northern Ireland to be a special case under any circumstances. Building the new and leaving behind the old still remains the aim, but it is hard earned, and provisions such as corporation tax and others in the deal will facilitate the transformation of Northern Irish society.
In conclusion, no Northern Ireland Member is enamoured with the proposed welfare reform legislation, which is why we opposed most of it, but we have to be realistic. Social security in Northern Ireland has always operated on the basis of parity with Great Britain. Refusal to enact reforms will come at a cost. Northern Ireland can and will pay a price to protect the most vulnerable, and the “Fresh Start” agreement does just that. It is time for sense to prevail. Northern Ireland will have the most generous welfare system in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We will also put our public finances back on a sound footing, not least by unlocking a sizeable financial boost from Her Majesty’s Government. Most importantly, however, we will have saved devolution.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Is it just me or if a constituency starts with “South” do others get depressed after that Member has spoken? It appears to be a trend. After the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) spoke, I was depressed. In fact, his analysis of Northern Ireland’s economic situation as a result of the crisis gave me a headache that not even aspirin could cure. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), too, depressed me when he told me that 5,000 jobs were going in my constituency. Thank goodness it was an exaggeration! It is depressing that 1,800 jobs are going and that another 500 will be affected, but they have not gone yet and efforts are being made to help people into better employment. Moreover, they will receive such generous redundancy payments—among the most generous ever—that they probably would not be entitled to the welfare reform package anyway, and we are hoping to move them into other manufacturing jobs. So the comparison of chalk with cheese comes to mind. Then, of course, we had the oration from the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie). At one point, I saw the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State flee, and I thought she was going to end up speaking to Jonathan Wood and Timothy Timber, while people ran to get some air and to revive because they were getting so depressed.
The picture is not that bad. That message has to go out loud and clear. It is not that bleak or awful.
Ian Paisley
Yes, they should cheer up. We should all cheer up.
I welcome the fact that Westminster is legislating on this matter. This is the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and if the Assembly is incapable or dysfunctional, this place should threaten to take those powers from it—and it should take them. Thankfully, some people, having made threats, saw the light. In that regard, we have seen an important change in the political regime. For years, when Sinn Féin threatened, Sinn Féin got. Mr Blair was quick to bend over for their every wish because they made threats. So I must salute the Government, because when Sinn Féin threatened, Tough Theresa stood up to them. When they threatened, Tough Theresa said no, and I think we should salute her for it. That was no roll-over Unionism from the Government, and we welcome it. We welcome the change of regime and the fact that Sinn Féin cannot go on making threats or suggesting ominously that things could come to a sore and sad end if it does not get its way.
I welcome the fact that that is no longer the case under this regime, but let us look at some of the U-turns that have been performed in the last year and a half, because they are amazing. In an Assembly debate, Martin McGuinness, the Deputy First Minister, made the most derogatory comments about the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), the Northern Ireland Minister at the time. He said that the Minister had entered into this debate
“in a very clumsy way”
and that he had
“ventured into areas of responsibility for the Assembly and the Executive—areas that he had no right to venture into.”
Last week, Mr McGuinness voted for this Minister to have a direct say in those affairs. He said one day, “You can’t go into that area,” and the next day he voted for this Minister to take these powers and make the decisions for him.
Mr McGuinness is well and truly on record as threatening Tough Theresa, going so far as to say on 5 September this year that
“Any move by the British government to impose…welfare”
reform on Northern Ireland
“would be a huge mistake”
that would seriously undermine devolution. Of course, it was Mr McGuinness—Mad Martin—who made the huge mistake of making a threat and then not being able to follow up on it.
Ms Ritchie
In the hon. Gentleman’s elaboration of his debating point, perhaps he could provide some elucidation of why Sinn Féin somersaulted. What happened in that meeting with the Prime Minister on 6 November to precipitate that somersault?
Ian Paisley
Here is what happened: an agreement was made—an agreement that the public can cast their eye on and then support or reject. Of course, the Assembly has already indicated that it will support it. We have had the mild approach by the hon. Lady, but she should be standing up to Sinn Féin tonight, poking them in the eye and telling them that they are the ones who have rolled over. She should be joining us and supporting us in this campaign. I welcome the fact that others have stood up to them.
Mr McGuinness also made very critical comments of what he called “millionaires’ row” in this House. He said that it was because of those millionaires that these terrible welfare reforms were being introduced. As it turns out, he has now asked the same millionaires to implement them because he could not do it.
I can understand why the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) and other Members in this House now look jealously at Northern Ireland. The welfare reform system, with its flexibilities, that we now have in place—and could have had over a year ago if we had been listened to then—is, to quote the Secretary of State, the most generous and best welfare reform system in the world. That is what she said last week. I welcome that fact, and I can understand why other Members are casting envious looks at Ulster at this time. I hope the flexibilities that have been introduced will demonstrate that we were correct to make the effort—both through our Department for Social Development at home and on these Benches—to secure them.
Those flexibilities should be reflected on briefly in this House. We have ensured, for example, that individuals on benefits in Northern Ireland will not be financially worse off as a result of the changes. We are ensuring that the moneys that Northern Ireland will spend will mean that a family on benefits will not be made worse off by the changes that are made—that they will be able to continue to budget on the sort of income that they have now. The frequency of universal payments that we will allow for will enable people to have payments made flexibly over a month, instead of just receiving a one-monthly payment. That is a very important change to help low-income families to manage their incomes wisely.
The split in universal credit will be flexible in Northern Ireland, so that people will not be penalised in the ways that, it is alleged in this House, mainland people in receipt of those payments could be penalised. We have also ensured the direct payment of universal credit to landlords, so that people can avoid getting into rent arrears. That is an important point to make. We have protection for those receiving housing benefit—my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) touched on those changes—and we have ensured that the sanctions for those on benefits will be changed. We will ensure that there will not be waste—that the right benefit goes to the right person at the right time—but that, for example, the strict sanctions with civil penalty provisions in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill will not apply and that the sanction period will be reduced to two years. For those who may face sanctions, it is important to make the point that a more forgiving system will be put in place.
Where both people in a home are on benefits and that home breaks up, we have also ensured that one claimant cannot spite the other claimant by stopping their benefit. There will also be good flexibility for joint claims in homes. There will be changes to the medical reports system in Northern Ireland—changes that I know are jealously looked at by Opposition Members from constituencies on mainland Britain. We have lone parent flexibility, which is not available to the same extent here, and there will be an extension of discretionary housing payments in the social sector.
Those measures and many, many more will help low-paid families in Northern Ireland and people on benefits. That is something that we strive to do because it is those families who have put us on these Benches and given us the privilege to speak for them. We are the voice for those voiceless people. We were prepared to speak up for them and make this welfare change, which was coming down the tracks, more palatable than it would have been otherwise. I am very proud of the stand that my party has taken to ensure that we made those changes and secured those flexibilities.
I welcome the point that the Minister of State made to us about how the Executive will be able to reclaim some of the financial penalties that Northern Ireland has already paid—and could be paying—and which the Treasury has already taken from the block grant. I look forward to the Minister calculating what they are and writing a nice big juicy cheque to give the money back to the Northern Ireland Executive at some time in the future.
As part of the “Fresh Start” agreement, a panel will be formed under one of the best known experts, Professor Eileen Evason, who will look at how the legislation is affecting people and will advise us on it. I do not think anyone who knows Eileen Evason or has followed her career could ever say that she is a patsy for anyone or will pull her punches. She will tell it as it is, and I believe people will listen, because her expertise far surpasses that of many people who deal with these issues in Northern Ireland. I think her advice and guidance will be most welcome.
The hon. Member for South Down made some calculations. It is important to put on record the facts about the amount of money that will be available. The Stormont Castle agreement made available an average of £90 million a year to mitigate the most harmful aspects of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. The fresh start initiative will make available £345 million over a four-year period. That is a significant difference, and that money is for the exact same purpose. In addition, the “Fresh Start” agreement is making available a further £240 million over those four years to deal with the proposed reductions in tax credits. Obviously we await the Chancellor’s statement on Wednesday to see how that will be fully calculated.
This is good for Northern Ireland. It could have been an awful lot worse. We could all easily get depressed, with some Members saying, “We just don’t want anything to do with it,” but we have to be engaged in the art of what is possible and practicable, and that is what we are trying to do as constituency Members in this House.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
My constituency does not have the term “south” in it, although I may have to begin by slightly depressing the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) by responding to one of the final points he made. He made some big claims about the “Fresh Start” deal, talking about how the original Stormont House deal provided for mitigation measures of £90 million a year on average, whereas the “Fresh Start” deal involves £345 million over four years. I think most people would know that four £90 millions comes to £360 million, which is slightly more than £345 million, if we are talking about the average over four years.
Many points have been raised in the debate—points that go far and wide away from the immediate subject of the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill. I will have to follow others in covering some of that ground, relating to the provenance of the whole debate and the Bill.
The SDLP, has been castigated and people have said, “Oh, you never tried to build consensus on welfare reform.” As I tried to explain in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), as far back as when the original legislation was going through this House, we tried with other Assembly parties to build a consensus in the then Assembly, to anticipate what the implications would be and not to wait for the legislation to be passed through this House, with the Assembly and a Minister being faced with the need to take forward karaoke legislation that would not be to our taste or liking. We tried in late 2011 to get a special committee set up in the Assembly precisely to do that on an all-party basis and to feed into the legislation as it was coming through this House.
Among the issues that we said we wanted to address at that time was the bedroom tax. When the legislation was going through, the SDLP was the only party from Northern Ireland that spoke about the implications of the bedroom tax for Northern Ireland and said that measures were needed to deal with it. There we were; we were adopting that approach in this Chamber, and we were trying to work with other parties in the Assembly properly to address those issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Down has said, as well addressing the issues in this Chamber, we were meeting the Minister for Welfare Reform, Lord Freud. Early in 2012, he acknowledged that many of the claims made by the hon. Member for North Antrim about allowing for flexibility and the split in universal payments were promised to us. He said that if the Assembly had a unified approach to trying to get those measures, they would be made available. We were promised that the Department for Work and Pensions would have no problem if the legislation for Northern Ireland included the direct payment of housing benefit to landlords. We were also promised that the DWP would make sure that the computer system it was bringing forward would allow for that.
Much of what is being called part of the conclusion to this good “Fresh Start” approach was always available—some of us had always worked on that basis and had always advocated it inside the Assembly, yet we were being told by DUP Members, including the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) who is unfortunately not in his place, that we were scaremongering when we expressed our concerns about the implications of this Bill.
The hon. Member for North Antrim, among others, has referred to the mitigation of sanctions, but again we fought and argued over that issue in the Assembly and in various all-party talks, trying to get agreement with all parties. We had useful discussions, not least with the DUP Minister for Social Development, about that and other matters. I do not think that anyone could say that at Stormont House 2014, the SDLP was found wanting in trying to make sure that we could reach some agreement and resolution on welfare reform.
As I have said, we subsequently ended up being castigated. Sinn Féin accused the SDLP of having sold out or caved in on welfare reform before anybody else, but the point we made in Stormont House was that we wanted to ensure that there would be mitigation and that any mitigation measures would be sustainable and within the devolved budget. That is why we indicated that we could go for a mitigation package. The First Minister told us on a Wednesday evening that officials were telling him that this “option C package”, as it was called—it was a combination of other options—would cost £93 million out of this year’s devolved budget.
The SDLP said that we wanted to see improvement in estimates in some areas, but that we could go with £100 million out of this year’s budget and the projections beyond that. The UUP wanted to see estimates improved and the Alliance had some concerns about the estimate being more than was allowed for in the budget, but said that it would go with the £93 million if it bought about a deal. Sinn Féin on that Wednesday evening said that it would not go with that. It said that it had to be “option C plus”, but it could not tell us what was in that option. It thought it would cost a lot more money. Sinn Féin representatives said that somebody somewhere in the building would be able to tell them, and they would be able to tell us.
By the Thursday evening, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister came into the Executive room where the five parties were meeting, and the First Minister informed us that he and Martin had been having conversations with each other and with officials, that they now had an agreement and that it would cost £94 million out of the budget. Once again, the SDLP position was that we wanted to see the estimates and that we would allow up to £100 million. That is what helped to bring about the fact that people saw that there was a way of solving welfare reform problems. The Stormont House agreement said that proposals would be developed and would be brought to the Assembly, but whenever the legislation came to the Assembly, it was exactly the same as the draft Bill that had existed before the Stormont House agreement. That is why the SDLP tabled amendments in the Assembly. They were not Bill-shattering amendments in any way, but they nevertheless triggered a petition of concern from the DUP, which had the effect of a veto. In any case, the amendments were voted down by both Sinn Féin and the DUP.
Ms Ritchie
Does my hon. Friend agree that those amendments were cost-neutral, which was clearly acknowledged by the Minister for Social Development?
Mark Durkan
Several of them were. Some would have had cost implications, but many were cost-neutral. That was one of the arguments that the Minister made at the time. We checked whether the British Government were consulted by the Minister or anybody else and asked whether there would be a problem if the amendments were passed, but the British Government made it clear that they were not consulted and that they had not acted against our amendments in any way. They were not saying that our amendments would have threatened to derail the Stormont House agreement or were in any way in breach of it. It was entirely the decision of Sinn Féin and the DUP to veto our amendments by the petition of concern and by voting against them.
You will not want me to anticipate the Committee stage too much, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the fact is that the amendments we have tabled for the Committee stage capture some of those same amendments. I ask people to read those amendments in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for South Down has said because they would not derail or damage the Bill.
On the wider politics of this matter I can perhaps reach some agreement with the hon. Member for North Antrim, because they involve a strange change of position on the part of Sinn Féin. All along, Sinn Féin said that it was going to oppose welfare reform completely. All along, it said that no claimant—now or in the future—would be a penny worse off as a result of any changes. SDLP Members said that we could not subscribe to that position. We said that could not pretend that we could guarantee by any tactics, in the Assembly or here, that we could protect every last penny of benefit for any existing claimant or any new claimants into the future. We were very clear, honest and honourable about that.
Sinn Féin election posters this year were on the theme of “Stop the Tory cuts”. Some of us said that Sinn Féin was in no position to stop Tory cuts unless it was in a position to stop a Tory Government, and, as a party that does not take up its seats, that was not going to happen. It was nonsense, but that is what Sinn Féin said. We were told by Conor Murphy:
“The Tories have no mandate in the north for their cuts agenda. The local parties need to make it clear that Tory cuts to public services and the welfare state are unacceptable.”
Now, apparently, those Tory cuts to the welfare state are acceptable to Sinn Féin. Martin McGuiness told us:
“I am not prepared to preside over the austerity agenda that the British government are inflicting on our executive. My conscience would not allow me to do it.”
Well, he has got over his conscience now, and he is quite happy; perhaps he is pretending to himself that he is not presiding over it by virtue of having handed the power to Westminster. I may now receive a voice-activated intervention from the Minister, who will tell us that the power has not been handed over and that Westminster will have a parallel, or concurrent, legislative power, which Stormont will also have. There will be a power switch on both walls, but only the power switch on the Westminster wall will be activated and used for the next 13 months during which, after the Bill is passed, a series of orders and regulations will be made.
We have been told about the sunset clause. Sinn Féin seems to be allowing some people to suggest, in social media, that it is a very clever thing, and that a big line is to be drawn in the sand at the end of 2016, because many of the more nefarious and controversial aspects of the current Welfare Reform and Work Bill are meant to kick in in 2017. The sunset clause, however, will apply only to the decision-making powers that are now being taken by the Secretary of State. It will not apply to the content or effect of any of the decisions that are made by him or her. All the changes that are made in direct rule legislation here, in Orders in Council and in other instruments, will still apply in 2017 and beyond.
We have heard many references to the Assembly’s legislative consent motion. We should bear in mind that it includes the words
“approves the welfare clauses of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill as initially introduced at Westminster”.
Some of us did not approve those clauses as they were initially introduced; we argued against them, and voted against them. I recall members of the DUP expressing concerns about some of those clauses, voting against them, and voting for amendments. Unusually, the legislative consent motion did not even make provision for amendments. Other such motions have not just allowed Westminster to pass a Bill, but allowed amendments to be tabled. For some reason, this motion precluded that.
Many of us are in difficulty because we are being asked, on Second Reading, to approve matters on which we have already voiced and recorded our disapproval. That applies not just to the SDLP, but to a number of other parties. We are being told to do that because it will be the great deal that will move everything forward. Members have touched on other aspects of the deal, but my concern relates directly to the Bill.
I am certainly not saying that we should set aside the mitigations and the other measures that have been so carefully agreed to. Indeed, I think that we should have done more work on those. I also think—I raised this at Stormont House in 2014—that we need to think, collectively, about whether there is the proper demarcation between Westminster and the Assembly in relation to welfare reform.
Perhaps we should look at what has been happening in Scotland. I am not suggesting that we should adopt an exact model of the Scotland Bill, but I think we should take account of some of the issues and ideas that have flowed from those debates. I think we should look to the longer term, and ensure that we do not fall into the trap of either allowing karaoke legislation to be pushed through the Assembly as a result of “budget bullying”, or creating the potential for political crises. There is a different delineation in the scope of the devolution of welfare in Scotland. I think that we may need to examine what is happening there, given the emphasis that many Members here have placed on some of the most sensitive benefits in Northern Ireland, relating to disabilities and other long-term conditions including mental ill health.
It was part of the original Stormont House deal in 2014 that parties would be prepared to look at how wider issues of devolution—not just tax, but benefits—were being handled elsewhere, with the aim of securing a more sustainable adjustment for the future. If we want to avoid the spasmodic crises in which parties end up trying to find a brink on which to teeter every time there is disagreement about important issues such as these, we may need to do something else.
When I raised the need to ensure that we were in a better position in the future and suggested ways of dealing with the medium to longer-term issues, I did not receive much support from members of other parties. The First Minister merely said that my problem was seeing around too many corners too early, and that perhaps we should just let some things go and they would be all right when we got to them. The fact is, however, that we anticipated a great deal of difficulty with welfare reform, which is why we argued for a different approach in the Assembly all those years ago, as well as here. We have been proved right, to the extent that, if we had all taken a different course together, we might be in a better position.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State power not just to translate the rules in relation to benefits from the 2012 Act, but, as the Minister has indicated, to prepare an Order in Council to translate proposals in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. The legislative consent motion refers to “the welfare clauses”. I note that the shadow Secretary of State did not receive an answer to his very fair question, which my party colleagues also asked in the Assembly last week: what exactly is meant by “the welfare clauses”? Some Members seem to believe that they do not include tax credits, but the Treasury now counts tax credits as welfare for many purposes, including the welfare cap. We have different notions of welfare, and the welfare measures in that Bill are not restricted to conventional social security benefits; they extend to tax credits as well. We have a right to more clarity, and I hope that the shadow Secretary of State will receive a clear answer to his question.
This has been a bit confusing. When my hon. Friend the Member for South Down pointed out that not all the tax credit losses would be covered by this package, we were told that tax credits were nothing to do with it because they did not constitute devolved welfare. At the same time, however, DUP Members have claimed that the mitigation on tax credits has been the significant part of the deal, and the main justification for accepting it. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that it must be counted for the purpose of one side of the argument, but not for the purpose of another side.
In response to the challenge presented by the fact that some are not prepared to work for consensus, the Secretary of State may well confirm that in the Stormont House talks we made it clear that we wanted all the parties to agree that the Institute for Fiscal Studies should be invited to provide us with a quick regional analysis of the implications of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill and the tax credit changes. That would also test the Secretary of State’s argument at the time that the Welfare Reform and Work Bill was a good deal for Northern Ireland—she used exactly the same words she is using for this Bill for the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, before the Government were moved to say they would amend it or mitigate it in some way. On these measures, she said that we needed to take account of the changes in terms of the tax thresholds and the national living wage that would make good the loss. We were saying, “Let’s get the IFS to do this so we’re not just relying on figures from our own officials in the Department for Social Development or anywhere else.” Again, however—surprise, surprise—the SDLP put forward an idea for all the parties to go with, that was informed and would have been neutral and constructive, but it was not supported. That was not for lack of action by us to try to take a consensus approach and make sure all parties have a better-informed approach in that regard.
We were being told by the Secretary of State—Sinn Féin and the SDLP in particular were being told this—both publicly from the Dispatch Box and in the talks that there would not be a deal on the past if there was not a deal on welfare reform. It was said that welfare reform had to be settled and move forward or else there would be no progress on the past. But now we have a deal that gives us welfare reform moving forward in the way the Government want—entirely in the Government’s hands—and we do not have a deal on the past moving forward. People want to know how that came about; it is not only the victims who want to know that.
When we listen to Sinn Féin on this, it tells us, on the past, “No deal is better than a bad deal,” but then we ask them about welfare reform, and they tell us, “A bad deal is better than no deal.” It is a complete contradiction; the only consistency is Sinn Féin’s inconsistency and lack of principle. Of course Sinn Fein might well try to tell us, “Oh no, we’ve delivered on our promise,” because Gerry Adams’s big promise was, “No one will have a reduction to any benefit under the control of the Assembly or the Executive.” So how does Gerry keep his promise? He removes it from the control of the Assembly or Executive and hands it to direct rule.
We must remember that it is direct rule we are giving; it is going back to the old Order in Council position. Such measures cannot be amended—indeed, the sponsoring legislation for the system we have tonight cannot even be amended either, unfortunately, because of the way the allocation of time motion works. That is what we are stuck with; that is the choice Sinn Féin has made and it has yet to explain adequately why.
Sinn Féin does not have the protections it says it wants, therefore, and it now tries to pretend that we are in a completely new situation because of 8 July—because the Chancellor announced a Budget on 8 July that changed everything and threatened a lot more people. We all knew there was going to be a Budget on 8 July. In fairness, Sinn Fein, like ourselves, pointed out during the election, and even back last year at Stormont House, that whatever package we had, if the Tories got back into government other cuts could be sought. There was speculation: sums of £12 billion or £16 billion were mentioned. We also knew that, even if Labour returned to government, it was committed to applying the welfare cap on a UK-wide basis. So we knew there were going to be difficulties. Therefore, for Sinn Féin to pretend that a completely new situation that nobody could have predicted came about with the return of the Conservative Government and the Budget of 8 July is completely wrong.
Sinn Féin’s argument back in July was that all parties should work together in facing the Government and we should join forces with Scotland and Wales as well. When some of us looked for that approach at the recent Stormont House talks, we found there were no real takers for it, not even Sinn Féin, which had advertised itself as the main sponsor and advocate of that way forward.
People will want to know why we have come to this position, therefore. They will want to know why Sinn Féin has used the so-called threat of collapse of the institutions to collapse its own position. We have known for some time that the DUP has been in something of a roll-over mode in relation to welfare reform legislation, because the DUP position has been that once the legislation went through Westminster—[Interruption.] The DUP position has been that, once the legislation went through Westminster, we have no choice but to go along with it; that has essentially been the line it has pushed in the Assembly. It also never objected to the fine and never raised any argument against it. One would think that it was almost in on it at the beginning as a tactic. The threat of a fine was never used before in relation to welfare changes, which were not always reflected in Northern Ireland on the basis of parity, but it was used this time. But essentially, the DUP’s position has been to say, “We weren’t really for that legislation when it went through Westminster”, even though there were parts of it that they did not really oppose. DUP Members actually voted down amendments from the House of Lords, including measures to protect child benefit from the benefit cap. The DUP’s position has been to say, “We have to comply with this”, whether in the name of parity or to avoid fines. It has adopted a roll-over approach.
Gavin Robinson
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is making every effort to build consensus on this issue. He has said on a number of occasions that this is “karaoke” legislation. Is he really saying that, while he is happy to follow the substance of what is being asked of him, he is having difficulty in striking the right tune?
Mark Durkan
The karaoke legislation is the legislation that goes through the Assembly. The Assembly is told that, in the name of parity, it has nominal legislative power, but it has to stick to the words and music set down by Whitehall; otherwise, there will be fines, penalties and threats. That kind of budget bullying would rightly not be accepted in relation to the new devolved procedures in Scotland. I am sure that the Treasury would think twice before daring to apply penalties and fines in relation to the concurrent decision-making powers that will apply under the Scotland Bill. The Minister talked about parallel powers. The Scotland Bill contains measures referring to decisions being made concurrently. Some decisions are to be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland and others by Scottish Ministers, but the clauses refer to decisions being made concurrently and to consultation. There is no suggestion that a disagreement between a Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers would result in the kind of budget penalties that have been invoked in the context of Northern Ireland. That brings me back to the point that we shall need to look at this in a wider context after we get over this particular episode.
I was making the point that the DUP has been in an acquiescent, roll-over mode for some time. The bizarre thing is that Sinn Féin is now in hand-over mode in this regard. Its best way of holding on to its position is to hand over power to the British Government—the Tory Government—and to give them direct rule in relation to these matters for 13 months. Some of us have tabled amendments that would provide a middle way, even though the DUP and Sinn Féin have already got a legislative consent motion through the Assembly. The effects of that could be mitigated if we were to pass amendments to better delineate the powers that the Secretary of State could exercise, as well as the other powers that we are told will remain seated with the Ministers in the devolved Assembly, not least those relating to the vexed question of sanctions. The hon. Member for North Antrim mentioned that in his speech.
Many people in this House have fundamental concerns about how the sanctions regime that stems from the 2012 Act operates. I have even heard Conservative MPs saying that, although they have no problem with the rationale behind the benefit changes in the Act, they have serious questions about the sanctions regime. I believe that Members from Northern Ireland and elsewhere share those concerns. Having listened to the debates on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill and the Scotland Bill this year, I know that Members have concerns about how the sanctions would apply in Scotland and elsewhere.
That is one reason why some of us are making decisions in the name of consensus. We think we are putting forward concerns that other parties have expressed, and we are trying to create a legislative answer to them and have trust in ourselves. After all, I heard the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) saying that we should not be talking down Northern Ireland and its institutions. Some of us are trying to maintain the democratic institutions there, even if Sinn Féin and the DUP have to let some of these matters go, and we should at least ensure that we hold on to our responsibilities relating to sanctions, among other things. We have to do more than have a form of devolution that says, “Yes, we have all the power and we are making all the decisions, but this one we didn’t want. A big boy made me do it.” Sinn Féin’s answer this time is, “A big girl is going to do this for us.” I refer to “Tough Theresa”, or whatever the hon. Member for North Antrim is going to call her. That is not good enough, because if we are to give people confidence, we have to show that we are serious about using our powers when we have them and not let them go. That applies to the corporation tax power as well as to other things that other people talk about.
The final point I wish to make is about the wider aspect of the fresh start. Some of us made strong contributions about paramilitarism during the Stormont House talks. We emphasised, and shared papers with other parties about, a whole community approach to rooting out all traces and vestiges of paramilitarism in our society—not just singling out groups and singling out parties. We suggested a common declaration that should be taken by everybody. We put forward those proposals—we did not see proposals from other parties. We are glad that some of our proposals have found their way into the fresh start, but we think the proposals there could be better, stronger and more amplified. Similarly, we proposed a whole enforcement approach, covering all the policing agencies and the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs pursuits that should be undertaken, including those on a cross-border basis. We sought a whole community approach and a whole enforcement approach.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) has said that he was disappointed about the wider economic aspect of the package, and we see the reason for that when we compare what is in the package with the range of proposals and ideas that my party put forward and shared with other parties. I hear Conservative Members talk about the importance of reducing corporation tax so that we can compete with the south, and somebody was quoting a recent newspaper headline. We need to remember that our task in the north is not just to compete with the south with a comparable rate of corporation tax; we need to recognise that the south has built up because of its huge investment in further and higher education and in skills, and a very significant investment in infrastructure, and we are not matching that in the north. It is not there in the current programme for government and it is still not there in the vision after the fresh start. We need to be moving a lot further on that.
It is not only the south we need to be competing with; we need to recognise that as a regional economy, localities and city constituencies such as mine are having to compete with cities and city regions on this island, too, which are benefiting from things such as city deals and various other packages and measures. Although I do not buy all of the bluff and guff that goes with the whole northern powerhouse idea and so on, the fact is that significant drivers for economic growth are being given, and they are allowing cities and regions to shape things for themselves and we are leaving ourselves out of them in Northern Ireland. We should have had something in the class of city deals as part of this package, too.
Where there are positive things that allow us to move forward on issues, my party is prepared to recognise them. We are not going to be in denial about those things where there are difficulties. As ever, we need to build on what we have. We might not like exactly how we got here and we might not like the detail, but we always have to build forward—that remains our approach. As we build forward, we have to remember that the Assembly is meant to take on its responsibilities and to meet them, and it should not have been sliding over as handily as it did just to spare the blushes of Sinn Féin. The hon. Member for North Antrim says we are being too light on Sinn Féin, but we must recall why the motion has been put through here in the way it has been. We must remember why it is all being done so fast and why no amendments can be tabled. That is all designed to minimise the difficulty and the embarrassment for Sinn Féin. The timing of all this is not just to convenience the step-down by the First Minister; it is to cover and convenience the climbdown by Sinn Féin.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
It is interesting to follow the fascinating and detailed contribution from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), with its insight into welfare reform. Let me make it clear at the outset that the name of my constituency does not begin with the word “south”—or indeed with the word “north”—but it does have “South” contained within it. I am happy to live up to that record—I hope it will not be as depressing in the minds of some as others have been or claim to be. My aspirin has already gone, so I think I will move on.
The Secretary of State, who is not in her place at the moment, must feel privileged to be referred to as “tough Theresa”. It certainly goes way beyond some of the names that I recall other Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland being called in the past. For example, I remember “Traitor” and “Lundy” to name but a couple, and there are loads more as well.
I am pleased that welfare reform is moving forward, because we could not continue as we were. I also wish to put it on the record that I, too, was disappointed that this did not go through the Northern Ireland Assembly for a reasonable and proper debate. I did note some Members saying, “Why shouldn’t the UK Parliament legislate for it? It has every right to.” Of course it has every right to do so. I do not deny that, and nor does my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan). However, the reality is that we have devolution, and under devolution we should debate these issues, but, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said, if there is a dysfunctional and unworkable Assembly, why should the UK Parliament not legislate? That is right. If the Assembly is dysfunctional, then, yes, let us legislate, and that is exactly what we are doing.
I must say though that had we had the debate in the Assembly, we might have achieved more clarity. For example, nearly £600 million will come from other Northern Ireland Departments to support welfare reform and tax credits. We could have had some indication of where that money was going to come from and what Departments would be affected—would it be Health, Regional Development, or Culture, Arts and Leisure? In bringing this matter to this place, that is the type of debate we are missing, but we are where we are, and that is what we must progress with. I want to reiterate once again that I am pleased to see welfare reform progress, because we could not continue as we were.
I assume that some parties in this House will have huge difficulties with this. The parties that voted against welfare reform in the past will find it hard to support this legislation. That may be so, but we must progress. Yes, Northern Ireland is getting a better deal in respect of money coming in to welfare reform and substituting for tax credits, but let us not forget that that money is coming from our own Northern Ireland block grant, which means that it will have to come out of other Departments and it will have to be paid for by the Northern Ireland Executive moneys. I noted that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) made an all-out attack on the Ulster Unionist party. He has every right to do so, and I am sure there will be more of that as time goes on. We will just take it as it comes.
Tom Elliott
Yes, we will do that as well. The right hon. Gentleman pointed his finger at the Ulster Unionist party, saying that we were to blame for what we have. Yes, it is easy to lay the blame on the Ulster Unionists, but let me remind him that his party has been the largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly for the past 12 years. We still have the IRA army council in place, the IRA with arms and IRA members shooting people on our streets. I would prefer it if that were not the case, but that is the reality. I say to him that he should not point the finger at the Ulster Unionist party. His party has had 12 years to make the running in Northern Ireland, and take a lead on the issues. It is time that we made some progress.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention. I just want to prompt him to pay tribute to a Nobel peace prize winner. We do not have many in Northern Ireland, but Lord Trimble is certainly one of them, and he gave very courageous leadership to the Ulster Unionist party when it needed it. I am speaking as one who has been in the Ulster Unionist party and who is proud to say that about him.
Tom Elliott
I thank the hon. Lady for paying that tribute to Lord Trimble. I agree with her, and I would pay tribute also to John Hume, another former Member of this House. Indeed, I also wished Peter Robinson a happy retirement here in this Chamber the other day. I think that all Members make a contribution to our society. David Trimble and John Hume took risks. I have to say that, for me, that sometimes went too far, but I said that at the time. I was open and upfront about the fact that I thought a better deal was on the table, but we are where we are. We need to progress, and we need to rid Northern Ireland of terrorism, paramilitarism and criminality. The fact that that has not happened yet is a huge failure in our society.
We need to ensure that welfare reform protects the most vulnerable in our society, and I hope that we will do that, but we will not know the workings of that until a few years have passed. Why have we wasted so much time? The welfare reform legislation passed through this House three years ago. Why have we wasted time, money and energy in Northern Ireland by not progressing it? I do not agree with all the welfare reform changes, but that reform is here. It is part of our society, and we should be moving forward. It has cost our society in Northern Ireland dearly. To see that one only has to look at how the health waiting lists have spiralled over the past few months. We are told that that is because money is coming out of healthcare to support welfare institutions. We could not progress the way we were going.
In Northern Ireland we have our fair share of the most vulnerable in society because of the decades of our troubles. We need to protect those people but we also need a practical, sensible review and we need reform. We could not continue as we were. People need to be realistic and accept that we need to build our economy in Northern Ireland the way the economy is being built everywhere else. We are all happy to play our part in that—I do not think that any Member in this Chamber would disagree—but we need society to play its part as well. We need people to accept that if we are to build a consensus in Northern Ireland, it has to be genuine. We have to rid our society of those criminals who are fuel-laundering, those who are still out shooting people and those who rule by the gun and the bomb. We cannot allow that to continue, and we need society to stand up to those people and say, “Enough is enough.” We need to move forward.
I am pleased that we are progressing with welfare reform. I heard some of the detailed explanations given by the hon. Member for Foyle. I will not repeat that detail, but there are many aspects of this that will be challenging for society in Northern Ireland over the next number of years—not least will be the challenge for other Departments as to where the £585 million will come from over the next four years.
Vernon Coaker
I thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I will start with the comments of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott) who was asked to join in a tribute to David Trimble. It is important that we remember those giants of history who have contributed to where we are now. In a very decent way, the hon. Gentleman went on to talk about John Hume, another giant who helped Northern Ireland to progress to where we are at present. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the announcement made by Peter Robinson at the weekend. I had the privilege of speaking to Peter for a few minutes on Saturday. He is another man who has made an enormous contribution. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone realised what he then said. Hansard will correct me if I have got it wrong and I shall apologise, but I think he said that they all took risks to move forward. Sometimes it is important that people who lead take a leap and take a risk in order to move forward.
In a powerful speech, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) said that we have to try to move on from welfare reform. That said it all. We cannot be trapped by it. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said that the stalemate that existed has had not only a financial cost but a credibility cost for the institutions of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman was right when he pointed that out. Of course it is difficult and of course it poses challenges, but the agreement offers a way forward.
There are challenges for the Government too. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) pointed out in his contribution, it would be helpful if the Government could provide clarification on the questions that I and others asked, in order to inform our discussion. Notwithstanding the need to paint a positive picture of Northern Ireland, we would all agree that it is a great place, it is open for business and investment is going there. I know the Minister would agree that, as the hon. Members for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) pointed out, it is important that alongside a welfare package, there is a jobs and growth programme to ensure that every community in every part of Northern Ireland benefits from opportunity, jobs and investment. That is something that the Government, working with the Northern Ireland Executive, would benefit from if they pursued it with more rigour and more vigour.
The Minister can, like the Secretary of State, if I may chide her slightly, comment from a Treasury brief that X number of jobs have been created and X millions of pounds have been invested, but for some those opportunities are not available and that needs to be addressed.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) helpfully pointed out that part of the reason that the welfare reform changes are acceptable is the flexibilities that are built into the system and the top-ups that are available. Clearly, those will have to be worked out on the basis of the report to be done by Evason. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a little more about that when he winds up the Second Reading debate.
The hon. Member for Foyle, as I said, has been a determined welfare campaigner. I set out some questions, he set out some questions, and they need to be answered—
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is approaching the end of an extremely important speech, which was greeted with great support in all parts of the House. When the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) quoted from Ecclesiastes 3, he referred to everything having a season. Like everyone else in the House, I thought of the following line:
“a time to break down, and a time to build up”.
Is this not the occasion when we must start to build up?
Vernon Coaker
I thank my hon. Friend for that. He said that I could put it into my remarks, but I do not have the confidence in biblical matters that he has. I sometimes need biblical help.
In the end, the failure to agree in Northern Ireland could have resulted in the collapse of devolution or the return of direct rule—a situation that is not acceptable to any of us. Because a majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly has consented, we are legislating here on welfare reform, and legislating in a way that will enable Northern Ireland to move forward and continue to make the progress we all want.
Mr Wallace
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the debate. It has certainly been a powerful debate with many powerful contributions. I totalled up the amount of time spent on Members’ speeches, and the average length was 23 minutes. There have been many Second Reading debates in which Members have had only three or four minutes to speak, whether on an important subject such as this or about other matters. That shows that, despite the concerns about the legislative timetable, Members from Northern Ireland have been able to get their points across in the most powerful ways. Of course, we should not be surprised about that. I have never felt that oratory is dead in Northern Ireland. One cannot be trained in oratory; one is born with it. It is a gift that falls on all the Northern Ireland politicians I have met, or nearly all, from whichever side of the divide or the debate they come. Many Members from elsewhere in the United Kingdom have enjoyed their contributions today.
It is important to answer many of the points raised during the debate. I start, of course, with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). I thank him for his support throughout this whole process. He has shown real leadership throughout, as before the election did his predecessor, the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis). I know that it was not always easy for Labour Members to talk about the welfare reforms that we were proposing, but nevertheless they showed real leadership. One of the reasons we are here today is that Labour has supported the Government throughout this process.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to spell out the timetable for the order. The order envisaged in the Welfare Act 2012 will be introduced imminently once this Bill is passed, as I hope it will be. The Order in Council covering the Welfare Reform and Work Bill would be introduced if and when that Bill is successfully enacted. Obviously, we could not do anything before then.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Evason group. We hope that all its recommendations would be subject to the Assembly’s approval and that it would be in the power of Ministers in the Executive to take them forward should they choose to do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the December 2016 timetable. That was the timetable that all parties envisaged would allow us to put in place the welfare reforms that were required and to take account of any changes between then and now. It is important that there is time for those to bed in when enacted.
Finally, on the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about economic prosperity for Northern Ireland, the economic pact is alive and well; it has not been rescinded or changed. There is still the potential for a city deal, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said. That is in the gift of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Vernon Coaker
I asked one other question that is quite important—namely, which of the clauses in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill will relate to the orders that are to come after the passing of this enabling legislation?
Mr Wallace
I was getting on to that, and indeed I have the answer. The Welfare Reform and Work Bill is about more than just welfare. For example, it has clauses on full employment reporting obligations and apprenticeship reporting obligations that would not be considered to be welfare measures, while on the other hand it has a benefit cap that would be so considered. If he looks at the Bill, the hon. Gentleman will see that some parts directly impact on welfare, as welfare measures, while others, such as the reporting mechanisms, do not. I will be happy to write to him in detail subsequently.
The hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) made a strong contribution. I always feel and understand his heartfelt compassion for his constituents who are on benefits and welfare. I pay tribute to him for his leadership of the SDLP and the good grace with which he has taken the recent change of leadership. I look forward to continuing to help and support him in trying to make sure that his constituents get into work and off benefits. We are really determined to make sure that the economic pact delivers for Northern Ireland, alongside the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) made known his view that the UUP was locked out of the process and the concerns it raised were not addressed. Every single one of the UUP’s concerns, including a sustainable budget, legacy issues, paramilitary monitoring and organised crime, is addressed in this deal. They were addressed previously in the Stormont House deal and they are addressed in the new deal that we have before us tonight. The deal also comes with a significant amount of money: £185 million of new money will be made available to tackle paramilitarism and organised crime in Northern Ireland.
I add my tribute to that given by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) to his party leader. On devolution, the departing First Minister has navigated a very difficult course. I was in the Scottish Parliament in the late 1990s, so I know that devolution is not straightforward, and devolution in a multi-party system is even harder. It is a real tribute to him that he has managed to bring Northern Ireland to this point and secured a new start with this deal. I hope that whoever follows him—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman’s powerful speech was a leadership bid—will continue in the same vein. As the shadow Secretary of State has said, this is about leadership. It is also about taking risks with one’s own electorate, not just those on the opposite side.
I say to the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) that it was not our wish, either, that the Bill be taken through in this way. We do not want Westminster to have to pull back some of the powers to pass welfare legislation. If we were in a different place at a different time, the Stormont Assembly would have agreed it, but unfortunately Northern Ireland needs consensus and the SDLP is just one of the parties involved. Although I admire its determination for consistency on welfare reform, the fact of the matter is that we could not let the situation continue.
We asked the Assembly to pass a legislative consent motion, and it is important that I put on the record its wording:
“That this Assembly consents to the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill 2015 being taken forward by the Westminster Parliament; approves the welfare clauses of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill as initially introduced at Westminster; the draft Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015; and the Executive’s proposals to enhance payments flowing from the agreement announced on 17 November 2015.”
Who are we to override that legislative consent motion? We believe in devolution, and a legislative consent motion from the devolved Parliament is asking this House to resolve the lack of consensus on welfare, to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.
I say to the hon. Member for Belfast South that the biggest barrier to lifting people out of poverty in Northern Ireland is a dysfunctional Northern Ireland Assembly. Devolution, when it works, will deliver a better deal for the people of Northern Ireland, and it is important that we get over the current barrier by passing time-limited measures in this House, so that we can move forward together.
Tom Elliott
I appreciate the Minister’s helpful summary, but does he accept the assertion made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that the deal is being approved by this House only because the Northern Ireland Assembly is dysfunctional and unworkable?
Mr Wallace
I do not think that the Northern Ireland Assembly is dysfunctional. It deals with people’s problems and issues every day. The Ministers I have met since my appointment make daily decisions that can result in improvements. On welfare, however, after four years of the tortuous freezing of government, something had to be done. If the Northern Ireland Assembly grasps the deal that the parties have achieved, the future will be all to play for. The ability to deliver and to improve the lives of people in Fermanagh and South Tyrone is better than the situation for many of my constituents. A lot of Members who are not from Northern Ireland will be slightly envious of the flexibility, funding and generous package on offer to the people of Northern Ireland. We do that with good will, because we want Northern Ireland to move away from its troubles and give the best chances to its people.
Ms Ritchie
Perhaps the Minister could take a little liberty and spell out some of the mitigation measures relating to in-work credits that the Chancellor might outline on Wednesday as part of the comprehensive spending review.
Mr Wallace
As much as I might like to say that the Chancellor rings me up to consult me on such major issues from time to time, I, like the hon. Lady, will have to wait and see.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his kind comments about me and the Secretary of State. I want to place on the record that without the Secretary of State’s determination and patience this deal may never have happened. Patience is a quality that many politicians do not possess, but she certainly does. [Interruption.] I am always for a good career move, but it is true.
It is tempting to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim down the path of his speech about Unionism and the sovereign Parliament, but I shall resist doing so. Suffice it to say that I will help him to lobby the Mayor of London for more buses from Wrightbus in his constituency, and I will do everything I can to help him and Ministers in the Executive to facilitate jobs to mitigate the losses at Michelin. Ministers from the British Government are all here to help job prospects in Northern Ireland, and I will continue to do so.
I say to the hon. Member for Foyle that we had to move forward on the issue of tax credits and welfare reform in Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, the fact is that there was no consensus, and in the end it was important to resolve this issue. Northern Ireland could not continue to lose the money every day and every week because it could not implement the welfare changes that people deserve.
Lady Hermon
The Minister has talked about the issues that have attracted consensus and those that have not. He will know that the Stormont House agreement did reach consensus about dealing with the legacy of the past. So much so in fact, that in late October the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was circulated with draft clauses on dealing with the past. What on earth has happened to them? Have they been scuppered by the deal on welfare reform?
Mr Wallace
The agreement refers to continuing to try to address the legacy. I wish that was covered in the Bill and that we were dealing with it now—I and the team have spent a lot of time working on that draft legislation—but the issue has not gone away. We need to deal with it, and we will continue to consider the options. I ask the hon. Lady to recognise that the Northern Ireland Assembly still has the ability to get on and deal with the legacy should it so wish. I urge it to start that process, because we cannot just move on in relation to welfare and leave the legacy issue behind. I agree with her, and I will be pressing the parties to take forward that issue.
Mark Durkan
Is the Minister now suggesting that the Assembly, having passed legislation on welfare reform to Westminster, should act under its own steam to legislate in relation to the past?
Mr Wallace
I am merely stating the reality: the Assembly has the power not only to pass welfare reform, but to deal with the legacy. A lot of what this is about is the lack of consensus in the Assembly. This issue is not about where power resides, but where purpose and determination reside in some of the parties. We hope, as does nearly everyone in Northern Ireland, that the legacy issue is dealt with. We will give support throughout the process for that to be done, and we urge the parties to do it.
Lastly, I hear what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott) says on the UUP’s concerns about the paramilitaries and the past. I, too, share such concerns. That is why we have got £185 million more to invest in pursuing and monitoring paramilitaries or ex-paramilitaries, as they may or may not be. It is really important to continue to keep a lid on the security situation and persuade people away from the path of violence to make sure that the only things about which we disagree in future are things such as welfare reform and the main social policy issues. I do not want to have to deal with paramilitaries in my back garden any more than he does. That is why we should all welcome the fact that the fresh start will bring £185 million to the table to continue to support the police—the PSNI—and the security services in monitoring paramilitary activity.
We should remember what the Bill is not about. It is not intended to diminish Northern Ireland’s devolution settlement. It is not a power grab by the UK Government. As I have said, we would much rather not have had to intervene at all, but the Bill is necessary finally to resolve the welfare reform impasse. That is what the Bill is about. It is intended to secure a fresh start, to provide political stability and to secure a basis for the Executive’s budget. I urge the House to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:06 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 171 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mark Durkan
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 3, at beginning insert
‘Subject to subsection (3A) below,’.
This amendment provides limitations on the Secretary of State’s power to recommend that an Order in Council be made affecting social security and child support maintenance, and employment and training for employment, in Northern Ireland.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Alan Meale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
‘(3A) An Order in Council under subsection (1) or any order or regulations under subsection (2) may not, in particular—
(a) prescribe a period of more than 3 days for which a universal credit claim does not arise;
(b) provide for any sanction period of more than 26 weeks;
(c) amend section 129A (appropriate maximum housing benefit) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992;
(d) provide for a benefit cap;
(e) make any limit on the number of children for which any child benefit, child tax credit or child element of universal credit can be claimed;
(f) specify or determine the level or form of sanctions;
(g) make any provision or have any effect which would provide a claimant with less than 15 days’ notice in which to provide a good reason why sanctions should not be applied in that claimant’s case.’.
This amendment limits the changes that the Secretary of State may make through an Order in Council as regards sanctions, a benefit cap, entitlement to child benefit and limitations on housing benefit, leaving these issues to be dealt with under the existing devolved arrangements.
Amendment 3, page 2, line 6, at end insert
‘and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Provided that the text of the statutory instrument containing the Order shall be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly seven days before approval can be given.’.
This amendment requires that the Northern Ireland Assembly approves a draft of any Order in Council made under this bill before it is made, and that sufficient time is given for due consideration.
Clause stand part.
New clause 1—Duty to report—
‘(1) In respect of an Order in Council under section 1(1) or any order or regulations under section 1(2) the Secretary of State will, within twelve months, publish a report of its operation which must include—
(a) comparative data and information on numbers of claimants and, where relevant, dependants and the relative value of benefits, allowances, payments or credits so as to reflect any difference in provision before and after the operation of the order or regulation;
(b) assessment of any impact in respect of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; and
(c) reflection of observations from independent welfare advice service providers.
(2) In publishing any report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must—
(a) lay the report before the House of Commons;
(b) send the report to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly; and
(c) be available to appear before a committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly to address, or answer on, the report.’
This amendment confers a responsibility on the Secretary of State to report on the first twelve months of operations and impacts on any orders made under this Act. It would ensure the Secretary of State had to lay the report before the House of Commons, send the report to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly and appear before a Northern Ireland Assembly committee.
Mark Durkan
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, even if it is not a pleasure to be dealing with this sort of fast-track, microwave legislation. It is unfortunate that, under the terms of the allocation of time motion, although my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and I have been able to table these amendment and will be able to speak to them, we will not be able to vote on them. We tabled amendments 1, 2 and 3 and new clause 1 in this group and another amendment that will be discussed along with clause 3 stand part in a later group. I will stay off that for now.
The Second Reading debate went a lot wider than the content of the Bill. In Committee, we will look at the Bill as we debate the clauses and amendments. I will introduce our amendments by following up on what we said on Second Reading. Our amendments would create a different delineation and more definition in respect of what functions will be exercised, following the legislative consent motion and the passage of the Bill, by the Secretary of State and what functions will remain to be exercised by a devolved Minister working through the devolved Assembly. For us, that seems to be a more sensible way to do things.
Our amendments relate to issues that Members of this House from different parties in Northern Ireland and, indeed, from beyond Northern Ireland have expressed concerns about and that a wide range of people in the Northern Ireland Assembly have expressed concerns about. Therefore, we do not think it would do any injury to the course that the Secretary of State says will be open after the passage of the Bill or to the path forward on welfare reform that the DUP has talked about for these amendment to be considered.
We are told that it is entirely compatible for the same powers to be held concurrently in the Assembly and in Westminster. It must be equally compatible if we make sure that there is agreement and understanding about who will take the lead in respect of each particular function, given the sensitivities and issues involved. If the powers that are taken by the Secretary of State are about satisfying the requirements of the Treasury and others in respect of levying fines and penalties and controlling the rules and rates for benefits, some of the other matters, such as the flexibility of administration and sanctions, could safely and properly be left with the devolved Assembly and the devolved Minister. That is the purpose of amendments 1, 2 and 3. I will address new clause 1 separately.
Amendment 1 would provide some exceptions to the powers that will come to the Secretary of State. Clause 1(3) provides a sweeping range of powers for the Secretary of State in respect of Orders in Council or subsequent regulations, and the amendment would introduce a new subsection to qualify those powers. Amendment 2 would restrict the exercise of powers that would come to the Secretary of State, so that direct rule powers could not be used to
“prescribe a period of more than 3 days for which a universal credit claim does not arise”—
again, that picks up on an issue that has been voiced by many people, not just those in Northern Ireland but people coping with benefits in Britain.
Under amendment 2, the Secretary of State would not have power to
“provide for any sanction period of more than 26 weeks”,
or to amend housing benefit under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992. The Secretary of State would also not be allowed to
“provide for a benefit cap”,
and as the Minister told us when winding up the Second Reading debate, changes to the lower rate of the benefit cap under the current Welfare Reform and Work Bill will come in a subsequent Order in Council following this Bill. Many hon. Members—including DUP Members —expressed concern about the lowering of that benefit cap and voted to amend or oppose it, so I would have thought it entirely consistent for them to support an amendment to limit the power of the Secretary of State in that regard.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Gentleman has gone through a list of the changes he wishes to see. His colleague, the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), said that he believes that these changes will be cost-neutral. Will he explain which of his amendments will cost money to the Executive, and which will bring more money in so that they balance out?
Mark Durkan
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Down, I said that some of these amendments are cost-neutral. That was what the Minister told us at the time, and some of those points can be repeated for this exception. The Minister in the Assembly said that some of these proposals were cost-neutral. However, some of them will not be cost-neutral, and I make no pretence in that regard.
Proposed new subsection 3A would deny the Secretary of State the right to
“make any limit on the number of children for which any child benefit, child tax credit or child element of universal credit can be claimed”.
Many people have opposed the two-child rule, and the amendment would mean that we do not hand that rule to the Tory Secretary of State when many of us are opposed to it.
Tom Elliott
To follow up the question from the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), if some of the amendments are not cost-neutral, where does the hon. Gentleman think the money will come from? Will it come from the block grant and the £585 million currently in place, or from Her Majesty’s Government?
Mark Durkan
Those matters will have to be properly negotiated and determined. We have also been told about a possible revision by the Chancellor on his approach to some of these matters—in fairness, it is not only Opposition Members who have raised questions about aspects of the two-child rule and some of the other changes. This is about ensuring that we do not unduly hand more powers to the Secretary of State than the Assembly might want. We have been told by the Minister that although the Secretary of State will have these powers, the Assembly will have the same powers and can move on these matters should it wish. The question about whether to make provision for these issues or whether to do things differently will arise for the Assembly in any case.
Proposed new subsection 3A(f) would deny the Secretary of State the power to specify or determine the level or form of sanctions, and paragraph (g) would disallow the power for the Secretary of State to
“make any provision or have any effect which would provide a claimant with less than 15 days’ notice in which to provide a good reason why sanctions should not be applied in that claimant’s case.”
Those two provisions pick up on concerns aired in England by various welfare advice services, Churches and charities on the basis of their experience. Those concerns have, in turn, been reflected in Northern Ireland.
One thing puzzles people in Northern Ireland when they ask, “How did they come to this deal?” People might understand that parties have yielded from their previous position because of budget exigencies—the penalties and fines squeezing tighter—and that maybe they have said, “Well, we cannot hold out on the position of trying to protect everybody on all benefits.” We never took that position. We thought Sinn Féin had taken an impossible stand with the promise to protect all benefits for all times. But people want to know why it changed its position. It is one thing to move in relation to benefit rules and annually managed expenditure that then flows to Northern Ireland for the social security agency to administer benefits to people, but why, if there were those sorts of budgetary reasons for shifting, did it have to move on the sanctions regime as well?
A very sensible course could have been to differentiate between power over the sanctions regime and the other powers. After all, we have been told by some hon. Members on Second Reading that the first Order in Council under the direct rule powers will contain a differential on sanctions arrangements between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, even though another DUP Member told us that under the power the sanction arrangements would have to be the same and that we could not differentiate. We have been told there is a differentiation, but if the direct rule power will be differentiated surely it would be better to say that decisions on the level and form of sanctions, and what mitigations might be brought in on the application of sanctions, should remain a devolved matter. After all, it will still be devolved civil servants taking those decisions, engaging with claimants and talking to them about these sensitive matters. We therefore tabled amendment 2 to qualify the Secretary of State’s powers.
When one recalls all the fundamental objections to welfare reform and Tory cuts, and the rhetoric used—for instance by Sinn Féin—most of it was reserved for the Tory sanctions and preventing them from being imposed. Sinn Féin, like others, pointed to evidence on the number of people who have died while enduring benefit sanctions. Questions have been raised about inquests and other reports. It therefore seems strange that there was no apparent effort on the part of Sinn Féin, or anybody else negotiating the deal, to differentiate between the power on sanctions and the actual determination on benefit rates and rules. If the skin in the game for the Treasury is meant to be that it wants to know that welfare spending in Northern Ireland is roughly on a par or in line with Great Britain after the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, it really did not need to go the whole way of having direct rule sanctions. A better deal could have been struck.
Amendment 3 provides that the Assembly should be notified of any Orders in Council or regulations created by the Bill—we are told they will last for only 13 months —and that there should be Assembly approval of any draft order made under the Bill. It’s funny: lots of hon. Members have said that we should pass the Bill unthinkingly, unquestioningly and without amendments because the Assembly passed a legislative consent motion, yet those of us who have tabled amendments are saying we want the Assembly to have the power of legislative consent so that these issues can be better scrutinised and the interests and rights of the Assembly’s constituents can be voiced.
Ms Ritchie
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.
It does not seem very long ago since we were debating the Second Reading of this Bill. Like my colleagues in the SDLP, I would have preferred all stages of the Bill to be taken through the Northern Ireland Assembly, because we believe in the primacy of devolution and in, shall we say, the primacy of Parliament. The role of Parliament should not be subjugated by the Executive or the Cabinet.
The amendments, which my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has spoken to—the Government have muzzled us by preventing us from pushing them to a vote—are about curtailing the Secretary of State’s power, because we believe in respecting and upholding the democracy of devolution. My hon. Friend has highlighted the purpose of the amendments, which is to provide greater clarity and definition of the powers that will reside with the Assembly and those that will reside with the Secretary of State.
On such a critical issue as welfare, the various aspects of which have such an impact—whether it is the benefit cap, sanctions or the four-year benefit freeze—it is important for the Secretary of State or the Minister to clarify tonight where the power lies and where it is delineated between the Assembly and here in Westminster. As my hon. Friend has said, we want to know who will take the lead on each of these powers.
On new clause 1, we are anxious to ensure that there are full measures of transparency and accountability, and that the Secretary of State gives evidence on the detail of the claimants and gives detail on the assessments in respect of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which deals with equality implications. We know that in the case of Northern Ireland, perhaps because of legacy issues stemming from the conflict and the troubles, and perhaps because of levels of disability and mental illness, there is a proportionately larger number of people eligible for benefits and in receipt of them. As I say, that may follow from the trauma they have faced and the degree of mental illness they may have suffered or because of the lack of access to jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) has said, we need equal investment of resources in jobs, skills and training to ensure that we are able to develop a balanced approach to regional development. We want to know what will be the impact of all these measures on individuals in the wider community.
When it comes to accountability, therefore, it is important that the Secretary of State, in keeping with new clause 1, lays a report in the House of Commons, sends the report to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly and appears before the relevant Committee. That could be the Social Development Committee or the new communities Committee. That will depend on what happens with our amendment 4, which would limit the Secretary of State’s power to June 2016, and would involve a new mandate and a new Department as per the requirements of the Stormont House agreement.
We are seeking clarification this evening; we are not seeking to disturb or dismantle. We are trying to make a Bill much better, much more accountable and much more effective to ensure that there is a better deal for benefit claimants.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell
It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I will be brief in the interest of time. For me, however, this Bill should not have come before this House in the first place, and it would not have done so if the DUP and Sinn Féin had faced up to their responsibilities instead of avoiding the hard decisions and handing control of welfare back here. However, this is the situation we face, which is why we SDLP Members have tabled a number of amendments. They have been well outlined in detail by my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie), and I may refer to them generally later.
The amendments will limit the involvement of the Secretary of State in the welfare system—or the out-workings of the welfare system—of Northern Ireland, and provide flexibilities and protections that we have long advocated. The Secretary of State and the Minister are familiar with the arguments that my hon. Friends and I have made not just in the last 10 weeks of talks, but in the now annual crisis talks that we have had over the last three years. As I said on Second Reading, focusing on welfare reform in isolation and neglecting the challenge of joblessness will simply fail. Punishing and sanctioning people for a failure to get a job, without looking at the total lack of job opportunity in the wider economy, is economically dysfunctional.
I emphasise again that we must tackle the fundamental issue of low-level economic activity in Northern Ireland’s population, and that we must start by providing a wide range of regionally balanced, job-related, third-level education, training, apprenticeships and employment opportunities. In my opinion, we need an ambitious strategy to get 1 million people across Northern Ireland into employment. We believe that this cannot and will not be achieved easily through this Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order. We are letting down victims and their families. I find it disappointing that the fresh start agreement makes no reference to job creation, although we have raised and discussed it on many occasions. Many people do not think that it is working for Northern Ireland. They believe that it is a cover for the DUP and Sinn Féin to get through elections.
Mr Wallace
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.
The first two amendments will limit the changes that can be made through an Order in Council regarding certain areas such as sanctions, the benefit cap, entitlement to child benefits, and housing benefit. Amendment 3
“requires that the Northern Ireland Assembly approves a draft of any Order in Council made under this bill before it is made, and that sufficient time is given for due consideration.”
The purpose of the new clause is to place a responsibility on the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the first 12 months of any orders made under the Bill. It would require the Secretary of State to lay the report before the House of Commons, send it to the Speaker of the Assembly, and appear before an Assembly committee.
It is important to emphasise at the outset that the Bill in its present form has received the legislative consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was delivered last week by an overwhelming majority of 70 votes to 22. We intend to resist amendments on that basis. I am sure that Members will join me in not wishing to undermine the consent that the devolved Administration have given the Bill by subsequently amending it.
In relation to amendments 1 and 2, it should be borne in mind that the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015, which will follow the Bill, was also explicitly included in the Assembly motion that was debated and voted on last week. The agreement that was reached last week makes it clear that the Government will legislate to enable welfare reform to be implemented along the lines of the Assembly’s 2012 Welfare Reform Bill, which failed to pass in May. For that reason, the welfare reform order is based largely on this Bill.
Furthermore, the changes proposed by these amendments go beyond what was included in the Assembly’s Welfare Reform Bill. They do not therefore have the consent of the Assembly. If we were to accept them, Westminster would be legislating, in effect, without the Assembly’s consent. I advise the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that his concerns are best taken forward in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Assembly retains legislative competence over welfare and therefore there is a degree of flexibility in how the Northern Ireland welfare system operates. I am sure that the SDLP will continue to argue forcefully for its position in the Assembly, but given that the motion passed already referred explicitly to the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 and the fact that changes proposed by this amendment can be made by the Assembly, the amendment is simply not needed.
Turning to the third amendment, it is worth remembering that it took almost three years for the Assembly’s Welfare Reform Bill to pass through its various legislative stages in the Assembly, until it finally fell in May of this year. There is an expectation on the part of those parties that have signed up to the fresh start that welfare reform will be implemented as quickly as possible. That is why the Assembly granted its legislative consent to this approach to address welfare reform the day following the agreement. Therefore, it is unnecessary to lay this order before the Assembly for seven days. To do so would only unduly delay further the implementation of welfare reform. It would no doubt leave the majority of MLAs scratching their heads and asking, “Why are we being asked to give our approval to an order that we have already approved?”
I will consider clause 1 in more detail. Clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to make provision for social security, child maintenance and arrangements for employment in Northern Ireland by Order in Council. This clause provides the vehicle for the Government to deliver welfare reform in Northern Ireland. It allows for an Order in Council made under this power to put in place a framework that will be supplemented by detailed policy to be set out in regulations by the Secretary of State or the Northern Ireland Department for Social Development. The clause provides that an Order in Council may make provision for further delegated legislation to be made by either the Secretary of State or the relevant Northern Ireland Department, allowing for detailed implementation to be carried out either in Westminster or in Stormont.
The clause allows for considerable flexibility in the drafting of the Order in Council, as this is a power that may be used on more than one occasion for slightly differing purposes, to implement possible future welfare reforms that need to be made before December 2016, for example. Finally, the clause provides that an Order in Council made under these provisions is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Turning to new clause 1, I agree that it is important that the impact of welfare reform is fully understood in Northern Ireland. That is why I am pleased to see that the Northern Ireland Department for Social Development is committed to reviewing the operation of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order that will follow this Bill. This is surely preferable to placing a commitment on the Secretary of State to report on the operation of an Order in Council made under clause 1(2) of this Bill. The Department for Social Development is better placed to understand Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances and to assess the impact of welfare reform there.
It is also worth remembering that we are legislating as part of the agreement reached last week. I am concerned that placing an obligation on the Secretary of State to report overlooks this fact, and gives the impression that welfare in Northern Ireland is no longer devolved. We are not taking back welfare. The Department for Social Development remains responsible for implementing the welfare reforms.
I ask the hon. Member for Foyle to withdraw the amendments, and I beg to move that clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
Mark Durkan
The Minister implied that the amendment would affect just one Order in Council—the one that is in draft at the moment—but of course it would apply to various Orders in Council. He identified the problem that, having passed a legislative consent motion, the Assembly would wonder why the matter had come back to it.
We are used in this House to dealing with different stages of legislation and dealing with different decisions. There is no reason why there should not be more scrutiny.
On the Minister’s argument about the legislative consent question—that these amendments would breach the legislative consent motion because that motion does not address amendments—I make the point that legislative consent motions can be retrospective. After all, the legislative consent motion in the Assembly last week was about retrospectively endorsing the welfare clauses of the 2015 Welfare Reform and Work Bill as originally introduced, even though one of the parties that voted for that in the Assembly had voted against those provisions in this House. So I do not believe that those arguments stand up.
Similarly, we believe that there is value in the production of a report, not just for now but to provide clarity in the future. The consequences of this legislation could otherwise end up being argued about for many years. Arguments could arise, for example, about the downstream effects of direct rule decisions and of devolved decisions. We still have an interest in the reporting implications of new clause 1, so we would like to retain the option to return to the new clause later. To facilitate that, and to allow discussion of the other clauses, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Section 1: supplementary provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Wallace
Clause 2 provides that Orders in Council made under the power in the Bill are to be treated as Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That will help to ensure that any order forms a sustainable part of the Northern Ireland legal framework. For technical reasons, an exception is made for the purpose of section 6 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Extent, commencement, sunset and short title
Mark Durkan
I beg to move amendment 4, page 2, line 35, leave out “31 December 2016” and insert “1 June 2016”.
This amendment seeks to bring forward the end date for the Secretary of State’s decision making powers to take account of the fact that there will be a new assembly and a new devolved department from May 2016.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Alan Meale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 3 stand part.
Mark Durkan
Amendment 4 stands in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) and I. It relates to the sunset provision. The Bill provides that the power that is to come to the Secretary of State, while apparently not leaving the Assembly, will last until the end of 2016. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Down has said, the Assembly will have a new mandate from next May. There could be new Ministers and possibly new departmental structures as well, if the fresh start programme and previous decisions from Stormont House are followed.
The excuse is being made about the exigencies of the requirement to move on welfare reform to break the supposed deadlock between welfare reform, the budget and the implementation of other measures. It is said that that all has to be done now. We might be told that there will be an Order in Council to transpose the 2012 Act’s provisions into Northern Ireland legislation first, and that there will be a subsequent Order in Council to deal with the current Welfare Reform and Work Bill’s provisions. There could also be supplementary regulations after that. There is no reason, however, for the powers to stay here until the end of 2016.
The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), asked earlier why that date had been chosen. The most that the Minister could tell him was that it was what the parties had asked for. Two of the parties might have asked for it, but the rest of us did not, because we were not privy to the selection of that date. It therefore seems sensible to allow a newly created Department with its new Minister, and the Assembly with its new mandate, to take the full flush of powers that they should have, without anyone having to look over their shoulder to see what the Secretary of State is doing. It would be very good for that new Minister to be able to say that they will be exercising full responsibility and for the new committee in the new Assembly to have its full remit in terms of full legislative competence. That is why we have tabled a proposal to bring forward the date of the sunset clause.
We also seek to give people better assurance: if Ministers are assuring us that this is not intended to create direct rule for the long term or indefinitely, and that it is a temporary measure, we should make it even more definitely temporary. We should also make the timetable of that temporary arrangement more compatible with what is being provided on the Assembly’s own electoral cycle and calendar. That is the point of our proposal.
Ms Ritchie
I rise to support amendment 4. As my hon. Friend said, this Assembly mandate is scheduled to conclude at the end of March 2016, with elections scheduled for Thursday 5 May. For that reason, we believe it would be more prudent and more effective if the sunset clause were brought forward to 1 June 2016. That would enable a new Assembly mandate and a new Department of communities to be in place, so officials with a Minister would be equipped to deal with these issues. There could then be no ambiguity about what the responsibilities of the Secretary of State were and what those of the Minister for communities were in terms of this legislation.
Mr Wallace
Let me just respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the sunset clause. I can confirm that it refers to the powers being taken in the Bill, not the measures passed under the Secretary of State or via those powers. The December 2016 date was chosen because the aim is to get this welfare reform through, get the Assembly back up and running, and get Stormont back to running on full engines. The idea that we should risk that by picking a date that will not give us enough time not only to pass the legislation, but to implement it is crazy. Missing the deadline by a couple of months or weeks would put at risk all the hard work that has been done over the past few months and years. December 2016 is viewed as the best timetable for achieving the implementation of both the 2012 Act and the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.
Clause 3 provides that the Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is to allow for any subsequent and consequent amendments that may be required to legislation that has a UK-wide extent. The Bill has practical application only in Northern Ireland, as it is concerned only with welfare in Northern Ireland. The measure also allows the Act to come into force on the day that it is passed to ensure that the subsequent Order in Council can be quickly laid in Parliament. The most substantial element of the clause is the sunset provision, which sets out that no Order in Council can be made after 31 December 2016. I request that the hon. Gentleman withdraw his amendment and that clause 3 stands part of the Bill.
Mark Durkan
I indicated in response to the debate on the previous set of amendments that, if we were to have any kind of sample Division in relation to these amendments, our main interest would be in putting new clause 1 to a vote. I note what the Minister has said. I do not accept his arguments, and make the point that the sensible time for the Assembly to take the powers is when it is a few weeks into a new mandate. I hope, with all the optimism and confidence that has been expressed, that the Assembly will be in good and sufficient order when it takes its new mandate, with its new departmental structures and with its new arrangements for bringing forward a programme for government. It would seem to be a more sensible timetable, but we will not take the time of the House now by pressing for a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Duty to report
(1) In respect of an Order in Council under section 1(1) or any order or regulations under section 1(2) the Secretary of State will, within twelve months, publish a report of its operation which must include—
(a) comparative data and information on numbers of claimants and, where relevant, dependants and the relative value of benefits, allowances, payments or credits so as to reflect any difference in provision before and after the operation of the order or regulation;
(b) assessment of any impact in respect of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; and
(c) reflection of observations from independent welfare advice service providers.
(2) In publishing any report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must—
(a) lay the report before the House of Commons;
(b) send the report to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly; and
(c) be available to appear before a committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly to address, or answer on, the report.” .—(Mark Durkan.)
This amendment confers a responsibility on the Secretary of State to report on the first twelve months of operations and impacts on any orders made under this Act. It would ensure the Secretary of State had to lay the report before the House of Commons, send the report to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly and appear before a Northern Ireland Assembly committee.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mrs Villiers
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debates this evening, and all the Members of the Legislative Assembly and others who have settled the question of welfare reform in Northern Ireland.
This Bill fulfils an important commitment made following the recent political talks, which culminated in the “Fresh Start” agreement. The enabling power contained in the Bill paves the way for the introduction of a modern, reformed welfare system for Northern Ireland. The Government’s welfare reforms have at their heart the principles that it should always pay to work and that the vulnerable will always be protected. The benefits cap will ensure that no one household can claim more in benefits than the average family can bring home by going out to work. This is welfare support when people need it, not welfare support as a way of life.
The legislation will help us deliver our long-term economic plan. It will replace a system that was not working, a system that was not fair to the people trapped in dependency and poverty, and not fair to the hard-working taxpayers who paid for it. An unreformed welfare system was not sustainable in Great Britain and it is not sustainable in Northern Ireland. I believe that the reforms that this Bill will allow us to implement will help more people in Northern Ireland to get on because it will enable them to get into work, with the dignity of a job, the pride of a pay packet and the peace of mind that comes from being able to support their family. As in Great Britain, the reformed system will help people to make the journey from dependence to independence, providing more opportunity and greater security.
Before I conclude, I want to be clear that this Bill and the Order in Council that is to follow do not represent the Government taking a decision to impose something on Northern Ireland, but rather what the Northern Ireland Executive have agreed and what the Northern Ireland Assembly supported in its recent LCM vote. Together with the top-ups that the Executive will implement and fund from the block grant, Northern Ireland will have the most generous welfare system in the United Kingdom and one of the most generous in the world.
We have been having the debate on welfare reform in Northern Ireland for nearly four years. The dispute over the budget has been a drag anchor on Northern Ireland politics for too long, and it is time to get this matter settled. I firmly believe that without these questions of financial sustainability being resolved once and for all, we would be on an inexorable path to direct rule, and that is an outcome that nobody in this House wants. The Stormont House agreement ran into trouble at the implementation stage. This is our chance to learn from experience in trying to ensure that the “Fresh Start” agreement stays on track and plays its part in delivering effective, confident and stable devolved government for Northern Ireland. I commend the Bill to the House.
Vernon Coaker
I join the Secretary of State in thanking everyone who has played a role in bringing the Bill to this stage and in taking it through this House—those inside the House and those outside it.
I repeat that we have not opposed the Bill, despite our serious concerns over welfare reform, as it avoids a collapse in the devolved institutions or a return to direct rule, which would have been unthinkable and a disaster for Northern Ireland. I say again to the Government that alongside welfare reform, a jobs and growth programme is needed. Notwithstanding that, today we have helped to resolve the impasse that there was in Northern Ireland, allowing its Government to carry on with the peace and progress that they want and we all want for them.
Ms Ritchie
Today we have had all the stages of this welfare reform Bill for Northern Ireland. At this third and final stage, we would say again that we must have a higher ambition and aspiration to ensure the fulfilment of a meaningful devolution process in Northern Ireland. By that, we mean that we should not have brought the Bill here, as we have said during all its stages. We would also say that we have seen the Secretary of State and the Conservative Government succumb to the unwillingness of Sinn Féin and the DUP to take such a Bill through the Northern Ireland Assembly.
From a societal point of view, this enabling Bill is about addressing the needs of families and individuals who need to access the benefits system to ensure that they can live and rear their families with a relative degree of comfort. Being in receipt of benefit or having to access the benefits system is not a lifestyle choice. People are forced into this trap because of lack of access to jobs and employment, because they have lost their job or their place in employment, or because insufficient resources have been placed where jobs were located, or not located. My hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) and I believe that there needs to be a twin-track policy that enables investment in jobs—new jobs and the sustaining of existing jobs—and investment in skills and training to ensure and facilitate all having the necessary access to employment and therefore not having to rely on benefits.
Our proposed amendments sought to curtail the power of the Secretary of State and to clarify the twin-track approach—the parallel powers—of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Secretary of State in relation to welfare. At this late stage, we say that the Secretary of State should report directly to this House, the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the wider community with regard to the claimant count, the sanctions and the Bill’s requirements.
Obviously, we believe that this Bill should have been taken on the Floor of the Assembly, to fulfil the ambitions of all those people on the island of Ireland, both north and south, who voted for full devolution. We and, I think, other Members from Northern Ireland still believe there should be more devolution measures and that we and all the citizens we represent have an enormous opportunity. We will strive to work with the Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to achieve a more fulfilled economy and training sphere.
Mr Dodds
I thank the Government for bringing forward this Bill this evening. It will settle the issue of welfare reform for Northern Ireland after many years of dispute, not because of any unwillingness by three of the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly—ourselves, the Ulster Unionist party and the Alliance party—but because it was blocked over and over again by the SDLP and Sinn Féin. It was rich of the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) to complain that it was not being taken in the Northern Ireland Assembly, because it was as a result of her party’s actions that it could not get through the Assembly.
Anyone who opposes or who has opposed this Bill, or who voted with those who tabled amendments to it, are, in effect, in favour of continuing the stalemate and of continuing to fine the Northern Ireland Executive £2 million a week for failing to implement welfare reform. They are against having a sustainable budget in Northern Ireland and in favour of the continuation of a welfare system that is separate from that used in the rest of the United Kingdom. The absence of top-ups would mean that the increased cost to Northern Ireland would become greater with every passing year, and new computer systems would also cost hundreds of millions of pounds a year. Those who opposed the Bill in Committee earlier and who will vote against it tonight will, in effect, be voting for the collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly and a return to direct rule, which would result in the full implementation of all the things they rail against, without any top-ups or amelioration for the Northern Ireland Executive.
This has been a good day for Northern Ireland, because we have finally made progress in implementing the Stormont House agreement, putting the finances of Northern Ireland on a sound, sustainable footing, and creating a welfare system that is good, reformed and fit for purpose in meeting the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. This has been a good day for this House and a good day for Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Antibiotics (Primary Care)
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
First, I would like to declare an interest. Over 20 years ago, I was responsible for trying to launch a C-reactive protein point-of-care test, along with other point-of-care tests. The timing and circumstances were not right then, but things have moved on, and I believe the time is now right to get C-reactive protein point-of-care testing established in the primary care setting.
Last Monday was world antimicrobial day and that, along with the extensive media coverage over recent days about antimicrobial resistance and the vast difference between summer and winter antibiotic prescribing, makes this is a very timely debate. Antibiotics have been widely used to treat infections for more than 60 years, and without doubt the use of antibiotics has saved many millions of lives. I doubt if there is any right hon. or hon. Member who has never taken an antibiotic at some time in their life, but such extensive use of antibiotics has now become a real issue and a ticking timebomb.
Although new infectious diseases have been discovered nearly every year during the past 30 years, very few new antibiotics have been developed in that time, meaning that existing antibiotics are used to treat more and more infections. The consequence has been an increase in the prevalence of resistance to antibiotics, which in turn puts our ability to treat routine diseases in serious jeopardy. At present, treatment-resistant bacteria are responsible for approximately 25,000 deaths across Europe each year, which is a similar number to those dying in road accidents. The national risk register of civil emergencies has estimated that a widespread outbreak of a bacterial blood infection could affect 200,000 people in the UK. If it could not be treated effectively with our existing drugs, approximately 40% of those affected might die as a result, which is 80,000 people. There is an urgent need for action to slow the spread of antimicrobial resistance.
For a number of years, there has been a clear consensus among clinicians, academics and policy makers that antimicrobial resistance represents a major current and future danger to the foundations of modern medicine. In recognition of that danger, tackling the threat of antimicrobial resistance has been identified as a key priority by the Government, Public Health England and the chief medical officer. Just two years ago, the chief medical officer described the threat of antimicrobial resistance as
“just as important and deadly as climate change and international terrorism.”
I wish to focus on antibiotics in primary care and what measures can be taken to have a real impact on the way in which they are prescribed, which is currently almost like handing out a bag of sweets at the fair. In fact, 97% of patients who ask for antibiotics are prescribed them, whether or not they should have them. Owing to the popularity of primary care in the UK, that setting represents the part of the healthcare system where antibiotics are most likely to be prescribed, with 74% of them prescribed in that setting. International comparisons show that antibiotic resistance rates are strongly related to antibiotic use in primary care.
Despite guidance encouraging a reduction in antibiotic prescribing rates, nine out of 10 GPs say that they feel pressured into prescribing antibiotics. In the UK, we do like taking antibiotics. In 2013, data showed that 41% of residents had taken antibiotics in the previous 12 months, compared with a European average of 35%. Nationally, in 2013-14—the most recent year for which I have managed to get hold of the data—a staggering 41.6 million antibiotic prescriptions were issued, at a cost of £192 million to the NHS.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the Adjournment debate. She has outlined the issues and the epidemic potential among those who do not respond to antibiotics. Does she agree that we need something focused not just on England and Wales, but on the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland because this strategy has to help us all? In her submission to the House, will she say—perhaps the Minister could respond along the same lines—whether we should have a UK-wide strategy to address the issue for the constituents of all Members of the House and further afield?
Maggie Throup
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is not just a UK-wide issue; it affects the whole world. That is one of my concerns. We need to play our part to set the trend for the whole world, because this is a global issue.
As I said, antibiotic prescriptions in 2013-14 cost the NHS £192 million. What is more worrying is that many of the 41.6 million prescriptions were unnecessary and will undoubtedly have contributed to the growing issue of antimicrobial resistance. More than half the antibiotics used in primary care are for respiratory tract infections, most of which are viral or self-limiting.
So what can be done to halt the ticking timebomb? Just last Wednesday, Public Health England called for NHS patients to become “antibiotic guardians” by thinking carefully before asking for drugs and taking more care to prevent the spread of infections by washing their hands and accepting the flu jab. I believe that we can go even further in reducing the use of antibiotics in ways that are better for the patient and that save the NHS money.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this issue before the House. Does she agree that the big problem, which she has touched on, is that a lot of people put pressure on their doctors to give them antibiotics, falsely thinking that they will cure a cold, which is a virus, when antibiotics are only useful against bacterial infections?
Maggie Throup
My hon. Friend is right. That is what we need to make clear. People often do not understand that the causes of those illnesses are quite different.
My local clinical commissioning group, Erewash CCG, is working hard to empower patients to take responsibility for their health, very much along the lines of the antibiotic guardians idea. As part of the initiative, it wants patients to learn to recognise when it is right to visit the GP and when it is right to seek alternative advice, such as that of a pharmacist.
I want to come back to where I began: the little device that performs the C-reactive protein point-of-care test. I can tell that hon. Members are wondering what C-reactive point-of-care testing is. A point-of-care test is a diagnostic test that is quick and easy to perform. It can be used during a patient consultation or completed while the patient waits. It allows for immediate diagnosis and treatment choice. Such point-of-care tests are designed to be used by people who are not laboratory scientists.
A C-reactive protein point-of-care test is a blood test that measures the amount of protein called C-reactive protein in a person’s blood, using just a drop of blood from the finger. Evidence shows that the test can deliver significant benefits when used in the primary care setting. It is used in the primary care setting in several European countries and has been shown to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing by empowering GPs to make informed decisions.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for how innovation in the NHS can be the key to securing significant savings and a change in the culture of antibiotic use among the general public. Does she agree that it is about time NHS England moved quickly and decisively to empower people to change their behaviour in respect of managing their own health?
Maggie Throup
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly why I secured this debate. We need to move quickly because this is a ticking timebomb that we must address sooner rather than later.
Point-of-care testing can reassure patients that they do not need antibiotics and will recover without them. There is evidence that C-reactive protein point-of-care testing could reduce the number of antibiotic prescriptions issued in primary care for acute respiratory tract infections by up to 42%. That represents millions of prescriptions every year. It has been calculated that using C-reactive protein point-of-care tests in primary care has the potential to save £56 million a year in prescription and dispensing costs. At the same time, C-reactive protein point-of-care testing could make a significant contribution to the UK’s antimicrobial resistance strategy.
I am sure that all hon. Members will have visited a GP with a cough and a cold and feeling pretty bad, and thinking that a short course of antibiotics is just what is needed to get rid of the bugs. They expect to leave the GP’s surgery with a prescription for antibiotics and already start to feel better. The problem with that scenario is that there is a high probability that those antibiotics will be useless, because the cold is not a bacterial infection, but a viral or self-limiting infection that antibiotics will not touch. The consequences are far reaching. First, the drugs will have been ingested unnecessarily, and it is likely that antibiotics will have increased antimicrobial resistance in the population. Secondly, a prescription will have been issued unnecessarily, which is a wasted cost to the NHS.
Let us consider an alternative. The hon. Member will still visit their GP with a cough and a cold and feeling pretty bad, but now by using just a drop of blood from their finger, a C-reactive protein point-of-care test can be carried out and will give an almost instant result. If the level of the protein is low to medium, no antibiotics are needed. The hon. Member will leave the GP’s surgery without a prescription, but knowing that they will start to feel better without one. If the level of the protein is high, a prescription for antibiotics can be issued. Such a simple measure is better for the patient, does not add to the ticking timebomb of antimicrobial resistance, saves the need for a prescription, and saves the NHS millions of pounds. I am sure hon. Members will be asking why it is not happening already.
Such a simple test can also be used for more complex cases than coughs and colds. With the life-limiting condition idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, GPs find it hard to differentiate between the ongoing condition and an underlying infection. An underlying infection, which could be tested by using the C-reactive protein point-of-care test, may require hospitalisation, but the ongoing condition would not. In such instances, it is not just about whether to prescribe antibiotics; it is about whether a hospital bed and all the resources alongside it are needed. Surely a low-cost, point-of-care test is worth its weight in gold given that scenario.
Despite recent reforms, the NHS still works in silos and is inflexible when it comes to funding a test that originally would be carried out in the hospital laboratory. The majority of testing required by primary care is done by block contract through the local hospital, and additional testing is seen as a cost burden on the GP—that was the barrier I hit more than 20 years ago.
Today, C-reactive protein is included as a recommended area of best practice within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines for pneumonia, which state that
“clinicians should consider a point-of-care C-reactive protein test for patients presenting with lower respiratory tract infection in primary care”.
That recommendation was made by the NICE guideline development group and based on antibiotic prescription rates, mortality, hospital admission rates, and quality-of-life outcomes. Antibiotic prescription rates were felt by the guideline development group to be the most relevant direct outcome influencing that recommendation.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
As my hon. Friend pointed out, antimicrobial resistance is a particular problem in emerging economies—in India in 2014, 58,000 babies died because of AMR. Does she think that it would be wise to use international development budgets to tackle that severe and growing problem?
Maggie Throup
My hon. Friend makes a good point and I completely agree with him.
When one prominent GP wanted to introduce the point-of-care test, he was refused funding. He is now funding it through other sources as he feels that it provides better patient care than just issuing antibiotic prescription after prescription. Things must change for the sake of the patient, to reduce the number of prescriptions, to contribute to the battle against antimicrobial resistance, and ultimately to save the NHS millions of pounds.
The recently launched review of antimicrobial resistance, chaired by Jim O’Neill, is entitled “Rapid diagnostics: stopping unnecessary use of antibiotics” and states that
“rapid point-of-care diagnostic tests are a central part of the solution to this demand problem, which results currently in enormous unnecessary antibiotic use.”
That is why I am asking the Minister to do whatever she can to break down the silos, create the funding streams for C-reactive protein point-of-care tests in primary care, play her part in implementing our national antimicrobial strategy and save the NHS millions of pounds that could be redirected to disease areas that would really benefit from an injection of funds. This is a win-win-win situation and it must be addressed as quickly as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) on securing this very well-attended debate on a very important issue. The hour is late, but there are a number of hon. Members in the Chamber, reflecting the importance of the debate, and they have made well-informed interventions. I will attempt to address all the issues raised, but if there is anything I do not get to I will look to write to hon. Members.
This debate is timely. Antimicrobial resistance awareness week, a news item in The Lancet and news from other countries, in particular China, have helped to underline the issue that, on occasion, can sound quite dry. If people wonder what the issue is, it has been aptly illustrated in recent weeks. The prescribing and use of antibiotics has a direct impact on antimicrobial resistance. As my hon. Friend made clear, it is one of the biggest global health challenges we face and I spend a lot of time talking about it to Health Ministers from other countries. The costs of antimicrobial resistance are very significant. The O’Neill review on antimicrobial resistance, commissioned by the Prime Minister, estimates that a continued rise in resistance by 2050 would lead to millions of additional deaths worldwide each year and an economic cost of up to $100 trillion worldwide. This is a really big issue.
My hon. Friend described exactly the problem we face in terms of the appearance and spread of bacteria that are resistant to treatment by current antibiotics, and the threat that poses to modern medicine. She provided some examples of that threat. Without effective antibiotics, medical advances such as organ transplants, and even minor surgery and routine operations, will become high-risk procedures. Procedures we assume can now be done as minor day surgery will suddenly become again a serious threat because of serious resistant infection. Antimicrobial resistance is a global problem that needs to be tackled at a national and global level to ensure antibiotics are used wisely.
As my hon. Friend and others will know, in 2013 we published the “UK Five Year Antimicrobial Resistance Strategy” to address this significant threat. It takes a “one health” approach, addressing human, animal, food and environmental aspects of antimicrobial resistance. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is, as ever, in his place. On many occasions I disappoint him by saying that matters are England-only, but I am delighted to be able to confirm that this is a UK-wide strategy. We are working on it in close collaboration with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. At the heart of our strategy is the need to use antibiotics more effectively. The key is how we change both public and health professional behaviour, and my hon. Friend described the challenge we face.
The English Surveillance Programme for Antimicrobial Utilisation and Resistance—just another one of those catchy little titles we come up with in the health world—is a very important programme. The 2015 surveillance report shows that general practice accounts for 74% of prescribed antibiotics. The number of antibiotic prescriptions in primary care has declined for the last two years and are now lower than in 2011. However, analysis of the data suggests that although there have been fewer prescriptions, higher doses or longer courses of antibiotics are being prescribed. Total use of antibiotics continues to increase in the NHS, albeit at a slower rate. We still have a significant challenge. It is a challenge for all of us and, as my hon. Friend said, behaviour change is right at the heart of how we tackle the problem, both for those who prescribe and for those who use antibiotics—both are crucial to our response.
In August, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence produced its stewardship guidelines for the health and social care system, which covered the effective use of antimicrobials, including antibiotics. We understand the pressures, as have been well described here, that primary care prescribers face every day. We know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) illustrated, that sometimes people expect to leave their doctor with a certain prescription, even if it is not the right thing. To support GPs, therefore, we have been working with the Royal College of General Practitioners to provide them with suitable tools to reduce levels of inappropriate prescribing.
Last week, research by Antibiotic Research UK found that doctors prescribed 59% more antibiotics in December than in August, despite many of the illnesses treated by antibiotics not being seasonal. That, too, touches on the challenges. One of the key resources doctors have at their disposal is TARGET—treat, antibiotics responsibly, guidance, education, tools—which is hosted on the RCGP website and aims to increase primary care clinicians’ awareness of the importance of antimicrobial resistance and responsible use. Health Education England continues to work with Public Health England to ensure that the competence and principles of prescribing antimicrobials are embedded throughout the professional curricula.
In a recent trial, the chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, wrote to a sample of high-prescribing GPs in England, explaining that their prescribing rates were significantly higher than those of other similar GPs and asking them to reassess their prescribing protocols. This intervention resulted in a 4% reduction in levels of prescribing in those practices. That is encouraging and more trials are planned. I put on the record the gratitude of this Government and Governments around the world to Professor Dame Sally Davies for the work she has done in spearheading not just our national AMR campaign but the international campaign. I have watched her galvanise whole countries to action on this subject. We are extremely lucky that she is leading the charge.
NHS England’s introduction of a quality premium on antibiotic prescribing for 2015-16 is another significant step. The purpose is to act as an incentive to reduce levels of antibiotic prescribing in both primary and secondary care. We are encouraged by the early results and expect a reduction in levels of antibiotic prescribing in the next set of data covering 2015-16.
We are not overlooking the consumers of antibiotics: the public. We need to improve their understanding about their appropriate use and are active participants in European antibiotic awareness day, which has just passed and which looks to engage the wider public. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash highlighted the extremely important antibiotic guardian programme. We have set a target to reach 100,000 antibiotic guardians by next March. We also urge all colleagues—this is where MPs can be extremely helpful—to bring this up with their local NHS. If they ask about it, people will realise its importance, so I ask them to do so as part of their routine contact with local NHS institutions.
Public Health England, working in conjunction with the RCGP, has developed a range of patient information materials to help them think about how they care for themselves when they have a self-limiting infection, such as a cold, and when to consult a health professional. Critically, my hon. Friend referred to diagnostic testing, particularly the C-reactive protein test. I understand her frustration—sometimes it feels like things move rather slowly—but I hope that the attention the strategy has received illustrates our desire to move faster. In fact, the driving force behind the UK-wide strategy is about gearing up the whole health system to react more quickly.
Most antibiotic prescribing is done in the absence of a test to determine the nature of the illness and whether an antibiotic prescription is likely to help. Making better use of technology is a key part of our work. Greater access to and use of rapid diagnostic tests will help us to avoid unnecessary treatment and provide more targeted treatment where infections are diagnosed, which, of course, will mean better outcomes for patients.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
My hon. Friend might note that, in the case of malaria, the introduction of rapid diagnostic tests has substantially reduced the inappropriate use of important antimalarials.
Jane Ellison
That is an excellent illustration of the potential of rapid diagnostic tests, and of course we had exciting news on malaria recently.
In December last year, NICE recommended that GPs should consider carrying out C-reactive protein testing for people presenting in primary care with symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection if, after clinical assessment, a diagnosis of pneumonia has not been made and it is not clear whether antibiotics should be prescribed. I understand that the test is increasingly being used in primary care, although the evidence for its use is mixed and the role of normal clinical diagnosis remains critical.
We want the right test available in the right place, from patients’ homes and the high street to primary and secondary care. That work is being undertaken as part of the implementation of the UK antimicrobial resistance strategy. To further develop the use of diagnostics in clinical practice, we are investing £1.3 million of research funding through the National Institute for Health Research. That research is being undertaken by Cardiff University, focusing on GPs’ use of the C-reactive protein test to help to target antibiotic prescribing to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It will be interesting to see how that research goes, and I am sure we will return to it.
In addition to the important work to improve appropriate prescribing, we should not forget the vital role of infection prevention and control—it was good to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash note that. We have made significant progress, with dramatic reductions in some infections in recent years, but there is always more to do. We can make a significant contribution to that agenda by improving our ability to prevent infections in the first place. That includes work with NICE to develop clinical guidance and best practice information.
We have strengthened the code of practice on the prevention and control of infections to clarify for providers the measures needed to ensure effective infection prevention and antimicrobial stewardship. We will also improve infection prevention and control by introducing an indicator, as part of local antimicrobial resistance implementation plans from April next year, to help CCGs. That will be another good opportunity, from the spring, to ask CCGs how their plans are going and whether they can explain what they are doing locally. It was good to hear Erewash CCG being cited. I am sure my hon. Friend will hold its feet to the flames, as will others.
Let me touch briefly on the international scene. It was good to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) talk about India. I had the pleasure of talking to the Indian Health Minister about this very topic at the World Health Assembly in Geneva in May. Tonight’s debate is not about the international aspect, but I would be delighted if any Member wanted a debate focusing on that, because the UK can be proud of our record in that regard. To give one example, as part of our focus on global antimicrobial resistance, the UK has committed £195 million over five years to the Fleming fund, which will support antimicrobial and infectious disease surveillance in developing countries, where we know drug resistance has a disproportionate effect. We were delighted to see all 194 member states agree to the World Health Organisation’s global action plan at the World Health Assembly earlier this year. The Government are now working towards the UN General Assembly in 2016 and are continuing to champion this agenda there.
Let me conclude by reaffirming our commitment to delivering improvements in the way antibiotics are used in the NHS. I take the challenge that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash has highlighted and we will make sure that the NHS hears that from tonight’s debate. The work we have undertaken, and are continuing to undertake, means that we now have significantly better data and information on how antibiotics are used in both primary and secondary care, but we have much more to do. I welcome tonight’s debate as a reminder of the task that lies ahead of us.
Question put and agreed to.
Rent Officers (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit Functions) (Local Housing Allowance Amendments) Order 2015
(8 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit Functions) (Local Housing Allowance Amendments) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015, No. 1753).
May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard? There is a strange sense of déjà vu about so many of our recent debates on welfare reform, and nowhere is that more the case than when we talk about housing benefit. Sharpening his axe in the early stages of the last Parliament, the Chancellor set his sights on the growing housing benefit bill as a prime target for cuts. Despite cooking up no fewer than nine different ways to cut entitlement, the coalition Government nevertheless ended up with an annual housing bill more than £4 billion higher than the one they inherited.
How did that happen? The explanation is simple: thanks to a lethal combination of a low-wage economy and the lowest level of house building since the 1920s, the number of people claiming housing benefit has shot up. That is fuelled almost entirely by the 64% increase in the number of claims by working tenants in privately rented accommodation. It is important to make the point that housing benefit can be claimed by those in work—the poor in work. There has been a huge increase in the number of those people needing to claim housing benefit because the price of housing is so high.
Local housing allowance—or, in layman’s terms, housing benefit in the private rented sector—was always seen by Ministers as particularly low-hanging fruit. Despite the rhetoric of the emergency Budget of June 2010, which referred to “excessively generous payments” of housing benefit, the whole point of local housing allowance was to ensure that these payments would not be more generous than they needed to be.
It worked like this: in any given area, rates were set at the median of local market rents and, more importantly, they would rise or fall in line with those rents each month, ensuring that the cheaper half of the rental market in each area would always be affordable to low-income tenants on housing benefit. So, not luxury accommodation but the bottom half of the housing market would be available to those on housing benefit, including those in work and those out of work. While that system was not necessarily perfect, it seemed the fairest possible way of controlling costs and limiting tenants’ choices to a reasonable degree, while ensuring that low-income tenants would not end up getting priced out of large parts of the country—their country, where they have been brought up. That system, along with the principles it stood for, was completely turned on its head by changes introduced by the coalition.
First, the coalition Government changed the calculation of local housing allowance rates, lowering it from the 50th percentile to the 30th percentile, so that people on housing benefit could only rent from the bottom 30th percentile of properties in a particular area, which dramatically reduced the number of properties available within the limits of housing benefit. In making that change, the Government insisted that
“at least 30 per cent of private rented sector accommodation will continue to be affordable to people who depend on Housing Benefit.”
How did that go? It did not go well, and it should be obvious by now that that is absolutely not how local housing allowance reforms have played out.
The reason is that the move from the 50th percentile to the 30th percentile was only the first of many changes that, in combination, have seen housing benefit become increasingly disconnected from the actual cost of renting. Particularly damaging in boroughs such as mine, Islington, was the overall cap on local housing allowance rates. The cap means, for example, that claimants living in a one-bedroom flat can under no circumstances claim more than £250 per week in my area. If the Minister believes he could find a flat on that budget in my constituency or in any part of inner London, frankly, good luck to him.
The problem with these caps is that they seem to be set at completely arbitrary levels, with no reference whatever to the costs that tenants are actually facing. If hon. Members consider how much they are allowed to cover their housing costs for staying in central London, they might appreciate why £250 per week for a one-bedroom flat is very challenging indeed.
On top of that, the Government changed the rules on uprating, breaking completely the link between local housing allowance rates and actual rents. Instead of rising in line with market rents, local housing allowance rates were first uprated in line with the consumer prices index before increases were capped at a maximum of 1% for a period of two years. In breaking the link with rent inflation, the Government’s expectation was that the changes would
“bear down generally on rental values being met through Housing Benefit.”
If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny. We know full well that the effect has not been to bear down on rent levels in any area. Not only has it completely failed to do that, it has not had the slightest impact on the rate at which rents are increasing. According the Office for National Statistics, private sector rents across the country rose by an average of 2.7% in the last 12 months. Given that there is no impact assessment attached to the Government’s proposals, we asked the House of Commons Library to examine some of the effects. Its analysis of the proposed freeze is that if rents continue to increase at the same rate over the next four years, the effects would be nothing short of devastating.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Has the shadow Minister read Shelter’s analysis stating that it would be virtually impossible to find a private rented home in 60 local authorities by 2019?
Emily Thornberry
I certainly have. If the Minister and the Department have not had a chance to look at it, I am sure that we could give them a copy. I am also prepared to give them a copy of the Library’s research. The Government might not know about the effects. If so, this is the moment to admit it, so we can help them and sort things out together. The alternative is that they do know. If that is the case, they should admit that they are essentially saying that unemployed people will be unable to live in private rented accommodation practically anywhere in the country without digging into other benefits to supplement the amount of housing benefit available to them, which will be not be high enough to cover their rent.
It might be the case that Shelter’s analysis has been dismissed because it is a housing-related lobbying organisation. That is why we decided to get the Library to carry an assessment, which provides an example using what it calls the outer north London broad rental market area, which in real life covers Enfield and Barnet and neighbourhoods such as Edmonton, Tottenham and Hornsey. LHA tenants in the area already face a shortfall of around £8 a week between their housing benefit and their rent. After four years of rent increases, according to the Library figures, freezing LHA could mean that a family renting a two-bedroom property in such areas could face a shortfall of more than £50 a week, or more than £2,600 a year, by 2020. That is particularly significant as many of those who have had to move to the outer boroughs in recent years have done so because they can no longer afford to live in inner London.
Many of my 1,000 constituents who have recently moved out of Islington have moved to those outer boroughs, and they will soon need to move again. They will have been put into private rented accommodation by the local authority, perhaps because they were homeless, and they will no longer be able to stay and will need to move elsewhere. Where will they go? Presumably not to Manchester, where a family of the same size would face a shortfall in excess of £1,300 a year as a result of the freeze. Not to Bristol either, where the gap between housing benefit and rent would top £1,400 a year. In fact, no area in the entire country will be unaffected by the freeze. The only variation will be in the size of the shortfall, with fewer areas remaining affordable every single year. If each of the 1.5 million private tenants claiming housing benefit moves to Gateshead or Hartlepool, which is presumably what the Government intend, there will not be enough properties left to house them.
It seems completely inevitable that the policy will lead to enormous costs—well in excess of expected savings—not just to the public purse, but in human terms. The Government have not even carried out any consultation before making these major changes to benefits. They have not had any impact assessment and are, quite simply, hiding from the evidence of the catastrophic effect that the freeze could have on families who will be caught by it.
No doubt the Minister would like to see the research of the House of Commons Library and of Shelter, and I will certainly give that to him. Perhaps, after the Government have looked at the figures and at the effect that the changes will have on real people up and down the country—people in work and out of work, who will no longer be able to afford to live in the private rented sector—they will change their mind.
Alternatively, the Government could always build some affordable housing. That would be good. If the Government are not going to build real affordable housing, people will remain dependent on the private rented sector. Everyone in this room who is an elected Member of Parliament has constituents who will directly be affected by the Government’s proposed changes.
Although I understand the Minister’s concern about the housing benefit bill, I simply cannot accept that this extreme proposal is the answer. The level of savings that the Government expect from the freeze appears to be completely out of proportion with the hardship that it will lead to. I will address the matter on the Government’s terms. Taking into account the Government’s commitment to recycle 30% of the savings into what they call the targeted affordability fund, of which we will hear more in a moment, the measures save less than £500,000 a year according to the Government’s own estimates. The more or less inevitable increase in costs associated with the rising homelessness that will be a direct effect of this change is likely to wipe out any savings that do materialise, possibly several times over. If a family is chucked out because they can no longer afford their rent, and they become homeless, there are not only human costs, but costs to local councils, which try desperately to find that family some other accommodation.
Ministers have turned a wilful blind eye to the likely consequences, refusing to carry out any consultation or impact assessment, not to mention any meaningful form of mitigation. The targeted affordability fund, to which I referred, is certainly better than nothing but in many areas it might not be very much better than nothing. As the Minister knows, despite being allocated specifically to areas with the very highest increases in local market rents, the fund nevertheless limits increases in certain rates to a maximum of 4% a year.
I do not know whether the Minister knows how much the rents went up in my constituency in the past year, and my constituency is not on its own. Rents in my constituency went up by 8% last year, and rents in places such as Oxford, Cambridge and Brighton have increased by much more than 4%. I appreciate that the Minister is likely to rely on his targeted affordability fund to excuse the measures, but it simply is not good enough. It is of little help to areas such as my constituency—to virtually any part of London, for that matter—let alone to the other areas in which there are spikes and much higher rents.
In Enfield, which has taken a significant number of private tenants displaced from central London by earlier changes to housing benefit, private rents have increased by 7% in the past 12 months. How will it work, Minister? Even the good that the TAF might do in some areas will be irrelevant for the next year, as Ministers have made clear that there will be no additional funding for the first year of the freeze. I do not understand why, apart from its being a cost-saving exercise. I cannot not see how the TAF can possibly give any succour to families who are likely to suffer as a result of this.
Inevitably and yet again, local authorities will have to pick up to the pieces but, as we know, their resources have been severely depleted. Increasing the numbers that are likely to fall through the cracks through no fault of struggling councils will make things even more difficult. Frankly, it would not be right to blame councils for the abysmal consequences of this reckless proposal and the manifest failure of the Government to get a grip on housing benefits. In the end, it is necessary to ensure that people have jobs that pay well and to build some affordable homes.
Chris Stephens
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I shall be brief, but I am disappointed that yet another piece of serious and contentious legislation is being forced through the back door with little scrutiny. I hope that today, unlike in last Thursday’s statutory instrument Committee, the Minister will actually respond to our questions.
It is concerning that even Shelter was surprised that the freeze in the local housing allowance was twice as long as that which it expected the Government to impose. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury, the most concerning fact is that Ministers have not even considered the impact. I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government will publish an impact assessment or, at the very least, write to members of the Committee about the impacts?
I might be able to help the Government slightly. Many people receiving housing benefit already work and they are already struggling to make ends meet—before Government Members come out with the stock line that they are increasing wages, let me say that that does not help workers now as the measures are not concurrent. When will the Government listen to all the evidence that says that they are squeezing the money out of workers’ pockets? How does that incentivise work?
The measures in the order, we are told, will make most of the country unaffordable. As I said in my question to the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury, Shelter has told us that the order will make it virtually impossible to find a private rented home in 60 local authority areas by 2019. Is this thinly veiled social cleansing? I ask that because it can only lead to ghettoisation across the United Kingdom. Unless the UK Government commit to measures such as mitigating the effects of the bedroom tax, building more homes during this Parliament and keeping rents down, that is what will be achieved.
Will the UK Government ensure that the measures in the proposal will not discriminate against some groups in our society? The hint about boosting the targeted affordability fund does not offset the big freeze overall, and those struggling to pay rising rents will face more rent shortfalls, more arrears and a greater risk of eviction. I will vote against this order and I urge everyone to consider the impact that it will have on hard-working families.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. The order puts in place the changes needed to freeze local housing allowance rates for four years from April 2016. Between 2000 and 2010, housing benefit expenditure doubled in cash terms, reaching £21 billion. Left unreformed, housing benefit would have cost £26 billion by 2014-15. Our reforms are now saving about £2 billion a year, and the summer Budget measures will add to that. Crucially, we ended the presumption that housing benefit would always pick up the bill.
Since reforms to the LHA were introduced by the coalition Government from April 2011 the number of housing benefit claimants living in the private rented sector is down by about 1% nationally and 3% in London. More claimants are moving into work as people make sensible decisions about what they can reasonably afford. The case load numbers show that claimants continue to live in all areas, including central London. The current case load for those renting privately in the capital stands at 258,000.
The Government made clear their intention to make significant savings to welfare expenditure before the general election. This measure is part of that commitment and was announced in the summer Budget. The Budget statement was followed by several days of debate, which provided an opportunity for this and other Budget measures to be discussed, particularly on the first day of debate, 9 July, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions responded on behalf of the Government.
This measure is not included in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, as the Secretary of State already has the powers in primary legislation to change the way in which LHA rates are set. In response to hon. Members’ comments, however, it might help if I clarify how the freezing of LHA rates will work during the four-year period. The rates will still be reviewed each year by rent officers, who will continue to calculate, as they have previously, the 30th percentile of a list of rents for each property size in each area. In line with the amendments to the rent officers order, they will then set the new LHA rates at either the April 2015 rate or the 30th percentile of listed rents if that is lower.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify the means by which the area is codified? I ask that because in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire there is a broader area for housing benefit that does not actually take account of some of the narrower economic circumstances of a specific area.
Justin Tomlinson
It is done on a regional basis. Discretionary housing payments can help to alleviate that situation, but I will come back to that, if the hon. Gentleman can be patient.
Tristram Hunt
My concern is that we are ending up with areas in which it is much easier for landlords to make quite a high profit on housing benefit, relative to other areas. Essentially, the rate is too generous. Streets are being turned into areas with fly-by-night populations, as well all the problems we see with certain landlords. The order needs to be more specific about how the benefit is adjudicated.
Justin Tomlinson
Let me ponder that question and come back to it.
The Government recognise that some places will see high increases in rents, so we have made provision to help those areas. Over this Parliament, 30% of the savings generated from the measure will be recycled and used to create more targeted affordability funding, which will be used to reduce the gap between frozen LHA rates and the 30th percentile reference rent in areas of the greatest rental growth, building on the £140 million already distributed since 2014.
Hon. Members may be aware that in 2015-16 we have increased 191 LHA rates by 4%, instead of the uprating limit of 1%, using the targeted affordability funding. More than half of the LHA rates in London—41 out of 70—received the extra increase. The funding has also benefited other parts of the country such as Manchester and Aberdeen.
Emily Thornberry
The Minister just referred to 41 areas receiving this additional funding. Is he telling the Committee that in those 41 areas, people can rent anything in the bottom 30th percentile of properties in the local authority, within the limits of housing benefit?
Justin Tomlinson
That is why the additional funding was provided—to make up the difference in those particularly high rental growth areas.
Justin Tomlinson
I will come to the stats. I will not forget that point, as it has already been mentioned.
In 2016-17, the effect of freezing LHA rates will be the same as it would have been if rates had been uprated by CPI inflation due to the level of CPI forecast in September. As a result, LHA rates would not increase in 2016-17 but would mostly remain at the 2015-16 levels. As there is currently no inflation in the economy, no savings will be made from the freeze in 2016-17 and there will therefore be no targeted affordability funding for that year. Targeted affordability funding will, however, be available from the savings for subsequent years, up to and including 2020-21.
From 2017-18, we will use the targeted affordability funding to support areas where higher rent increases are causing a shortage of affordable accommodation. The amounts of targeted affordability funding available each year from 2017-18 and our plans for how we distribute it will be announced as part of the review of the order in future years.
In the summer Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that an enhanced package of £800 million of discretionary housing payment funding will be made available to local authorities over the next five years to provide support to the most vulnerable claimants affected by housing benefit reform, including this measure. That was a 40% increase on what was previously offered. I can also reassure hon. Members that alongside the LHA rates, we will continue to publish the 30th percentile of market rents in each area, as we have previously, so that they can be scrutinised.
To pick up on some of the specific questions that were asked, I absolutely agree that the biggest challenge is demand outstripping supply. Addressing the lack of affordable housing is therefore a real priority. There has been a welcome announcement of an extra £1.45 billion to be spent creating an additional 43,000 affordable homes in London by 2018.
Emily Thornberry
I wonder if the Minister could assist us with those affordable housing statistics. Will those affordable homes be in the bottom 30th percentile? Will they be within reach of housing benefit? If we are talking about housing benefit and affordability, surely the two should be in line.
Justin Tomlinson
We do not control housing prices, but clearly the quicker we can get these new houses, the bigger the difference they will make. Across the country, we expect at least another 275,000 affordable homes to be built before the end of the Parliament. Through the new homes bonus, we provide additional incentives to local authorities to increase the provision of affordable homes, so they get paid more than just six times the value of the council tax. Our extension of the right-to-buy policy will also result in new housing stock being brought in.
I was asked whether the policy had resulted in rental prices falling. In some areas it has, and in some it has not. We know that 27% of landlords have been negotiating; that figure is as high as 47% in London. On the point about whether there will be ghettos and whether people will suddenly disappear, 79% of those who moved during this period moved within 5 miles, and the vast majority did so for personal rather than financial reasons. If we look at the broader picture, we see that 93% stay within their region.
There have also been behavioural changes. Two hundred people a week are coming off housing benefit because of a combination of rising wages in our growing economy, the 2 million new jobs that have been created, the negotiations that have taken place and, in some cases, the fact that rents have been reduced. Therefore, keeping the economy going in the right direction remains a key priority. In response to another point that was raised, the broad market areas take into account local amenities such as schools, shops, hospitals and transport, and there can be quite a broad range of rental prices within an area.
I commend the order to the House.
Emily Thornberry
Mr Pritchard, we will put the matter to a vote.
Question put.
Draft Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria and Information about Financial Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
(8 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria and Information about Financial Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies? I think this is the second time in almost the same number of weeks.
Mr Vara
We are flattered, Sir.
The statutory instrument before us amends the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013—hereafter referred to as the merits criteria regulations—to specify the merits criteria that must be met to qualify for civil legal aid for applications for post-adoption contact. The statutory instrument also makes amendments to the Legal Aid (Information about Financial Resources) Regulations 2013, hereafter referred to as the information regulations.
The amendments provide that the director of legal aid casework at the Legal Aid Agency may make an information request to the relevant Secretary of State to find out whether a legal aid applicant is in receipt of direct payments for special educational needs or direct payments under section 17A of the Children Act 1989. That information is relevant for the purposes of the means assessment that the director must carry out.
Orders for post-adoption contact were introduced by the Children and Families Act 2014, which inserted sections 51A and 51B into the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Applications can now be made for a post-adoption contact order when the court is making an adoption order or when an adoption order has been made. The provisions came into effect on 22 April 2014. The 2014 Act also amended part 1 of schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. That means that legal aid may be available for any application for post-adoption contact where the person applying for legal aid provides evidence of domestic violence or child abuse, or where they are a child who is a party to the proceedings.
The merits criteria regulations set out the merits criteria that must be applied by the director of legal aid casework at the Legal Aid Agency when determining whether an applicant qualifies for civil legal aid under part 1 of schedule 1 to LASPO. Broadly speaking, the criteria provide the basis for deciding whether it is justified to provide or continue to provide public funds in an individual case. The factors to be considered are similar to those that would influence a privately paying client of moderate means when considering whether to become involved in proceedings.
Regulation 2 of the merits criteria regulations sets out the interpretation and definition of terms used. The statutory instrument adds certain civil proceedings in relation to post-adoption contact orders to the definition of “private law children case”. As a result, the merits criteria, which apply to such proceedings when determining an individual’s eligibility for legal representation, will be those set out in regulations 64 and 68. That means that some elements of the standard merits test will not apply, such as the requirement for the case to be unsuitable for a conditional fee arrangement.
Separately, regulation 69 of the merits criteria regulations sets out the criteria for determinations for legal representation in relation to family cases to which specific merits criteria apply, other than those specifically provided for elsewhere in the merits criteria regulations. The amendments made by the statutory instrument will also exclude determinations in relation to certain post-adoption contact orders proceedings from the scope of regulation 69. That exclusion is necessary because, as I have already mentioned, the applicable criteria for such matters will be those in regulations 64 and 68.
I will now turn to the amendments to the information regulations. A child with a special educational need may be eligible for an education health care plan, which brings their education, health and social care needs into a single, legally binding document. Direct cash payments may be made to the child’s parent or guardian, or to the young person or their nominee, allowing them to arrange the provision of necessary services, such as transport, as identified in the individual’s plan. The direct payments are currently made under the Special Educational Needs (Personal Budgets) Regulations 2014, made under section 49(3) of the 2014 Act. Direct payments may also be made under section 17A of the Children Act 1989 to parents of disabled children, a disabled person with parental responsibility for a child, or disabled children aged 16 or 17, to meet their assessed needs.
The direct payments are disregarded for the purposes of a legal aid financial eligibility assessment following amendments previously made by the Legal Aid, Community Legal Service and Criminal Defence Service (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which came into force on 13 April 2015. Therefore, the direct payments are not included when calculating a person’s disposable income.
The information regulations give the director of legal aid casework the power to request information from the relevant Secretary of State about a prescribed benefit that an individual is receiving, in order to make a financial assessment of legal aid eligibility. It is the Government’s intention that the director be able to make an information request to the Secretary of State to find out whether a legal aid applicant is in receipt of direct payments that are disregarded for the purposes of the legal aid financial eligibility assessment. The amendment to the information regulations will enable the director to make such a request.
The statutory instrument makes relatively minor, but none the less important, changes to the civil legal aid scheme to provide for the application of specific merits criteria when determining a person’s eligibility for legal aid for applications for post-adoption contact, and to provide for efficiency in the assessment of legal aid eligibility through the power to make information requests. I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Davies. It is also a pleasure to be opposite the Minister. I have missed our debates on legal aid regulations a great deal, and I had to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) to give me this opportunity as I was having such withdrawal symptoms—I find the debates so racy.
The Minister is right that the amendments are minor but important to the scheme set out under LASPO. One might also add that they are fairly technical. It is the Opposition’s view, and also the view, I think, of the non-governmental organisations I have spoken with that work in the field, such as Resolution, that the changes are, as the Minister says, necessary and positive. We therefore do not oppose them.
I have nothing to say about the detail of the regulations, but I will make just two points. The first point, as I think the Minister knows of old, is that our objection is not so much to the way in which he is amending the scope for civil legal aid under LASPO, but to the fact that the scheme itself, as set out in the Act, puts us in the position of constantly having to make such amendments. The scheme’s very nature, with the move from matters being within scope and less being excluded to everything being out of scope but included, inevitably leads to a plethora of such amendments arising out of new legislation, changes to the policy or mistakes made in the original drafting or in included provisions.
The Minister might not be able to answer this question today, but I am sure that he will let me know his response: how many pieces of secondary legislation that have necessitated alterations to the scope have had to go through Committee since LASPO was enacted? That is important, and not just to show how the scheme works or does not work, but because every further amendment complicates the legal aid regime, and the more complicated it becomes, the more difficult it becomes—even for experienced practitioners—regarding cost, navigating the scheme and ensuring that people have a proper entitlement. I therefore hope not only that the amendment is made in statute, but that it is properly publicised so that those who can take advantage of the changes are aware of them.
The other point that I would like the Minister to comment on relates to regulation 3, which was brought to the attention of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It was originally—and erroneously—made by negative process and subsequently had to be revoked. I am sometimes puzzled by why a particular provision goes through the affirmative or negative process, but that clearly has consequences for how it is debated and what scrutiny it comes under. In this case, can the Minister shed a little more light on what happened? That is clearly an important point, and I do not say that for point scoring, as such things are not always immediately apparent, but, as it is difficult enough for parliamentarians to follow the process, we would hope that the experts who draft and allocate statutory instruments know where they are to go. I am glad that was picked up and dealt with, but any light that can be shed on why it happened in the first place would be helpful.
Mr Vara
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve again with the hon. Member for Hammersmith? I am flattered that he has been suffering withdrawal symptoms, but I am minded to say that he should keep that relatively quiet, because we do not want word of that getting around. It had been a pleasure to deal with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East.
Mr Vara
For the record—I would not want to upset him. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith is aware, LASPO is a major piece of legislation and the Government committed to review it between three and five years of its implementation. That review will be in the not-too-distant future.
On the number of SIs that have gone through as a consequence of LASPO, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is a major piece of legislation and, as such, it is necessary to deal accordingly with consequential changes. That is why we have had such a number of SIs. I do not know the number offhand, but I am minded to say that other major pieces of legislation are likely to have had a large number of consequential statutory instruments as well.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the technicality of the use of the negative SI process. I must apologise to the Committee for that technical error. I am happy to assure the Committee that as a consequence no individuals who were eligible for legal aid before this debate missed out, so there has been no impact on the public. I apologise for that technical error, which we are now putting right by considering this affirmative statutory instrument.
I believe that this is a worthwhile measure and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Energy Market Design
(8 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
I will briefly outline the procedure. First, a member of the European Scrutiny Committee may make a brief five-minute statement about the decision of that Committee to refer the documents for debate. The Minister will then make a statement lasting no more than 10 minutes. Questions to the Minister will follow. The total time for the statement and subsequent questions and answers is up to an hour. Once questions have ended, the Minister moves the motion on the paper. Debate takes place on that motion. We must conclude our proceedings by 7 pm.
Does a member of the European Scrutiny Committee wish to make a brief explanatory statement?
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, I think for the first time.
It might be helpful to the Committee if I take a few minutes to explain the background to the documents and the reason why the European Scrutiny Committee recommended them for debate.
One of the Commission’s strategic objectives is to secure reliable and affordable energy supply as part of its climate policy. That requires fundamental transformation of Europe’s energy system. Document 11018/15 is a consultative communication that seeks views on how that might be achieved, while taking consumer interests into account. The document notes:
“Europe’s electricity system is in the middle of a period of profound change…but…still faces considerable challenges”,
which include the move towards decentralised generation and the importance of integrating all those involved. In addition, there is a need to provide clear price signals for new investments, to facilitate renewables, and to provide a truly European dimension to the security of supply. The remainder of the communication sets out in more detail, specific issues on which the Commission has invited comments.
The Government strongly support integrated and well functioning energy markets, but recognise the challenges that that poses for member states and the effective functioning of the internal energy market. The Government also comment on a number of specific issues identified in the communication.
The communication is one of several produced recently by the Commission on European Union energy policy, and although its purpose is essentially to seek views, it raises a number of important issues. The European Scrutiny Committee took the view that it would be helpful if the House were to consider those at this formative stage, and therefore recommended the document for debate in European Committee A.
The Chair
I call the Minister to make an opening statement. Interventions are not allowed during a statement.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Turner. I very much welcome the opportunity to debate the important subject of European electricity market design.
A new design modernising Europe’s electricity markets will be key to ensuring that the EU’s ambitious decarbonisation efforts are conducted in the most efficient and cost-effective way. Europe clearly needs to do more to ensure the effective functioning of cross-border electricity markets that effectively integrate renewables and provide clear signals for investments while offering best value to consumers. As the Committee knows, in the UK we have already addressed those challenges through the electricity market reform and we stand ready to share that expertise with our European partners. For those reasons, I welcome the Commission’s consultative communication on energy market design.
I agree with the Commission that reform of European electricity markets is necessary to enable them to function safely and efficiently, fully integrating all market players and at minimum cost to consumers as we transition to low-carbon electricity systems. In several areas I agree with the Commission on the actions needed to improve the design of European electricity markets.
First, support for renewable generation should be market based, ensure cost-effectiveness and avoid overcompensation. Secondly, it is important to ensure that energy markets deliver a good deal to consumers. In that respect, effective competition plays a key role to ensure that consumers get the best possible deal on their energy bills. Thirdly, capacity mechanisms should be consistent with the single energy market and its aims; they should also be in line with the EU’s state aid rules and open to cross-border participation. Fourthly, progress is needed on implementing infrastructure projects of common interest and increasing interconnection to facilitate the integration of European electricity markets and to diversify their sources. Fifthly, voluntary regional co-operation is important in facilitating the delivery of a well functioning, well integrated internal market. Related to that, member states should engage with their neighbours to share expertise and best practice when developing their energy policies. Sixthly, the role of the Agency for the Co-operation of Energy Regulators and the EU regulatory framework should be reviewed to ensure that there is appropriate regulatory oversight as European markets become more integrated, but nothing must undermine the role of national regulators.
Through our domestic reforms, the UK has a unique perspective and extensive experience of the issues covered in the energy market design. I am keen to share those with the Commission and other EU member states. For example, the UK is the first member state to allow interconnectors to participate in a capacity market and to hold obligations in a similar way to other capacity providers.
At the same time, I am keen to work with European partners to identify common approaches to common challenges where possible. However, modernising Europe’s electricity markets cannot be achieved through a uniform approach. The diversity and specific requirements of member states will need to be carefully accommodated and considered and, as I have already stressed to the Commission, this is clearly a case where one size does not fit all. I therefore think that the Commission’s commitment to consult thoroughly with member states, regulators and relevant stakeholders throughout the market design initiative and before issuing any proposals is essential. I will of course ensure that any legislative proposals put forward by the Commission on energy market design are necessary, proportionate and fit for purpose and preserve the right balance of competence between the Commission and member states.
The Chair
We now have time for questions to the Minister. May I remind Members that these should be brief? It is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask related supplementary questions.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned the importance of interconnectors in the UK’s approach to the reform of the single energy market. She will know about the programme already under way of increased UK interconnectors. Is she confident that the present UK system of requiring interconnection to work on the basis of arbitrage between different levels of price in the energy system in the UK and where those interconnectors are connected to will work on the basis of a far higher level of interconnection, even in the context of caps and floors, as is envisaged in the EU document?
Andrea Leadsom
Yes, I am confident. I think that at the moment, it is very important that interconnectors respond to price movements. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the recent notice of insufficient supply margin, interconnectors played their part, so they are a very valuable resource for the UK at times of stress—when we have an unexpected outage of a plant—so that price signal is very important for them. He will also be aware that there are, however, measures to put in place in the event of a real system stress, where system operators can call on each other to provide specific support and help, which potentially can overrule simple price movements; but of course, competition and free-flowing markets are vital.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister states that she supports a common methodology for assessing capacity adequacy—indeed, in her Department’s response to the document, it is stated that the methodology
“must respect the differences between Member States”.
What does she think are the main differences that would cause the UK to resile from the real common capacity adequacy methodology?
Andrea Leadsom
I am not completely sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman’s question. The point I am making is that it is for individual member states to look at the balance of energy mix that is important for their own energy security. The integration among and co-operation between member states leading to greater interconnection offers all member states access to surplus in another member state, which is of benefit to energy security and, of course, prices in each member state. Interconnection is valuable, but that is not to say that one size fits all and that a common methodology must therefore be used in every member state for every interconnector.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Minister spoke of the especially effective integration of renewables. The document mentions storage. Does she agree that the storage of energy, particularly from renewables, will be key to the solution for European energy in the future and deserves a much higher profile in the document than is currently the case? What does she propose to do about storage in the UK?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right that storage will play a huge part in future. I certainly feel that not enough has been done at a time when power generation from renewables has been rising rapidly not only in the UK but throughout Europe and the world. Of course, that renewable generation has added stresses to the system because of its natural intermittency, so finding a way to bring down the costs of storage and exploring the different storage technologies is important for all of us throughout the world who aspire to decarbonise our energy systems.A particular advantage of greater focus on the electricity market design across Europe is that we will be able to share with our European neighbours the costs of the technology and of research and development. We will be able to co-operate and find the best and most cost-effective solution for all our consumers.
Kelvin Hopkins
Following on from the question from the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, storage comes in two forms: for the grid, there are things such as the scheme at Dinorwig—we need many Dinorwigs, in my view—but there is also domestic battery storage, which apparently is now available in America. Will the Minister tell us how the Government propose to approach storage at both those levels and what plans there are for the future?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman might be aware that significant investment has already been made into research at both grid and domestic-level storage in the UK. My Department has invested significantly in trying to bring design ideas to fruition. We are at the cusp of a big change, with storage costs coming down. He is right that some of the household battery designs in the States are becoming significantly cheaper. We are seeing those costs fall, supported by co-operation not only at EU level but elsewhere. Last week I was at the International Energy Agency, which is also very keen to focus on research and development into new storage technology to ensure that costs come down for us all.
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right that at both system and domestic level, storage and the whole demand-side response to enable people to reduce their own demand on the system are extremely valuable, not only to keep down costs for consumers but to help to support our energy security.
Philip Boswell
Following on from the hon. Member for Luton North, both he and the Minister mentioned battery power as a potential fix. Does she agree that that would be a megawatt solution for a gigawatt problem? I was Shell’s contract lead on the carbon capture project, which I moved from Longannet to Peterhead, and I am familiar with different storage facilities. Does the Minister think that compressed air electricity generation might provide an alternative solution? Does she agree on the megawatt issue?
Andrea Leadsom
Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is absolutely right to say that domestic battery storage is a small solution for an enormous problem. However, there is increasing use of smart metering; domestic households are increasingly generating their own power through solar panels on their own domestic rooftops; and so on—all these small measures in aggregate are changing the balance of the system. Those demand side responses of individuals play a very important part. Nevertheless, he is exactly right that there are some amazing technologies coming to fruition: compressed air; pumped storage; and grid level battery storage. There are a number of different technologies and my Department is very keen to see which one can have the biggest effect and, of course, which one can offer the most cost-effective solution for consumers.
Dr Whitehead
What progress has the Secretary of State made with the inclusion of non-UK-based projects that are eligible for contracts for difference, which the document clearly indicates would be the sort of cross-border collaboration that might be necessary in this reformed energy market? I believe that she produced a document in 2014 that indicated that the proposed date of 2018, when overseas non-UK projects might be eligible for CfDs, would be the earliest date at which that could be achieved. Is the Minister happy with that rate of progress?
Andrea Leadsom
Yes, I am entirely happy with that rate of progress. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise the issue of CfDs being made available to foreign generators. Of course, the key point for the British consumer is the evaluation of the contribution that offering a CfD to a non-British generator could make to our energy trilemma: decarbonisation; keeping the costs down: and keeping the lights on. We are considering two projects, but he is absolutely right that we will not be making decisions for the next year or two. The two projects are with the Isle of Man and Iceland. The Isle of Man has shallow waters and the appetite to build an offshore wind project, which it would then seek an export market for, and of course that could be very advantageous to the British consumer, because it could be very cheap energy to produce, so it could be good value for the consumer here. Likewise, a project with Iceland could offer us access to geothermal energy sources, which could be very advantageous for the UK. All those projects require quite a lot of evaluation, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will look at them carefully, based on whether they offer best value to consumers.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
Last week, the Energy and Climate Change Committee went to the national grid headquarters in Wokingham, where the energy coming in from the continent is clearly displayed on its “flows” board. One became aware of the differences in the wholesale price between that in the UK and that elsewhere. As we build more interconnectors, I would be interested to know the Minister’s views on that: obviously, it will bring down the domestic wholesale price, but what will be the impact on existing CfDs and therefore on the Government’s financial exposure?
Andrea Leadsom
The advantage of interconnectors in the round is quite significant for UK consumers. They improve access to cheaper and, quite often, low-carbon sources of additional electricity, and indeed gas, as he will know. We have therefore encouraged more interconnection and we have a number of projects that are under way and under consideration, under our cap and floor regime, which does not leave the consumer completely at risk on the costs payable to the producer.
There is always a balance to be struck, of course. Because of the way that the price determines the flow—the interconnector will send gas or electricity this way, should it pay to do that—prices here will need to be higher for the power to flow this way. However, in aggregate, we anticipate that more interconnection would have a supressing impact on wholesale prices in the UK, but not to such a great extent that that would unbalance the system in the UK. My hon. Friend raises an important point, and we take very seriously the issue of balancing the system in the UK—having the right balance between energy security, keeping costs down and keeping the lights on—and we must keep that under constant review.
Kelvin Hopkins
A decade or so ago, Germany had 300 times more installed solar capacity than Britain. In terms of renewables, we were second worst in the European Union after Malta, which is obviously a warmer country. Now, although we have been making progress in catching up, and solar has been coming on stream a lot more, the Government have chosen to reduce feed-in tariffs, which will be a disincentive to installing solar. Why have they done that? Can they not see that we still have a long way to go on solar? We must have better feed-in tariffs if it is going to be successful.
Andrea Leadsom
I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that the absolutely overriding issue with the feed-in tariffs, and with the levy control framework more generally, is that the costs were expected significantly to overrun the budget for 2020. When the Government came into office, we discovered that the deployment rate of wind, solar and other renewables had exceeded the expected levels, and we are in fact running well ahead of the deployment levels we thought we would see by now. If things had stayed as they were, the expected deployment levels by 2020 would significantly exceed the likely target, and the cost associated with them would represent a significant overspend.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the levy control framework budgeted for a £7.6 billion per annum cost to consumers by 2020, and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that it would have reached £9.1 billion by 2020. We have therefore had to take measures to keep the costs of bills to consumers down. That is an incredibly important point with so many still living in fuel poverty and the need to address energy bills. We do not consider that there is concern over electricity generation. We are ahead of our targets in terms of renewables electricity generation. We are where we expect to be, even with these measures to cut the cost to consumers. However, keeping the bills down is absolutely vital.
Philip Boswell
Following on from that, I understand that stopping wind and solar was one option, but was not another option to slow them down to retain the supply chain? Creating a supply chain from nothing, as we look to move into tidal, wave and other forms of renewable energy, is extremely difficult. Continuing with wind and solar, although they might have slowed down, may have given us a greater advantage, putting Britain at the forefront of renewable energy and maintaining the advantage we had gained. Was it perhaps unwise to stop entirely?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that we have not stopped the feed-in tariff entirely. We are consulting. The consultation is now closed and we will respond as soon as we can. There were significant numbers of responses, and we hope to provide the Government’s policy response by the end of the year. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in fact, the proposal is to continue to give a return to investors from participating in the feed-in tariff. He will also be aware that there is a significant amount of onshore wind still in the pipeline in terms of meeting the grace period for the early closure. He will also be aware that, only last week, the Secretary of State gave a continued commitment to support for offshore wind, where Britain has 50% of the world’s deployment. I hardly think that that is calling a halt to renewables.
Dr Whitehead
I note that the Minister, in response to my previous question, cited the Isle of Man as somewhere where a connection might be made outside Great Britain. How should other such areas, which are not in the EU, but are clearly associated with Great Britain, be dealt with in the discussions? I have in mind the Channel Islands, in particular.
Andrea Leadsom
That is not something to which I have given a great deal of thought. The key thing, from an energy policy perspective, is for the market to come forward with ideas. We do not go out and seek bids directly from the Crown dependencies, the islands, other member states and so on. We are looking for ideas to come forward. They can be generated by developers who have a good idea or by Governments in other countries that feel there is an opportunity. I understand that, in the Channel Islands, there is the potential for a tidal project in Alderney, but we are looking to developers or other Governments to come forward with those suggestions.
Kelvin Hopkins
The Minister is understandably concerned about prices for consumers, but there seems to be no concern about the extraordinary prices that will be accorded to nuclear. Nuclear will have a rigged strike price, which will put a massive burden on consumers, without considering the decommissioning costs, the clean-up costs and so on. Of course, the nuclear power stations that we are planning have been shown not to be working well in other parts of the world. They are miles behind time and over budget. How can the Minister justify going ahead with nuclear while restraining other forms of energy provision?
Andrea Leadsom
I am very disappointed with the hon. Gentleman; I thought he would take a pragmatic view. Hinkley Point offers excellent value to the UK consumer. It provides baseload, it is as low carbon as offshore wind, the consumer pays nothing until such time as it is producing electricity and private investors will be making the investment. The decommissioning price is included in the strike price of the CFD and the funded decommissioning programme has to be agreed up front, so it is simply not true that the decommissioning has not been considered. Hinkley Point will contribute enormously to our energy security at a time when we want low-carbon sources.
Every day of the week, we receive about 19% of our electricity from ancient nuclear power plants that will be shut down some time during the 2020s. We have to replace them either with something that is higher carbon or with new nuclear. France benefits from a relatively older, but not too old, nuclear fleet that reliably provides it with low-carbon energy day in, day out. That is what we want for Britain, which is why we are so committed to new nuclear.
In the UK, we have a huge opportunity to design our own small modular reactors. All the amazing R and D that is going on in the UK right now gives us the opportunity to be part of that. As the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, Hinkley Point C offers about 25,000 jobs in the Somerset area, and 60% of the £24 billion being spent on it will be spent in the UK. It is a great news story for economic growth, jobs and security of supply, and it will keep the bills down.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, in introducing the EU document on behalf of the European Scrutiny Committee, talked about the immense change that is taking place in the way that electricity is generated across Europe. It is becoming decentralised and is entering into different forms of generation, which removes the assumptions about centralisation that have been at the heart of the European system for a long time. Is the Minister confident, in the light of her Department’s recent reset statement, which appeared to point to a very centralised energy future, that the way forward for UK energy will be compatible with the changes that take place in Europe when those greater connections happen?
Andrea Leadsom
I do not agree at all that the Secretary of State’s speech suggested centralised energy systems. The UK is facing the most superb and exciting revolution in power generation. One of our biggest challenges in managing the system is the diverse range of power generators coming on to the system, putting stresses on the system and leaving us with the risk of projects being delayed due to the inability of getting a grid connection, for example. Those are the sorts of challenges that we are trying to address right now. Far from being centralised, our energy policy is very decentralised. The Secretary of State was trying to make it clear that the transition away from coal towards gas, which is the greenest, cleanest fossil fuel, and a renewable future is the right way for the UK to go, and I think she is absolutely right.
Kelvin Hopkins
I have high regard for the Minister, but we disagree about nuclear, although I do not want to debate that now. Another component of energy is insulation. We have very inefficient buildings across the country, and progress towards insulating all our buildings is slow, yet we can save the output of many power stations simply by properly insulating every building in the country. What does she have to say to that?
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, and I am glad that we are back on the same page. I agree with him on many things, and I am happy that this is one of them. From a policy perspective, we are keen to see a continued programme of insulating homes. I struggle to recall the figure, but there have been in the region of 780,000 measures to insulate and promote energy efficiency in homes. We are keen to do much more. Obviously, we will soon hear from the Chancellor what the spending envelope will be, but we want to refocus our spending measures for fuel poverty and fuel efficiency on those in greatest need. Of course, insulation and other energy efficiency measures are a core part of that.
The Chair
If no more Members wish to ask questions, we will now proceed to the debate on the motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 11018/15 and Addendum, a Commission Communication: launching the public consultation process on a new energy market design; and supports the Government’s approach of welcoming the Commission’s consultation which addresses the challenges that decarbonisation creates for Member States’ electricity systems and the effective functioning of the internal energy market, while working to ensure that any future legislative proposals preserve an appropriate balance of competence between the Member States and the Commission.—(Andrea Leadsom.)
Dr Whitehead
The document before the Committee addresses the move towards greater integration of the EU energy market. The Minister has answered a number of wide-ranging questions, but the document is at the heart of our discussions. I will make a couple of remarks about the extent to which we are already starting to integrate with the European energy market, at least in the way in which we are jointly facing outwardly. The UK needs to consider carefully how it integrates its activities with the way in which Europe is now going. The document does not make any particular policy recommendations. Nevertheless it points in a clear direction, with regard to what an integrated energy market in the EU might look like, and the sorts of provisions that would go along with that.
In a context where we already collaborate to an extent with the EU in various energy matters, reductions in, or the removal of, subsidies for onshore wind and solar are being defended on the basis that we have already reached the expected deployment of renewable sources of electricity generating capacity. I assume that the Minister at least bows in the direction of the idea that we have a joint EU target on renewables, and that energy as a whole should include a joint target for renewables. Indeed, the UK’s renewable energy target is 15% of energy by 2020, as part of an EU-wide agreement.
We may be reasonably close to the target in relation to one pillar, but we are woefully failing to get near the target in relation to the other two pillars—heat and transport. The EU target mechanisms enable member states to exceed the sub-targets in particular areas, to bring the overall target together. I should have thought that, bearing in mind the success of the UK deployment of solar and onshore wind, as well as the development of offshore wind as a substantial part of our renewable electricity targets, over-achieving on those target areas would make a major contribution to keeping the UK on track to meet its overall EU energy targets. Cutting the one area where we are almost achieving our target, when we are making no progress in the other areas, does not seem to be a terribly constructive way to secure our European commitments to EU energy targets.
Perhaps that is no more than a straw in the wind—an indication of the problems that the UK may encounter in making its position compatible with the EU’s, as we move on to greater integration of markets. I remind the Committee that for Paris COP 21 we have a joint position with the EU on the European contribution to carbon reduction and climate change targets; I would also point out the extent to which we are negotiating on those targets in Paris as one body. That will ensure that the member states can join in a real contribution to the joint targets agreed across the EU.
I want to highlight something on which I put a question to the Minister earlier. I warmly welcome the process—and I commend some of the early methods used to make progress with it—of expanding interconnection between the UK and the rest of Europe. The Minister will of course be very aware of how lamentably weak the UK has historically been in that respect. Not only are we an actual island, but we have been an energy island for many years as far as the rest of Europe is concerned. The level of interconnection of 3% to 4% is way below the norm in most of the rest of Europe and way below the norm target that the EU has set for the interconnection that should be afforded to member states of about 10% of supply.
The increase in interconnection is under way. Arrangements have been made by National Grid to develop caps and floors for the regime as far as the interconnectors are concerned. Even discounting the more longer-term arrangements that we might have in, say, Iceland and elsewhere, several interconnection plans look as though they are under way. However, there is the problem of the operation of interconnection. If we continue to operate the working assumption of interconnection in the UK on the basis of arbitrage between different prices between the UK and the continent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North mentioned earlier, it is a matter not only of EU regulation, but of logic.
The more interconnectors we have, the more those interconnectors bear down upon price differentials, and the possibility of making money for the interconnectors through arbitrage is deflated interconnector by interconnector. The model upon which interconnectors work therefore becomes untenable over time. My concern about other aspects of the way in which the UK energy market operates is that we may be in difficulty as far as being able to take advantage of how energy markets are moving in Europe. Should those markets come about, the danger is that they might be one-way markets as far as the UK is concerned and not the two-way markets that the greater integration of European markets should bring about.
The Department will want to have a good look at the direction this document moves us in, notwithstanding the fact that we are not required to make decisions at this moment, because that does set some store for the future. I hope that, given how our markets work in the UK, the Department will be active in ensuring that when the changes come about in the fullness of time, once the EU has discussed them and gone through all the various mechanisms, we will be in a position to be a genuine partner in that more integrated market, rather than a bystander.
Kelvin Hopkins
Some 35 years ago I had the pleasure of contributing as a joint author to a document called, “Energy: a planned policy” for the trade union NALGO, where I was a research officer. Another joint author was Dave Prentis, the current general secretary and an old friend. Even then there was a conflict between those who supported nuclear and those wanted other forms of energy generation. Many of the themes that have come up today—insulation, solar and wind power—were all debated 35 years ago. We are incredibly slow in catching up, particularly with some of the countries in northern Europe.
Denmark, for example, on sunny Sunday afternoons, is going to have the whole country ticking over on renewable electricity, which is incredible and way ahead of where we are. We are behind the pace on that. Also, we have started to rush to get rid of coal too quickly. Coal is not a clean fuel, but we have clean-coal technology. If we worked hard on carbon capture as well, it could have a much better future than the Government seem to think. Indeed, in Poland and Germany they are building coal-fired stations, not because the stations are a long-term solution but because they can make a contribution in the short to medium term. We still have coal in the ground in Britain, yet are closing down our last deep mine very soon, and are importing coal when we could have chosen to mine our own.
We should be planning for self-sufficiency in the long term. Having interconnectors or links with other countries that are generating electricity is all very well, but we could become dependent on those other countries, and who knows what the politics of the future might be? I would have thought it would be much more sensible to try to have as much domestic energy generation as we can.
Some of the other countries that are burning coal have abandoned and are closing down their nuclear power stations, because they fear that they are dangerous. That is true of Sweden and Germany. France was always heavily dependent on nuclear—that was its choice—but some of its nuclear power stations have been out of action for a long time because they do not work well. France keeps them ticking over because they are its main source of energy.
I do not think that we should rely on nuclear for the future. There are serious worries about dangers and costs, and ultimately decommissioning. We should be looking to other forms of energy generation—and, indeed, insulation. We know that renewables cannot provide the base-load we need unless we have good storage systems—batteries, and stations like Dinorwig, and so on—so we need a base-load provider for the time being. Keeping some of coal-powered stations going would be sensible. Gas is cleaner, and has a contribution to make as well, but in the long term both produce carbon and we want to see a world in which we produce energy in other ways.
Another aspect that has been sadly neglected is tidal power and estuaries. We should have built the Severn barrage years ago. We would have produced a very high proportion of our electricity just from the barrage alone. We are now talking about a lagoon and generating electricity in that way, but, again, we are behind the pace.
Then we come to the question of so-called markets. Energy should be planned, in my view. It should not be left simply to markets. We have a rather distorted one now; it is not a true market. A market is left alone: companies invest, and if they do not make a profit they go bankrupt, whereas if they do they stay in business. The energy markets have very close relationships with Governments, who are trying to work and plan through the private sector. But that is not that private, either—look at Hinkley Point. In France, energy is publicly owned, with EDF 85% owned by the French Government, and we can hardly call the Chinese Government private, given that it is a state communist Government.
Privatisation is not quite what it seems. Two thirds of the energy companies in Britain are foreign owned. The companies were supposed to have been privatised, but one of them—EDF—is 85% owned by the French Government. It has been openly admitted that EDF exploits the British market to subsidise its own market. It would be a good idea to start thinking about bringing the ownership of our energy companies back to Britain and possibly integrating the companies into some sort of national energy corporation. That is my view, and it is not just a socialist dream; it is what any sensible, practical person would do if they were concerned about energy security and making sure that we were not controlled by companies based abroad or even foreign Governments, as is the situation now.
There are a lot of big questions about energy in Britain that we have not really answered. I am sceptical about the energy policies of not just this Government but previous Governments—including that of my own party—and I shall remain so until the Government can demonstrate that they have got it right. I do not think that they have, or that other countries would allow their energy supply to fall into foreign hands in the way that we have. If we are dependent on importing energy, there will be a cost as well. We have a gigantic trade deficit, with the European Union in particular, so do we really want to start buying in more energy instead of producing it ourselves?
We ought to look hard at planned investment in domestic energy production, in every way possible. I believe that we could do that without relying on nuclear—certainly new nuclear—if for the time being we kept our coal-fired power stations open, invested heavily in storage and considered estuary tidal barriers and new forms of tidal energy. Technologies for generating electricity from tidal flows were being talked about even 35 years ago, but we have not made sufficient progress on them. We have underplayed all those new technologies, we have not invested enough in them and we have given far too much to the overseas energy companies, which make considerable profits out of the British market. The proposals are somewhat socialist in their flavour, but I do not resile from that; I am a socialist, and I believe that they are a practical and sensible way forward.
Philip Boswell
I will be at pains not to repeat much of what has been said in this debate, most of which I agree with, but there are three points that I want to touch on. Page 19 of the third report speaks of the regulatory frameworks and integrated markets, and of integrated entities not subject to regulatory oversight, the functions of which have “characteristics of natural monopoly”.
I feel that we should not allow this to fall into private or quasi-private hands and should not be frightened to discuss solutions outside the market, such as nationalising elements of what we do in that respect. That is very much what the hon. Member for Luton North spoke about. Scottish Water is a prime example of how that can be done, and the national grid is an entity that could and perhaps should have a future in the hands of public ownership, or even in some hybrid public-private partnership. That door should not be closed, as the language in the papers to date seems to suggest it is. I urge that that not be done, and that we keep an open mind to all solutions available to us at any given time, particularly when it comes to security of energy supply.
On security of supply, I understand that each member state needs to plan its future capacity, and market coupling should significantly increase the effectiveness thereof. Most are considering future shortfalls. Page 20 of the same paper mentions better investment cycles: that is, profit-driven investment. That has not been the case to date, and legislation needs to do more. Better investment signals alone will not resolve the security of supply problems. There is no excuse for poor, bad or no planning by any Government or governing body in that respect.
Although I concede that Hinkley Point is forward planning, having some knowledge of the industry, I am certain that neither the delivery price, which allegedly includes decommissioning, nor the start-up date will be as the company envisaged. I doubt that the UK has much, if any, contingency plan for the delays and price increases at Hinkley Point. Do not be presumptive.
Page 20, paragraph 1 warns of market distortion and speaks of an objective of phasing out harmful subsidies, including for fossil fuels. That ignores the fact that the only sensible move to a carbon-free system involves continuing to improve emissions reduction on fossil fuel energy production as we gradually move towards general greener energy markets, making full use of revenues from existing fossil fuels.
Also, what is the problem with distorting the market when the market is clearly not working for consumers? Again, the paper seems too reliant on the market, when as the hon. Member for Luton North rightly pointed out, Longannet provides about 40% of Scotland’s energy. It is being closed early, next year, although it had four years to run. He is absolutely correct that we were capturing more than 90% of emissions from the coal-fired power station. The last deep mine is in England, the last Scottish mine having already closed in Scotland. That is the quality of coal that we want, with fewer emissions.
The capture system that we use—we used it at Longannet, but have moved on to the gas system up in Peterhead—is a very early design. Capturing more than 90% of emissions is like having a block mobile phone. If we move to an iPhone 5 or 6 in five years’ time, we should be capturing a high 96% to high 98% of emissions. That is entirely doable. The marketplace requires support, not destruction. Moving away and closing plants is a missed opportunity. I will not repeat the points well made by Opposition Members about foreign companies—ironically, they are nationally owned—coming in and making a killing in our market with inflated prices, given the opportunities for reductions.
Andrea Leadsom
I am pleased that we have had a good, constructive debate on the important subject of electricity market design. Now is the right time to review European energy market design. As Europe continues to make progress towards its decarbonisation objectives, it is important to ensure that they are achieved without placing at risk the effective and efficient functioning of the single market in energy.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test talked about the EU decarbonisation targets. The Climate Change Act 2008 provides a stronger decarbonisation challenge than the EU targets and I assure him that we are looking at what we can do on heat and transport to ensure that we meet those challenges. I take his point that we could do more on electricity generation, but he would agree that it is also essential that we keep an eye on the cost to consumers. We cannot simply worsen fuel poverty and make our businesses uncompetitive, which we would if we increased, with no limits, cost to consumers through their energy bills.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the use of interconnection being historically far too low. I hope that he welcomes the fact that we are looking at far more interconnection going forward. He said that prices will eventually make interconnection inefficient and ineffective, but I assure him that that is not the case at the moment: the cap and floor regime makes interconnection still profitable and we hope to take advantage of lots of other interconnection opportunities that are coming up.
The hon. Member for Luton North raised coal. Our coal-fired power plants are all very old—40 or 50 years old—and they are due to come off-grid. They are not brand-new clean-coal plants. Most are not able to meet the industrial emissions directive and only a couple are prepared for it. Their future is not long term and I do not think he is right to say that we should stick with coal just because it is cheap. The Secretary of State made it clear that because gas is the cleanest fossil fuel—its carbon footprint is about half that of unabated coal—we should look to it as the bridge to a low-carbon future, not old coal. We are still dealing with the legacy of our deep coal mines. People are still dying of cancer and appalling problems caused by them, so I think we should be glad that those days are behind us.
Philip Boswell
On deep coal mines, we are get most of our coal from Colombia, where the health and safety record is appalling, as it is in China. If we were digging for our own coal here, at least we would be doing it safely. In the talk of switching to gas, I feel there is an alternative agenda, which is fracking, which the Government are rushing headlong towards. I wrote a paper on fracking in about 2006 and while I admit that the chemicals we were using or talking about using then as catalysts for better—
Philip Boswell
I apologise. Does the Minister intend to rely heavily on fracking to provide us with gas?
Andrea Leadsom
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to respond to that. At the moment we import up to half our gas needs, but by 2030 we will import up to 75% of our needs—he will know that the North sea basin is slowly in decline—so it is vital that we either build our home-grown gas or recognise that we will become extremely dependent on imported gas. My view is that, having looked carefully at all of the regulation and fracking processes, if it is safely done with some of the best regulation in the world—we have more than 50 years’ experience of regulating onshore and offshore gas—we can safely extract in this area.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is no fracking going on in the UK at the moment and we do not even know if we can extract gas from the shale. Never to give it a chance seems to be an enormous waste of a potential industry that could offer up to 65,000 much-needed jobs, which would be a huge boost.
Philip Boswell
We entirely agree with the Minister on the gas issue—Scotland has a moratorium. However, although it is true that the known gas reserves are in decline, there is plenty of gas off the west coast of which we are aware. Does the Minister agree that we should focus on developing that safer fracking offshore, rather than onshore gas?
Andrea Leadsom
I can agree that it is vital that we maximise the economic recovery from the North sea. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of all the measures we have taken, including on the fiscal regime, the setting up of the new Oil and Gas Authority, and our seismic studies to help businesses that want to consider the under-explored parts of the North sea basin. I certainly agree that the industry is vital to the whole UK.
The hon. Member for Luton North said that he thought that we are behind the pace in tidal. We are keen to consider such projects but, notwithstanding our desire to bring on new technologies, the projects need to offer value for money to bill payers if they are to be deployable. He also talked about nationalising energy businesses, and I am sure he will recognise that I do not agree with him on that. The UK has always been open to foreign investment but that does not mean usurers’ profits going overseas, nor does it threaten our energy security. Foreign investment in UK energy projects benefits the UK consumer, bringing in the competition that keeps the costs down.
Kelvin Hopkins
There is a problem for Britain at the moment. We have a gigantic trade deficit and it is effectively being paid for by inflows of money buying up assets and companies in Britain. That cannot go on forever. In the end we become completely owned by foreign institutions and people and have no control over our own capital in our own country. That is not a sensible way forward.
Andrea Leadsom
I do not agree. Now is probably not the time to debate capitalist philosophy, but I will give the hon. Gentleman just one example. I understand that the biggest Siemens project anywhere in the world at the moment is the turbine factory Siemens is building in Hull—a fantastic development—on an old part of the virtually derelict docks. It is creating up to 1,000 jobs in the local area and I have met young apprentices who are getting involved. It offers enormous potential, jobs and an exportable project that will be used for offshore wind turbines right across the world. It is a fantastic investment for UK energy security, as well as for jobs and growth.
Kelvin Hopkins
We are talking about net investment. If we had similar investment overseas and the net investment flowed outward rather than inward we would be making income from abroad, but the balance is wrong and we are selling off assets. So much of our industry is now foreign-owned that there will come a point when we own nothing of our own and the income from all our industries flows overseas.
Andrea Leadsom
The UK is a trading nation. We invest overseas. We allow foreign investors to invest in the UK. I still strongly argue that foreign investment in UK energy has benefited consumers by keeping bills down, and energy security by keeping the lights on.
Finally, the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill discussed his concern about the lack of energy security. I point him to the capacity mechanism that ensures that we provide capacity for the future, to ensure that we have the security on which we all depend. He will be aware of the demand-side response. We enter into agreements with companies that wish to be paid either to reduce their demands on the system or go off-grid and generate their own power at times when that is needed. That response is a vital contribution to energy security, as is the capacity mechanism, and the hon. Gentleman should rest assured that my Department’s absolutely non-negotiable core focus is ensuring energy security.
Philip Boswell
On the issue of closing Longannet, 40% of Scotland’s energy generation comes from Longannet, which will make us more reliant on EDF Torness and Peterhead—the two ageing nuclear power stations that the Minister referred to. That creates a massive problem for a black start. If things go down in Scotland it is extremely difficult, without power generation from the coal-fired power stations, to start up again. What assurances can the Minister give us that we will be able to start up again?
Andrea Leadsom
All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that we, along with National Grid and Ofgem, focus above all else on security of supply. National Grid has a range of tools—I have mentioned a couple—to ensure that we are able to keep the lights on at all times. It is our No. 1 priority. I can assure him that National Grid has created sufficient security of supply and that there is a margin to ensure that the lights stay on, as stated in its “Winter Outlook Report”. The matter is absolutely non-negotiable.
For the energy market design in Europe to enable the further integration of the single electricity market, national interventions need to be in line with single market aims and the EU state aid rules. Consumers should be enabled to play a more active role in the market and mechanisms should be developed further to incentivise demand-side response and storage. The UK is already addressing those challenges, including through the implementation of the electricity market reform and other measures, such as smart meters, enabling domestic households to make the most of their electricity management. Many other member states are only just starting. We stand ready to share our expertise with them and with the Commission.
I want the UK to be constructive on the issue of energy market design, but I am determined to ensure that any proposals brought forward by the Commission maintain an appropriate level of competence between the Commission and member states. I urge the Committee to endorse the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 11018/15 and Addendum, a Commission Communication: launching the public consultation process on a new energy market design; and supports the Government’s approach of welcoming the Commission’s consultation which addresses the challenges that decarbonisation creates for Member States’ electricity systems and the effective functioning of the internal energy market, while working to ensure that any future legislative proposals preserve an appropriate balance of competence between the Member States and the Commission.—(Andrea Leadsom.)
Petition
Police Cuts in Merseyside
Written Statements
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
The Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council will take place in Brussels on 24 November. Fiona Hyslop, Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs, will represent the UK at the culture and audiovisual sections, and the Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, Shan Morgan, will represent the UK at the sport section.
Culture and Audiovisual
The Council will be invited to adopt draft Council conclusions on culture in the EU’s external relations with a focus on development co-operation. The UK welcomes these conclusions, which propose the establishment of an ad hoc task group to contribute to the preparation of a concrete, evidence-based, shared and long-term approach to culture and development co-operation.
It will then consider draft Council conclusions prioritising intercultural dialogue in the future work of the Council. This would involve the establishment of an expert group to take stock of existing policies on intercultural dialogue, with a special focus on the integration of migrants and refugees through the arts and culture, which we welcome.
The Council will then have a policy debate on how best to act together against the destruction and illicit trafficking of cultural heritage in conflict areas. In this debate the UK will encourage the European Union to take forward targeted interventions that play to its strengths and areas of competence, and avoid duplication of effort with other bodies. We will also highlight our own efforts in this area,
During lunch there will be an informal debate on the importance of digitisation to culture and heritage. The UK will agree that digitisation is a powerful tool which can help deliver many cultural, social, and educational objectives. We will be stressing that to reach its full potential all actors in the sector must be encouraged to develop their own digital strategies without unjustified constraints being imposed by Governments.
Sport
Turning to the sport sector, the Council is expected to adopt conclusions on the representation of the EU member states in the foundation board of WADA and the co-ordination of the EU and its member states’ positions prior to World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) meetings. These conclusions review the 2011 resolution and conclude that no change in the current procedure is required.
The UK will be invited to adopt the conclusions following the meeting of the WADA foundation board on 17-18 November 2015.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who is responsible for Sport, has been approved to be one of the EU representatives on the foundation board; this is expected to have been ratified at the WADA meeting.
The UK is also expected to adopt Council conclusions on the promotion of motor skills, physical, and sport activities for children.
The conclusions ask for member states to consider implementing cross-sectorial policies, with the education, youth and health sectors among others, to promote physical activities and motor skills in early childhood taking into account, in particular, the following recommendations of the health education physical activity expert group.
The UK will note that it already has in place physical activity guidelines for infant and children targeting notably policy makers, local authorities, parents, family and wider community, ECEC settings, schools and sport clubs, in collaboration with scientific experts.
There will then be a policy debate on the educational potential of sports in helping disadvantaged youth to find their place in society.
The UK will look to share examples and best practice from initiatives across our sporting and education landscape.
Other Business
The EU Commission will present an update on the regulatory fitness (REFIT) exercise in the audiovisual sector, and other relevant initiatives of the digital single market strategy.
This will be followed by information from the Luxembourg presidency of the Council on the state of play concerning signing of the Council of Europe’s convention on the manipulation of sports competitions.
There will then be an information point concerning the outcome of recent meetings of the WADA, as well as information from the presidency on the informal meeting of Ministers for Sport which took place in Luxembourg in July 2015.
Finally there will be a presentation from the Netherlands on their work programme and priorities for their forthcoming presidency of the Council, which will run for six months from January 2016.
[HCWS323]
NATO Parliamentary Assembly
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
The following will represent the United Kingdom at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly:
Baroness Adams of Craigielea
Richard Benyon MP (Leader)
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
Mary Creagh MP
Martin Docherty MP
Nigel Dodds MP
Mike Gapes MP
James Gray MP
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Lord Jopling
Jack Lopresti MP
Jason McCartney MP
Madeleine Moon MP
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
Jamie Reed MP
Andrew Rosindell MP
Alec Shelbrooke MP
Bob Stewart MP
[HCWS322]
Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bridges of Headley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
If there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, the instruments before us today will enhance the operation of individual electoral registration, which was successfully introduced last year. In Great Britain, more than 12 million people applied to register under IER, with three quarters of those applying online.
The Minister for Constitutional Reform has spoken about the future vision for electoral registration: maximising opportunities for a complete and accurate register, and making sure that as many of our citizens as possible can participate in our democracy. We know that people rightly expect digital services to be built around them. The Government want to do this while making the system as efficient as possible and driving down costs. These instruments make a modest contribution towards that.
First the instruments remove the requirement for IER applicants to provide their previous name if it has changed in the previous 12 months. Instead, they allow an applicant to provide their most recent previous name if they wish, but provision of this information is not mandatory. The application form will explain that, where previous name details are not provided, additional personal information may be required to verify the application.
Secondly, the instruments make changes to the correspondence required to be sent by electoral registration officers to electors and applicants for electoral registration. Thirdly, the regulations update the electoral registration application form and the annual canvass form to bring them in line with changes made by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 to the jury-summoning age in England and Wales. This will ensure that the correct information for jury summoning is collected on the electoral register. They will also authorise EROs in England and Wales to inspect marriage records in order to improve the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register. Finally, they make a minor consequential amendment relating to the provision of personal identifiers for postal voting.
The Scottish instrument does not make provisions consequent on the change to the jury age because the changes do not apply in Scotland; nor on the change to access to marriage records, as EROs in Scotland are already authorised to inspect these records.
The previous Government originally intended to make the giving of the most recent previous name mandatory in draft regulations last year. Following concerns raised by users, including from the transgender community, that provision was removed so that further consultation could take place. It emerged that a more acceptable solution would be for IER applications to require the applicant’s most recent name on a voluntary basis. The regulations before your Lordships effect such a change.
The changes to correspondence are designed to help reduce the administrative burden on EROs and the potential for confusion among members of the public by avoiding multiple pieces of correspondence. The regulations will amend the way in which EROs send confirmation of registration to successful applicants and the information that that confirmation must contain. When EROs have conducted a review of an individual’s entitlement to registration, they will require the ERO to notify that individual in writing of the outcome, and provide information about the appeal process. They also require the ERO to send the individual notice in writing of the outcome of a hearing of a review, and provide information about any appeal process. They will amend the categories of cases in which the ERO does not need to send a letter to any person affected by an alteration in the electoral register.
On the provisions related to the upper age limit for jury service, the register is used as the basis on which people are called for jury service in England and Wales, and EROs have a statutory duty to supply this information. The age limit will change from 70 to 75 in early 2016, and the regulations will require an applicant who is unable to provide their date of birth to specify if they are 76 or over. EROs also issue canvass forms pre-populated with details of electors, including whether they have indicated that they are over 70. These regulations will require the form to specify whether an elector is 76 or over.
Finally, giving authorisation for EROs in England and Wales to inspect marriage records could alert EROs to electors who may wish to change their name on the electoral register, and could also be used to verify the identity of an applicant whose identity cannot be verified using DWP data-matching. That is because proof of name, surname and date of birth is now required in order to marry in the UK. This would reduce the number of applicants who have to provide documentary evidence to establish their identity.
There has been considerable consultation on these provisions. On the previous name and correspondence provisions, the Electoral Commission, while content overall, said that there was some uncertainty about the likely impact on electors and the electoral administration process and that the Cabinet Office should therefore consider how best to assess the impact of the change. The Cabinet Office has responded that it will, together with the commission, continue to monitor completeness and accuracy of the register. It has also given assurances to the commission that the online registration website will be amended to ensure consistency with amendments to the paper application form, and that there is no change to the requirement that, when individuals apply to register by telephone or in person, the ERO must record the required information in writing and submit the completed form for verification. The Cabinet Office also confirmed that it intended to make the regulations in December 2015, subject to parliamentary approval, and would continue to consult with the commission over form design.
The Information Commissioner’s Office—the ICO—while welcoming the intended explanation to applicants that provision of previous name information was not mandatory, suggested including further clarification that, when previous name information was not supplied, additional personal information might be required to verify an application. This suggestion has been adopted in the draft regulations. The Association of Electoral Administrators and other electoral administrator organisations consulted responded that making provision of the most recent previous name voluntary would probably have a negative impact, since people may not provide the information, and applicants should be asked to give all previous names. The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives considered that it would lead to more time spent resolving queries. The Government have carefully considered these issues but have decided not to change their policy on previous names. The extra words of clarification suggested by the ICO will give a stronger message about the consequences of not providing previous name information.
On the jury age provisions, the Electoral Commission was content with the proposed timetable for the instrument. The commission pointed out that, if the referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union were held in autumn 2016, it could have an impact on the timing of the publication of the register after the 2016 canvass and the consequent availability of information about jurors. The Government responded that, in the event of the timing of such a referendum impacting on the 2016 canvass, this would be considered alongside any other pertinent issues relevant to the conduct of the 2016 canvass. The commission will also make reference to inspection of marriage records in its guidance for EROs.
The ICO was also consulted on the jury age and marriage records regulations, and did not consider that they raised any new or significant data protection or privacy issues. On jury age, SOLACE raised the point that information about over 75 year-olds would not be available until after the 2016 canvass. The Government responded that this is why the measure will not come into force until after 1 December 2015. The Government Equalities Office raised some concerns regarding EROs inspecting marriage registers and how this might potentially affect transgender people. The Government informed the GEO that guidance on the use of this information would be a matter for the commission, and ensured that there was a discussion between the GEO and the commission on the production of guidance.
In conclusion, the Government believe that the instruments before the Committee today will enhance IER, and I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations make a number of changes to the information that needs to be supplied to EROs when applying to register to vote under IER, along with changes to jury summoning in England and Wales, and to correspondence and postal voting. On this issue the Government have on far too many occasions got the balance wrong between completeness and accuracy. They have continued, as they did in the last Parliament, to fail to secure cross-party agreement on these matters, which is a matter of great regret. When my noble friend Lord Wills was in the other place, he had responsibility for these matters. He always sought to get cross-party agreement, which he took seriously. We are not doing that now and it is very regrettable.
I accept that these are relatively small matters, but I fail to see how they help to improve the completeness of the register. The noble Lord said that the Electoral Commission referred to the uncertainty of the impact on electors and on the electoral administration process. Furthermore, as the noble Lord mentioned, the Association of Electoral Administrators thought that this would have a negative impact, as we are moving from mandatory to voluntary previous name provision. SOLACE thought the same.
I find the comments in paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum extraordinary. You are saying that the provision of a previous name increases verification rates, whether it has changed after more or less than 12 months, so you then remove the 12-month mandatory rule and totally ignore the professionals who think that this could lead to fewer people giving the information, thereby increasing the cost and bureaucracy and making the register less complete. This is an example of the Government interfering where they are not wanted. They should have left well alone.
I did not see any reference to political parties in the consultation, which the noble Lord talked about in his remarks. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they will leave it to the Electoral Commission to talk to the political parties. To be clear, it does not do so on these matters. The Government need to consult with the political parties about elections as part of the process. Many experts in all the parties’ headquarters give advice on these things.
Will the noble Lord also provide me with a copy of the ministerial guidance referred to in paragraph 9.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum and explain further how the Cabinet Office will review the completeness and accuracy of the register as referred to in paragraph 12?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I thank the noble Lord for his short but sweet intervention. I am sorry to say that we might disagree on some points. I do not believe that these provisions quite do what he says. I believe that they will enable us to create a more complete and more accurate register.
The noble Lord asked some detailed questions about how we made these decisions. I will review his questions and, if I may, write to him in due course. In particular, I am more than happy to pick up his point on consultation with political parties as we look ahead in the months to come. Even if we disagree on certain matters, we all certainly agree that we want to see more people engaged in our political system and registered to vote. That is an aim we all share, and I am more than happy to consider ways to work with him on that.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am very pleased to hear that. Before the noble Lord was in the House and had his present responsibilities, I was never convinced by that at all. We could do far, far more. As we all know, millions are not registered to vote in this country. That is an absolute disgrace for a democracy such as ours. We could do much more on this, but we are just not getting there at all at the moment.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am happy to talk to the noble Lord outside of the Room on that precise point. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments we had on the IER debate a few weeks back, but I believe that there has been some confusion over those who are not on the register and those who are entitled to vote. We need to get more people on the register and encourage greater engagement. I am more than happy to discuss that with the noble Lord. As I said, I will endeavour to write to him to address any of the other points.
Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bridges of Headley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
European Parliamentary Elections (Miscellaneous Provisions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2015
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bridges of Headley
That the Grand Committee do consider the European Parliamentary Elections (Miscellaneous Provisions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, the draft order relates to the functioning of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 as it applies to Gibraltar. The Act provides the regulatory framework for political parties and campaigners at elections and referendums. In 2004 the Act was updated to take account of the extension to Gibraltar of the franchise for European Parliament elections. This included establishing which Gibraltar individuals and bodies were eligible to campaign at European parliamentary elections in the south-west region, or to donate to political parties contesting those elections. As far as possible, the eligibility criteria follow the principles that determine which UK individuals and bodies are eligible to donate to political parties and campaign at national elections.
Noble Lords will be aware that the proposed referendum on our membership of the European Union will also take place in Gibraltar. As a result, the European Union Referendum Bill, currently being debated in the Chamber on Report, applies various provisions of the Act that deal with Gibraltar matters.
In drafting the EU Referendum Bill, and from discussions with the Government of Gibraltar, it has been clear that certain references to Gibraltar legislation in the Act are now out of date or otherwise inaccurate. To ensure the effective functioning of the EU referendum, as well as future European parliamentary elections, it is necessary to update and correct these references, and the order will deliver that.
The order also substitutes references to the “House of Assembly of Gibraltar” with references to the “Gibraltar Parliament”. The Gibraltar Parliament replaced the House of Assembly of Gibraltar as a result of the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006.
Finally, the order also removes certain redundant transitional provisions which accounted for circumstances before the publication of the first version of the Gibraltar electoral register for the purpose of European Parliament elections.
I reassure noble Lords that, in accordance with the Government’s statutory duty, the Electoral Commission has been consulted on this order and has confirmed that it is content with it. Officials have also worked closely with the Government of Gibraltar in preparing the order. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I have no comment to make about the order. It is all very straightforward, so I am very happy to support it.
Small and Medium Sized Business (Credit Information) Regulations 2015
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the Grand Committee do consider the Small and Medium Sized Business (Credit Information) Regulations 2015
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the draft Small and Medium Sized Business (Finance Platforms) Regulations 2015. With permission, I will refer to these as the draft regulations henceforth.
The Government are committed to ensuring that small and medium-sized enterprises—SMEs—can access the finance that they need to grow and to create jobs. Currently, the four major banks account for 80% of SMEs’ main banking relationships. The Government believe that such high concentration levels are bad for business and they are determined to see a significant change in competition in the UK SME banking market.
These draft regulations represent the final legislative piece of two flagship measures to improve competition in the SME lending market. They will remove major structural barriers to entry in the SME lending markets—namely, a lack of availability of credit information, a lack of understanding of alternative finance providers and a tendency on the part of most SMEs to give up when they are declined for finance.
It may be helpful at this point if I provide some detail on the need for these regulations. Although these draft regulations are linked and complement each other, I will start by focusing on the aspects relating to credit information.
A lender needs to know the creditworthiness of an SME in order to lend to it. The major banks have access to those data, particularly current account data, which gives them a comparative advantage in assessing the risk of a borrower. The control of information on the creditworthiness of SMEs by existing providers is a barrier to entry in the lending market. Lack of access to those data limits the ability of challenger banks and alternative finance providers to accurately assess credit risk, both in absolute terms and relative to those lenders that hold the relevant information. This barrier can be removed through the sharing of credit data by lenders. In the UK, data are shared through private credit reference agencies—CRAs. However, certain data, particularly current account data, are shared through “closed user groups” and not on an equal basis. This puts newer lenders that do not have access to the full range of data at a disadvantage in taking well-informed credit decisions.
The Office of Fair Trading, the Competition Commission, the Bank of England, the Boosting Finance Options for Business review, headed by Tim Breedon, and numerous think tanks and informed commentators have all highlighted the lack of SME credit information as a barrier to competition in the SME banking market and SME lending in particular.
These draft regulations will open up the closed groups that have access to certain types of information. This will level the playing field between providers, allowing alternative finance providers and challenger banks to accurately conduct SME credit risk assessments and make it easier for SMEs to seek a loan from a lender other than their bank. More available data should also enable a better understanding of the SME sector, which should further stimulate competition and innovation in SME lending, improving the cost and quality of services offered.
I will now turn to the finance platforms draft regulations, which will also have a major impact on the ability of SMEs to access more and better finance and on the ability of challenger banks and alternative finance providers to compete effectively.
Survey data show that many small businesses approach only the large banks when seeking finance. A large number of these applications are rejected. In the case of first-time small and medium-sized business borrowers, the rejection rate is around 42%. We know that when applications are declined, a large number of smaller businesses cancel their plans rather than exploring alternative options. As other finance providers with different business models may be willing to lend to these businesses, this represents a market information failure, with borrowers looking to borrow and lenders willing and able to lend, but an inability on the part of both to identify each other.
Under this legislation, designated banks will be required to offer any SME they decline for finance the chance to have its details shared with an online platform that can help match it with other finance providers. This will help put together the alternative finance providers and challenger banks that may not be aware of the SMEs seeking finance and the SMEs seeking finance that may not know about alternative providers and challenger banks. This will help facilitate more lending to SMEs that are looking to grow and expand.
Challenger banks and alternative finance providers have been very supportive of both proposals, as are the UK’s major business groups, including the Federation of Small Businesses and the Confederation of British Industry. The major banks and the British Bankers’ Association have also been supportive.
Together, these policies have the potential to create a significant change in the market for SME finance. However, for this to happen it is essential that SMEs have confidence in how their data are being used, and that the necessary protections are in place to safeguard the quality of those data. The Government have ensured that SME protections are key elements of the policy design.
The Government have provided SME protections in a number of ways. I will start by outlining the protections afforded to SMEs under the credit information draft regulations. First, data will be shared only where the terms of the products themselves allow data to be shared with credit reference agencies. This reflects the existing framework for the sharing of personal data in the UK and is in line with Data Protection Act legislation. Secondly, the finance provider requesting access to the information from the CRA must gain the express permission of the SME to do so and can access the information only for the purpose of undertaking a credit assessment.
Thirdly, the vast majority of SMEs—sole traders, small partnerships and unincorporated bodies—have the right to action in respect of any incorrect data held about them by a CRA. This allows a complaint to be made to the CRA seeking correction, a complaint to be made to the FCA or the Information Commissioner and, ultimately, a court to order the CRA to rectify, block, erase or destroy any incorrect data. These rights are enshrined in the Data Protection Act and Consumer Credit Act legislation. However, there is currently a difference in protections if the CRA in question is FCA regulated or non-FCA regulated. CRAs that handle mainly business data do not need to be regulated by the FCA as the provision of commercial credit data is an unregulated activity. The credit information regulations will modify both the Data Protection Act and the Consumer Credit Act to ensure that the protections apply for data held by all designated CRAs.
Fourthly, these draft regulations will extend the right of action in respect of any incorrect data provided under the draft regulations to all SMEs, including companies. This allows a court to order the CRA to rectify, block, erase or destroy any incorrect data held on any SME. Finally, the draft regulations will extend the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service so that any micro-business with a dispute with any designated CRA can seek a Financial Ombudsman Service decision which replicates the situation in other areas of the regulated financial sector.
I turn now to the protections provided to SMEs under the finance platforms draft regulations. First, data are provided to finance platforms only with the SME’s agreement, and finance platforms can provide those data to finance providers on their lending panel only in an anonymised form. Finance providers will then make expressions of interest through the platforms, and SMEs will have the choice to allow specific finance providers to see their details and begin a bilateral conversation. This process will ensure that the business seeking finance remains protected and in control throughout the process.
Secondly, and mirroring the credit information draft regulations, the finance platforms draft regulations will extend the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service so that any micro-business with a dispute with any designated finance platform can seek a Financial Ombudsman Service decision. Taken together, these are a welcome strengthening of protections for SMEs and have been welcomed by SMEs themselves and business groups.
I turn now to the issue of designation and I will identify the banks, CRAs and finance platforms upon which the obligations contained within these draft regulations will fall. The Government have already announced that they intend to designate RBS, Lloyds, Barclays, Santander, HSBC, Allied Irish Bank, Bank of Ireland and Danske Bank. This decision was made on the advice of the Bank of England based on market share and the importance of these banks in the SME lending market in both Britain and Northern Ireland. Capturing these banks achieves the policy objective of opening up competition in SME lending without imposing the burden of sharing data on smaller credit providers. The Government have not yet announced which CRAs or finance platforms will be designated under these draft regulations. The British Business Bank is currently undertaking a due diligence process on CRAs and finance platforms that have expressed an interest in becoming designated and will advise HM Treasury on designation later in the autumn. This due diligence process will ensure that any CRA or finance platform which is designated has the required systems and processes to ensure that the obligations and policies within the draft regulations can be carried out while providing the necessary protections for SMEs. This will help ensure that these policies are successful and can make a significant positive impact in the SME lending market.
I hope that my words this afternoon have assured noble Lords that the draft regulations are needed and welcomed, and that they will make a positive impact on the SME lending market and therefore provide for improved outcomes for the UK’s SMEs when accessing finance. They will help to create a level playing field between finance providers and make small businesses aware of alternative finance options, while maintaining and strengthening protections for our smallest businesses. This will mean that the small businesses that are so vital to the UK economy can have confidence when accessing finance and can continue to get the finance they need to grow and expand.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and thorough presentation of these two sets of regulations. As he outlined, these two statutory instruments will help small and medium-sized businesses access finance. The first instrument concerns the information available to finance providers of SMEs where the SME in question has given permission. SME lenders above a certain market share threshold will be required to share credit data on their SME customers with credit reference agencies for the purpose of credit scoring. CRAs will also be required to ensure that there is equal access to this data for alternative credit providers.
The second instrument addresses SMEs’ ability to access the finance they need in order to start and sustain their business models. The orders would require designated banks to refer details of SME applicants who are turned down for finance, with the SME’s permission, to private sector platforms that will facilitate contact with alternative finance providers that are looking to offer finance. The intent of both these measures is to ensure that the process behind SME lending is easier and that the present barriers experienced by many SMEs are removed. These are principles which the Labour Party wholeheartedly supports. The Federation of Small Businesses states that small firms account for 99.3% of all private sector business in the UK. They employ 15.6 million people and have a combined turnover of £1.75 trillion. The country’s economic success depends on small businesses thriving.
Given this, as my honourable friend Rob Marris said in the other place, we will not oppose these orders. That said, there are still a number of points that I would like to raise which I hope the Minister can clarify in his response. In 2012, the Breedon task force stated that the Government have a role to play in encouraging lending,
“through the disclosure of data that sits within public bodies.”
Can the Minister outline what the Government have done in the intervening three years to play their role? For example, did they encourage RBS and Lloyds Bank to lend particularly to SMEs? As has already been outlined, the first statutory instrument relates to the need to make credit information on SMEs more accessible. Can the Minister indicate what greater data sharing banks have done with non-bank providers? Are there examples of best practice that can be followed and will these be included in the implementation guide? The Explanatory Memorandum states that an implementation document will be produced; can the Minister set out a timeline for its introduction?
Turning explicitly to the finance platforms instrument, in section 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum the Government state:
“It has not been possible to monetise many of the benefits of this measure”.
Yet the impact assessment dedicates two pages to setting out the benefits for small businesses, saying that, applying these averages across the 25,500 successful businesses seeking loans from alternative providers via platforms suggest that this policy could increase the supply of credit to SMEs by approximately £1.4 billion. I ask the Minister very simply: which one is it? The Government can either provide monetised estimates or not; they cannot do both. I would be grateful for some clarification.
I would like to make a final point specially relating to these measures concerning credit reference agencies—CRAs. During the debate in the other place, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said:
“The Government have not yet announced which CRAs or finance platforms will be designated under the draft regulations. The British Business Bank is currently undertaking a due diligence process on CRAs and finance platforms that have expressed an interest in becoming designated, and it will advise the Treasury on designation later in the autumn. The due diligence process will ensure that any designated CRA or finance platform has the required systems and processes to ensure that the obligations and policies within the draft regulations can be carried out, while providing the necessary protections for SMEs. That help will ensure that these policies are successful and have a significant positive impact on the SME lending market”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 5/11/15; col. 6.]
While I accept that the necessary due diligence has to be carried out, it is regrettable that these regulations were introduced before a decision on the CRAs had been made. There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation, and I would be grateful if the Minister could say something more on this. Does he not think that a more informed and constructive debate could have taken place if we had had ready access to information about who the credit agencies are going to be? Finally, can the Minister say when he expects a full list of the CRAs and finance platforms to be available and whether further regulations will be required?
It is also up to CRAs, as I understand it, to apply to be designated under the credit information regulations. Will the Minister explain to the Committee the Government’s thinking on why that will not be compulsory? As I have already said, we support any attempts by the Government to make the life of small businesses easier, and that is why we are not opposing these instruments. They do, however, deal very much with the start of a small business’s life and, in ending, I would like to ask the Minister about the other end of the spectrum, which is of course inextricably connected.
Does the Minister not agree that, while it is all well and good enabling the start-up of more SMEs, this means very little in the long term if they are not sustainable because so many are held back by late payments? The Government are not doing nearly enough to compel larger businesses to pay their smaller counterparts. Does the Minister not agree that we need to promote a culture of prompt payment and that the Prompt Payment Code just does not go far enough? The Government need to start legislating to create these obligations, rather than expecting things to change by sticking to the status quo.
The SME access to finance study found that two-fifths, or 43%, of businesses say that they are concerned or very concerned about cash flow over the next 12 months, but their biggest problem, experienced by a quarter of SMEs, is late and failed payments from customers. Seventy per cent of small businesses do not grow—they remain small businesses—so, for the sake of their sustainability, it is vital that we get this right.
These are issues which we will be addressing in the Enterprise Bill. However, I would appreciate it if the Minister would respond to the points that I have made —if not now then in writing after the Committee.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support for these regulations and I shall try to answer the questions that he asked. If I find that I cannot answer any of them in great detail, I shall be very happy to write to him.
I think that these draft regulations will generate a step change in the market for SME finance in terms of competition that could improve not only the amount of finance available to SMEs but also the cost and quality of services that small firms are offered. As I said in my opening remarks, a large body of evidence shows that there are currently market failures in the SME lending market, and these draft regulations will help to remove some of the barriers to entry identified by this evidence.
The noble Lord suggested that we should explore greater credit data sharing, and asked what the Government have done about greater data sharing for banks and non-bank providers. In fact, the regulations do just that: they apply to the UK’s major banks, which will be required to share data through the CRAs. The BBA and the major banks have been collaborative and supportive in ensuring that these regulations are effective in increasing the amount of data on SMEs that is shared on with finance providers. A footnote in the credit information Explanatory Memorandum or the finance platform Explanatory Memorandum gives the example of the sharing of data on VAT returns. That is another example of the Treasury—HMRC, in fact—consulting on credit and publicly held data.
The noble Lord asked what the Government have been doing to help SME lending with RBS and Lloyds, in which the taxpayer has a large share, albeit diminishing. Although RBS and Lloyds are mainly publicly owned, it was always a feature of that arrangement that operational decisions are not made by Ministers—that was never the Government’s approach. The best way of ensuring that the banking sector, including RBS and Lloyds, is in a position to lend to SMEs is to ensure that the overall economic situation is suitable for that, and that there are good lending conditions. Policies such as funding for lending were also designed to help banks in that regard. We established the British Business Bank to support the development of diverse finance markets for smaller businesses, bringing together the management of new and existing schemes into a single commercially minded institution. That bank will manage up to £2.65 billion of existing schemes and deploy a further £1.25 billion on new programmes.
The noble Lord asked why these regulations are being made before the CRA implementation guide is published. The banks and the CRAs, with input from the Government, have put together a technical specification guidance document that is aiding the IT development programmes being undertaken, and which will ensure that banks and CRAs can comply with their obligations. The document is therefore being used effectively and will be published in due course. However, a publication date has yet to be confirmed.
We said in the impact assessment that the benefits cannot be monetised. In it, we tried to put the costs to business and banks and took a conservative position, saying that although we expect the regulations to result in an increase in lending, we would not monetise and take notice of them. So, there may well be a benefit, but we do not take credit for that in the impact assessment. We are trying to give a worst case scenario but we obviously expect there to be a benefit; otherwise, we would not do this. It was simply a question of being sensible and not monetising something that is not definite.
The noble Lord asked why the CRA designation is not compulsory, as it is for the banks. In many ways, the situation with CRAs is the other way round. It is for the benefit of a CRA to be designated and to have available all this data. The issue for the Treasury in designating a CRA is to make sure that it is capable of dealing with and protecting the data. It is therefore important that CRAs are able to show that they can deal with data in line with the data regulations. We want to set the framework by these regulations so that, when the designation due diligence process takes place, we can get the system up and running as soon as possible. This is a framework which will allow the position to take off as soon as the designations are made.
Small and Medium Sized Business (Finance Platforms) Regulations 2015
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2015
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, the statutory instrument before the Committee today amends the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013, known as the “merits criteria regulations”, so that legal aid funding can be provided in some cases where the prospects of succeeding are below 50% but where legal aid funding is required under the European Convention on Human Rights or EU law. These changes have been made to reflect the findings on the legal aid merits test made by the High Court in the recent case of IS.
While this judgment is under appeal—I have had an indication that an appeal will be heard on 25 or 26 April next year—the Government consider it important that these amendments are brought into force without delay to provide a means by which the Legal Aid Agency is able to comply with the judgment in the interim. Failure to make such a change promptly would have resulted in an extended period in which the Legal Aid Agency might in some cases either have taken an unlawful decision or indeed have been unable to take any decision. For these reasons, and owing to limited parliamentary time, the statutory instrument before us was made and brought into force using the urgency procedure provided for under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
The merits criteria regulations set out the merits criteria that must be applied by the Director of Legal Aid Casework at the Legal Aid Agency when determining whether an applicant qualifies for civil legal services under Part 1 of Schedule 1 to LASPO. Broadly speaking, these criteria provide the basis for deciding whether it is justified to provide, or to continue to provide, public funds in an individual case. The factors to be considered are similar to those that would influence a privately paying client of moderate means when considering whether to become involved in proceedings.
Why are the Government taking this action? The merits criteria regulations include a number of different requirements, including a prospects of success test for an application for full representation. When the prospects of success test applies, the regulations generally prevent the Legal Aid Agency funding any case where the prospects of success are below 50%. Had the merits criteria regulations remained unamended, the director would therefore have been placed in something of a bind. Refusing legal aid in some cases would have been an unlawful decision as, on the High Court’s findings, it might have resulted in a convention breach. While the Legal Aid Agency could have sought to delay non-urgent decisions, we did not think it would be reasonable to await the outcome of the Government’s appeal in this matter, which may not be known for some time. Even though the hearings are in April, there may well of course be some delay in producing a judgment.
The amendments made by this instrument mean that, in cases where an application for full representation is subject to an assessment of its prospects of success, legal aid may now be provided for some cases assessed as having “borderline” or “poor” prospects of success. The director will need to be satisfied that it is necessary to determine or, in the case of a risk of a breach, appropriate to determine that the prospects of success test is met in order to prevent a breach, or the risk of a breach, of the legal aid applicant’s rights under the convention or enforceable EU rights.
A discrete point arises. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, or JCSI, has expressed its views on the clarity—or, more accurately, the lack of clarity—in respect of the transitional provisions in the SI. I apologise to the Committee for any confusion that may have been engendered; the department intends to develop a revised drafting approach—resulting, I hope, in greater clarity—to be used in future that is more closely targeted at solely those cases that begin before commencement. However, we consider that the transitional provisions in this instrument still operate to achieve the policy intention.
This instrument makes important and necessary amendments to the merits criteria regulations to ensure that legal aid will continue to be provided in any case where refusal to grant would be unlawful. It does so while maintaining the underlying purpose of the civil legal aid eligibility criteria and the legal aid scheme—that is, to make sure that the limited legal aid budget is directed at the cases which most justify public funding. I therefore commend this statutory instrument to the Committee, and I beg to move.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. I thank the Minister for his very clear outlining of these regulations. I can tell him and the Committee at once that the Opposition do not oppose it—indeed, we support it. I thank him for his generous apology regarding the points made by the JCSI. The regulations are clearly a sensible step for Her Majesty’s Government to have taken following the High Court judgment. The Government are appealing that decision, and we are grateful to the Minister for telling us the date. I gather that it was a fixed date for the hearing. The Minister and I know that those dates can change, however fixed they may or may not be. If the appeal is unsuccessful, will it be the Government’s intention to change the criteria by legislation? Our advice, for what it is worth—and if the Government are interested in any way—is not to do so. We welcome the regulations.
Lord Faulks
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his observations and for the advice that he so generously offered on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition. Of course, depending on the outcome of the case, one side or another might consider it necessary to pursue the matter further to the Supreme Court, were permission to be obtained, but in due course a decision will follow that judgment and we will decide whether or not to proceed with the matter.
I have been given an amended date, I am afraid to say. I wrongly informed the Committee that it was April, but the better news is that it has been brought forward: the date is now 21 or 22 March 2016, but of course that will be subject to the provisos so accurately identified by the noble Lord, Lord Bach.
Lord Faulks
I am grateful for that interruption. Who knows? But we are at least moving in the right direction, I am glad to say.
I am grateful for the general acknowledgement of the sense of these regulations, and I thank the noble Lord for that. I believe this to be an appropriate instrument that makes the necessary amendments to the merits criteria regulations in order to comply with the judgment pending the appeal.
Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria and Information about Financial Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
(8 years, 5 months 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 and Information about Financial Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
Relevant documents: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks)
I beg to move that the Committee has considered the draft Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria and Information about Financial Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
The statutory instrument before us today amends the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 to specify the merits criteria that must be met in order to qualify for civil legal aid for applications for post-adoption contact. This statutory instrument also makes amendments to the Legal Aid (Information about Financial Resources) Regulations 2013—the information regulations. The amendments provide that the director of legal aid casework at the Legal Aid Agency may make an information request to the relevant Secretary of State to find out whether a legal aid applicant is in receipt of direct payments for special educational needs or direct payments under Section 17A of the Children Act 1989. That information is relevant for the purposes of the means assessment that the director must carry out.
Orders for post-adoption contact were introduced by the Children and Families Act 2014, which inserted Sections 51A and 51B into the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Applications can now be made for a post-adoption contact order when the court is making an adoption order or when an adoption order has been made. These provisions came into effect on 22 April 2014. The Children and Families Act 2014 also amended Part 1 of Schedule 1 to LASPO. This means that legal aid may be available for any application for post-adoption contact where the person applying for legal aid provides evidence of domestic violence or child abuse or where they are a child who is a party to the proceedings.
Why is this necessary? As I have already mentioned in this Committee today, the merits criteria regulations set out the merits criteria that must be applied by the director of legal aid casework at the Legal Aid Agency when determining whether an applicant qualifies for civil legal services under Part 1 of Schedule 1 to LASPO. Regulation 2 of the merits criteria regulations sets out the interpretation and definition of terms used within those regulations. This instrument adds certain civil proceedings in relation to post-adoption contact orders to the definition of “private law children case”. As a result, the merits criteria which apply to such proceedings when determining an individual’s eligibility for legal representation will be those set out in Regulations 64 and 68. This means that some elements of the standard merits test will not apply, such as the requirement for the case to be unsuitable for a conditional fee arrangement.
Separately, Regulation 69 of the merits criteria regulations sets out the criteria for determinations for legal representation in relation to family cases to which specific merits criteria apply, other than those specifically provided for elsewhere in the merits criteria regulations. The amendments made by this instrument will also exclude from the scope of Regulation 69 determinations in relation to certain post-adoption contact order proceedings. This exclusion is necessary because, as I mentioned, the applicable criteria for such matters will be those in Regulations 64 and 68.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I again thank the Minister for his clear outlining of both parts of this regulation. I must tell the Committee that we, on behalf of the Opposition, welcome this regulation in both its parts. It is slightly worrying for the Opposition to agree to two regulations, one after the other, concerning Part 1 of LASPO. The Minister knows very well that we think LASPO has been an absolute disaster, certainly as far as Part 1 is concerned and as forecast by many Members of this House.
However, this is not the occasion to debate Part 1 of LASPO in general terms. I know the Minister will be looking forward as much as I am to the debate on Thursday 10 December on the future of legal aid—it is something he may not be aware of, but it will be a thrill for him to come to it. These regulations seems perfectly sensible. We have taken some advice on the effects of the two parts and they seem extremely sound. We are happy to support them.
Lord Faulks
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his comments on the two parts of this statutory instrument. I look forward to the debate on 10 December —it comes as news to me, but no doubt I would have been informed in due course—if I am lucky enough to respond to that report on the Government’s behalf. I know that the noble Lord has been assiduous in his opposition to Part 1 of the LASPO Act. I noticed that he did not mention Part 2, to which there was also opposition, but that seems to have rather faded away. However, that is a debate for another day and we look forward to engaging in it.
In the mean time, I respectfully say to the Committee that the instrument makes important and necessary amendments to the merits criteria regulations to ensure that legal aid will continue to be provided in any case where refusal would be unlawful. It does so while maintaining the underlying purpose of civil legal aid eligibility criteria and the legal aid scheme, which is to ensure that the limited legal aid budget is directed at the cases that most justify public funding. I therefore commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Police: Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Lytton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have to improve police leadership, accountability and ethics in the light of the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life Tone from the top.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to introduce this short debate on the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, entitled Tone from the Top. My interest in police accountability is not original. It started with Lord Corbett of Castle Vale and his researcher, and the fact that I was able to source a PhD paper from one Dr Roger Patrick, which delved into all sorts of matters on the reporting of crime. I then raised the issue before the House in a short debate in March 2013. Subsequently, the Public Administration Select Committee looked into the matter. Following that, the Committee on Standards in Public Life made its investigation and report. I am delighted that the author of that report, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, as chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, is with us. I congratulate him on his committee’s report.
I continue by declaring what I believe is an important matter: the fundamental importance of policing in this country. It is a vital first service. It must command the confidence of the public at large, of business and of government. I pay tribute to the many officers who willingly face danger in the interests of protecting the public. There remains a high level of public confidence and support, even though it has taken a bit of a hit over recent years because of a number of high-level failings and revelations referred to in the noble Lord’s committee’s report. Stories continue to come out weekly, if not daily.
Responsibility for checking crime recording is claimed by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, so it is unsurprising that following the Public Administration Select Committee’s report, the Committee on Standards in Public Life turned its attention to the means of accountability set up under the coalition Government—namely, the police and crime commissioners and the panels that work with them. The Home Affairs Committee described this as the creation of,
“a system that relies on local scrutiny and the main check is at the ballot box”.
It also remarked that this comes round only every few years.
Since their creation, several factors have come to light. First, it is fair to say that there has been a bit of a democratic deficit in terms of poor voter response. That feature has not been improved on in subsequent intermediate elections for replacement PCCs. Secondly, many of the police and crime commissioner candidates came from party-political backgrounds. From my own standpoint—from where I sit in the House—I think that a greater degree of political neutrality would have been more appropriate.
Thirdly, some PCCs came to their posts with a history of police or allied area involvement. In some cases it appeared that this might—and in some cases did—impede their role of holding a chief constable to account. Fourthly, while PCCs have a sanction against the chief constable, this may not drill down to the culture of policing in the middle ranks. Example may be from the top, but leadership deficits pointed to by others may mean that this does not permeate through the force, leaving some cultural practices effectively unchanged and unchallenged. Fifthly, PCCs, and indeed their panels, seem to have had a reluctance to challenge anything remotely associated with what the police might choose to claim to be operational matters. I note that the CSPL report comments on the reluctance of one PCP to cross that line.
In respect of police and crime commissioner performance, the report makes some significant recommendations, which I shall paraphrase because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, will want to flesh some of them out. They fall into the areas of standards, evaluation, sanctions, disclosure and transparency, objectivity in dealing with complaints and safeguards in appointment procedures.
Although the intention was that PCCs would better hold the police to account, that was never the only mechanism. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the College of Policing, the Home Office, parliamentary committees and so on all have a role to play, but it seems to me that none of the issues of “gaming” of crime figures, which I referred to back in 2013, has gone away. Dr Rodger Patrick—yes, the same one—tells me that it is continuing. He believes that it is institutional and, having seen some of his evidence, I have to agree with his interpretation.
Even HMIC seems to admit that police under-recording of crime may be significant, but then it gave the West Midlands force an improbably high approval rating of 99% for its recording procedures. However, at the very time that it was carrying that out audit, circumstances were unfolding which led to the eventual murder of Jacqueline Oakes in January 2014. Apparently the force knew about Ms Oakes’s killer and the history of violence and abuse. It seems that the IPCC has now served notices on 26 serving officers, seven police staff and two officers who have left the force in connection with this case. This suggests an institutional issue and a failure to record information—the precise factor that HMIC was supposed to audit. I am told that, subsequently, the West Midlands PCC examined 13 domestic homicide reviews from that force and found that in more than half of them there was a failure by the police to take robust action. So, even had incident reporting been as good as HMIC suggested, the resultant action was defective.
Middlesex University reported on West Midlands’s domestic homicide reviews in July 2014. This found that the process remained less than joined up, with many stakeholders, different and poorly integrated areas of focus and an absence of holistic management. Dr Patrick, whom I regard as a great expert on crime recording and statistics, has pointed out that the HMIC methodology of auditing forces’ performance is weak. Of course, we will probably never know whether these factors contributed to the death of Ms Oakes.
There is a line in the sand on the question of oversight of police operations. The definition of “operations” as a term of art matters and is based on understandings that go back to the 1920s or earlier. The details of response to an emergency, the sources of information used to disrupt criminal activity and the methodologies for apprehending wrongdoers would of course qualify as being operations. However, there has to be transparency and accountability by the police. If, as I apprehend, freedom from interference in operations can in certain circumstances translate in modern terms into a denial of any oversight rights at all, I think it is time to redefine what is or is not “operational” in this context.
In a conversation today with one of the police force deputy commissioners, other issues came to light, particularly in connection with youths in custody, where there are few, if any, common protocols linking the police activity with that of local authority education or social services departments. Furthermore, it seems that there are no protocols setting out the respective areas of activity of HMIC and IPCC and how these interleave. If either had a clear road map of their scope and activities, such a protocol would be unavoidable. So on one level agencies defend their turf vigorously; on others, there is unnecessary overlap; and, on a third, there are some significant gaps which erode confidence and ruin, degrade and may even cost lives.
My point is this: all the regulators of the police—police and crime commissioners, HMIC, the IPCC, the College of Policing, the Home Office and so on—are themselves to a degree embedded with policing, and I wonder whether this does not in some circumstances interfere with true independence and objectivity in holding to account those who need to be held to account. For their part, police and crime commissioners walk a tightrope: they need to work with their chief constable in a collaborative manner but yet be able to take the ultimate sanction if need be. But they can only be as good as the performance of other regulators permits.
I finish, with his consent, with a quote from the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, at the annual Newsam Memorial Lecture 2015 hosted by the College of Policing. He said:
“It is no good preaching principles and codes in an organisation if, for example, promotions, pay and other incentives actually encourage something quite different. A number of investment banks had exemplary statements of values. But what was actually rewarded in them, right up to their chief executives, was excessive risk-taking and the pursuit of profit at the expense of customer service”.
So ongoing indifference, acquiescence, rewarding poor performance, an administrative Nelson’s eye, if you like, and poor leadership remain. Indeed, Tone from the Top is a prophetic title. This matters. Confidence in the forces of law and order and the cohesion of society are at stake—as, ultimately, is the rule of law. That is why this report is important for what it says and what it infers, and why it requires government attention.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for bringing forward this debate. I declare my interests in policing and as the drafter of the first police code of ethics in 1991.
The report is extremely good and I read it with great interest. I agree with many of its conclusions. The three that I would particularly note are the call for a mechanism for removing police and crime commissioners, of which there is not one; the weaknesses of the police and crime panels, especially to acquire information; and the call regarding chief constable selection processes. There is also something in the confusion of roles between the PCC and the chief officer. One of the most interesting places that that occurs—it is obvious that it is occurring—is around who talks to the press after a major incident. In some places it is the PCC; in some places it is the chief constable. One of these days, the PCC is going to find themselves caught up in an inquiry because of what he or she said at a press conference. That is just a general point.
What I looked for in the report and did not find is the issue of the power of the PCC to dismiss a chief officer. I want to elaborate on that in my short speech. Mechanisms are clearly laid out in statute for the dismissal of a chief officer found guilty of gross misconduct. That is a pretty obvious requirement in any disciplinary process. But what is missing is the understanding of how it is possible to remove a chief officer merely by making a public statement. That is the crucial point. In other words, a public statement by a PCC to say, “I have lost confidence in this officer”. That is what has happened on more than one occasion.
It is exactly the same as—and I will put this in the most objective manner I possibly can—my slight disagreement with the current Mayor of London. If you look at what was then the Greater London Authority Act, you will see that there were pages and pages on how to remove a commissioner or deputy commissioner, but that was not the route that Boris chose. He chose to threaten that he would have a vote and declare a vote of no confidence, as he put it, “because I have the numbers”.
I merely say that it seems to me that the Government—in concert perhaps with the National Police Chiefs Council and the Chief Police Officers Staff Association, if it still exists—should produce some guidance that actually says that a chief constable can only be publicly called upon to step down after a disciplinary sanction and only with the prior consent of a police and crime panel. That is prior consent, not subsequent. The reason for saying “public” is because in any organisation the person in charge has the right to wander into the room, sit down with somebody and say, for instance, “Gordon, it is time to go”. That is a private conversation which continues, “I think that this is getting worse and it is time for you to go”. I have no qualms about that—but if someone stands in front of the town hall saying, “I have no confidence in the chief constable”, that leaves the chief constable with absolutely nowhere to go. The problem with that is the implications.
The implications are that, for the very first time in England and Wales, a chief constable answers to one person, and one person alone. That would make you pretty cautious. Are you going to be cautious about things where you make a professional judgment but the PCC wants something very different? How many times are you going to argue with the PCC, and then insist on your operational independence, before you start getting a cold feeling between your shoulders? This is a terribly important issue. A chief officer, like any other chief executive, is appointed to do things that he or she believes in, and they should be able to pursue them after rational debate, even against the views of the PCC. At the moment, there is a danger that they might not. They also might decide not to investigate the friend or relative of a PCC. When I was commissioner, we investigated the Prime Minister. There is a freedom which it is necessary for the police to have, and one-to-one relationships require even more care than when answering to a committee or a police authority.
The second point I want to add is this. What is the long-term effect of this on the young men and women who are currently passing through the strategic command course at the Police Staff College? I think that some of them might be on it right now. They face an average period of seven or eight years before they become chief constables, and they will pass through the ranks of assistant and deputy chief before doing so. They are now going into that knowing that, for the next seven or eight years, they will watch how their chief operates with the PCC. My fear is that over those years they will watch chief officers make less good decisions because they are afraid of losing their jobs. They are afraid of losing their jobs not over a matter of discipline but because of how a decision is taken by the PCC to remove the chief without just cause. That is potentially a very worrying thought. What will be the mindset of aspirant chief constables in eight years’ time if they are brought up in a place where they are vulnerable?
The reason that this is particularly difficult is that to some degree the model for it comes from the United States. The most famous example is Bill Bratton being sacked by the mayor of New York for appearing on the front cover of Time magazine as the man who saved New York, whereas the mayor thought that that was his job. The difference is that in America people move from police force to police force after having been removed in that way. There is no detriment and Bill Bratton is back. That is not possible over here. If you lose your job, you lose your reputation and your pension.
Lord Wasserman (Con)
My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for initiating this debate. The noble Earl has had a long interest in policing generally and in the integrity and accountability of police leaders in particular. It is no surprise, therefore, that he has pressed for a debate on this important report on his specialist subject. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and his committee on having decided to turn their attention to policing and on producing a report on this subject which is substantial, not only in size but in content.
Police leadership, ethics and accountability have been very much in the news in recent years. Hillsborough and the Stephen Lawrence case continue to attract attention, although the events to which they refer occurred decades ago. Moreover, those issues show no sign of going away. As recently as last Saturday morning, the media were full of stories about the leadership of the Metropolitan Police having to apologise publicly for the behaviour of undercover officers who had “violated the human rights” of women with whom they had had relationships in circumstances which the Met had to admit were a blatant “abuse of police power”.
So it is not surprising that the Committee on Standards in Public Life, whose mission is to advise the Prime Minister on ethical standards across the whole of public life and to monitor and report on issues relating to the standards of conduct of all public officeholders, should have decided that the time had come to turn its attention to policing. The only surprise about that decision is that it took it so long to get around to it. The committee was established more than 20 years ago and this is its 15th report. I should have thought, given the critical importance of honesty, integrity, openness and impartiality in policing, and the public’s concern about how far the police actually incorporate these values in their day-to-day activity, that the committee would have put the police several places higher on its priority list for review. Be that as it may, I am delighted that the committee finally focused on this important public service and I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and his committee.
At the end of what appears to have been a very thorough and comprehensive review of the leadership, ethics and accountability arrangements in our 43 local police forces, the committee came up with 20 main recommendations, several divided into sub-recommendations. There is not nearly enough time in this very short debate to deal with all or even most of these recommendations. All I intend to say is that while I support most of them, there are a few which I feel are a bit too prescriptive and others where I feel that the committee has not been prescriptive enough and has taken the easy way out by passing the buck to the Home Office to put things right.
For example, chapter 5, where the committee discusses the accessibility to the public of information about the performance of their police force, says:
“The public needs to access information to scrutinise the performance of their local police force and to hold the PCC to account”.
Who could possible object to this statement of the obvious? However, when it comes to recommending how this openness should be encouraged and monitored, the committee makes no proposals of its own but simply endorses the recommendation of the National Audit Office that the Home Office should report on how it plans to increase data availability and accessibility to help the public hold PCCs to account. I found this rather disappointing, to say the least.
Sadly, it is not the only case in which the committee deals with a difficult issue by handing it off to the Home Secretary for action. I would not have bothered to highlight this aspect of the committee’s recommendations if I did not think that it reflected what I regard as an important misunderstanding about the way local policing is presently organised. In short, I feel that the committee, by putting forward recommendations of this kind, has either not understood, or perhaps not quite accepted, the world of local policing as it is following the coming into force of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011—that is, the world of local policing post the introduction of PCCs. In this world, whether we like it or not—I know that many noble Lords do not like it at all—it is the responsibility of PCCs, among other things, to provide adequate information about the performance of their forces and it is up to the public, either through the ballot box or through community groups or specialist organisations such as CoPaCC, mentioned in the report, to ensure that they do.
Even the National Audit Office recognises this. In the third paragraph of this report’s admirable executive summary, the committee quotes with approval the NAO’s statement that the present model of local policing is one of “democratic accountability” in which,
“the public will have elected Police and Crime Commissioners and will be holding them to account for how policing is delivered through their force”.
It could not be clearer, so I do not for a moment believe that the Home Office has no role to play in local policing—far from it. I believe strongly that the Home Office has a vital role to play in local policing, for example, by ensuring that the laws on our statute books reflect the evolution of criminal behaviour; by establishing and maintaining strong national policing agencies to tackle crimes such as human trafficking, cybercrime and economic crime, which cannot be tackled effectively locally; and, of course, by arguing the case for local policing when public expenditure totals come to be distributed between competing public services. But when it comes to most of the issues discussed in this report, the buck must stop with the people directly elected to deliver policing services to their communities. They have the power; they must be held accountable for using it.
Devolution of power to local level does not always work as we would like it to. It is always easier to blame central government for everything that goes wrong locally. But giving local communities responsibility for the professional men and women employed to meet their policing needs must be right. We must give it time to work.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for initiating this debate and, even more than that, for the work he carried out which first drew my attention to the key issues of leadership in modern policing. Some three years ago the noble Earl initiated a major debate on police statistics. That was before it became pretty fashionable or commonplace to read newspaper headlines saying that police statistics are maybe not cast in gold and that there might be some problems with them. Long before that, the noble Earl led the way in this Room, basing himself in part of course on the work of Dr Patrick—as he would say himself. That gained my interest.
I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, that the Committee on Standards in Public Life had been in existence for too long without looking at policing, given our remit. My first intention was to look at the statistics. I discussed this with the chairman of PASC and he became very interested, too. In the end, PASC reported in the autumn of 2013 on policing statistics, and the first document from the committee under my chairmanship was a submission to that report. The PASC report ends by saying to us, “Again, would you look at questions of leadership and policing?”. That is what we have tried to do.
It almost pains me to say something so simple about the debate around PCCs but I have one strong idea in mind: even in our best quality newspapers, there has not been a serious discussion about how this major experiment, whether you like it or not, is working out. Either X was wonderful and transformed the sensitivity of the police to crimes against women in their area, or X was a total idiot. That is all you get in one headline after another, with no systematic attempt to look at what this means. PCCs were a major attempt to place the local principle at the heart of our policing and a major transformation, so our idea above all else was to try to produce a balanced and sober report.
I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Blair, from a position that I well understand, that there is an essential lacuna—from his point of view, a lack of sharpness—in the report. I also accept the point of view from the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman. However, our approach was to try and raise the quality of the debate. One reason I am so happy about the debate today is that the Committee on Standards in Public Life has a new practice in that we do not just produce a report. We come back at the end of a public debate, as we did on our most recent report last summer, and produce a follow-up. Many things have been said today from all parts of the Room that are of great seriousness and will be reflected in the follow-up report.
While we found a great deal that was positive—greater innovation, visibility, and focus on community engagement and victim support—we also found clear evidence of standards risks in the new experiment: confusion over roles; insufficient challenge and scrutiny; and insufficient redress where PCCs fell below the behaviour expected of them by the public. I am anxious to hear the Minister’s views on the particular recommendations our committee made.
We recommended a national minimum code of conduct for PCCs. That is an essential component in ensuring clarity as to the standards of conduct and behaviour expected from PCCs, and to give the public—to whom they are accountable—a common yardstick to judge acceptable conduct. We also suggested a review of the current powers, and that the Home Secretary should urgently review whether there are sufficient powers available to take action against a PCC where conduct falls below the standards expected of public officer-holders. In our view, those standards are always defined by the known principles of public life.
The committee considers the introduction of a power of recall a matter for Parliament, but believes that should this power be introduced for PCCs, commonality relating to the thresholds and triggers to initiate recall is required. In other words, we accept that this is a complicated message. As far as I understand some of the public remarks from the Home Secretary, she acknowledges that if you have recall for MPs, there is an analogy that there should be recall for PCCs. We understand that argument, but we want to ensure that it is done with precision and fairness.
I concede that it is now the very short term with the elections coming up in 2016, but an idea the committee is keen on is the circulation of an ethical checklist to all declared candidates for a PCC post, with a request from the committee for each candidate to publish their responses. We will encourage relevant local media outlets, whether print, broadcast or social, to seek out and publicise their candidates’ responses. For us, accountability should not simply be an issue at four- yearly election intervals. We need greater scrutiny and transparency of PCC’s decisions between elections. The public must be able to make fair and balanced assessments of this very important new experiment.
There is one other thing that we did not see, apart from the points so cogently made this afternoon. We did not expect the number of resignations by PCCs. As a practical matter, I am not now saying that there is a solution to this. I simply acknowledge that it is something that we did not expect at all from our visits—and we talked to lots of PCCs around the country. It is not something that can be solved by the application of the Nolan principles, but it is a matter of significance.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for the debate. I note his comments about crime figures being underrecorded by the police—was there ever a greater case of shooting yourself in the foot, bearing in mind the justification that the Government have given for reducing police numbers by so great an amount is the drop in crime?
I have a great deal of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, said about the way his career came to an end, which I think was entirely inappropriate. As far as the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, is concerned, the report majors on holding PCCs to account. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, not only for the report but for raising that as an issue, because I want to concentrate on concerns with the police and crime commissioners, rather than concerns with police leadership.
In 2010, the Liberal Democrats raised concerns about PCCs. We had concerns about concentrating so much power in one individual. As an alternative we suggested that, where police authorities were coterminous with local authority areas, the police authority should be made of the local elected councillors. Where they were not, there should be directly-elected police authorities, but not just one individual. In particular, concerns are highlighted in the report about the hiring and firing of police constables, the transparency of the selection processes and the ability to hold the police and crime commissioner to account when their conduct falls below the standards expected of them but short of criminal conduct.
I will illustrate the report’s abstract concerns by reference to a real-life example. A police and crime commissioner selected and appointed a chief constable to head their force. Some time after appointment, serious allegations of misconduct against the chief constable were reported to the PCC by a whistleblower. The allegations were of a sexual nature, involving the alleged abuse of authority, with the chief constable using his position, as both the chief constable and a man, to behave in inappropriate ways towards female staff. Because the chief constable had only recently been appointed by the PCC, there was clearly potential for the allegations to cast serious doubt over the judgement of the PCC in appointing the chief constable in the first place.
It has been brought to my attention by some of those involved that this confidential report of serious misconduct, including the name of the whistleblower, was passed to the chief constable by the police and crime commissioner. Those who brought the matter to my attention felt that, as the PCC was elected, and because of the sensitive nature of the allegations and the impact on the victims if their identities were made public, there was nothing they could do about what they considered to be the entirely inappropriate behaviour of the police and crime commissioner.
Eventually the allegations against the chief constable were formally recorded and investigated, and findings against him were made, short of requiring him to resign. Only after relentless pressure, mainly from his own officers, whose representative organisations, rather than the PCC, said they no longer had confidence in him, did the PCC finally agree to start the proceedings that would result in requiring the chief constable to resign. Eventually he did resign of his own volition.
Apart from the question of lack of judgment by the PCC in the first place, there are serious questions about her conduct—such as the leaking of confidential information about the identity of the complainants to the perpetrator—that have still not been addressed. This report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life queries the robustness of the selection of chief constables by PCCs, the effectiveness of police and crime panels in holding the police and crime commissioner to account, the confused complaints system in relation to PCCs, the lack of a code of conduct for PCCs, and insufficient powers to take action against PCCs whose conduct falls below the required standards.
Those are not abstract or theoretical concerns. As I have outlined in this one case, of which I have some detailed knowledge, the whole system by which PCCs work together with chief constables, how they are appointed and how they are then held to account and disciplined is, in my opinion, flawed. As the report highlights, because there is only one person holding the chief constable to account—in an increasing number of cases, the same person who appointed that chief constable—the relationship between the chief constable and the PCC in terms of their combined skills, their experience and their personalities becomes critical.
Do the Government not accept that, with the best will in the world, even if we have the codes of conduct and an independent element in the chief constable appointments process—as the report recommends—and a clear understanding of operational independence and effective measures to hold an elected police and crime commissioner to account, is having only one person responsible for selecting the chief constable and co-operating with the chief constable to deliver politically critical goals, for holding the chief constable to account and for sacking the chief constable really a workable system? I raise that not as a theoretical question but in relation to the case that I have outlined to the Committee this afternoon.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, extend my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for securing this short debate, which enables us to consider the valuable and timely report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on leadership, ethics and accountability in policing. It has been particularly helpful to have heard in this debate from the chair of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bew.
The creation of police and crime commissioners and the associated governance arrangements has clearly been the driving force behind the committee’s decision to undertake this report, which is the first one in the committee’s history that has looked specifically at policing. As the report says:
“Trust in the police is vital—from the Chief Constable to the most junior police officer. Police ethics—their honesty, their integrity, their impartiality, their openness—should be beyond reproach … High standards—of both conduct and accountability—also need to be demonstrated by those charged with holding the police to account”.
I believe that, for the overwhelming majority of time, the police achieve the standards required of them —a view supported by the survey undertaken for the committee. However, any straying from those standards must be a cause for concern.
The report does not deal with issues relating to the impact on police officers of cutbacks in staffing, but it would be unrealistic to imagine that poor morale among officers, chief constables and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in expressing concerns about the impact on effective policing and police numbers of further projected financial cuts, at this of all times, and a Government who have created uncertainty over intended changes in the police funding formula, does anything at all to promote or enhance the kind of culture or standards in policing referred to in the report. I hope that, in considering this report, the Government have taken and will continue to take a look at the impact of their decisions and decision-making on leadership, ethics and accountability in policing.
In his foreword to the report, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, states in respect of police and crime commissioners that there has been evidence of a,
“new impetus in many areas—greater innovation, increased visibility and a greater focus on community engagement and victim support”.
However, he then goes on to say that,
“there is also clear evidence of significant standards risks, including continuing confusion over roles and responsibilities, insufficient challenge and scrutiny of PCCs’ decisions and insufficient redress where a PCC falls below the standards of behaviour that the public expects of a holder of public office”.
A great many, if not all, of the issues referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, were raised and, I would have to say, largely dismissed, by the then coalition Government during discussions on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. At that time, the Government’s attitude was to get the Bill through as quickly as possible and then hold elections for police and crime commissioners with their very considerable, relatively unchallenged powers, as has already been said, irrespective of how few people might vote in the elections. Detailed considerations on what would be appropriate structures, roles and responsibilities, checks and balances and effective and necessary governance arrangements did not appear to have the same priority.
This report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life forms a basis for a proper discussion of some of these issues, at least where they relate to the role and functions of the committee. I hope that it is an opportunity that the Government either are taking or will take. However, the omens are not all positive. In a parliamentary Written Answer a month ago, in response to a question about the effectiveness of police and crime commissioners, there was no mention of any of the specific issues that had by then been raised in the report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life or, indeed, of any government consideration being given to those issues. Presumably, the Minister will give a government view on the committee’s 20 recommendations —not least, those that seek to address the “significant standards risks” identified by the committee, including a,
“confusion amongst the public and the participants about roles and responsibilities, especially in relation to where operational independence and governance oversight begin and end … a significant absence of a clear process to take action against a PCC whose conduct falls below the standards expected of public office holders, resulting in that behaviour going unchallenged and uncensured … concerns about the robustness of current selection processes for chief officers … PCCs not encountering sufficient constructive challenge or active support in exercising decision making powers … barriers to the effective operation of Police and Crime Panels as scrutinisers including support, resources and the consistency and credibility of representative membership … a lack of timely and accessible information being provided to Police and Crime Panels by PCCs affecting Police and Crime Panels’ ability to scrutinise and support the PCC”,
and,
“potential for high risk conflict of interests in roles jointly appointed by PCCs and Chief Constables … and risks inherent in the combined role of Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer to the PCC”.
Those issues were all raised in the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
It also referred to confusion between and inherent tensions in the current police complaints system and the complaints system attaching to PCCs, and a gap in the expectations of the public in how complaints against PCCs would be resolved, especially when this involves unethical but not criminal behaviour. The Committee concluded that, combined, the factors to which I have just referred also impacted on the ability of police and crime panels to ensure—it is part of their role—
“that decisions of PCCs are tested on behalf of the public on a regular basis.”
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I look forward to the Government’s response, which I hope will promote rather than shut down further debate, bearing in mind that the current police model is the one the present Home Secretary introduced and presumably felt would work effectively.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to respond to this debate on behalf of the Government. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for raising this important issue, and congratulate him on securing the debate. Over many years the noble Earl has raised the issue of improving the accountability and transparency of our police forces, particularly in relation to the recording of crime statistics. Although it sometimes makes the Home Office uncomfortable, the whole policing service and the whole Government appreciate his scrutiny, his interest in the minutiae and the rigour he brings to the very important area of maintaining public confidence in the data we have. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate.
The noble Earl framed the debate around the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s report on the leadership, accountability and ethics of local policing. I take this opportunity to thank the Chair of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, for the work he and the committee undertook to draft that report. I was particularly pleased to note the committee’s observation that police and crime commissioners have brought
“new impetus in many areas - greater innovation, increased visibility and a greater focus on community engagement and victim support”.
On page 24 there is a very interesting statistic about the level of awareness. A survey carried out for the committee found that 68% of people surveyed in 2014 had heard of their PCC. That is quite an impressive number, certainly when compared with the very low numbers that knew about the predecessor chairman of the police committee. The fact that there is greater interest in and scrutiny of the role must show that growing awareness. I am aware that several noble Lords questioned the awareness of PCCs and their democratic legitimacy. Of course, they were elected by 5.8 million people who expressed a view and turned out to vote. We believe that that number will be significantly higher when elections are held next year, not least because the role is becoming more established. For all those reasons, it is critical that the issue of ethics and integrity is at the heart of the deliberations.
The committee’s report contains many thought-provoking observations—20 in total. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, wrote to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on 27 June, following the publication of the report, and requested that the Home Office respond by the end of November. I can confirm that the response will come by the end of November—by which we do not mean Sunday night, but this week. It has not been able to clear all the internal hurdles that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, being an experienced member of your Lordships’ House, will understand it needs to clear, so I will need to tread a bit carefully over some of the recommendations he wanted to hear about. He will not have to wait much longer, but I will not be able to satisfy him in every particular today.
I am sure noble Lords will understand that because of the formal response needed here, I am not in a position to address all those issues today. The Government take these issues, and police integrity more broadly, very seriously. It is at the heart of public confidence in policing and underpins the model of policing by consent.
Although I am unable to comment on the specifics of the report, I feel it is important for me to set out what this Government have done to put in place reforms to improve the accountability, transparency and integrity of policing in England and Wales and throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
The most significant of these reforms came three years ago this month, with the election of PCCs. Since coming into post, PCCs have brought real local accountability to the performance of chief constables and their forces and are working hard to ensure that their local communities have a stronger voice in policing.
I appreciated reading through the report in some detail, especially some of the more anecdotal evidence given to the committee by representatives from local police forces—Greater Manchester being one; Merseyside another—on how the police and crime commissioners are working with the chief constable to implement these measures. That is a good example of what my noble friend Lord Wasserman said about local police and crime commissioners taking the initiative without necessarily needing to be instructed at every juncture. They realise that public confidence and ethical standards are at the heart of being able to carry out their duty, and that is happening.
The public profile of PCCs means that they are scrutinised in a way that anonymous police authorities were not, which helps to improve accountability in policing. Further, police and crime panels—PCPs—have been introduced in every police force area to scrutinise the actions and decisions of each PCC and make sure that information is available for the public, enabling them to hold the PCC to account.
PCPs have a range of powers to help them carry out their functions and specific responsibilities. A panel can, at reasonable notice, require the PCC to come before it. This power also extends to the staff of the PCC, including the deputy commissioner. The PCP is responsible for recording complaints made against a PCC and, where they are not of a criminal nature, resolving any such complaints.
The noble Lord, Lord Blair, made some very particular points about the operational integrity of chief constables and their ability to carry out investigations without fear or favour. That is a very important element. In fact, just last week, during a couple of Questions that came up in the House, we talked about the importance of integrity. The unique role of the Office of Constable and the oath that is given also came up. The oath is not to the Home Secretary but to Her Majesty, and is to pursue matters without fear or favour.
I am interested in the personal experience of the noble Lord, Lord Blair, in this regard, but there are particular procedures in place. I will not get into commenting on whether the Mayor of London followed them in that case, but the general point is that Schedule 8 to the police responsibility Act and Regulation 11A contain specific regulations and guidance as to how that ought to be done. It should involve the HMIC and conversations with the police and crime panel. That is set out. In that context, I am sure that this report will be read widely by police and crime commissioners. They should make themselves aware of their commitments, which they are obliged to do under law, when undertaking these matters.
The College of Policing was introduced as the first professional body for all policing in England and Wales. The college develops standards for policing based on strong evidence, so that future police practice is always based on evidence and not habit. The creation of the College of Policing is an important pillar in the programme of police reform, setting high professional standards, sharing what works best across policing, acting as the national voice of policing and ensuring that police training and ethics are of the highest possible quality.
In that context, the police Code of Ethics, produced by the College of Policing, has been published for the first time. Certainly, we would encourage all police and crime commissioners to have a discussion with their chief constables as to how that guidance is reflected in their forces. The Code of Ethics plays an important role in addressing some of the concerns about the ethics and behaviour of police officers and staff, particularly in relation to the media—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blair. A consultation and review is taking place on relations with the media, including guidance on how contact with the media should take place and what procedures should be followed. That is an important part of the work of the College of Policing.
I refer also to the important role played by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. It is important to look at the structural changes being made in the way that policing is maintained. Three years ago HMIC introduced the PEEL programme, which is all about the efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy of the police. Its reports have been helpful in raising standards in forces across the country.
As the result of the changes made, the Office for National Statistics has highlighted the fact that recent increases in recorded crime are largely a consequence of improving recording practices within forces through the inclusion of previously underreported crimes such as sexual offences. Victims are now more confident about coming forward, which is something to be welcomed.
The Government have made great strides in improving the accountability, leadership and ethics of local policing, but the job is not finished. We are making changes to legislation to make sure that police complaints and disciplinary systems are fairer and more transparent. The package includes making the police complaints system more independent of the police by expanding the role of the PCCs, and introducing systems for supercomplaints to ensure that the key trends and patterns in policing can be raised and addressed appropriately. We will overhaul the police disciplinary system following a review by Major-General Chapman. We will strengthen protections for police whistleblowers and enable the IPCC to continue to operate effectively by strengthening its powers. The Government intend to introduce these reforms in the Policing and Criminal Justice Bill that was announced in the Queen’s Speech.
I said that the progress the Government have made on police reform is not finished. In truth, we must never rest when it comes to ensuring that our police have the best leaders who are properly held to account and who lead forces according to the highest ethical standards. Another table in the report shows that the level of confidence and trust that people have in senior police officers is just a fraction short of that for judges, and significantly above that for elected and appointed members of what one might call the political class. We can have great confidence in the quality and integrity of our police forces. Reports such as that produced by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and his committee will only serve to strengthen that.
Again, I thank the noble Earl for introducing this debate and I can assure him that by the end of the week, there will be further news in the shape of the Home Secretary’s response.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Beith
Introduction: Lord Willetts
Northern Powerhouse: Airports
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the potential impact of additional capacity at either Heathrow or Gatwick airports on the Northern Powerhouse project.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are currently considering all the work of the independent Airports Commission before making any decisions about additional airport capacity. The northern powerhouse initiative aims to harness investment and drive economic growth in the north. Any activity under the Government’s plan for the economy will be complementary in order to provide the best conditions for a successful economy across the United Kingdom.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the south-east of England has one-third of the population of the UK and two-thirds of the flights, yet airports such as Birmingham and Manchester have significant spare capacity. Does the Minister accept concerns about the distorting effect of further airport expansion in the south-east? Is he worried that, when the chief executive of Heathrow appeared before a committee in the other place, he failed to provide any detailed strategy for reducing air pollution at Heathrow, which already breaches legal limits?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, on the noble Baroness’s second point, as I am sure she is aware, the Airports Commission has detailed quite extensively—whatever proposal is taken forward—the issue of environmental considerations, including noise pollution. On airports in the north of England, as I am sure she is aware, while there have been capacity issues in the south-east, which are being looked at, we have also seen the expansion of services in the north. Manchester International Airport is now the UK’s third busiest airport and will benefit over the next 10 years from another £1 billion of investment.
Lord Soley (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the key to this is to understand that we need a hub airport, wherever it is, and all regional airports need connectivity to that because, if they do not have that, they are at a severe disadvantage particularly to continental airports? We must have regional connectivity with an effective hub airport, wherever that is.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord raises an important point. I agree with him: hub airports provide that connectivity and we are seeing that. I alluded to the growth of Manchester. We have seen Manchester become a hub airport for the region. Connectivity is about not just air connectivity but surface connectivity. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, I am glad to report that in terms of both road and rail we are providing just that connectivity across airports.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, are the Government still fully committed to producing their decision about London’s airports before Christmas?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend raises a question that he has asked before, and I will give him the answer that I have given before. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has given an assurance that we will make a decision before Christmas. The other thing that my right honourable friend has underlined is that we need to consider the findings of the Airports Commission’s report extensively. It is an extensive report. We need to look at it in a detailed manner to ensure that there is no subsequent judicial review on any proposal taken forward.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
Does the Minister recognise that the north has already lost out because of slow decision-making over an airport in the south-east? Teesside’s Durham Tees Valley Airport no longer has any connectivity with London and the connectivity at Newcastle has been severely reduced. This affects our economy. The north-east is still the largest manufacturing region in the country, but much of our work is with Japanese companies. They wonder how on earth they are to get there, when they cannot do so directly when flying into a London airport.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I do not agree with the noble Baroness’s conclusion, although I do agree that there was a lack of investment in the north. The previous Government and now this one have given the commitment to ensure that there is investment, with £13 billion of transport investment going forward in this Parliament. As regards connectivity from north-east to north-west, the noble Baroness is aware that Transport for the North has extensive connectivity plans and I am sure that she welcomes the fact, as I do, that we now have regional airports such as Manchester serving not just the domestic European community—she throws her arms up, but I do not agree with her. The Chinese President himself made a positive announcement, which I think that she should appreciate.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the Minister is well aware that any owner of a new runway in the south-east will need to fill it rapidly to repay the cost of having built it and that the fastest route is to persuade the international airlines not to fly directly to Birmingham, Manchester and other regional airports, but to come through Heathrow, with a hub relationship only with those airports. Has he examined what this will do to undermine the northern powerhouse, which is seeking international investment and needs direct international connectivity?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The northern powerhouse is not being undermined but supported by the Government, as the recent announcement about the link to direct flights to China indicates. As regards the decisions that airlines take, the noble Baroness is aware from her time as a Minister for transport that that is very much up to the airlines themselves.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the importance of rail connectivity for Manchester Airport. Can he confirm that it is still the Government’s intention to ensure that there is a direct rail connection from north Wales and Chester through to Manchester without having to change train? This has long been on the agenda, but it has not yet been delivered.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The Government have repeatedly given their assurance not just about connectivity, as I said, on rail in the south-east, but also that the investment that we are making across railways throughout the country, including the new investment in HS2, will ensure greater connectivity between all parts of the country. I will look into the specific route that he has mentioned and write to him.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has referred to the decision on the recommendation of the Davies commission report in respect of a third runway at Heathrow being made by Christmas. Can he confirm that that will be a final decision and not simply an interim one?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I think the noble Lord is clutching at straws. I have made clear the Government’s position. A decision will be made on the Airports Commission’s findings, and I ask him to wait until that is made.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I take it we are talking about this Christmas. Could we have an assurance from my noble friend that the announcement will be made to Parliament and not when Parliament has risen?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I said, I am not going to give an absolute assurance at this point about the timing of the decision. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that a decision will be made. I also speak for the Secretary of State for Transport, who has also indicated that we will come back with that decision to Parliament, and I am sure that an appropriate Question or debate will be tabled right here in this Chamber as well.
Air Quality
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they plan to satisfy the Supreme Court’s ruling that United Kingdom air quality should be brought within legal limits as soon as possible.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, the consultation on the draft air quality plans has now been concluded and we are assessing the 728 responses we have received. We are on track to submit the finalised plans for the 38 non-compliant zones to the European Commission by 31 December. We have already committed £2 billion since 2011 on transport measures which will address both particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide levels.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply but I have to say that it lacks any of the urgency demanded by the Supreme Court. It cannot be right that the Government’s response in the draft report would see pollution levels remain above legal levels until 2025. In the mean time, King’s College has estimated that nearly 10,000 people a year are dying in London as a result of toxic air pollution. There are practical solutions available, such as better traffic controls, a diesel scrappage scheme and better incentives for clean cars. I urge the Minister to look again at these proposals and come back with a more radical and timely response to the Supreme Court’s challenge.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I do not think the noble Baroness has yet seen the plan—nor have I. It would be more appropriate if the draft plan was seen before any suggestions of that sort were made. It is very clear that the Government think that this is an enormous priority, not only because of the health issues but because it cannot be right that we continue to have the nitrogen dioxide levels that we have in parts of our country, and the Government are going to address this.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
Given what the Minister has said about this being an enormous priority, can he explain why on 29 October in Brussels the Government voted to weaken limits on deadly diesel car emissions?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am certainly not aware of any diminution of our resolve to ensure that we have the correct assessment in the European Union context. It is why we have been calling for very strong, real testing, which is absolutely essential, and we will continue to do so at all levels. This will be cracked only if we deal with it at local, national, EU and international level.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-president of Environmental Protection UK. I have two questions for the Minister. First, in view of the cuts in Defra staff in this area—and more to come, no doubt, in this week’s announcements—is he confident that he has sufficient resources not only to draw up a strategy on air quality but actually to deliver it? Secondly, in view of the previous question, does he agree with Boris Johnson that a third runway at Heathrow is “inconceivable” if the Government are to meet their EU targets on air pollution?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the first thing to say is that the Government will consider all appropriate incentives that may be required to help secure delivery by local authorities through geographically structured measures set out in the plan. Clearly, I am not in a position, particularly this week, to say any more about the current level of spending review negotiations, but it is clear that everyone will need to work together to address this. As for the noble Lord’s second question, I have every regard and respect for the Mayor of London; indeed, his important action with regard to non-road mobile machinery—announcing on 1 September that there are going to be much greater and stronger requirements for that—is the sort of practical thing that he is doing.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, what can the Government do to enable all local authorities to measure the air quality in their own areas, particularly outside schools?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The noble Baroness asks an important question. Obviously there are monitoring services, and Defra produces data so that everyone can know what the air pollution situation will be in various parts of the country. This is very important, not only near schools but so that people with health issues can make plans accordingly. It is very important that the monitoring work continues and is effective.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
Can the Minister reconcile for me the facts that although Knightsbridge is one of the worst polluted areas and has been in breach of all EU regulations for years, people apparently live longer there than anywhere else? Can he also reconcile the facts that when it introduced speed humps in Hyde Park pollution in the park went up tremendously, yet people want the option to reduce speed? Will that be at the cost of even more pollution?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am sure that as these matters develop, research will tell us a lot more, and it is important that we consider it. That is why real-world testing, for instance, will be of much greater benefit in the future. The health of the nation is one of the reasons why we are very conscious of this problem and of the need to address it. Wherever the pollution is—whether it is in the docks at Southampton, in inner London, in Scotland or wherever else—we need to crack the problem.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, if 10,000 people a year were dying prematurely in London, and many others in the rest of the country, as a result of any health threat other than air pollution would the Government have a greater sense of urgency, rather than the complacency, and a degree of hypocrisy, that they have at the moment?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I see no complacency or hypocrisy, if I may say so to the noble Baroness. I think that the officials who are working hard on this problem in local authorities might take exception to that description. Everyone here is in an honest adventure to ensure that we get this right. It is very important that we get it right. That is why we have to get everyone working together in local authorities, and at EU and other international levels. By bringing forward real-world testing, we will get a much better result.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister care to inform the House how many air-monitoring devices at local level were in operation five years ago and how many are now? It is my understanding that many have been closed down, so our ability to tell what is happening is being reduced by Government policy.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am not aware of that, and I will look into the matter more thoroughly. However, we have a daily air quality forecast, for instance, and we work with Public Health England and its adviser the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. I have plenty of information on what is available for everyone to see. There is a five-day air monitoring forecast, which is very important. I will get back to the noble Baroness on the finer detail.
State Pension: Equalisation
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to compensate the women deprived of their expected pensions by the increase in the state pension age under the Pensions Act 2011.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) (Con)
My Lords, removing state pension age gender inequality by 2018 and increasing pension age to 66 by 2020 was voted on in both Houses, and there are no plans to change it. The more than £30 billion cost of retaining the previous timetable could not be justified, and the Government made a concession in 2011, worth more than £1 billion, limiting maximum increases to 18 months.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. There are 700,000 women caught in this brutal pensions trap, and they are already in their 60s. They had hoped to be drawing their pensions, but in some cases, even after 45 qualifying years, they currently have no pension, no pensioner benefits, often no job—having been made redundant—and no right to claim jobseeker’s allowance. What does the Minister suggest they live on?
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I do have sympathy with the women affected. However, I assure the House that they are eligible for the same in-work, out-of-work and disability benefits as men of their age, and for the new state pension.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chair of Age Scotland. I recall the Minister saying exactly the same as my noble friend Lady Bakewell only a year ago, and arguing that something should be done about it in the most strident fashion. Why has she changed her mind?
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, this is about correcting a long-standing inequality. It is also about democracy. We put all the arguments to both Houses of Parliament. This issue was properly and thoroughly debated and the decision was democratically made. To be fair, most of the women affected have accepted this, as have I.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
Can the Minister explain to the House why she is delaying the implementation of her predecessor’s policy on the portability of pension pots, given that that policy could best protect women with low pension savings?
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, the policy of merging and transferring pension pots will be addressed but, at the moment, there is a significant amount of increased regulation and changes in legislation for the pensions industry to cope with. By 2018, when auto-enrolment is fully rolled out, we will know much better what are the appropriate and required measures for automatic transfers.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will doubtless recall one of her contributions to Saga magazine where she wrote:
“A group of older women are very angry. Many of them have written to me, some have written to their MPs, and others say they don’t believe it is worthwhile writing to their MPs, as the Government will not listen to them anyway. They remember that it was the Conservative Government in 1995 who increased their pension age, which they quietly accepted, but they now feel taken advantage of and treated like a ‘soft target’ because they have been given such short notice of another major change. They feel the move is discriminatory and manifestly unfair”.
She went on:
“The plans demonstrate a lack of understanding of the realities of many of these women’s lives. They feel betrayed that the Conservatives have hit them a second time and by far more than men”.
Does the Minister stand by those words?
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, as I have said, this matter was properly and thoroughly debated by Parliament. All those arguments were put to both Houses of Parliament and a majority voted for the legislation more than four years ago. This afternoon, I checked quite carefully and it is clear that this issue was missing entirely from the Labour Party’s manifesto before the general election. No party committed to doing anything about the billions of pounds that it would cost to change any of these plans.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me for going back, as I do, a long way in the history of equal opportunities for women. I would like to press her once again on this point. Does she really believe that MPs would have voted for the accelerated rise in 2011 had they known that many women had not been notified or given sufficient notice of the rise in the state pension age under the Pensions Act 1995? This really has not been a fair process all the way through, and women have been disadvantaged at an amazing number of levels.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I have also been checking up on this point. I am assured by the department that any woman who had asked for a state pension statement since 1995 would have known what her pension age had been changed to under the Act. Given the uncertainties around the amounts of state pension that any woman could receive under the very complex system that we have at the moment, if a woman had planned her retirement on the basis of that, she would surely have got a pension statement and known about her state pension age change.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
Given that the noble Baroness has done work on this, how many women have actually applied for pension statements since 1995?
Baroness Altmann
I do not have those figures, but I can try to find out for the noble and learned Lord and write to him.
Cyclists
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to increase compliance by cyclists with traffic laws and regulations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, like all road users, cyclists have a duty to behave in a safe and responsible manner. The enforcement of cycling offences is an operational matter for chief officers of police. Depending on the offence, officers can issue verbal warnings or fixed penalty notices, or report the road user for formal prosecution. The Government support any action taken by the police to deter and reduce the number of cycling offences.
Lord Wills (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. When I was in the other place, cycling on pavements—terrorising pedestrians—was the issue that incensed my constituents most in regular open meetings, apart from dog mess. The situation seems to be getting worse. As record numbers of cyclists take to the roads in big cities, we see increasing examples of this sort of behaviour. Just a few weeks ago I was on Marylebone Road and I watched a cyclist jump a red light and weave off down the pavement between pedestrians, talking on his mobile phone as he went. When I said that perhaps he should not be doing that, he got off his bike and asked me to fight him. When I declined the invitation and pointed out that he was breaking the law, he said, “I know I’m breaking the law and you can’t do anything about it”. However, the Minister could. I would be grateful if he could tell the House what more he could do to stop these bully boys on bikes terrorising pedestrians and bring some law and order to our pavements.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Lord describes an experience that I am sure we have all shared. When I was on the Back Benches in this House, I served in the City of London. I often said that the biggest challenge for a commuter in London was avoiding not trucks and cars but the cyclists who were possibly jumping red lights or riding on the pavements. I am sure the noble Lord is aware of some of the initiatives that we have taken forward. Road safety is primarily the role of the police. Most recently, Operation Atrium was launched in July 2015, when the London police issued tickets to cyclists breaking the rules. They were then invited to look at the challenges faced not just by pedestrians but by lorries in London as well, which can quite easily miss cyclists. Other initiatives such as THINK! Cyclist and Bikeability will help us to educate cyclists, not just about the law but also about their responsibilities.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House how many motorists are killed or severely injured by cyclists in a year; how many pedestrians are killed or severely injured by cyclists a year; and how many cyclists are severely injured or killed by motorists and pedestrians in a year?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend raises a very important point about statistics. I will write to him on the first two issues. I think we acknowledge that the number of cyclists injured on the roads is increasing, but when we compare 2008 to 2014, the number of deaths on the road has not significantly increased. For example, 104 cyclist deaths were reported in 2008 and 113 in 2014, which is an increase of four on 2013 figures. Nevertheless, it is 113 deaths too many and we need to eradicate this problem.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Order! It is the turn of the Lib Dems. Could I urge noble Lords to allow the Minister to sit down before they stand up and try to ask questions?
Lord Taverne
My Lords, I hope the Minister will provide the figures that he says he will provide and make them available in the Library, although the serious injuries caused by cyclists must pale into insignificance when compared to those caused by motorists. Does he not agree that everything possible must be done by the Government to encourage and support cycling, as was splendidly shown recently with the opening of the cycling superhighway route in London? After all, bicycles are the most efficient machine yet invented for turning energy into motion. Indeed, the bicycle has been accurately described as a kind of green car, which can run on tap water and tea cakes and, moreover, has a built-in gym.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord raises the benefits of cycling, about which I agree with him. I am sure he recognises that the Government have committed more than £100 million between now and 2021 in improving investment in both walking, for example through walking paths, and cycling. I have already alluded to the schemes that the Government are supporting, such as Bikeability.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, I am not quite sure what figures the Minister has promised to give, but can he say how many cyclists have been issued with fixed penalty notices, how many cyclists have been prosecuted and how many prosecutions have been successful?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
If the noble Lord is asking about all the statistics from England, I will need to follow up in writing as that will be quite a detailed answer. I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that cyclists are not required to carry identification and therefore all they have to do is give a false name to the police officer and tear up the fixed penalty notice?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend raises the issue of identification and is right to do so. As I said, we need to encourage education for cyclists and responsibility in cyclists. When they ride on pavements or jump red lights, they break the law, and there is a need to review with the police how we can apply the law effectively to cyclists as well as to any other road users.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a continuing string of tragedies involving cyclists being crushed by lorries, often while turning at traffic light intersections. What progress is being made—I think the European Commission was considering a directive at one point—in making it a matter of law that all lorries should be fitted out in such a way that the driver has vision of the full length of his or her cab from the cab itself?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Again, we have seen investment being made in this. The noble Lord points to a particular type of mirror, which is being encouraged by the Government. Right here in London, we have seen separate areas created for cyclists to ensure their security and safety. As I said, any death on the roads, whoever it is—whether a cyclist, a pedestrian or any other road user—is one death too many. We should seek to ensure safety and security for everyone.
Business of the House
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That, in the event of the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill being brought from the Commons, Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 24 November to allow the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
European Union Referendum Bill
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Duty to publish information on outcome of negotiations between member States
(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report which contains (alone or with other material)—
(a) a statement setting out what has been agreed by member States following negotiations relating to the United Kingdom’s request for reforms to address concerns over its membership of the European Union, and(b) the opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom on what has been agreed.(2) The report must be published before the beginning of the final 10 week period.
(3) In this section “the final 10 week period” means the period of 10 weeks ending with the date of the referendum.
(4) A copy of the report published under this section must be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State.”
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 24A I shall speak also to government Amendment 24B. I shall also give a view on the other amendments in this group, all of which raise the issue of information which must be published by the Government prior to the referendum period.
In Committee, we had a vigorous debate on the subject of the information to be made available to the public ahead of the referendum. I recognised that although it will be for the designated campaigners to lead the debate on both sides, the Government would have a role in providing information to the public. As the Prime Minister said, this Bill sets the stage for one of the most important decisions that the British public have been asked to make in a generation. It is absolutely right to say, therefore, that they will expect to be able to make an informed decision, based on authoritative and balanced information in which they may put their faith.
The Electoral Commission in its research into the question identified that there is an appetite among the general public for information on both what remaining in and leaving the EU would mean. Also, the Electoral Commission made it clear that much of the information that voters desire will not be factual in nature but will sit at the heart of the campaign arguments put forward by those on both sides of the referendum debate. Therefore, the commission has recommended that it is also for the campaign groups to include answers to questions of this nature when they put up their respective websites. But today we are looking at the question rightly raised by the House in Committee about the role of the Government.
In Committee I committed to give careful consideration to what I could bring forward at this stage by way of government amendments—amendments that would command the support of both Houses. Today I will speak to those two amendments, Amendments 24A and 24B, which we have tabled after that due consideration. In setting out requirements for the Government to provide information, we must clearly set out a distinction between what the Government should provide and what will be the role of the designated lead campaigners. My belief is that the most useful role for the Government is to give information about the nature of membership to aid understanding and inform the public. The designated lead campaigners will interpret this information and provide strong arguments—on both sides, no doubt.
We have given consideration to what suitable government amendments should be. I have therefore listened very carefully to the calls around the House for the Government to provide useful evidence-based and authoritative information. It is my belief that it would therefore be most appropriate to commit the Government to providing concrete information grounded in reality as opposed to speculating on the possible consequences of withdrawal or the types of possible arrangement that could be negotiable with the EU at some future date.
The first amendment in my name, Amendment 24A, builds on the amendment that my noble friend Lord Forsyth tabled in Committee and again on Report. However, he has subsequently withdrawn it because I understand he is content—it was very kind of him to send an email saying that he is content—with government Amendment 24A.The first amendment sets a requirement for the Government to report on the outcome of the renegotiation not less than four months before the poll. Building on this, I have tabled a government amendment that will require the Government to report on what has been agreed by EU member states as a result of the renegotiation and to give their view on this no later than 10 weeks ahead of the referendum.
We amended the Bill—earlier in the process here, in Committee—to specify that the regulated referendum period must be a minimum of 10 weeks long. This is an appropriate length of time that will require the Government to publish any report ahead of the most intense period of campaigning. This is also well ahead of the final 28-day purdah period provided under Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act—during which, of course, there are restrictions on government publications. So my amendments have no effect on the restrictions provided for in that period.
The second of my amendments, Amendment 24B, seeks to address amendments tabled both in Committee and on Report by the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Smith of Newnham, and others. It requires the Government to publish a report setting out information about the rights and obligations that arise under EU law as a result of the UK’s membership of the EU. This will enable us to describe what EU membership means for the UK and what it means to be a citizen of, or a business established in, the UK, as a country which is an EU member state. I propose to spend a little time setting this out, in perhaps more detail than might usually be the case, because I would like to give some reassurances to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments that I have sought to cover all the pertinent issues that they referred to in their subsequent amendments.
By “rights”, we refer to rights that the United Kingdom has as a member state, and also the rights that are granted to individuals and businesses as a result of our membership of the European Union, such as our opt-ins and opt-outs, the four freedoms, access to the single market and customs union, and rights to receive structural funds. By “obligations”, we are referring to those things that our membership of the European Union commits us to doing—most obviously at the level of the member state, but also as businesses or individuals. The most obvious examples are our obligation as a member state to transpose EU law in particular areas, including social and environmental law, and things that this obliges businesses and individuals to do. This could therefore include consideration of the balance of obligations and competences between the EU and the UK institutions. Of course, the information must be useful to the public, as well as to those looking at it in a more specialised way, and relevant to the context of the referendum, as far as is possible.
That is the primary purpose of government Amendments 24A and 24B. The duty does not, therefore, require the Government to set out information about every single right and obligation—indeed, neither does the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. We agree that the focus should be on important rights and obligations. Where appropriate, we will set this information in its context. We have created quite a broad requirement in our amendment, but we have tried not to be overly prescriptive, because that would have amounted to setting out the contents page of the whole report in the amendment, and that is simply impractical.
Turning to the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others, it is clear that the large part of the important rights and obligations to which it refers would be covered under the broad heading of rights and obligations. Where there are two slight variations—I will not call them exceptions—I will explain why I think that they are still covered and that I have met the requests from the noble Lord and others. The important rights that the amendment sets out, such as the rights of EU citizens, employment rights, the right to apply for financial support from the EU in the form of structural funds, and support for agriculture and research, would be covered under the report required by government Amendment 24B. Important areas of EU law which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, reference in their amendment, such as social and environmental legislation, law enforcement, security and justice would also be covered to the extent that we have opted into such obligations at present.
The way that we have crafted the amendment grounds the information requirement in the reality of EU membership in a way that should be useful to the public. We are not committing to setting out the possible consequences of a withdrawal from the EU in the language used in the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, but I do not think that that is core to what they intend. They are trying to get the Government to give a commitment about what is covered, which is what I seek to do. We have previously rehearsed the issue about hypothetical positions; I do not propose to address that now, because I do not think that noble Lords are seeking to press it at this stage.
From the approach taken by the government amendment, I believe that readers will be able to infer from the Government’s report information on rights which it might well be within the Government’s power to determine for the future and what will be dependent on negotiation in the event of a vote to leave the EU. In terms of any substantive differences, although the government amendment requires us to set out the UK’s current arrangements on important rights and obligations, it does not require us to set out particular consequences of withdrawal for a couple of areas—the devolved Administrations and Gibraltar. I would like to say a little more about each of those to give some assurances on those matters.
On the consequences of withdrawal for Gibraltar, Gibraltarians are rightly enfranchised in the referendum because the EU treaties largely apply there. Gibraltar’s place in the European Union flows from it being a European territory for whose external relations the UK is responsible and the UK’s membership under the 1973 treaty of accession. Any vote for the United Kingdom to leave the EU would directly affect Gibraltar. It is therefore important that Gibraltarians have enough information on which to base their vote, which is also important in the UK. The Government’s Amendment 24B leaves it open to either the UK Government or the Government of Gibraltar to set out what EU membership means for Gibraltar in this report or separately. This means that we should not provide for a statutory obligation for the UK Government to report on what membership means specifically for Gibraltar and should instead ensure that the decision on what course to take on this important matter rests where it properly should: in Gibraltar.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 24C. In doing so, I pay tribute to the Minister for the way in which she has listened to the points raised, with some force and detail, in Committee. With the two amendments that she has produced today—Amendment 24A, in response to an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, which I also felt was absolutely justified, so I am delighted that she has picked up his amendment and turned it into a government one, and Amendment 24B, which deals with matters that I and others raised—I think that she has made a major effort to meet the point that we made in Committee, and which I continue to make, which is that there will be a need for the electorate to receive factual, objective information from the Government about these extremely complex matters, additional to any information that will come to them, no doubt in tsunamis of rhetoric, from the two campaigns. The campaigns will be advocates but the electorate has to make a judgment, and it will be of essential value to them to have objective factual material provided by the Government. That is why we were extremely dissatisfied with the absence of any provision for this in the original Bill that was drafted by the Government and which came to us with the imprimatur of the other place because we felt that it was a completely inadequate basis on which to move forward to what is after all, as the Prime Minister said, one of the most significant and important decisions that this country has had to take for many decades. So that is a very good step forward.
I shall explain why we felt that the Government should be prepared to go further and be a bit more specific than they are in Amendment 24B, or at least than they were before the Minister gave some rather helpful clarifications this afternoon. I shall take two examples—two sub-headings—that illustrate the amendments that I and others have proposed. I start with Gibraltar because the Minister has mentioned it. What the effects of withdrawal would be is of importance to more people than just the people of Gibraltar. Our own wider electorate needs to know that Gibraltar became part of the EU only because it was a dependent territory for whose foreign affairs the United Kingdom was responsible. That was the sole basis on which it became a member, and therefore if the UK left, it would leave. That has quite important implications for the vexed issue of the land border with Spain, for example, which would cease to be an internal border of the EU and would become an external one. These are facts, not matters of opinion; they do not seek to draw the Government on to what would come after an Article 50 negotiation or anything like that. They are just so that the electorate knows that, the moment they cast their votes, certain consequences could follow from it.
Secondly, I take the law and order issue. The European arrest warrant was debated at enormous length in both Houses at the time of the Protocol 36 negotiations two years ago. It became apparent during that debate that the European arrest warrant is extraordinarily important for this country in terms of recovering indicted criminals from abroad and returning EU citizens who are accused of often very heinous crimes from here to the country where they have been indicted. These are hugely important for our law and order and our battle against international crime.
In those debates, it also became apparent how important the European arrest warrant is for the Good Friday agreement and what goes on in Northern Ireland because it has depoliticised the extradition arrangements between Ireland and Northern Ireland. In the past, they have been highly politicised and have led to a number of very unsatisfactory discussions between the two Governments, often not leading to the return of criminals who have committed terrible offences. Therefore it is important for the electorate to know that the European arrest warrant would disappear in this country if we left. I am not talking about what we might try to put in its place, the fantasies about negotiating 27 extradition agreements with the other member states or anything like that. I do not want to go there. That is not where the amendment was intended to go.
This afternoon, the Minister has given some important clarifications on a large number of the detailed specifics that I introduced. I and others will need to study them with great care. However, on the point about Gibraltar and the devolved Administrations, I entirely understand what she is saying—that it would not be right for the Government, off their own bat, to write in a report what the consequences were going to be for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or Gibraltar without consulting them and without having their view—but I hope that in her reply to this debate the Minister will go a little further. She said that the devolved Administrations and Gibraltar will be able to produce their own reports. That is fine. They would be reports to their parts of the electorate. I do not imagine—I do not speak in any disparaging way—that they will be widely read by the electorate of this country, yet the issues involve the electorate of the whole United Kingdom. Therefore, I hope that she will be able to say that after consultation with the Government of Gibraltar and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations and assuming—I do not see why they should have any objection—that they are willing to do so, the Government will include the implications for the Administrations of Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Gibraltar in the report to which Amendment 24B refers. This will allow the whole electorate to have a proper sight of all the implications. Frankly, those implications, particularly with regard to Northern Ireland and also to Scotland and Wales, could be very far-ranging. Therefore, I hope that when the Minister replies to this debate, she will able to cover that point.
We are making progress now. I shall listen with great care to the Minister’s reply. Others who proposed this amendment may wish to take up other points on which they would like to have clarification. Meanwhile, I look forward with interest to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, buried somewhere in this group of amendments and, I think, in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is the question about what happens on Brexit to all the EU law which is now sewn into our domestic law. That law will remain valid until repealed. I hope that it will be helpful to your Lordships if I recall that in 1997 I got a Bill through its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House, on a vote, that would have taken the UK out of the EU. The same question arose, since one is not allowed to table Bills which cannot be executed in practice. At the time, the clerks’ advice was that it would have taken about a dozen parliamentary draftsmen about one month to identify all the EU legislation that was then part of our domestic law. The laws that the Government of the day wanted to repeal could have been brought before Parliament either singly or collectively for Parliament to repeal. Of course, the volume of EU law would be much larger now, the draftsmen required rather more numerous and/or the timescale proportionately greater. However, I make the point that the process and its happy outcome would be the same, and there is no reason why it should not be undertaken.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I point out that I am not in receipt of such a pension. If the noble Lord was referring to me, perhaps he will withdraw the reference. I am not sure who he thinks he was referring to among those on the Order Paper, but as far as I am concerned, I am not and never have been in receipt of a pension from the European Union. I ask the noble Lord to consider the fact that he will have ample opportunity in the name of his party to put forward his views, including those on the giant octopus in Brussels, which seems to be taking a day out today. The purpose of this amendment was not as he has erroneously described it; the purpose of this amendment was to persuade the Government, which we will perhaps succeed in doing, to provide factual, objective information that will enable the electorate to make up their mind on the point the noble Lord raises.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, if the noble Lord is not in receipt of an EU pension, I have nothing to clarify. I do not have to name names. I am referring to previous employees of the European Union—in particular, of the Commission—who are in receipt of EU pensions, which they can lose if they go against the interests of the European Union. If no one feels guilty in that regard, of course they have nothing to say. On the amendment, I am going into the fundamental reasons why it is misguided, and with the noble Lord’s permission, I will continue.
It is some time since I reminded your Lordships of that founding idea, which was that the European nations had caused so much bloodshed over the centuries that they had to be gradually emasculated and put under a new form of technocratic government that was to supplant national democracy, which it has indeed done; hence the EU’s absurd claim to have brought peace to Europe since 1945, which was instead of course secured by NATO; hence also the huge but little-understood powers of the unelected Commission, with its monopoly to propose new legislation, in secret—which is now so much of our own legislation—and then to execute that legislation when it has been through the Brussels sausage machine, imposing heavy fines along the way, and subject only to that engine of EU integration, the Luxembourg court. The Commission also manages the EU budget—so badly that its accounts have not been signed off for 21 years. Believe it or not, the Commission also negotiates all our foreign trade agreements—so badly that we still do not have a free trade agreement with China, India, Russia, the USA, Australia, Canada and many of the markets of the future. Singapore has had them all for 10 years. Who knows what that failure has cost our economy; the amendment refers to our economy.
As to what is left of our democracy while we stay in the EU, the Euro-lie goes that it is upheld in the Council of Ministers from the nation states, where we have only 12% of the votes and where we have been defeated on every single one of the 55 new laws we have opposed since 1996.
My first point is, therefore, that even if we did get any advantage from our EU membership, in any of the areas mentioned in the amendment, it would still not be worth it because the price would have been our democracy. However, the fact is that we do not, as my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke will confirm.
Europhiles try to frighten us by pretending that jobs would be lost if we left the EU. We are back to the economy again.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
When the noble Lord is talking about democracy, what does he think of the democracy where a party—the UK Independence Party, say—gets a large percentage of the vote but only one seat in the Parliament? Is that the vibrant democracy that he believes in?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, no, of course not. If the noble Lord would care to read my peroration on this subject on 15 September, he will see that I opined that our first past the post system no longer produces a vibrant democracy in this country. The system which sends Members of Parliament to the House of Commons should be changed. Then one might find that the UK Independence Party would get one or two more seats.
As I was saying, Europhiles still try to frighten us that jobs would be lost if we left the EU. However, we would keep our free trade with the single market because we are its largest client. We have some 3 million jobs selling things to clients there, but it has 4.5 million jobs selling things to its clients here. Our Europhile friends then conveniently forget that only about 9% of our economy goes in trade with the single market, declining and in deficit; some 11% goes to the rest of the world, expanding and in surplus; but 80% stays in our domestic economy. Yet Brussels overregulation strangles all 100% of our economy.
Another Europhile silly one is to point out that we would still have to obey single market rules if we left the EU.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we are on Report. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, repeat these familiar arguments many times in the House, but I am not entirely sure that we are addressing the amendment under discussion.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I think I am addressing it. I am going into the fundamental reasons why the amendment is misguided. I will continue, if I may. Only 9% of our economy goes to the single market and this is the percentage of our exports and economy for which we would have to follow EU rules. Of course we would, just as it pays to put the steering wheel on the left if you are selling a car to the United States.
Talking of cars, Europhiles give our car industry as one which would suffer if we left the EU. Once again, I remind noble Lords of Global Britain’s briefing note No. 96, which shows why that is nonsense. We import twice as many cars from the single market as we export to it—1.4 million in and 0.6 million out. EU manufacturers actually own 53% of our domestic car market. Why would they want to impose a tariff against their own profitable business? Indeed, I can go further and recommend that Europhiles particularly, and our civil servants, should take a little time to read the Global Britain briefing notes, which briefly but comprehensively destroy the economic case for staying in the EU.
In conclusion, the amendment makes the basic Europhile mistake of thinking that any area of our national life is funded by the EU, whereas of course for every £1 it sends us at the moment we have sent it £2.63. According to the latest Pink Book figures for 2014, we sent £19.994 billion gross in 2014 and the EU sent us back £7.665 billion for things such as our research budget, structural funds, farmers and so forth, as covered by the amendment. That leaves our net contribution at £12.329 billion per annum. That is £34 million a day, which goes down the drain in Brussels. Or we could look at it as the annual salaries of 352,257 policemen—of whom we could do with a few more right now—or nurses or any other public servant your Lordships may care to mention, at £35,000 a year each.
I would rather welcome the amendment if it were honestly fulfilled because the voters would understand better what a complete disaster is our membership of the European Union and they might even start to ask what is the point of the European Union itself. They might start to see it for what it is. It is an emperor whose clothes have long since fallen off.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, it would appear that despite our best efforts, this whole objective of some degree of dispassionate analysis will nevertheless wind up as a dog’s breakfast. We have to persist in trying to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, accurately described as the distinction between things that are facts and things that are for debate between the two opposing camps. A good example in the Brexit scenario is one that I will cover now.
A key distinction behind these amendments is similar to what Mr Rumsfeld would have described as the difference between a known known and a known unknown. I have an example. I have in my hand a copy of the pamphlet that I helped to put together entitled Europe and Your Rights at Work. Since Maastricht, there have been 10 or a dozen very important reforms that are now on the statute book, such as protection when a business changes hands, equal rights for part-time workers, maternity and paternity rights, equal rights for fixed-term workers, four weeks’ paid holiday—although that falls under the health and safety regime. Other reforms include having a voice at work, European Works Councils, the posting of workers in Europe and health and safety at work.
Those were negotiated—I did a lot of that myself for some years—in Brussels between the leaders of the trade unions and the leaders of the employers. The result is that, despite the sound and fury at the beginning, we do not hear too much complaint now because everyone, including the employers, appreciates that they are a useful floor for employment rights in this country.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Of course, my noble friend is quite right that these measures could be repealed, but they could also be extended and improved on by a British Government. If we are looking for good conditions for people at work, I would say that a huge advance in recent years was that wonderful national minimum wage introduced not by the EU but by the last Labour Government. Ultimately, the terms and conditions of people at work about whom he and I care most passionately are better protected by a Labour Government in Britain than by any decision in Brussels.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I have the highest respect for my noble friend but I am afraid that on this one he is wrong. In international trade, employers will claim we are at a competitive disadvantage if we do not do things together. This is what Europe is about. That is what Delors pointed out in Bournemouth in 1988.
If we were to say to an employer in Holland, Italy or Spain, “You can lead the race to the bottom”, all the employers, one by one, would scream that they had to go in that direction. I will be calling for a European identity card the way I am going, but if we had a floor for all European workers in all these areas, the comparison with the minimum wage—although we do not have a European minimum wage—would be valid in that all workers and employers would be protected. If noble Lords will allow me to conceptualise, we will have a European ring-fence—let us not start getting into the argument about competition with China or Japan; it is a good argument but quite different from the one we are considering at the moment. This is for the parties in the referendum debate to discuss, and they are valid points to discuss.
Another factor that will determine how Brexit would work would be, no doubt, the majority in the country and the state of agitation on how best to progress matters on the Back Benches of the Conservative Party—and indeed, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and everybody else in the House of Commons. To get to the nub of the point for this debate, and maybe to add some value to what I am about to say, we have a difficulty which would have been avoided if we had followed what we called in an earlier debate the OBR-type of authorship because all these amendments look to HMG to produce these studies. How will Ministers avoid the charge of cherry picking, as and when they deal with what are, with good will all round—and there will not be an oversupply of that—difficult analytical distinctions between things that we know and things that are going to be debated?
In conclusion, I will try to answer my own question.
Lord Lea of Crondall
For once in his life, my noble friend may care to pay a little more attention to what I am about to say, and he may even be convinced by it. I think that there is scope for an inter-party agreement on the preparation of a statement of intent, as it were, between the two camps that neither will accuse the other, or even the Government, of bias, if not dishonesty, simply as a consequence of having conducted an insufficiently robust analysis of the distinction between the facts—the known knowns—and the unknowns. What I am saying may prove to be true or untrue, but on the percentage chance that it is true, can we follow up the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, about tsunamis by saying that they will be prevented only if we can avoid charges of bad faith when these reports are published? Therefore, the leaders of the two campaigns should swear an oath—as in ancient Rome, or some such—that they will accept that the assessment is dispassionate and that neither side will try to shoot the messenger, as and when these surveys are produced.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I back up what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, with which I entirely agree. To make the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, happy, I should say that my receipt of a pension from the European Parliament is on my declaration of interests. As far as I know, I do not have to mention it every time we discuss the EU, as that would bore the House greatly.
I wish to amplify two of the points in Amendment 24C, in the name, principally, of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. The Prime Minister said recently that the EU was essential—I cannot remember whether he said “essential”, but he at least meant that it was very important—to the UK’s national security. I think that is the first time he has made that very valid point. Therefore, it is important that the report the Government promise to publish in the very welcome amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, should cover the law enforcement, security and justice point because the public have a right to know what that consists of. For instance, the report should state that we are a full member of Europol and not stray into the domain covered by Amendment 25, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, by implying that if we are not in the EU we will not be a full member of Europol, as Norway is not—it has a sort of observer status. The same applies to referring to Eurojust as a sort of club of prosecutors which makes sure that we catch, and can prosecute, these major criminals.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, we have full membership of the European arrest warrant. We could even push for reform. I wish that Ministers, the Government and the Commission would take up the report that I wrote as one of my last acts in the European Parliament. This was about multilateral reform of the European arrest warrant. We could not do that simply as law takers outside the EU, even if we had some kind of other arrangement.
On proposed new paragraph (d) in Amendment 24C and the rights of UK citizens living in another country, a lot of work is being done here, to which the UK, being in the European Union, has a great deal to contribute. This work is about complementing the rights of free movement. We have maybe 2 million citizens living in the rest of the EU. We can take a leading part, with our strong civil as well as criminal legal traditions, in influencing the work on the mutual recognition of documents and of civil partnerships and marriages, including of course same-sex marriages, and on the rights that help our citizens in their daily lives in other EU countries.
It is important that our citizens understand the full implications of those EU measures, and the rights and obligations that arise under EU law enabling us to help defend our national security and ourselves against terrorism, to catch criminals and to help people taking advantage of free-movement rights through civil-law issues. I hope the Minister will say that the report will have some focus on these sectors of law enforcement, security and justice, including civil justice.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I should like to speak to these three amendments.
My noble friend the Minister’s first amendment, Amendment 24A, makes the assumption that the Prime Minister will come back with a negotiated package from the EU. There is not a lot of evidence at the moment that that will happen. The Prime Minister has made it clear that if he cannot get any reforms of or agreement with the EU he will walk away. Is that offer no longer on the table? Are we now basically taking the position that, however hopeless the concessions that we get from the EU are, the Government will campaign to stay in whatever happens?
On Amendment 24B, I have many more concerns. It speaks of,
“information about rights, and obligations, that arise under European Union law as a result of the United Kingdom’s membership”.
This really encompasses a large part of UK citizens’ lives. Nick Clegg, from another place, said that 50% of our legislation originates in the EU. This is a very broad category, encompassing very many activities that happen in this country.
In proposed new subsection (1)(b) my noble friend’s amendment says,
“examples of countries that do not have membership of the European Union”.
Can she indicate which countries she will identify as being not part of the European Union, but which have a relationship with it? This is also an extremely broad category. Virtually every country in the world has some sort of relationship with the EU. I would be particularly interested to have a little bit more detail about the free-trade treaty between South Korea and the EU. My view has always been that if South Korea can have such a treaty, the United Kingdom can, too. I should like to know a lot more about that. Will we be told about it in this paper? In general terms, nobody can pretend that the information that will come out in the report suggested by Amendment 24B will be in any way impartial. But of course, when it comes to partiality, we have only to move on to Amendment 24C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to find a whole list of things that quite clearly the noble Lord thinks are going to give advantage to those people who want to stay in the EU.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I suppose I had better make a declaration of interest in case I upset the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I have a minuscule pension that comes from the National Assembly for Wales, and that might be interpreted as colouring my views on some of the matters in these amendments. Be that as it may, I am very glad to see not only Amendment 24C, which picks up some of the points that I introduced in Committee with regard to regional policy, structural funds and agriculture, but the response of the Government, which has included these points, as Minister underlined in her opening contribution. Perhaps I could press a little further on those aspects.
The Minister referred to the fact that Amendment 24B(1)(a) covers structural funds and agriculture. Perhaps she can clarify whether that would be the intention of interpreting the effects of changes arising from our withdrawal from the European Union on structural funds in specific areas—that it is not just the overall picture but the picture as it impacts on those regions that are beneficiaries of structural funds. Quite clearly, the effect can be different and we could well make a case that there might be an overall UK benefit but a disbenefit for the regions concerned.
Likewise, in the case of agriculture, questions such as the issue that is dominant in Wales at the moment in a European context—the sheep meat regime—can impact regions very differently. Obviously, regions such as eastern England would have a much greater interest in the grain-producing industries and the effect that pulling out might have on them. I would be very glad to know that there will be more than just the overall interpretation of the effect when that appraisal is undertaken.
Secondly, I would like to pick up the question of engagement with the devolved Administrations. For that engagement to be meaningful, and for the devolved Governments to be able to put forward their own statements on their interpretation of the effect of withdrawal on matters of concern to them, it would be necessary for them to have some detailed information on how the negotiations have gone and how the points have emerged during those negotiations. Therefore, there would be a requirement for the devolved Administrations to be pulled into the discussions as they were going along, and not just to be told at the end, “This is what we’ve negotiated. You say what you like about the effects on Wales, or Scotland, or Northern Ireland”. If that is the case, if it is possible for the devolved Administrations to be involved in the negotiations—even if only to know, step by step, how they are moving forward—can the Minister give that reassurance to the House, and tell us at what stage she will start to negotiate, or discuss, these matters with the devolved Administrations to ensure that they are involved from this stage forward, and do not just come in at a very late stage?
Clearly, what we are concerned with here are the effects of withdrawal on various aspects of policy, as detailed in Amendment 24C. A number of the instances raised in that amendment are not covered in Amendment 24B, as far as we know. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, whose name is on Amendment 24C, will address this matter if she speaks to this group of amendments. I would have thought that clarification was needed on other points in addition to structural funds and agriculture, for which Amendment 24B does provide, at least to some extent. We also require clarification on the matters covered by Amendment 24C. None the less, I welcome the fact that the Government have moved on this subject, and I hope that the clarification provided will add to my contentment.
Lord Owen (Ind SD)
My Lords, I would like to make points of general application to all the amendments. I have read all the debates that have taken place on this subject here, and it seems to me that it is time for the House, way before we get into any ping-pong, to ask itself what its role is in relation to this legislation.
I gave evidence to the Select Committee in another place, at a time when it looked as if the referendum might be transparently rigged. There was the question of the independence of the Civil Service, and its involvement—and also the question of how long a time would have to elapse between the announcement of the results and the time when the referendum would take place. In fairness to the Government, and in the light of the Select Committee, I must say that most of the major issues of fairness were dealt with, and I thought that we were accorded a judgment in favour of fairness, which I strongly uphold. That, certainly, is the duty of this House.
However, we must now look at the debates, and the direction in which they are going. I agree with the statement already made that it is patently obvious that a lot of the substance of the amendments and the arguments is an attempt to shift the debate. That does happen in these situations, and we cannot stop it. But it does mean that we are talking ourselves into a situation of legitimacy in terms of intervening in the referendum in ways that would be not only absurd but dangerous for this House to adopt.
We have already taken one decision in recent weeks: I voted for it myself, but only after very careful consideration as to whether we were overstretching our powers. I will not go into that debate now, but I was confident that what we were doing was just about acceptable. But to delay the referendum is not acceptable. To do anything in this House, either through ping-pong or otherwise, that would delay the undoubted constitutional right of the Prime Minister to choose the timing of his announcement—and therefore, following his announcement, the timing of the referendum—would be absurd.
It is also necessary to remember that there are some differences between the referendum that took place in 1975 and the one that is due to take place on whether we should leave the European Union or remain within it. In 1975, there was no provision in the treaties for a two-year period during which negotiations would be held. This is a very substantive difference. When the then Foreign Secretary, the former Prime Minister, James Callaghan, was asked by a civil servant in the Cabinet Office what he would do in the remaining few weeks of a referendum campaign were the decision to be taken to leave, he made it quite clear that he would be feel obliged immediately to curtail in some substantive measure the powers of the European Union—there could be no delay. That was the right decision, given the nature of that referendum and the fact that there was no two-year period for negotiations. He had to be able to demonstrate forthwith that the powers had changed as result of the referendum.
That judgment was not liked by the civil servants who got it but, as of course they do in these cases, they immediately set about creating the necessary legislation and powers so that had that referendum voted to come out of the European Community, we would have been able to take powers as soon as the referendum was held. That needs to be borne in mind when we discuss some of these very detailed provisions. I cannot help but agree with the noble Lord. Subsection (1)(a) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 24B refers to,
“information about rights, and obligations, that arise under European Union law”.
We could have a cursory glance at that, which I should think would take a White Paper of about an inch thick. A very substantial glance at it would take a White Paper of about five or six inches thick.
We need to keep a sense of proportion here on one particularly important matter: the giving of a referendum is a right for Members of Parliament and nobody else, because it curtails their democratic rights. It is a very serious curtailment of their rights, so much so that, although we call it an advisory referendum, we all know that they accept an obligation to take into law decisions which, as citizens, they may personally have voted against. That is why, in my view, referendums are to be used rather more sparingly than seems to be developing. It is a very considerable infringement on the rights of a representative, elected, democratic Member of Parliament—and, frankly, those rights do not retain in this House.
For example, the mandate, but perhaps more importantly the actual details about who is enfranchised to vote, is a Member of Parliament’s decision and not for this House. We can express views, but the idea that we could hold up a referendum on this issue is absurd. People may say, “We have no intention of doing that. When it comes to the ping-pong, we will accept it and rationalise it. We realise our powers”. It is much better not to embark on this. Ping-pong that is not serious is a waste of everybody’s time. More importantly, it gives an image to the country at large, which does not understand our procedures, that we in this Chamber think we have rights that we do not have. We do not have rights over the franchise for this referendum or over the Prime Minister’s decision as to when he calls to an end the negotiations and puts the issues to the people. He will of course know and listen to all the arguments about the way in which that decision and the facts should be presented.
Again, we have to be honest about this: we have had a long debate on this issue, and not just on this current referendum Bill. After all, it was announced under the previous Government and was in the manifesto. We know the issues and the electorate, because they are not stupid, will take it upon themselves to be cognisant of those factors that concern them in how they make that individual decision. So if I may make a plea, it is that the House will be very careful from now on to not give the impression that we have rights in this debate which we do not have. This is developing on quite a large number of fronts and it is going to end in tears.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 24C to which I have put my name. I would like to thank the Minister for listening, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said and for reflecting the views put forward at all stages of the Bill’s passage through this House.
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Owen, I am slightly at a loss because last week we discussed the franchise at some length and voted on it and today we are thinking about reports and paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, to which the noble Lord referred, relates to Government Amendment 24B, not to an amendment which is being proposed by Back-Benchers or others.
I want to speak to parts of Amendment 24C. Most of the concerns that I raised at Second Reading about the need for reports have been answered by government Amendment 24B in terms of outlining what alternatives to membership might mean. It is important that we have objective information. I hear from both sides of the House—from the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton and Lord Pearson of Rannoch—that Amendment 24C is somehow trying to put forward things that pro-Europeans want to hear about. However, if the information that is being asked for is objective and membership of the European Union is bad for the economy, a report will make that clear. There is nothing in Amendment 24C that says that the report should outline the “benefits of” or the “disbenefits of”; it merely refers to the “effects of”, so it would be helpful if noble Lords took the wording of the amendment at face value. Some of us who are still very new to your Lordships’ House have put our names to amendments because we believe that they will improve the quality of debate and the information that is available to citizens.
I turn to paragraphs (b) (c) and (d) of Amendment 24C on the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals resident in other member states. If the vote is to withdraw, there will clearly be implications for those citizens, which was one of the reasons we discussed at some length whether those people should be enfranchised. Will the Minister confirm that issues about the rights of citizens resident here and in the other EU states will be taken into consideration by the Government under Amendment 24B and, in particular, will she focus on the relationship with Ireland? In Committee, my noble friend Lord Wallace and I raised this issue in an amendment, which was withdrawn. Clearly in addition to discussions with the devolved Administration of Northern Ireland, it is important for the Her Majesty’s Government to think about the implications for the relationship of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in the case of withdrawal. It is not simply a matter for the devolved Administration; it is a matter for two sovereign countries. The other devolved Administrations would not be affected in quite the same way.
Lord Grocott
I do not think there is any disagreement about the need to provide precise factual information so that people can make the judgment that they will have make when the referendum is called. That is clearly a benefit. The difficulty that arises—it is pretty obvious to me and I hope I can convince any doubters that it ought to be to all of us—is in determining what is factual, unarguable, objective information and what is a matter of judgment.
Looking at the amendments, I can certainly give an example of what is factual and what is not. For example, government Amendment 24B—leaving aside just for a moment the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, about which countries might be included—is close to a factual requirement,
“examples of countries that do not have membership of the European Union but do have other arrangements with the European Union (describing, in the case of each country given as an example, those arrangements).”
Admittedly, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, made me waver a bit when I heard his comments. There is deep uncertainty as to precisely which countries would be covered by this—perhaps the Minister will answer that point in her reply—but if you gave that to 10 top civil servants and said, “Right, you have to draw up these facts, these details, on this precise point”, they would roughly be in the same territory. They would spell out what deal Norway had got, what deal Switzerland had got and so on.
By complete contrast, I have to disagree with the Liberal Front Bench strongly over the idea that Amendment 24C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, involves a kind of clear, objective and unarguable description about the consequences of withdrawal. The game is given away in the language of the very first line of the amendment:
“The report shall cover the possible consequences of withdrawal”.
The term “possible consequences” contains within itself the possibility of different considerations that need to be brought into account in the event of withdrawal. The language of the amendment itself admits the possibility of debate, discussion and uncertainty. I am not a lawyer, but if that ever passed on to the statute book and 10 civil servants were asked to give a precise answer on those points, they would come up with 10 different solutions.
I will complete that point by including one particularly contentious example. I mentioned this in Committee but make absolutely no apology for mentioning it again. Amendment 24C says:
“The report shall cover the possible consequences of withdrawal from the European Union, including information on the effects of withdrawal upon … (g) the provision of financial support for agriculture in each region of the United Kingdom”.
Does that or does that not include a consideration of what support agriculture would get in the event of withdrawal from the common agricultural policy? In my book, of course that would be a possible consequence of leaving the European Union: there would be subventions from the British Treasury to British agriculture. The levels of that would be unknown, but it is a fair bet in my book that they would at least be equal to the colossal sums that we contribute to the common agricultural policy under the present arrangements. Whether I am right or wrong does not really matter: all I am saying is that the language of the amendment itself means that that is inevitably the kind of debate that would take place. Clearly, you cannot talk about the possible consequences of withdrawal from the CAP without giving some consideration to what sort of support would come from a country that was outside the EU. In trying to pretend that that is a kind of objective consideration, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, must allow himself a little smile.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am not smiling very much. As I explained in Committee, that was not the intention of the people moving these sorts of amendments. We wish to have a factual, objective statement of the consequences of withdrawal. I noticed with some pleasure that when the Minister opened the debate this afternoon, she included a recognition that there would need to be, in the paper provided under Amendment 24B, some consideration of that matter. I never suggested—and I twice replied to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on this point in Committee—that we should go into the speculative area of what the Government might do to replace the common agricultural policy, which would have been withdrawn from British farmers. I am sorry, but the noble Lord is simply barking up the wrong tree. There is therefore no difference between us and no difference with the Minister. This is important information. It was not intended to enter the speculative realm of what would replace it.
Lord Grocott
In that case, the noble Lord really should have put down a different amendment. In my book, possible consequences means possible consequences. Possible consequences of withdrawal from one organisation will include what will happen to the beneficiaries, if that is the right word, of the common agricultural policy in the event of withdrawal. If there is no possibility of uncertainty, remove “possible” from the amendment. The noble Lord has to defend his amendment as written. In any conversation interpreting the meaning of the amendment as written, there would be any number of possible—I use the word myself again—ways in which the consequences of withdrawal could be written.
I think that the noble Lord will be frank enough, as am I, to admit that he does not come from a completely neutral position. If he thought that his amendment would result in a large number of statements and heavy tracts one or two inches thick pointing out what disastrous consequences there would be for Britain if it remained within the European Union, I am quite sure that he would not have put the amendment down. He has put the amendment down precisely because it is consistent with his perfectly sincerely held view—and we know that almost irrespective of what the Prime Minister brings back he will be voting to stay. I just find it unacceptable in terms of the language.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am sorry, but I really must reply to this point about possible consequences. If I had put “consequences” without “possible” that would have entered the speculative realm because it would have needed to bring in what was done to replace the common agricultural policy. By putting “possible consequences” it merely stays in the factual realm—what will be removed from the British agricultural sector if we were to leave. It does not enter into the conjectural area of what would replace it. That was the reason for the wording.
Lord Grocott
I think actually it is much clearer from the noble Lord’s perspective if he says “consequences” and does not put “possible”. I think we are beginning to dance on pinheads now, but test it out in the pub. What are the possible consequences of you not paying for your pint? There are a whole range of possible consequences. Anyone who is asked might say: you might go to prison; it might result in a fight. Any number of consequences are possible from an objective fact. The objective fact, which is acknowledged, would be withdrawal from the common agricultural policy. I am simply putting to the noble Lord that with “possible consequences” the language itself implies that there could be lots of different interpretations. I put it no stronger than that.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, I would like to speak, as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, did, rather generally about the whole series of amendment that have been put down. I have been rather struck by the plethora of different reports demanded. My memory went back to the repeated demands that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, used to make of successive Administrations that they should have a publication stating the advantages of being in the European Union. Year after year, Administration after Administration—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was one of the people answering the PQs that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, put down—the reply always came back, no, they would not publish any evaluation of our membership. It was never clear whether this was because they thought it was self-evident or, as I also suspect, because there is an element of greyness. The truth is never precise. I think what is wrong in so many of the assessments that have been asked for is that, actually, one cannot always give a precise factual answer.
For example, take the case of membership of the EEA, the European Economic Area, to which Norway belongs. Some people would say you have to accept all the regulations just the way they are imposed—it is government by fax. Actually when you look into it in real detail, it is not like that at all. It is a very complicated procedure and it is not quite true to say that a country such as Norway has to accept the laws it is given, let alone just by fax. First, there is a very elaborate machinery before laws are formulated. Secondly, when laws are formulated, the EEA countries have a right to reject legislation—they have a veto—something that we inside the European Union do not. The noble Baroness shakes her head. I am very willing to give way to her if she disagrees with me.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
My Lords, as I understand it from a colleague at the EFTA secretariat, the way that the EEA agreement would work is that legislation on that part of the internal market would be disapplied. So it is possible to say that you do not like something, but then no part of that internal market legislation applies. That makes it somewhat more difficult than the noble Lord appeared to imply.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
By interrupting, the noble Baroness illustrated exactly my point. She just said that it is more complicated than I had said. I am saying that government by fax is an oversimplification as well. These things are not capable of a single interpretation; they cannot all be reduced to numbers. In this debate, we have a series of people with different motives putting forward different lists that they think would help their case.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea, had an interesting exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, responded to the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, to various rights that existed, and made the point: could not the UK Parliament just legislate for each of those rights? I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, did not answer that question satisfactorily.
It reminded me of a conversation I had many years ago with a friend before we joined the European Economic Community. My friend was an enthusiastic supporter of joining; I was a bit sceptical. I voted to join and made my maiden speech in the House of Commons in favour of joining, but I objected to the argument that my friend put forward for joining the EEC, as it then was. He said, “The reason for joining the EEC is that we can irreversibly freeze into law capitalism, free markets and deregulation”. That is how the EEC appeared at the time: it was something that appealed to economic liberals.
Of course, the whole nature of the EU changed as it involved and we had what the noble Lord, Lord Lea, referred to as the Delors doctrine, which was that you would enshrine permanently in EU law certain social rights. That is why the TUC changed its mind over membership, I think. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was quite right to say that you can have all those lists put forward in different amendments, but actually the UK Parliament is perfectly capable of implementing whatever rights or limitations on rights it wishes. That is one of the fundamental points about the EU and one of the fundamental objections to it: it is so difficult to repeal legislation because it is enshrined almost in aspic.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My point was that employers would not be happy to do that just as one country because they would become less competitive; they want to do it as a continent. I know that the noble Lord will not think that a good argument, but that was the point being made.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I know that the noble Lord made the point about acting together, but I do not think that it really answers the point made to him by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. These lists are highly selective. In the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, all right, some items stand on their own, but let us take paragraph (e) in Amendment 24C, which covers,
“law enforcement, security and justice in the United Kingdom and in the devolved jurisdictions”.
Of course there will be arguments both ways. One noble Baroness referred to the European arrest warrant as though that were self-evidently all in one direction, but a published analysis of it might give rise to a lot of argument about the rights of people who are wrongly prosecuted, or of the innocent who are extradited.
Many people have anxieties about the whole theory of parity of esteem of the justice systems of different countries in the EU. Can anyone really say that the justice systems of Bulgaria or Romania are equal to ours—that we have as much confidence in them as we do in our own UK system—and that therefore there should be automaticity of extradition? I say that because the idea that these things can be reduced to simple formulae, to black and white or to one particular viewpoint is not correct.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I remind the noble Lord that both Houses of Parliament recently voted for resolutions which stated that the European arrest warrant was in the national interest of the United Kingdom. Presumably it is reasonable, therefore, that it should be stated in a government report that it would cease to apply to us if we left the European Union.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Yes, Parliament has voted for it—but if we are having a referendum, everything is up for argument. The public have been given the right to dispute and to vote. Equally, paragraph (f) of the noble Lord’s amendment refers to,
“those regions of the United Kingdom that qualify for structural funds”.
I imagine that that would have a big impact in certain regions of the north of England, but other people in the south might attach equal importance to the fact that we did not have to make a budget contribution across the exchanges any longer.
The point that I am trying to make is that these things cannot all be reduced to black and white. The truth is grey: there is no such thing as complete impartiality in all these arguments. That comes back to a very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who quite rightly and with tremendous force reminded the House that we may be in danger of overstepping the mark. As I think he was hinting—although he had the graciousness not to say so—I suspect that a lot of these amendments are being put forward for rather self-interested motives from the side that people find themselves on in this argument.
So rather than seeking after some elusive impartiality that does not exist, let both sides slog it out in argument. Let the Government, as they have said, publish a White Paper saying what they think is the result of the negotiations and why they think we should stay in, if that is what they think—and they probably will—but let us not go beyond that into an area that is highly disputable. Each side can put its case best, rather than the Government trying to argue a case that they are fundamentally opposed to.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, let me simply add to what the noble Lord said. The last Government produced 32 reports on the EU balance of competences; I have painful memories of it. We covered the European arrest warrant. It was a process where we asked the opinions of experts and stakeholders throughout the country. We were as impartial as possible in that respect: civil servants reviewed the results and made an assessment of the balance of comments that had come back. So it is possible to be relatively impartial on all this. If we are to have a referendum, it is important that the people are as well informed as possible on the evidence that is provided.
Lord Green of Deddington
Before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that the balance of competences review did not include the word “population”?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I have not checked all 2,500 pages of the report, but I cannot guarantee that I will do so as quickly as I read the speech in 2002 by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, when he reminded me that I had not referred to it. I have to say that I found it rather thin.
Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Pearson I welcome this group of amendments—perhaps, rather surprisingly—because it gives us the chance to get some facts out in this report. I hope that the noble Baroness will listen to the other side of the argument. Having listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, I will try to confine myself to facts. Amendment 24C states:
“The report shall cover the possible consequences of withdrawal … upon … the United Kingdom’s economy”.
I think that on the whole that could be rather beneficial. We could get £20 billion back that otherwise we would send to the European Union. That £20 billion may not seem an awful lot of money to some noble Lords who tabled the amendment, but it is a substantial sum of money and would be Britain’s to spend as it sees fit. That is a fact. According to the Pink Book published at the end of October this year, £20 billion was our contribution in 2014.
When we talk about the economy, I know that behind this is the idea that if we were to leave the European Union our industry, the City and other sectors of our productive economy would be acted against and discriminated against by our erstwhile partners. I find that very unlikely. Again, according to the recent Pink Book, we have an annual trade imbalance with the EU of £107 billion. That is a Pink Book fact. What is also a fact is that Britain is the eurozone’s biggest single trading partner—bigger than the United States. We are Germany’s biggest single export market—bigger than the United States. I therefore find it really hard to believe that our trading partners, who have such a promising trade balance with us as their best market, would possibly want to destroy the interests of their best customer.
Going on down the list, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has already dealt with the rights of the individual. That of course is entirely up to the United Kingdom Parliament to decide, and no longer a matter for the European Union.
We move on down to law enforcement—new subsection (e) on law enforcement, security and justice. Again, I do not know whether the European arrest warrant is actually the best way to deal with matters. Obviously, we need some way of getting criminals back to face justice, but a prima facie case should be made in front of a magistrate in England before people are sent back to face systems of justice that are very different from ours—so I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on that.
As for security, of course, were we to leave the European Union we would have control of our borders again. That is arguably the most important thing of all when it comes to security at the moment. We see the chaos in Europe, with barbed-wire fences being erected and France putting up border controls. All over Europe now, people are debating whether free movement of people in and out of the EU is actually possible.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
Could the noble Lord elaborate on control of our borders? In what sense do we not have control of them?
Lord Willoughby de Broke
We no longer have control of our borders because we are subject to the EU directive on free movement of people. That is why we do not have control of our borders, and it is what we need to get back if we are going to give to our citizens—subjects of the Queen—security. Surely giving their citizens security and safety is an overriding priority of any Government now. That trumps any EU ideology, given what is happening right now in front of our faces in Europe. I really think that that is incontrovertible.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
The security of our borders, even with the free movement of people, subjects anyone coming here to the same level of scrutiny that would be available were they coming from anywhere else in the world. So while it is true that there is free movement of people, it is not true that the security of our borders is impeded.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
I do not agree with the noble Lord at all. Unless we have control of our own borders—our own Border Force properly controlling our borders, not subject to the EU free movement of people directive—we do not have control of our borders. I am very sorry that he does not agree with that, but it is a simple fact.
I shall move on, if I may, to the regions of the UK that receive structural funds. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that we have £20 billion at our disposal. It is entirely possible that structural funds, infrastructure applications, can be judged on their merit by the British Government of the day and allocated accordingly. It is very simple. Our money should not be sent to Brussels with a label on it saying how we are going to spend it. It should be a matter for the British Government and the British people how that is done and not a matter for Brussels at all.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, I am going to resist the temptation to revisit the Second Reading and Committee stages that we have undergone so far and I shall address the amendment that we are supposed to be discussing. It is essential in this EU referendum that the public have information at their disposal not just in terms of what will change as a result of the Prime Minister’s renegotiation, but also in terms of what potentially will change if we leave the European Union. That is what we are addressing at the moment.
Most respectable companies and charities have a risk register—a list of where there may be unpredictable changes if circumstances change. In this amendment, we are essentially asking for a register of where we will have to act in some way or another if we leave the EU. I thank the Government for understanding the need for this information. We are grateful that the Government have listened and that they understand that we are not asking here for any kind of hypothetical explanation of what might happen if we were to leave; we want to know what domestic systems they would need to replace for EU systems if we were to leave. We want a comprehensive list of what issues and subjects would need to be addressed. I emphasise that we do not want this information to be loaded in any way; plenty of that will be pushed during the course of the referendum debate itself. Here we are looking for statements of objective facts that are in no way speculative.
The Electoral Commission has suggested time and again that the public are unclear about the situation and are anxious for more information to help them to make an informed choice. The public currently take a whole series of rights and responsibilities for granted, which many will have no idea are related to our membership of the European Union. We are therefore grateful to the Government for introducing their amendment, which understands the need to set out these rights and obligations in a comprehensive way.
Lord Spicer (Con)
What is the point of these facts if we do not allow compensatory facts to be included in the total effect? If you do not look at the net effect, what is the point of the facts?
Baroness Morgan of Ely
The whole point is that we need to know what the situation is today and what we will need to change. In some way or another, we will have to revisit these issues. What are these issues? What is that list of rights that the public will need to know will change as a result of our leaving the European Union? That is not clear—it is not written down anywhere. We think there should be a register or list of rights that are currently there as a result of our membership of the European Union.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
The yes campaign has spent an enormous amount of time listing and scaring the pants off people, terrifying the public with all the things that are uncertain, so why do the Government have to argue one particular case in addition to the case they are arguing?
Baroness Morgan of Ely
We are not asking for the Government to argue a case; we are asking them to list what the responsibilities are, which is very different. We talked earlier about agriculture. Yes, some may argue that the Government would very happily replace any money that has come from the CAP with some kind of domestic policy. Others may think that the Chancellor may just grab that £20 billion to fill the black hole in his deficit. Who knows? We do not know what will happen and we will not enter that realm of speculation. However, we know that we would have to address the issue of agriculture if we were to leave the European Union. That is an objective statement of fact, which is what we are looking for here.
I thank the Minister for noting and listing most of the points we have set out. I assume that when she talks about social rights, she includes employment rights within that. I will not relist them—they are now on record—but I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that it would be beneficial to have a regional breakdown of the impact of funding if possible.
Some of those rights will be in the gift of the Government to implement at a domestic level. We must be aware that to cease our membership would allow the Government to repeal the rights that are currently secured by our EU membership; we have heard the examples of agriculture and structural funds. Other rights, such as the ability to access continental hospitals, would not be in the gift of the Government and would be subject to negotiation with our previous EU partners. Whether they want to play with us after our exit would be, to an extent, beyond our ability to influence.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for drawing attention to the fact that there would be considerable legislative and statutory consequences to withdrawal. The noble Lord came up with some figures for how long and how many people it would take to rewrite all the laws that have accumulated over 40 years. It would be useful to know if the Government concur with his suggestion and whether the same is true for devolved Governments as well.
The Minister did not specifically mention the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU. It would be useful if she would give some commitment that they would be covered by the reports.
I will not go on to deal with the second part of the Government’s amendment, relating to alternatives to EU membership. We will come to that later in the debate but, as the amendment is set out at the moment, I am afraid it would not be acceptable to us.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate on this important issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out at the beginning, nearly two hours ago, it is important that we are able to produce factual, objective information that is additional to the rhetoric of campaign. The Government have directed their attention to putting forward amendments that address the need for the public to have that information. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and other noble Lords for their contribution, not only to this debate, but to the passage of the Bill in general.
The Government have considered the range of views presented in Committee and, as I outlined earlier, we have brought forward Amendments 24A and 24B, which we have been discussing. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked for further reassurance that the devolved Administrations and Gibraltar would be covered under Amendment 24B and asked how that would happen. I can reassure him that, under these amendments, the reports published by the Government will include information on the position of Gibraltar and the devolved Administrations, including Northern Ireland. As I mentioned earlier, we will need to be mindful of the constitutional position of Gibraltar and the devolved Administrations and we will continue to engage with them. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, also raised the question of law and order. I will not rehearse the discussions we had on another occasion about Protocol 36, but I can reassure the noble Lord that the rights and obligations arising from this area would be in the scope of the report set out in Amendment 24B. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, specifically asked whether civil justice was included within the definition of justice. The answer is yes, as with all these matters, to the extent to which we have opted in.
My noble friend Lord Hamilton asked what would happen if my right honourable friend the Prime Minister returned empty-handed or, at least, with an agreement that he felt was not good for this country and the other 27 states. My right honourable friend David Cameron has been engaged, along with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and David Lidington, in negotiations throughout the summer and autumn and these have stepped up a gear. We have confidence that we will be able to present to the country a deal that is good for the United Kingdom and our colleagues across Europe, which is what needs to be achieved. However, the Prime Minister has also made it clear that, in the remote contingency that that did not happen, he would have to take a view. His view at the moment is that it is in the interests of this country that we all work together, as hard as we can, from every single party and none, to ensure that the right deal is achieved. That is where our concentration lies.
My noble friend Lord Hamilton also asked which countries will be used as examples under the second part of my Amendment 24B and asked specifically whether South Korea would be covered. Amendment 24B will require the Government to give examples of countries that have arrangements with the EU other than membership. It does not require the Government to comment on every single country that has a relationship with the EU. It will be appropriate to select a range of examples that most usefully and effectively demonstrate the existing arrangements to inform the public in an objective way. However, it would not be possible or even right for me to try to confirm the exact contents of such a report at present because it would lead to a tome. I am mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord Owen, reminded us earlier. These reports must be meaningful and accessible. If they are like Encyclopaedia Britannica, they would not do the job that noble Lords have required the Government to achieve.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, before she leaves that point, does my noble friend accept that the EU has very few free trade treaties with other countries, so at least one of them should be listed so that we can know about the detail?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I believe that we will select examples of countries that can best inform the people of this country about how they should cast their vote. We must not try to skew that. Clearly, it would be a balanced selection of countries. I would not like to define now what will be in the report because that would assume that I would be writing it—I will not be.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
For instance, will the noble Baroness assure us that the Government will give us a summary of the free-trade agreements reached by Singapore, whether we would be able to emulate Singapore and within what timescale? At the moment, we have none of those.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I believe I have answered that question twice. I would test the patience of the House were I to repeat myself a second time.
With regard to the devolved Administrations in the renegotiation, as foreign policy issues are reserved matters, relations with the European Union are the responsibility of Parliament and the Government of the UK. However, the UK Government involve the devolved Administrations as directly and fully as possible in decision-making in EU matters that touch on devolved areas. Further, Ministers have held meetings with representatives of the devolved Administrations. Most recently, the Minister for Europe met Fiona Hyslop MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs, on 11 November to discuss the EU reform process. The renegotiation is now a standing item at quarterly meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe, which allows Ministers from the devolved Administrations to feed in their views ahead of the meetings of European Councils. The next such meeting is next month. I hope that is the information that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, requested.
The noble Lord also asked whether the report described under Amendment 24B would cover matters such as structural funds and how they impact on the region. I thank the noble Lord for his contribution to this debate. He reminded us of the importance of these matters at Second Reading, in Committee and, quite rightly, now, too. I remarked in my opening speech that the report under government Amendment 24B would indeed cover important rights such as the right to apply for structural funds. Where appropriate, we will set this information in context. However, again, I am not in a position to set out the exact contents of the report today. Clearly, it is a matter of making sure that the information is as balanced and full as is appropriate.
I was also asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, whether employment rights would be covered. I briefly referred to that in my opening remarks, but they were quite detailed, so I can give the assurance that employment rights would be covered under the report required by government Amendment 24B, as indeed would the rights of EU citizens referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Morgan. They would be covered by Amendment 24B.
In coming to my final words on this group of amendments, I reflect on the fact that what we have sought to achieve is to listen to the request of the House to table amendments that provide a factual basis on which people can make up their minds when they cast their votes. Government Amendments 24A and 24B will ensure that the public are crystal clear on what EU membership currently entails for the UK and how the EU has been reformed. This will enable them to make their decisions in an informed way at the referendum.
The Government reports are intended to be informative, objective and evidence-based. It will be for others—the campaigners—to then take from the report such information as perhaps fits their case, and to use it with regard to other information they may have when they talk about risk assessments and views. That is a matter for another day, although I know we have had quite a flavour of it today.
In conclusion, when Amendment 24A is called in its place, I will move it, and Amendment 24B. I hope they will both be acceptable to the House and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will not press his Amendment 24C as an amendment to Amendment 24B. I beg to move.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I wish to reply to the Minister briefly and thank her for her contribution in replying to the debate. She has clarified a number of issues which were raised by me and others who put their names to the amendments. Her clarifications were basically very helpful. We have had a long debate. I would describe it as slightly a curate’s egg of a debate. My motives have not been so traduced since Fidel Castro’s representative on the UN Security Council had a little rant about British foreign policy, but I am used to these things and I am not objecting too much to that. I, and those who tabled the amendment, will study the Minister’s words with very great care. She weighed them carefully before she said them, both in the introduction and in responding to the debate. We will consider them very carefully. We may return to them on Third Reading, but in the mean time I do not intend to take the opinion of the House on this amendment.
“Duty to publish information about membership of the European Union etc
(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report which contains (alone or with other material)—
(a) information about rights, and obligations, that arise under European Union law as a result of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, and(b) examples of countries that do not have membership of the European Union but do have other arrangements with the European Union (describing, in the case of each country given as an example, those arrangements).(2) The report must be published before the beginning of the final 10 week period.
(3) In this section “the final 10 week period” means the period of 10 weeks ending with the date of the referendum.
(4) A copy of the report published under this section must be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State.”
National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on the national security strategy and strategic defence and security review. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the national security strategy and strategic defence and security review. Our national security depends on our economic security, and vice versa, so the first step in keeping our country safe is to ensure our economy is, and remains, strong.
Over the past five years we have taken the difficult decisions needed to bring down our deficit and restore our economy to strength. In 2010, we were ordering equipment for which there was literally no money. The total black hole in the defence budget alone was bigger than the entire defence budget in that year. Now it is back in balance. By sticking to our long-term economic plan, Britain has become the fastest growing major advanced economy in the world for the last two years and our renewed economic security means that we can afford to invest further in our national security.
This is vital at a time when the threats to our country are growing. This morning I was in Paris with President Hollande discussing how we can work together to defeat the evil of ISIL. As the murders on the streets of Paris reminded us so starkly, ISIL is not some remote problem thousands of miles away. It is a direct threat to our security at home and abroad. It has already taken the lives of British hostages and carried out the worst terrorist attack against British people since 7/7 on the beaches of Tunisia, to say nothing of the seven terrorist plots right here in Britain that have been foiled by our security services over the past year.
And of course, Mr Speaker, the threats we face today go beyond this evil death cult. From the crisis in Ukraine to the risk of cyberattacks and pandemics, the world is more dangerous and uncertain today than five years ago. So while every Government must choose how to spend the money they have available, every penny of which is hard-earned by taxpayers, this Government have taken a clear decision to invest in our security and safeguard our prosperity. As a result, the United Kingdom is the only major country in the world today which is simultaneously going to meet the NATO target of spending 2% of our GDP on defence and the UN target of spending 0.7% of our GNI on development, while also increasing investment in our security and intelligence agencies and in counterterrorism.
In ensuring our national security, we will also protect our economic security. As a trading nation with the world’s fifth biggest economy, we depend on stability and order in the world. With 5 million British nationals living overseas and our prosperity depending on trade around the world, engagement is not an optional extra; it is fundamental to the success of our nation. We need the sea lanes to stay open and the arteries of global commerce to remain free-flowing. So the strategy which I am presenting to the House today sets out a clear vision for a secure and prosperous United Kingdom, with global reach and global influence. At its heart is an understanding that we cannot choose between conventional defences against state-based threats and the need to counter threats that do not recognise national borders. Today we face both and we must respond to both. So over the course of this Parliament our priorities are to deter state-based threats, tackle terrorism, remain a world leader in cybersecurity and ensure that we have the capability to respond rapidly to crises as they emerge.
To meet these priorities we will continue to harness all the tools of national power available to us, co-ordinated through the National Security Council, to deliver a ‘full-spectrum approach’. This includes support for our Armed Forces, counterterrorism, international aid and diplomacy and working with our allies to deal with the common threats that face us all. Let me take each in turn. First, the bottom line of our national security strategy must always be the willingness and capability to use force where necessary. On Friday evening, the United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed Resolution 2249, calling on member states to take ‘all the necessary measures’ against ISIL in both Syria and Iraq.
On Thursday, I will come to this House and make a further Statement responding personally to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. I will make the case for Britain to join our international allies in going after ISIL at its headquarters in Syria, not just Iraq. I will explain how such action would be one element of a comprehensive and long-term strategy to defeat ISIL, in parallel with a major international effort to bring an end to the war in Syria. But today I want to set out how we will ensure that our Armed Forces have the capabilities to carry out such a task, and indeed any other tasks that might be needed in the years ahead. We will invest more than £178 billion in buying and maintaining equipment over the next decade, including doubling our investment in equipment to support our Special Forces, and we will increase the size of our deployable Armed Forces.
In 2010 we committed to an expeditionary force of 30,000. Today I can tell the House that by 2025 we are increasing that number to 50,000. As part of this, we will create two new strike brigades, forces of up to 5,000 personnel fully equipped to deploy rapidly and sustain themselves in the field. We will establish two additional Typhoon squadrons and an additional squadron of F35 Lightning combat aircraft to operate from our new aircraft carriers. We will maintain our ultimate insurance policy as a nation, our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, and replace our four ballistic missile submarines.
We will buy nine new maritime patrol aircraft, based in Scotland, to protect our nuclear deterrent, hunt down hostile submarines, and enhance our maritime search and rescue. We will buy at least 13 new frigates and two new offshore patrol vessels. These will include eight Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates. We will design and build a new class of light, flexible, general-purpose frigates. These will be more affordable than the Type 26, which will allow us to buy more of them for the Royal Navy, so that by the 2030s we can further increase the total number of Royal Navy frigates and destroyers. Not one of these capabilities is an optional extra. These investments are an act of clear-eyed self-interest to ensure our future prosperity and security.
Secondly, turning to counterterrorism, we will make a major additional investment in our world-class intelligence agencies to ensure that they have the resources and information that they need to detect and foil plots from wherever they emanate in the world. As I announced last week, we will invest £2.5 billion and employ over 1,900 additional staff. We will increase our investment in counterterrorism police and more than double our spending on aviation security around the world.
I can tell the House today that we have put in place a significant new contingency plan to deal with major terrorist attacks. Under this new operation, up to 10,000 military personnel will be available to support the police in dealing with the type of shocking terrorist attack that we have seen in Paris. We will also make a major new investment in a new generation of surveillance drones. These British-designed unmanned aircraft will fly at the very edge of the earth’s atmosphere and allow us to observe our adversaries for weeks on end, providing critical intelligence for our forces. We will also do more to make sure that the powers that we give our security services keep pace with changes in technology. We will see through the draft Bill that we have published to ensure that GCHQ, MI5 and our counterterrorism police continue to have the powers that they need.
Thirdly, we will use our formidable development budget and our outstanding Diplomatic Service to tackle global poverty, promote our interests, project our influence and address the causes of the security threats that we face, not just their consequences. Alongside the strategic defence and security review, I am publishing our strategy for official development assistance. At its heart is a decision to refocus half of DfID’s budget on supporting fragile and broken states and regions in every year of this Parliament. This will help to prevent conflict and, crucially, to promote the golden thread of conditions that drive prosperity all across the world: the rule of law, good governance and the growth of democracy. The Conflict, Stability and Security Fund will grow to over £1.3 billion a year by the end of the Parliament and we will also create a new £1.3 billion prosperity fund to drive forward our aim of promoting global prosperity and good governance.
Building on our success in tackling Ebola, we will do more to improve our resilience and our response to crises, identifying £500 million a year as a crisis reserve and investing £1.5 billion over the Parliament in a global challenges research fund for UK science to pioneer new ways of tackling global problems such as anti-microbial resistance. We will also invest £1 billion in a new fund for the research and development of products to fight infectious diseases, known as the Ross fund, and £5.8 billion in climate finance to play our part in helping poorer countries switch to greener forms of energy.
Taken together, these interventions are not just right morally; they are firmly in our national interest. They mean that Britain not only meets its obligations to the poorest in the world, but can now focus our resources on preventing or dealing with the instability and conflict that impinge on our security at home, investing at scale to create the economic opportunities that lead to long-term stability across the world, and responding rapidly and decisively to emerging crises overseas. Acting on all of these fronts gives us greater influence in the world.
Finally, Britain’s safety and security depend not just on our own efforts, but on working hand in glove with our allies to deal with the common threats that face us all, from terrorism to climate change. When confronted by danger, we are stronger together. We will play our full part in the alliances that underpin our security and amplify our national power. We will work with our allies in Europe and around the world, as well as seizing opportunities to reach out to emerging powers.
History teaches us that no Government can predict the future. We have no way of knowing precisely what course events will take over the next five years. We must expect the unexpected, but we can make sure that we have the versatility and the means to respond to new risks and threats to our security as they arise.
Our Armed Forces, and police and security and intelligence services, are the pride of our country. They are the finest in the world and this Government will ensure that they stay that way. Using our renewed economic strength, we will help them keep us safe for generations to come. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. I am especially grateful to him for the very helpful briefing he afforded my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, of the Liberal Democrats, and me earlier today.
The noble Earl, for whom I have great personal respect, has a difficult job. Our country, people and way of life are again imperilled. Not only do we have to contend with the conventional challenges posed by air, naval and ground forces, but we face the threat of those who would walk down high-street Britain and shoot and kill our fellow citizens. The days when Britain might engage in a conflict and send our forces into battle while those at home were, in the main, safe are now long gone. Today any strategic defence and security review must take account of that.
When in Government, my party had a proud record in the area of defence. It was a Labour Government at the end of the last war who committed us to an independent nuclear deterrent and who helped create NATO. The then Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevan, said of the atom bomb:
“We have got to have this thing over here … we have got to have the … union jack on top of it”.
Bevan made sure that his opponents were excluded from the Cabinet committee that took the decision. That is my kind of Foreign Secretary. Under the previous Labour Government defence spending rose by an annual average of 1.8%, resulting in the modernisation of our Armed Forces. We published Britain’s first national security strategy, delivered the first cross-governmental approach to forces welfare and strengthened medical care and welfare support for those serving in Afghanistan. I judge the Prime Minister’s Statement on the SDSR against that background.
It is the second SDSR of Mr Cameron’s premiership. The first in 2010 was not strategic and not about defence or security. It was nothing more than a cost-cutting exercise run by the Treasury. The Prime Minister has since admitted that his Government took 8% out of defence spending over the past five years. Under his stewardship, defence has underspent the budget that Parliament has voted for it. Such has been the enthusiasm to put saving money at the top of defence priorities that the planned cuts in the size of the Army, announced in 2010, have been achieved two years earlier than intended.
Before the 2010 general election, Mr Cameron promised a bigger Army, Navy and Air Force. In fact, the Army of today is smaller than the one we put in the field against Napoleon. The Royal Navy has just 19 vessels. We are told in the Statement that in the long term we are to increase the size of our frigate fleet. Can the Minister tell us what is meant by “long term”? The French already have 23 service vessels, the Russians 35 and the United States 105. Naval manpower is a real problem. My noble friend Lord West said only recently that 3,500 to 4,000 people were needed to man the fleet correctly. Can the Minister say what is being done to reverse this?
As for the Royal Air Force, the number of planes is at an historic low. We have to rely on the maritime patrol aircraft of our allies to track Russian submarines close to our waters, following the scrapping of Nimrod. That massive error of judgment has to be seen against a background in which the Russians have increased submarine patrols by 50% in the past two years. We welcome the decision to acquire Boeing P-8 MPAs but will the Minister confirm that it will be seven years before Britain has a fully operational independent maritime patrol capability? Today’s announcement of the F-35s is welcome, as is any move to strengthen our high-end military capability, but why has it taken so long to make this decision?
Why is it taking 10 years to create the new strike brigades of up to 5,000 personnel for rapid deployment missions? The world could be quite different in 2025. Does this decision mean that we are abandoning our capability for sustained deployment, which was set out in the previous defence review? Can the Minister tell us for how long these new brigades will be capable of being deployed?
One of the greatest challenges we face is cybersecurity. The Prime Minister has said that due to the threats posed by Russia and ISIL, Britain will be investing in cybersecurity. The Chancellor, speaking at GCHQ, announced that spending on cybersecurity would be almost doubled to £1.9 billion over the period to 2020. He made that statement after the director of GCHQ, Robert Hannigan, called on the Government to intervene in the cybersecurity industry because the free market was failing. Can the Minister say what the Government are doing about this? What projects will be part of the £1.9 billion fund? The Chancellor went on to say:
“Strong defences are necessary for our long-term security. But the capacity to attack is also a form of defence”—
I most certainly agree. He said that Britain is,
“building our own offensive cyber capability—a dedicated ability to counter-attack in cyberspace”.
Can the Minister tell us if such an offensive capacity already exists or is it just at the planning stage? If that is the case, what is the timeframe before it becomes operational? How much is being invested in the national offensive cyber programme?
I was in Paris the day before the attack; I was there again last Tuesday, and what a difference in the city in those few days. In view of the horrors of Paris, will the Minister comment on reports in the Daily Telegraph that our special forces have shrunk by 40% due to reduced numbers and restructuring, and will he comment on a senior MoD official telling that newspaper that,
“there is no point spending vast amounts of money on new kit if you don’t have the manpower to operate them”?
Still on personnel matters, noble Lords around this Chamber who have served or spent time with the Armed Forces will know that if service families are happy, the service men and women we send into conflict will have the morale they need to do the job—I am sure the Minister has found that in this time. Does he agree, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s changes to tax credits will be seen as a breach of the Armed Forces covenant? How well does he think ending annual pay rises for the forces will be received, if the Government go ahead with that? Is it any wonder that a survey by his own department shows that one-quarter of those serving in the Armed Forces plan to leave as soon as they can and one-third are dissatisfied?
The Prime Minister has committed Britain to a NATO target of spending 2% of GDP on defence. We welcome that but worry whether it is another of Mr Cameron’s cosmetic creations. For instance, can the Minister say how including the £800 million we spend on war pensions as defence spending will help protect and project Britain’s force and military capability?
The tradition of Governments of both main parties in this country has been to show how much we value the men and women of our Armed Forces by giving them the tools they need to defend and protect our country and ensuring proper remuneration for them and their families. That tradition, I fear, has been spectacularly badly served by this Prime Minister and this review.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for the briefing that I received, along with colleagues from the Labour Party, earlier today. I am sure that the final form of this document was a result of the events in Paris and, as with all reports, the devil is in the detail. The debate next week in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will give us all more time to analyse that very detail.
This strategy points to a more forensic and measured analysis than its predecessor, which is welcome, and it is appropriate to the times we find ourselves in. I will concentrate my remarks on the interconnection between defence and the world, our alliances, personnel and cyber. It is a complete coincidence that the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, has covered much of the same detail. On Syria, my leader has made it clear that he is not a pacifist or a unilateralist, and he is concerned for security of the nation. He will be outlining the conditions under which we would support military action in the next few days.
It is pleasing that the Government see our defence and security as requiring such a strong commitment to our allies and to international efforts. There are few issues that we face that can be addressed without co-operation, from climate change to transnational terrorism to state aggression. It is the strength gained from working with our allies and like-minded states, in particular within the United Nations, NATO and, of course, the EU, that will allow us to overcome and address these issues.
Our soft power capabilities—the British Council, international aid, the BBC World Service and our diplomatic representation—are valuable assets for spreading British values. A recognition of their contribution to our security and defence is an important addition to the SDSR. Will the Minister confirm that there will be no cuts to the budgets of either the World Service or the British Council? I am sure the extension of deep country expertise to a wider span of areas that are vital to our security and prosperity will be welcomed at the FCO, but will the Minister point to how this dovetails with the possible cuts in the FCO’s budget, which officials have said may,
“imperil the UK’s diplomatic capacity”,
if they go ahead?
Moving on to personnel, today I will focus on the Royal Navy and get into the detail of the other services in next week’s debate. Last week I was delighted to visit, with parliamentary colleagues, the two carriers, “Queen Elizabeth” and “Prince of Wales”, in Rosyth. They are an awesome sight and a tribute to British engineering and co-operation between manufacturers. While I welcome their addition to the fleet over the next couple of years, they bring with them a challenge. Will the Minister confirm that there are plans to ensure that there will be sufficient personnel with the right specialities to run the carriers with the Astute-class submarines, destroyers, frigates and support ship configuration? In particular, what action is being taken to ensure that there will be engineers at all levels of seniority and speciality?
As a member of the AFPS, I have visited service personnel in their workplaces, met families in their homes and spoken to senior officers and other ranks. I have to tell your Lordships that morale is not universally high. There is concern about salaries and allowances. Will the Minister confirm the rumours that the annual increment system will change, as will overseas allowances, as a result of MoD cuts? I welcome the move to support a service woman or man to buy their own home. A supported family is critical to the well-being of a serving member of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. Will the Minister confirm that the covenant will continue and, more importantly, that its implementation is being monitored by the MoD?
On cyber, it is important that cyber intelligence is shared, as many of our systems are shared with our allies and our partners. I am concerned about defensive cyber. Cyber threatens systems and, by its nature, much of today’s warfare consists of systems of systems, with millions of lines of code, all interconnected and interrelated. It is great that we are working with our partners and allies on this, but adding to the connectivity is a multiplier of risk. So I welcome the joint cyber group, but there is an urgent need for recruitment and training. Will the Minister tell us how quickly we can gear up for this joint cyber group as the need is immediate?
I should not finish without a nod in the direction of how the SDSR is to be paid for. I am aware that the Chancellor will unveil the CSR on Wednesday. The Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the commitment to 2% of GDP, but that is another issue where the devil is in the detail. Will the Minister tell the House what sort of efficiencies the MoD is expected to make—apart from selling land and property—that will have no impact on the smooth running of the department? If we are to believe today’s Financial Times, it will be paid for from the welfare budget and from cuts to police and in grants to businesses.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments and questions. I particularly welcome many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. It was regrettable that he felt it necessary to conclude his speech as he did, on a note of dissent. Nevertheless, taking his comments in the round, there is much to unite us, rather than the opposite. The noble Lord asked me a number of questions, as did the noble Baroness, and I will get through as many of the answers as I can.
First, on the Royal Navy, I would put it to the House—once noble Lords have had an opportunity to read the document, which is in the Printed Paper Office—that the Navy has benefited very considerably from the review. Full crewing of aircraft carriers, new offshore patrol vessels, new fleet solid support ships, 400 extra personnel, and a faster buy of F35 Lightning, to allow the carriers to embark up to 24 operational aircraft, are just examples of that. As for manning, the reorganisation of manpower within the Navy will ensure that sufficient people are trained and available to man and operate both Queen Elizabeth carriers. The requirement for each carrier is, I understand, a crew of 733 sailors. The planned retirement of HMS “Ocean” in 2018, combined with a rationalisation and reprioritisation of personnel across the naval service, plus the uplift of 400 extra personnel, which I mentioned, will ensure that sufficient people are trained and available to man and operate both carriers.
We will maintain our fleet of 19 frigates and destroyers. There has been no moving away from that commitment. We will also design and build a new class of lighter flexible general purpose frigates, as was mentioned in the Statement. I am sure that many noble Lords will welcome the fact that we are now committed to reintroducing maritime patrol aircraft. We will purchase nine Boeing P-8 maritime patrol aircraft—that includes the aircraft we need in the envelope—advanced high-altitude surveillance aircraft, and 138 F35s over the lifetime of the programme. The MPAs will be based at Lossiemouth; that is considered to be the ideal location for the most common maritime patrol areas. Further details will emerge in due course. It is likely that there will be 400 additional personnel for Lossiemouth, to ensure that the MPA capability can be properly serviced.
On the F35, we will bring forward the purchase of nine front-line aircraft, which will allow the second F35 Lightning squadron to stand up in 2023. That is about a 60% increase in front-line aircraft numbers by 2023, compared with our previous plan. We are buying our current tranche of 48 F35 aircraft earlier than originally planned, to maximise our carrier strike capability in the early 2020s. As I have said, we are committed to a total through-life buy of 138 F35 aircraft. Decisions on the precise details of subsequent tranches will be taken at the appropriate time.
I am conscious of the clock, so I will get through as many questions as I can. When will the strike brigades be ready? The fielding of the strike brigades will start from 2018, delivering an initial operating capability by 2021, and moving towards a full operating capability from 2025.
The £1.9 billion that we have set aside for cyber is a national-level investment towards implementing the new national cybersecurity plan. I am advised that I have more time than I thought, which is good. The national cybersecurity plan will include a new national cybercentre, a stronger active defence programme, more funding for training of the UK’s next generation of experts in digital skills, a stronger regulatory framework, a stronger cyber sector, and funding for the national offensive cyber programme.
In September 2013, during the coalition Government, the Defence Secretary announced that, as the noble Baroness mentioned, Britain would build both defensive and offensive capabilities, including a strike capability to operate in cyberspace as part of our full spectrum military capability. The national offensive cyber programme is a partnership between the Ministry of Defence and GCHQ, harnessing the skills and talents of both organisations. As for the deterrence of cyberattacks, it is our aim to make ourselves a difficult target, so that doing us damage in cyberspace is neither cheap nor easy. We hope to build global norms in that regard, so that those who do not follow them suffer the consequences.
On the 2% commitment, I hope noble Lords will accept my assurance that we follow the NATO guidelines as to what constitutes defence expenditure. Like other NATO member states, we make periodic updates to how we categorise defence spending—for example, to reflect changes in the machinery of government—but all updates remain, and will continue to be, fully in accordance with NATO guidelines.
I shall briefly cover the question that the noble Baroness asked me about pay and allowances. It is not our intention to remove incremental pay or annual pay increases for those serving. We have reviewed military allowances: the vast majority will not change, but we are making minor changes to a few of them, and removing commitment bonuses. Commitment bonuses were designed as a retention tool, but we have no evidence that they influenced people’s decisions on whether to stay or leave. The Chief of the Defence Staff recommended that we remove them, so we will phase them out.
The remaining questions I will write on—but on the subject of the British Council, the SDSR refers to it by saying that we will continue to invest in it. It does not give a figure, and I think we will have to wait for the spending review announcement to know what that will be.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, in view of the importance of this Statement, the usual channels have agreed an extra 20 minutes for questions, so Back-Bench questions will be for 40 minutes. May I remind noble Lords that this time is for brief questions, not speeches? For noble Lords who wish to make speeches, there will be a two-and-a-half-hour debate on this subject on Thursday week.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
I congratulate my noble friend Earl Howe on his presentation of a very substantial report, which the House will want to study. One thing that concerns me in it are the completely new elements that have come into our defence strategy. Drones, cyber and the interception of communications will play a much bigger part in the defence of this country than might previously have been the case. I am concerned about where we will be by 2025 or maybe—it may be better to look this far—by 2030. That is quite a long way away. My noble friend has already partly answered this but my concern is on how soon some of these capabilities, which in the present frightening state of the world are very desirable, will be ready and how the manpower challenge will actually be met.
Earl Howe
My noble friend puts his finger on a central issue that we have been wrestling with over these past months. It is impossible to predict the threats that we will face in 10 or 15 years. We know that there are many uncertainties. The national security strategy sets out a quite different threat picture from that of 2010. In particular, the threat from terrorism has increased substantially and aggressive Russian behaviour means that state-based threats are more prominent. As the Statement said, we cannot choose between conventional defences against state-based threats and the need to counter threats that do not recognise national borders. We have to tackle both. We have attempted in this document, I hope successfully, not just to address the threats in order of priority but to plan for an array of capabilities that will make us much nimbler on our feet, more flexible and able to respond globally to any threat that materialises. My noble friend is right to put his finger on cyber and drones as new elements of this strategy. We must invest in these things but we must also ensure that the skilled manpower is there so that the equipment can be utilised to its best effect.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement as being better than the 2010 so-called strategic defence review. My welcome is therefore conditional. I have scanned through the document and much of it is filling in the gaps that were left some years ago, for instance, on the maritime patrol aircraft. May I ask the Minister a couple of questions? First, what is the difference between the rapid deployment brigades—I use “rapid” advisedly, because they will not be at full capability for 10 years—and 16 Air Assault Brigade, which was formed in 1999 after the last and only genuine strategic defence review, which was conducted by my noble friend Lord Robertson? If there is no substantial difference, why has it taken all this time over the last five or six years to decide to get the capabilities and to put them in effect for the future?
Secondly, is it not the case that the addition of 1,900 intelligence professionals at the centre will unfortunately be off-set if we reduce police numbers in the community, since the police act as a bridge between central intelligence—SIGINT and communications intelligence—and human intelligence, which is gained from trust by being in the neighbourhood? Finally, why does “innovation” not appear at any stage, particularly as regards cyber? Cyber now permeates everything from our weapon systems through our critical national infrastructure to central finance in London. The chief characteristic of cyber is constant entrepreneurial innovation and if we do not instil that at the centre of our processes, in procurement as well as in operations, we will fall behind in cyber. We are spending just under £2 billion there; the Chinese are spending $180 billion over the coming period.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord asked me three questions. The first was about the rapid deployment strike capability. The Army is able to deploy a division now with sufficient notice and has been able to for some while. During the time of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, as Defence Secretary, he was instrumental in ensuring that capability. This division could consist of an armoured infantry brigade, 3 Commando brigade and 16 Air Assault Brigade as well as forces from other nations. This SDR is investing in improving the readiness level and upgrading the capabilities of the division, so that by 2025 we will be able to deploy a division comprising two armoured infantry brigades and a strike brigade, in addition to our high-readiness forces of 3 Commando Brigade and 16 Air Assault Brigade.
The noble Lord, Lord Reid, also mentioned intelligence and expressed a fear that this capability might be off-set by reductions in numbers in community policing. The SDSR document does not cover community policing, which is a matter for local forces, as he knows. We will no doubt be hearing news of that as the effects of the SR are made known. I cannot comment on that today but I can say that we will protect absolutely the counterterrorist police we need to ensure national security and that the funding for that will be ring-fenced. He also said that innovation was not mentioned. I will just refer him to part B of chapter 6 of the document, which is entitled “Innovation”, and is on page 73 and the following.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister help to resolve a disconnect between the recent remarks of the Prime Minister and this document? The Prime Minister recently stressed the significance of the European Union for the UK’s national security in the context of, for instance, standing up to Russia, helping to stop Iran’s nuclear programme and tackling maritime piracy. But this document hardly mentions the European Union as such, as opposed to individual European allies. For instance, in chapter 5, “Project Our Global Influence”, you have to get to its seventh page before there is any mention of the EU. This seems to contrast with the Prime Minister saying a fortnight or so ago:
“The EU, like NATO and our membership of the UN Security Council, is a tool that”,
we use,
“to get things done in the world, and protect our country”.
One would have thought that would count as projecting our global influence, so why is there so little mention of the European Union?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Baroness should not read anything in particular into what she perceives as a paucity of mention of the European Union in this document. There is no doubt that our membership of the European Union adds value to our defence capability. We have only to look at the operation in the Mediterranean to rescue migrants earlier this year to see how the European Union came together. I was in Brussels last week at a meeting of the European Defence Agency, which is another means whereby member states can collaborate to ensure that we have such things as common standards in air-to-air refuelling, aircraft safety and a range of other areas. The European Union is a vehicle for co-operation, in parallel to our membership of NATO, and I would be the first to pay tribute to the work of its member states in protecting the security of Europe.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. We should welcome this arrest in the decline in defence spending. We should also welcome the Government’s rather belated recognition of the damage that was done in the 2010 SDSR. But repairing the holes in our capability caused by that damage will take years and we need it today. In that context, for example, it is to be welcomed that the Statement says:
“We need the sea lanes to stay open and the arteries of global commerce to remain free flowing”,
but for that we need sufficient escorts. Does the Minister agree that it is not enough to say that we will not reduce our destroyer and frigate force from 19? Does he not agree that that force is far too small and that waiting until the 1930s, as the Statement says, is completely unacceptable?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I think the noble and gallant Lord meant the 2030s. This has been a matter of very deep consideration in the SDSR process. The commitment to maintaining our fleet of 19 frigates and destroyers is still there, as I have said. The Navy needs eight Type 26 frigates to undertake the core anti-submarine warfare role and we remain committed to building those ships. We are taking more time to mature the design and drive down the costs before we cut steel on the first Type 26. Meanwhile, we will build two more offshore patrol vessels to ensure continuity of work on the Clyde and to provide more capability to the Royal Navy.
The concept of designing and building a new class of lighter, flexible, general-purpose frigate is, I hope, interesting to noble Lords. We are clear that behind that lies an aspiration to increase the total number of frigates and destroyers available to the Royal Navy. If we can produce something that is more generic—that is less high-spec when it does not need to be state-of-the-art high-spec—that should benefit the reach and capability of the Royal Navy in the round. It should also benefit shipbuilders in Scotland and the rest of the UK. We will publish a new shipbuilding strategy in 2016 setting out the detail of that.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, is it not deeply unfortunate that the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition does not speak the same language as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig?
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, although the review is light on detail and timing, it is at least strategic and therefore sets itself apart from the exercise in 2010. In the light of events that took place across the channel 10 days ago, I do not think this is the time for picking holes in the review, although there are a few holes to be picked. It is a time, however, for us to assert to our enemies and adversaries, both actual and potential, that this country still has robust defences and that we are still capable of deploying those forces in the defence of this country and of our allies and playing our part in the international community. After all, we are the second military power in the West.
I will make two points about the review. In relation to the deterrent, I fully support the reinforced decision made today to order the four new nuclear submarines. Will the noble Earl’s department be a bit more robust in taking on the opponents of Trident who say that it does not address the biggest threats that we face today? Were it not for the deterrent, we would face even bigger threats to our national safety and security today—that is, nuclear coercion and blackmail.
Finally, the noble Earl has the responsibility with other government Ministers to ensure that the safety and security of the people of this country does not depend on the military alone. If further raids are going to be made on the budget of the Foreign Office, the World Service and the British Council, then huge damage will be done to the reputation of this country abroad, and to the safety and security of the British people.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as regards the last points that the noble Lord made in his speech, we will have to wait for the spending review announcement. However, I take on board all that he says, particularly about the Foreign Office. We are clear that we must maintain the global representation that we have at the moment, if we are to support this country’s interests.
The noble Lord began by making some very welcome remarks, for which I thank him, about the strategic nature of the review. It is indeed strategic. It has been a two-year exercise. It included the lessons that we learned from the last SDSR. More importantly, it involved a deep analysis of the evidence base and wide consultation across diverse stakeholders both at home and abroad. We have tried to be truly strategic in identifying what we wanted to achieve in the national security arena, as outlined clearly in the national security strategy, and how we will achieve that in the SDSR.
Further details will emerge over the coming days, which will flesh out some of the high-level aspirations set out in the document. Unfortunately, I cannot release those at the moment.
We still have a global power projection capability second only in NATO to the United States. We should remember that. We have among the most capable troops and aircraft ships and submarines in the world. The Joint Force 2025 that we have designed is genuinely better equipped, more capable, more deployable and more sustainable than ever before.
As regards the deterrent, I welcome the noble Lord’s comments. The nuclear deterrent exists to deter the most extreme threats to our national security and way of life. Other states have nuclear arsenals. There is a risk of further proliferation of nuclear weapons. There is a risk that states might use their nuclear capability to threaten us or to try to constrain our decision-making in a crisis, or to sponsor nuclear terrorism. We cannot rule out further shifts in the international order that would put us or our NATO allies under grave threat. That is the rationale and the context for the substantial investment that we are making in the successor programme.
The document tries to make and refresh the case for the deterrent. We thought it important to do that, to go back to first principles and to demonstrate why this was something that we felt it absolutely right to include in the forthcoming defence programme.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl not only for his Statement, but also for the statement on aid. In relation to the new prosperity fund, which countries will receive our main emphasis? Are we talking about the BRIC countries and, if so, how do we ensure that the prosperity fund does not get close to tied aid and is appropriately poverty-focused?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the prosperity fund will be focused mainly on emerging and developing economies. They are becoming increasingly important for global growth. As the ODA document sets out, we will give greater priority to promoting sustainable economic reforms that are needed to continue that. The prosperity fund, which will be worth £1.3 billion over the next five years, will be aimed at things like the competitiveness of an operation of markets, energy, financial sector reform, encouraging Governments to look at ways of bearing down on corruption and, in so doing, to address the need to reduce poverty.
The fund is designed to give an additional boost to the opportunities for international business, especially, but not totally, for UK companies. We are planning a lot of other work on promoting prosperity, which is set out in the document. I am sure that the noble Baroness will find that of interest. I cannot be specific about the countries that we will target at this juncture, but I hope that that general description will be helpful. Africa is going to be a major focus for this, not least sub-Saharan Africa, maybe looking at ways that the energy market, for example, can be encouraged in that area.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, would the Minister agree with me that some of the language we are using in this debate reflects an assumption that the world is binary and divided into allies and enemies? The reality is that allies become enemies, and enemies become allies. In any strategic approach to the future, could we be assured that that possibility will be taken into account? I worked on elements to do with Iraq in the 1980s, and we can see what happened in the 2000s. Arms and resources that we sell to people who are rebels in Syria can then be used against us. Is that sort of strategic thinking about a non-binary, more eclectic world being taken into consideration?
Earl Howe
The right reverend Prelate reminds us of a very important point of principle. As I hope he will find when he reads this document, running through it is a thread or theme that makes clear that government has to be joined up in all of this—much more joined up than it ever has been in the past. The way in which countries abroad are assessed as friendly, non-friendly or something in between is absolutely essential in our long-term planning. Having said that, we are very clear that we have our prime allies with whom we wish to collaborate, specifically when it comes to defence—not least the United States, France and, increasingly, Germany. However, it is possible for countries around the world to unite around a common objective, as we saw recently with the United Nations Security Council resolution, where all the members of the Security Council voted in one direction. That was a remarkable event in itself, and we should take our cue from that in deciding how to proceed further in the context of the Middle East conflict.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, one of the problems of SDSR 2010 was that so much depended on financial provision in 2015, which of course has not materialised. Could the Minister say how much of the £178 billion provision for buying and maintaining equipment over the next decade is guaranteed? Presumably, that includes the military equipment which is required for the two strike brigades which the noble Lord, Lord Reid, mentioned earlier.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the figure of £178 billion is £12 billion more than we previously announced and is over 10 years, as the noble Lord rightly said. It will embrace a whole range of equipment, including equipment needed for the Army. It is not possible for me to define some of that equipment at this juncture, because we wish to leave our options open. But I hope he will take heart from the section in the report about equipping the Army with, for example, the new Ajax vehicle and the new MIV, as it is called. These highly flexible, speedy and capable vehicles will ensure that the strike brigades are supported, as they need to be, with the right equipment so that they can be deployed swiftly and effectively—sometimes, if necessary, at long range.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this review. It starts to correct the devastation caused by the 2010 SDSR, but it does not resolve it. As the Minister said, the actual amount of extra money is not that huge, and certainly in the early years there is not very much at all. I am delighted that we are running both carriers and that we are getting some of the Sea Lightnings—I hope that is what we are going to call them—for the new carriers.
However, I have a couple of questions of concern, the first about the Trident programme. From reading the document, it looks as though the first replacement boat for Vanguard will arrive in the early 2030s. Running Vanguard on until 2028 was further than many of us wanted to go and was very high risk. Has advice been given that people are content to run Vanguard on for what sounds like another four to five years? That is certainly contrary to the advice that I thought we were getting in the Ministry of Defence some five years or so ago.
My other point relates to frigates. Very clearly, we do not have enough destroyers and frigates, which is a national disgrace. I am very concerned about timescales, and there is nothing in here about that. We really need to go out there and start ordering these ships and to work out a drum-beat for their delivery. The Minister talked about OPVs. I have not had a proper Answer to my Written Question, but can I assume that the three OPVs we are currently building will be run as well as the ones we have already and the two extra ones? If not, I have concerns about naval manpower.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am sure that many of us would wish that the Royal Navy was larger than it is, but we have had to look very carefully at what the Royal Navy’s tasks are and are likely to be and to configure the Navy accordingly. As regards the sufficiency of ships, we are advised by the Chief of Naval Staff that a 19-ship destroyer and frigate fleet, capable of co-operating on a global scale, is what is required. That fleet will, incidentally, be supported by a very capable and renewed tanker fleet, with two fast fleet tankers, four new Tide class tankers in the short term and three new fleet solid support ships in the longer term. A fleet of up to six patrol vessels will support our destroyers and frigates in delivering routine tasks and enhance our contribution to maritime security and fisheries protection. All this will mean not only that our fleet will have as many assets as it does today but that there will be high-end technological capabilities to provide a better contribution and to retain a world-class Navy up to 2040 and beyond.
As regards the Trident fleet, the advice we have received is that it will be both possible and safe to continue with the current Vanguard class submarines in service. However, as regards a successor, we need to get on with it. There is no doubt that we cannot countenance a delay in the construction of a successor, which is why we intend to move ahead with all possible speed on that front.
Lord Burnett (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this Statement and the full replacement of the Trident submarine fleet, and am conscious of what the Minister has just said about expediting the work on that replacement programme. Will the Minister confirm that each aircraft carrier will be able to conduct amphibious operations with its own helicopters, concurrently with its fixed-wing role? Will each carrier have the capacity to carry and deploy a Royal Marine commando group while deploying its fixed-wing aircraft?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the intention is that the carriers will be able to operate in three configurations: first, carrier strike for mainly air operations, obviously; secondly, amphibious assault, with helicopters and Royal Marines on board; and, thirdly, what one might call a hybrid type of configuration, involving aircraft, helicopters and Royal Marines. These will be very versatile ships. They will be some of the most capable ships—if not the most capable ships—the Royal Navy has ever had. We need to make sure that the very large investment that we are making in them is deployed to best effect, and I think those varying ways in which we can use the carriers demonstrate that this will be a good investment.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, first, I strongly support what I can see of the new security strategy. There is one point I wish to raise. With the announcement in the Statement that we are going to take military action in Syria, can we be assured that this relates to, in the Prime Minister’s phrase, “going after ISIL” and will not include military action against President Assad? Do Her Majesty’s Government now recognise that the earlier decision of the West to provide a great deal of weaponry to the rebels against Assad has had four results: one, Assad is still there; two, we have had a four-year civil war; three, we have had a major refugee crisis; and, four, we have created the space for ISIL to be created?
Earl Howe
The implication behind my noble friend’s question is that it is the actions of the West that have caused the migration crisis and the suffering in Syria. I respectfully disagree with him on that. It is Mr Assad himself who is the prime cause of the suffering in his country and the migration crisis. It is Mr Assad who has created the vacuum that ISIL has, unfortunately, filled very capably.
As regards the Motion that may come to the House of Commons on Syria, I have not seen a draft of it, but the discussions in government involve a Motion which would focus on ISIL. It is very clear that the House of Commons two years ago rejected the proposal that we should be involved in a war against Mr Assad. I think the UN Security Council resolution also points us towards a very clear and focused campaign to eradicate ISIL, which is a clear and present danger not just to us but to many countries around the world.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield
My Lords, I commend the Government for the clarity and realism with which they have displayed the threats in the document before us this evening in the three tiers. However, I have looked very carefully at the ingredients of the three tiers and I can find in none of them a very possible and real threat to our kingdom—the very configuration of the United Kingdom—which is the possibility that, two SDSRs on, if we are having this debate in 2025, we may be in a kingdom outside the European Union and shorn of Scotland. Whatever noble Lords think about that as a prospect, it would be a first-order change in our strategic position in the world and there is not a whiff of it in this document. Does the Minister agree that sometimes the first people we have to defend ourselves against are ourselves?
Earl Howe
I think we must all be mindful of that precept. I hope we have been mindful of it in this document. It sets out what we see as the tier-one risks over the next five years. Clearly, were there to be such a major change in this country’s place in Europe or, indeed, such a major change in what this country consists of, there would be an obvious need to look again at some of the planning encapsulated here. However, I put it to the noble Lord that neither of the events that he has postulated invalidates the key strands of thinking in the SDSR set out here.
Terrorism is going to remain the most direct and immediate threat to our domestic security and overseas interests. Cyber threats to the UK are significant whether we are in or out of the EU. The risk of international military conflict is growing. Although it is unlikely there will be a direct military threat to the UK itself, there is a greater possibility, I put it to him, of international military crises that may draw us in. There is instability overseas. Since 2010, that has spread significantly to the south and the Middle East and northern Africa, as the noble Lord knows. The public health threats and the major natural hazards that the report identifies will still be there regardless. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree that we have looked in the round here not at a crystal ball but at an analysis of the threats that face us, analysing in turn what resources we need to address those threats.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I support the counterterrorism strategy contained in the document but can the Minister confirm that the document takes into account the events of Friday 13 November? Can the Minister also confirm that the strategy will include extensive sharing of intelligence techniques and information, subject, of course, to national security considerations so that, when attacks are threatened from abroad, there is the greatest possible chance of their being detected before they occur?
Earl Howe
I can give the noble Lord that assurance. We wish to see maximum collaboration with our friends and allies on the intelligence front. In the wake of the Paris attack, the question that we have asked ourselves is obvious: what are the capabilities that we need to counter such an event? We need the means to protect our transport systems, borders, critical national infrastructure and crowded places. We need systems that give us data in advance about people intending to come to this country so that they can be checked against our records. We need emergency services to respond to such incidents were they, God forbid, to occur. We need Armed Forces who are ready to provide support at very short notice in the event of a terrorist attack. Those are the questions we have asked ourselves over the past few months. The answers are contained in the report and I hope they will be reassuring to the House.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that in the national security strategy one of the greatest risks we face is from pandemic influenza or, indeed now, the spread of global organisms with antibiotic resistance. What he said about the availability of resources to support research in areas of infectious disease is extremely welcome. Can he confirm that will include support for that research in the United Kingdom at centres of world-leading excellence such as Porton Down and the research facilities being created at the Francis Crick Institute? Can he also say, in decisions yet to come and to be announced, that the public health capability in Public Health England and through local authorities will also be given, due regard in its ability to combat this particular great threat?
Earl Howe
My noble friend, with his tremendous experience on this, knows that Public Health England will have to remain centre stage in the effort on major public health risks. However, I welcome his comments on the announcement around infectious diseases.
We are clear that the new £1 billion fund which will be rolled out over the next five years for R&D in products for infectious diseases—the Ross fund, which was mentioned in the Statement—will address the development and testing of vaccines, drugs, diagnostics, treatments and other technologies to combat the world’s most serious diseases in developing countries in particular. The Ross fund will more broadly target infectious diseases, diseases of epidemic potential, such as Ebola, neglected tropical diseases, which affect more than 1 billion people globally, and drug-resistant infections, which clearly pose a substantial and growing risk to global health. We look forward as a country to joining organisations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has been so effective in tackling those issues around the world.
European Union Referendum Bill
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
“Report on the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union in the event of withdrawal from the European Union
(1) The Secretary of State shall report on the relationship with the European Union which the Government envisage in the event of a referendum vote to leave the European Union.
(2) The report provided for by subsection (1) must be published and laid before each House of Parliament, no later than 12 weeks prior to the appointment date of the referendum.”
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 25 stands in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. Before I speak to it, I should perhaps comment on an important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who, sadly, is not in his place. I was secretary-general of a small institution in Brussels throughout its brief life. It paid me expenses. Having clearly got a good judgment of my qualifications and qualities, it neither paid me a salary nor pays me a pension. I should put that on record. It was good to have a guest star appearance from the noble Lord, who seemed to have missed Committee but made a very interesting contribution on Report.
I should perhaps also comment on an important speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Owen. We were privileged to have him with us on Report, although not before. I found one point in what he said with which I strongly agreed, which I will come to in a moment. One point with which I did not entirely agree was his concern that we should not get too big for our boots in legislative scrutiny. The way that this House has scrutinised the Bill is a good example of constructive work. I think the Bill is better today than it was, partly because of the amendments with which the Minister has come forward, including Amendment 24B, which we debated earlier. As she fairly said in introducing it, it contains a provision, proposed new subsection (1)(b), designed to pick up a point that some of us had been making and which is encapsulated in Amendment 25.
Amendment 25 goes a little further than proposed new subsection (1)(b) in Amendment 24B, because some of us not only believe that the country does not need to see examples of other people’s relationship with the European Union but would like to know in advance of the referendum what the Government would do in the event a vote to leave: what immediate steps they would take and what permanent relationship with the European Union they would seek. Listing the arrangements of the Norwegians, the Swiss or the Turks does not quite do that. We would want to know what would actually happen.
In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton, Lord Forsyth and Lord Stoddart, criticised me for my description of others’ arrangements. They did not find others’ arrangements very relevant; they were sure that, being bigger, we could do better—I paraphrase the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. Several of us were not so sure about that, because in an Article 50 negotiation, if that is what we would be in, the Commission would be across the table from us and no other member state would be in the room. The Commission would be acting on guidelines laid down by the European Council by unanimity: everybody will have had to agree. The outcome of the negotiation, assuming there was one, would need qualified majority approval in Council and a simple majority in the European Parliament. That is quite a high hurdle. It was the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, who made the point in Committee that what we would seek,
“in exit negotiations, if that is where we get to, are not a fait accompli. They are not ours to demand. We cannot assume that all the other 27 states will agree. It will be for the 27 to decide and agree, and we do not have a vote in that”.—[Official Report, 2/11/15; col. 1441.]
That is correct; that is the case.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
There is a rumour that the noble Lord is the author not just of Article 50 but of the entire treaty. Can he therefore explain to us what happens if the two-year period permitted under Article 50 expires and we cease to be a member? What happens then?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
There are probably greater experts on Article 50 than me; but, as the noble Lord undoubtedly knows, paragraph 3 makes it clear that the two years is extendable, if all parties agree. I believe that, if we were in an Article 50 negotiation, it would almost certainly be necessary to extend it. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, do I understand Mr Redwood’s position to be that, if we repeal the 1972 Act, all the other treaties that come after that Act—the Single European Act, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon—are all amendments to the original 1972 Act? If we repeal the 1972 Act, the other 27 member states may start getting difficult with us, but it is unlikely. We should be in the driving seat, not least because of the amount of money we give them, which of course we need not decide to axe overnight. We could say that if they behave themselves, we will taper the £20 billion a year we give them nice and slowly. Likewise, it is in their interests to go along with us and our free trade with them, the single market and all the rest of it, because we are their largest clients—as I said earlier. We have a certain amount of pressure with the non-EU free trade agreements, some of which have been organised entirely by the Commission and some by the European Commission and us in our sovereign right, as I am sure the noble Lord knows. It is a boggy area, but surely it depends on the political will of the Government of this country, and the political will of the Prime Minister.
Therefore I put it to the noble Lord that he is seeking to gaze into a crystal ball that is somewhat clouded. If the Prime Minister has negotiated a reform and comes back from Brussels with a piece of white paper saying “Reform in our time”, but the British people do not like it—if the British Prime Minister wants to stay in the European Union on those terms but the British people throw it out and vote against him—surely it is unlikely that he would survive as Prime Minister. Therefore, we would be dealing with a new Conservative Prime Minister, presumably somewhat less Europhile than the present one, and the whole ball game would change in the negotiations over Article 50, if we decided to go down the Article 50 route. Surely, though, we are in a position to say that we are not going to do that. Our position is so strong that we require our own free trade agreement. I do not want to follow the Norwegian/European Economic Area red herring anymore, because none of us has ever wanted to do that. How does the noble Lord react to that position, with a Prime Minister who has gone, a new Conservative leader who wants to get on with it, and a European Union that perhaps will not be as recalcitrant as the noble Lord hopes?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Green, for telling us that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, drafted all this legislation. I think he should have declared an interest, because the last thing he will want to admit is that the EU is going to completely override everything that he drafted. When the eurozone was set up, I remember it was thought that there would be a big problem if Governments borrowed excessively and cumulative debt built up to very high levels of GDP, so limits were put in on how much Governments should borrow in the eurozone. The Germans found that too inconvenient, so they just overrode it. Then the French followed, and everybody else said, “If they are not going to follow the rules, why should we bother?”. So why are we obsessed with the legislative integrity of Article 50? It has never been tested; no one has ever left the EU. If we were to leave, it would be a unique situation. They would be losing their second biggest economy, and they would have to accommodate us.
Let us remember another thing that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, omitted to tell us. This referendum will be advisory, not mandatory, and that is very significant.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I shall give way in a moment. All we have to do in response to a leave vote is repeal the 1972 Act. After that we have to enter negotiations, and we can apply for Article 50 at the end of the negotiation.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I think it is not for me, but for lawyers, to discuss what would ensue were we immediately to repeal the 1972 Act. I do not think it is a pretty picture, but it is not for me to depict it. On the noble Lord’s argument that we would have all these cards in our hand, I was trying to extend an olive branch to him earlier. There is a point that nobody would want us to go—that is correct. The Germans would want to go on selling cars, as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, reminds us almost daily.
My argument is that it might prove difficult to get 27 member states, many of which have a negative trade balance with us and not all of which are as friendly to us as our friends in Germany, to agree all the detail. The noble Lord, Lord Green, is right: the process could be prolonged and quite tricky, and the country should know before the referendum that that is the case.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
We come back to the point that was made earlier by my noble friend Lord Lamont: all this is down to interpretation. There is no fixed thing that is going to happen, and we do not actually know how it will map out, but it seems highly likely that the EU will do everything it possibly can to accommodate us. The Germans are going to be very distressed if they lose all their exports to the UK, and I know they will be very much in the driving seat to ensure that the other members of the EU abide by some sensible agreement. I see no reason why there should not be a free trade treaty between us and the EU. I am not saying that it will happen tomorrow, but then for that matter that is true of all the EU trade treaties; they seem to be taking an interminable amount of time with China, India, Russia and practically every other country in the world.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry if my remarks offended the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, or made him a bit unhappy. I would not do that for the world; not only do I like him but I respect him and understand his expertise in these matters. However, I still have a difference of opinion with him, although quite frankly I would be quite happy if his amendment were accepted. If the EU behaved as he was intimating earlier on, it would help my cause. It would show that the EU, instead of being a partner, was in fact rather spiteful if, after the British people had voted a certain way, instead of accepting it with good grace the EU would want to be spiteful and put obstacles in the way of agreements that we could make outside the members of the EU. We ought to take that into account.
I return to the original contention, which is this: whether this is a binding referendum or some other sort, I do not know, but if the people have spoken then they will have to be listened to. There is no question about that. It is not a question only of the Government listening; it is more about Parliament listening. It is Parliament that will have to take action after the people have spoken, and the action it must take is to repeal the European Communities Act 1972. Once it did that, everything would fall into place; after the repeal it would then have to embark upon negotiations.
I think that the Vienna convention governs the unmaking of treaties. We would be acting within the Vienna convention if we adhered to the two-year period of negotiation and, after that time, either accepted the agreements that were made or not. Basically speaking, though, once the people have spoken, if they have said that we are to come out, no treaties or conventions will prevent this country coming out. If this Parliament decided otherwise, there could be a revolution.
I hope that I have made clear what my view is and that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is now unoffended. If his amendment is accepted, I am quite sure that later on we can make use of it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I am quite tempted to intervene in this debate. We had a full discussion of this issue, as noble Lords who were there will remember, when the European Union Referendum Act was being discussed here. The question arose of the basis on which European law applies in our country. The answer is clear: the 1972 Act makes European law the law of this country. We could get rid of that immediately by repealing the 1972 Act, but under international law we are also members of a treaty organisation. If we are going to observe international law, which on the whole I hope we would want to do, then we would have to go through the proper procedures for renouncing or denouncing a treaty. That is the next stage in the matter. It is clear that the law would no longer apply in this country as a domestic law, which is the result of the 1972 Act, once Parliament decided to repeal that Act. I think that that would be true of all the European law that has come in since 1972. None of it would apply here any longer, but the treaty obligations would apply and we would be obliged to follow the mechanisms laid down in international law for denouncing a treaty.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he accept that what has actually happened is that EU law has been enacted into British law? Anything that has been passed down from the EU is therefore on the statute book of the British Parliament, and therefore that would continue.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
No, because that is all done under the authority of the 1972 Act by subsequent amendments under it. We had a lot of discussion about this last time and I do not want to start that up again if I can avoid it. Some of the devolution statutes had reference to Acts, for example, but they all flow from the 1972 Act. That Act is the authority for applying European law in the UK. That is why the courts of the UK are obliged to follow it because that is the law laid down by the Parliament of the UK. If that law were repealed, it would become a question of international law, and the rules of international law do not apply to domestic law except in so far as they are incorporated. It is only then as treaty obligations that the state proceeds thereafter.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I was intrigued that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, did not deny authorship of Article 50 of the treaty. I am rather sceptical that he is the author because Commissioner Christophersen assured me that he was the author of Article 50 and that through it he had laid a deep trap for the British. The noble Lord always had a great reputation for masterminding so much in Brussels, but I am not sure that Article 50 is actually his creation.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made a powerful speech against my noble friend Lord Hamilton, and my noble friend Lord Hamilton made a powerful speech against the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. That seems to illustrate that the amendment the noble Lord is putting forward is really one of the arguments being used by those who wish to remain in. Their argument is that it is going to create an enormous amount of uncertainty, that it is incredibly complicated, that we have got all these trade negotiations and the repeal of British legislation has to take place before we can feel the effects of being outside. This seems to me to be what the campaign ought to be about. For the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to think that the Government ought to publish a document detailing all this is to invite the Government to publish a document taking one side of the referendum question.
The amendment is redundant because of the government Amendment 24B and particularly subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred, in which the Government have said—slightly to my distress—that they are going to bring forward examples of countries that do not have membership of the European Union. No doubt they will have in that that Norway is governed by fax, something that I absolutely dispute despite the intervention of the noble Baroness from the Liberal Benches. This amendment, requiring a report that would be pure propaganda, is therefore completely inappropriate when we have subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause inserted by Amendment 24B, which it would duplicate.
To go back to Article 50 and address the alarmism, I accept that there is going to be a degree of uncertainty. That uncertainty is going to be one of the arguments deployed by the people who do not wish us to leave. However, we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Green, pointed out, going to have two years in which these negotiations take place. The roof is not going to fall in nor will the buildings crumble while these negotiations go on. I am unsure whether we repeal the European Communities Act 1972 at the beginning of the process or at the end, but I should imagine that things would remain during the period of the negotiation for at least two years, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said, the two-year period is extendable. Life would probably go on much as it is now while the negotiations took place.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, tried to chill our blood even further by saying that we would be left alone in the room with the Commission. My goodness, that is one of the things that I regret that the Government did not try to achieve in the negotiations. They have done nothing to reduce the power of the Commission. If we had just one reform in the EU it should have been to reduce or get rid of the Commission’s power of initiating legislation. I do not see why civil servants should have the right to initiate legislation in the way that they do.
The image that, rightly or wrongly, I have of the Commission was reinforced by the way that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, portrayed it. I do not believe that the Commission is going to act in some way completely divorced from the political will of member states. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that there are some European Union countries that have an unfavourable balance of trade with the UK. I do not know which they are. There cannot be very many since we have a socking balance unfavourable to us. I cannot believe that Germany, which seems to call the shots within the European Union on almost every issue today, will not be able to persuade Slovenia, or whichever country it is, that it ought to come into line with the outcome of the negotiations. I do not believe that the Commission can act without political will. I believe that the Economics Minister of Germany has already publicly stated that he believes that Britain could get a free trade arrangement with the EU if it left. If Germany thinks that, there is a good chance that we could get it. However, all this is an argument for the referendum. It should not be in particular amendments to the legislation.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, played a formidable role in the Scottish referendum and in the discussions of the rules that should surround it. I can just imagine how he would have been appalled had anyone tabled an amendment that the British Government should publish in advance of the referendum the arrangements that they would make if Scotland decided to leave the United Kingdom. It would have been an utterly ridiculous proposition, and there is no way that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, would ever have proposed it.
As my noble friend Lord Lamont has pointed out, there is a golden thread through all the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has tabled. It is all about trying to rig the referendum in favour of the position he favours. That is what this is about. Having worked with the noble Lord and knowing the precision with which he operates, I am amazed that he should suggest that the Secretary of State should report on the relationship with the European Union that the Government envisage in the event of a referendum vote to leave the European Union.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Will the noble Lord accept that the Prime Minister has also said that he would not rule out calling for a no vote if he does not get satisfaction in the negotiations? Therefore, what the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is calling for—that the Government set out what they envisage could happen in a scenario that the Prime Minister has not ruled out—is perfectly reasonable. What so shocks him to the core about that idea?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I know that the Liberals find it easy to occupy two opposite positions at the same time on a number of occasions but we cannot ask the Prime Minister to do that. Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed by the amendment states that this has got to be done no later than 12 weeks prior to the appointment date of the referendum. I should like to think that 12 weeks before the referendum the Prime Minister will have decided whether he is going to rule anything out. The Prime Minister will have a position, so that point simply falls.
In Committee, I used the analogy of the European Union being like a bear trap. No one in Britain today would want to put their foot in the bear trap and join the European Union as it is. The question is how to get your leg out of the bear trap. People like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, say that it is just going to be too painful to remove our legs from the bear trap and therefore we must just accept the risk that we might be bleeding to death but that is much less painful. In this amendment he has now come up with the proposition that because of Article 50 it is not just one bear trap: if you take your leg out of the bear trap there are 26 others to get through, each one of which could cause enormous grief, so it is better to stay in the one bear trap. This is a ridiculous position. I am deeply shocked that he should put forward an amendment of this kind.
Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether Ministers are going to be bound by collective responsibility in respect of the Government’s position. If they are, it is asking a lot of them that they not only have to stand up and support something in which they may not believe, but they have also got to go out and explain what would happen if the opposite happened.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
My noble friend has just referred to something called “the Government’s position”. Does he accept that if the Government have a position, they owe it to the country to campaign on that position?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
No, I would not accept that. If the Government are people who genuinely have differences of view as to what is right for the country, then those members of the Government should be free to argue their case. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, this is matter for Parliament, not for the Government and not for the Executive. It is for Parliament to decide what is in the best interests of our country. I hope that Parliament, by passing this Bill, will decide that the people should have an opportunity to express their view. That will then be advisory for the Government and I would expect the Government to carry on on the basis of what is suggested.
I shall make one other point. Even if the Government wanted to do it, it would be impossible to report on the relationship with the European Union that the Government envisage in the event of a referendum vote to leave the European Union. We do not even know what the European Union will be like. It is the European Union that is leaving us as it struggles with the disastrous consequences of monetary union. It is the European Union that will have to move towards a more integrated fiscal arrangement if the euro is to survive. The amendment is asking the Government to predict what it will do to maintain the stability of the euro and at the same time to predict what they will do.
In response to my noble friend, I have just thought of another argument. I would like to think that in the referendum campaign the Government will be respectful of the arguments which are put across and the way they are received by the public and that they will acknowledge and respond to these arguments.
I know why the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has put forward this amendment. Of course it would help his case if the Government had to make these points. I have always thought that he was very even-minded and impartial on all these matters, but now he has left his former position he has turned into a politician, and a campaigning politician at that. I hope that my noble friend will not feel able to accept this amendment in any way.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak, not that I intended to do so, because although we have been going over the same ground this evening that we have gone over before, and although no doubt many of these points will be debated passionately during the referendum campaign, I had rather hoped that the effect of these debates would be to separate out a bit the wheat from the chaff in the arguments and that those arguments that were found to be obviously unviable would be dropped by the various parties before the referendum campaign started. Therefore we would have a function here of hoping to clarify some of the essential arguments before the public debate begins in earnest.
In that context, I am quite amazed and very disappointed that two grossly invalid arguments continue to be put forward by the Eurosceptic representatives in your Lordships’ House. I thought that we might have seen the end of them. Those two arguments are so irresponsible and illusory that it amazes me that men or women of the world can seriously want to take them any further, even on an electoral platform, where I know the same qualities of intellectual analysis are not always deployed as they are in other contexts in life.
The first argument is the suggestion that this country might simply walk away from an international treaty in breach of that treaty. We have a long tradition going back over centuries of respecting international agreements, and it would be quite extraordinary for us seriously to propose to do that. We all know that Article 50 of the treaty of accession has a precise procedure to be adopted in the event that a member state wishes to withdraw; therefore withdrawal was properly and reasonably discussed at the time we signed that treaty. There was no material non-disclosure of relevant information or anything of that kind. No one was under any illusion. We signed that treaty with open eyes. Now, 40 years later, or whatever it is, suddenly to turn round and say, “We’re tearing it up and walking away”, is extraordinary.
I am amazed that anybody thinks that this country should behave like that. I would have thought that even those who are not influenced by the element of principle in this matter, which seems very obvious, or who cannot estimate or appreciate the diplomatic value—the soft diplomacy and soft power value—of having the reputation we have had until now of being a nation that takes international agreements and international law seriously might at least from sheer cynical pragmatism have realised that the last and worst thing you want to do when you are about to engage in a difficult negotiation with a group of countries, with whom we would be having a difficult negotiation to try to restore some access to the single market with our former partners in the European Union, would be, on the eve of beginning such a complicated, difficult and important negotiation, to tear up a treaty that we had previously had with them.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Has the noble Lord not missed the point, which is that the key to all this is when you invoke Article 50? Do you do it at the beginning of the negotiations, when we have just voted to come out, or at the end, after two or three years?
Lord Davies of Stamford
My understanding is that from the very moment you initiate the process you invoke Article 50, which sets out the procedure to be followed. I have certainly read Article 50, and that is the way I read it. I do not think that any interpretation we have heard this evening, including from the noble and learned Lord, the former Lord Chancellor, is inconsistent with that reading. The fact is that we must act in good faith in these matters. If we do not act in good faith out of moral principle, we should do so out of sheer selfish pragmatism because we will need to get a deal with the people who account for about 50% of our exports in the event that we want to leave the present arrangements we have with them. The idea that we start off by breaking an international agreement solemnly entered into is quite extraordinary.
The second extraordinary thing—I have heard this argument before and I hope I will not hear it again, although I am sure I will; I expect that it will be in the Daily Mail every day during the campaign—is that because we have a balance of payments deficit with the rest of the European Union, we have more leverage on them in these negotiations than they have on us. That is complete nonsense. I dealt with this argument before, and I used an analogy, which no one quarrelled with at the time, to try to make clear that the fact of having a deficit or a surplus is neither here nor there. What is important is the proportion of one’s total exports and, behind that, the proportion of one’s GDP which is exposed in a negotiation of this kind and which could therefore be subject to something nasty happening to it, such as having tariffs imposed or no longer being able to be sold at the same favourable terms as competitors could offer the relevant customers. The proportion of exposure of gross domestic product, and the employment that goes with it, is important.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I am very sorry to ask the noble Lord a question, when he has made it so abundantly clear so many times before to the schoolchildren what the real situation is. However, when he says that what matters is the percentage of GDP represented by a market, does he seriously advance the position that Germany would not care if it did not get access to its largest customer for exports just because that is a smaller percentage of German GDP than our exports are to it?
Lord Davies of Stamford
Everybody would be a loser in this game. I do not hide in any sense my conviction that we would all be losers. It would be a very sad day if we broke up the European Union or moved out of it. Therefore my point is that the Germans would lose, but we would lose more.
Lord Green of Deddington
Does the noble Lord recognise that if the UK were to withdraw from the European Union, the Germans could then find themselves quite frequently outvoted by QMV by the southern members of the union, who have very different interests?
Lord Davies of Stamford
It is quite obvious. The Germans have made it very clear indeed, from the Chancellor downwards, that they do not want us to leave the EU, and that is one of the reasons why. In fact, in many cases we have very much the same view about markets as the Germans have, and on deregulation, an entrepreneurial economy, labour market reform and what have you. We have undergone the same kind of supply-side changes, they with the Hartz reforms, we with the Thatcher reforms in the 1980s. All of that is true and is appreciated in Germany. I repeat: the Germans think that it would be a great disaster if we left. However, it would be an even greater disaster for us than it would be for them. It would be a disaster for everybody. Sometimes you break up a relationship and all parties lose. It is an extraordinary idea to think that if you break up a relationship, some parties are bound to win. That simply does not happen. Therefore that is the logical situation.
When I talk about exposure, let me put it this way—I have used this analogy once before. If Micronesia had $1 million-worth of trade with China, and it sold the Chinese $100,000-worth of products every year and bought $900,000-worth from the Chinese, they would have a massive balance of payments deficit with China, which would have a proportionate very substantial balance of payments surplus with Micronesia. Would that mean that Micronesia would have the slightest leverage on China? Of course not. It is not, in fact, the deficit that counts but the extent of the exposure of exports, and the relevant dependence on exports is very simple. I repeat: our leverage—if you like to put it in mathematical terms—would be a positive function of their dependence on us and a negative function of our dependence on them. Our dependence on them is about 14% or 15% of our GDP, which is accounted for by exports of goods and services to other members of the European Union. If you look at it the other way round, there is no member state in the European Union other than ourselves, except for the Republic of Ireland, for whom that figure is higher than 3%. That literally means that there is a 500% greater degree of dependence on our part towards them than on their part towards us. That is an extraordinarily bad basis for going into a negotiation. I do not say that there would not be a negotiation or a conclusion to a negotiation, but I am quite certain that the terms we would get would not at all be the ones we had hoped to get when we started out.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I will make two quick points in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was rhetorically brilliant, as his contributions in this House so often are. However, his brilliance displayed a weakness on the part of those who want to leave the EU: they are frightened of the argument about what the alternatives to membership really are. That is why he is so reluctant to support the amendment.
There are two points which have not been made in this debate about the wrong assumption, made by many people who favour leaving the EU, that the UK would be able to retain most of the advantages of EU membership without actually being a member of it. That is what one hears from UKIP and the leave campaign. I question this on two grounds. The first ground is the politics of us voting to leave. In the Prime Minister’s renegotiation, which I want to succeed, many member states will make concessions to Britain that they do not actually want but make because they want to keep Britain in the EU. The politics of this is that there will be a great deal of bitterness if they have gone a mile to help the UK and we then vote to leave.
What is more, there is a significant—20% to 30%—anti-European element in the politics of many EU countries today. The last thing in the world that the leaders of other EU countries are going to want to see is Britain able to negotiate a good deal from being out, because that will just strengthen the voices of the right and left populists in their own countries who are arguing to get out of the EU. So the politics will be extremely difficult for us if we vote to leave.
My second point is about free trade. I agree with all the arguments that our bargaining position is not as strong as is often claimed. However, a lot of this debate ignores the modern facts of free trade. It is not about tariffs and access, as it used to be. It is about sharing the same rules as the people with whom you are trading. That is why most banks in the City of London want to remain in the EU: if they do not share the rulebook with people on the continent, they will not be able to trade in euro business. I do not know how big an element of their business that is, but it is certainly substantial. A friend of mine in Brussels told me what happened in the recent fracas about Volkswagen. The initial proposals to deal with the problem of diesel engines, which the French and Germans had cooked up together, would actually have meant that half of Ford engines could not have been exported to the continent because the British methods of production would not have been compliant. It was only because we were in the room and making the arguments that we could do a deal with our partners to make sure that the rules would not disadvantage British-based manufacturing.
So it is about rules and, if we want to trade with the EU, either we have got to stick with their rules and all the talk about repealing regulations is complete nonsense, or we abandon the rules and we do not get the trade. That fundamental point is why the British public need to have it objectively explained what the consequences of leaving the EU would be, and what the nature of our future relationship with the EU would be.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
I pick up the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for saying that to export to the EU we would have to meet the rules it imposed. Of course we would. It is the same position as America, India, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil or any other country that is not in the EU—or, for that matter, Switzerland, which manages to export more per head to the EU than we do and it is not in the EU. It is not a convincing argument at all. We already meet the rules now with our motor car exports. Why should that change? If change is required we will, of course, have to change—and so will other manufacturers who are outside the EU.
Lord Liddle
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, defines British sovereignty as simply having to accept whatever changes in the rules the EU makes without our participation.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I do not normally find myself in close agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, but on this occasion what he said was absolutely correct. If the British people speak in a referendum, Parliament must follow and the United Kingdom will inevitably, in the circumstances which he envisaged, be leaving the European Union. I would very much regret that: it would be contrary to the interests of this country. However, were the electorate to make that decision I would hope, as would others who campaign for Britain to stay in, that we would negotiate the most favourable deal possible with the European Union. Our loyalty to this country would be unaffected by the result and would remain a primary consideration.
However, it is absurd to suppose that we will not enter into a period of very considerable uncertainty. Anybody who knows anything at all—and noble Lords know a great deal—knows that the worst possible thing for an economy and investment is uncertainty. It may be that we would negotiate a favourable agreement in the end, but there would be a period when a great deal would be unknown and people would be very reluctant to invest. I hesitate to talk about the Scottish referendum in the presence of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, but there was evidence in Scotland, as there was in Canada on an earlier occasion, that a referendum casts a shadow ahead of it which deters investment. If there was a period of considerable uncertainty at the end of the referendum before the outcome was known, the economy would suffer, even if one was optimistic about the outcome.
Lord Green of Deddington
Does the noble Lord agree that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has lifted a very interesting stone as to the exact process following a vote to leave the European Union? Would it be helpful for business confidence, which he has just mentioned, if the Government were to produce a report on the process, not the alternatives, that would then entrain?
Lord Tugendhat
I was going to come to that point, although not in exactly the form that the noble Lord put the question. I have now rather lost my train of thought. As I was saying, we would have a period of uncertainty.
Some noble Lords have suggested that, inevitably, a free trade agreement would be negotiated, but they talk about free trade agreements rather as if they are all the same. It is like saying a car will meet you at the station, but you do not know whether it will be a Rolls-Royce or a Mini—both are cars, but they are very different. Free trade agreements are all very different. To draw attention to what Singapore, Switzerland, South Korea or anyone else has done is hardly relevant to the situation that we have. The single market is a unique structure and finding a formula that will replicate the advantages of the single market would be very difficult to do.
Given that there would be a period of uncertainty and that we would not know what the outcome would be, although all of us would hope that it would be as favourable to this country as possible, the thrust of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, which I support, to try to secure as much guidance from the Government as possible is an extremely useful exercise. Indeed, it has proved its utility, as the noble Lord said earlier, because it has enabled the Minister to look deeply into these matters and come up with an amendment of her own that goes a fair way towards meeting the objectives of the amendment to which I put my name. That seems a model way for this House to proceed—for noble Lords who have a concern to table amendments and for the Government to seek to react to them, as the Minister has done. Therefore, I am glad to have supported the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in this matter and I congratulate the Minister on the progress that she has made in seeking to meet the point that we put forward.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am somewhat surprised that many Members of your Lordships’ House seem to find the idea of understanding what leaving would mean somewhat strange. The question that will be put to the people of the United Kingdom is:
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”.
The Electoral Commission, in its briefing to us for the second day of Report, points out that:
“It is important for voters to have access to information about the consequences of voting to remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union, to help ensure they are able to make an informed decision on how to vote. However, any provision in legislation for this should ensure that voters can have confidence in the accuracy and impartiality of the information. There should also be sufficient balance given to the consequences of both a majority vote to remain a member of the European Union and a majority vote to leave the European Union”.
Amendments 24A and 24B went quite a long way in that regard but, if the Minister may not be able to envisage what the Government might say in terms of the relationship, can she at least tell us a little more about what “leave” might mean? The voters of the United Kingdom need to understand what “leave” means just as much as “remains”. We are almost there, but not quite.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, in Committee and this evening, a number of amendments have requested reports on a large range of subjects. I suggested in Committee that the extent to which these reports are likely to be read by the majority of people voting in the referendum is small. The reports might be of some use to parliamentarians and other people preoccupied with the issue, but they would be of very little use in determining the outcome of the result of the referendum. However, it suddenly seemed to me that there was some case for a particular report on a matter where there seems to be some confusion—namely, a report on what the process of withdrawal would be.
I was most interested in the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay that seemed to suggest that in the course of that process we would necessarily, and perhaps almost as a first step, repeal the 1972 Act. There was a large amount of other legislation, including that on devolution, that was based on that Act. I imagine that that would create an enormous problem in terms of the legislative programme that would follow any decision to leave. I do not know whether my noble friend on the Front Bench can shed any light on that, but the case for rather more attention as to how it would be done if there were to be a vote in favour of withdrawing may well have a rather strong argument in favour of it.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, I support the view outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in suggesting that the amendment proposed by the Government in the last debate, when we addressed this question very briefly, does not go far enough in addressing the issues set out in Committee and again on Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, eloquently addressed the need for the public to know what “leave” looks like. We actually know what the alternative existing models are. In fact, the shadow Minister for Europe, Pat McFadden, has produced a comprehensive report on this which could simply be copied in order to conclude one’s own amendment. We are not asking for the same things as we did on the last amendment, which was more of an objective statement of facts. We are going further here and asking the Government, who we assume will still be holding the reins of power in this country—albeit maybe with a new leader, who knows?—what they would want as an alternative to membership. It is a question that they would be asked the day after any vote to leave the EU.
We understand that it would be ridiculous for us to ask for this to be set out prior to the end of the Prime Minister’s task in trying to renegotiate the position with his EU colleagues, so we would not expect this to be done until the end of that negotiation. I heard the Minister state when she introduced the last amendment that the Government “in due course” will set out what the process of withdrawal will involve. Will the Minister clarify what “in due course” means? When will that happen? Will it happen before the referendum vote? How much before? That would be very useful, because one thing has become clear this afternoon. There is a need for some sort of procedural clarity. It has provoked a debate. I understood the Minister to have suggested earlier that the Government would not want to repeal the 1972 Act, so even if we had absolute clarification on that, we have gone a step further. It would be very useful to the public in this country. At the very least, we need those procedural steps to be set out very clearly for the public.
We still do not know which way the Government will recommend the British public to vote. If the Government were to suggest a “leave” vote, are we seriously expecting the country simply to follow them to some unknown destination with no idea what that would look like? I suggest that the public have a right to know the answer to that question. If the Government were to recommend us to stay, they still have the responsibility to set out what the position would be if the public went against their recommendation. They will still be the people sitting in that seat when those alternative arrangements will have to be made.
If the Government will not set this out, then who will? The leave campaign may have a mandate from the public to ensure that we leave the EU, but it would have no legitimacy in securing or putting in place alternative arrangements. They would not be in the driving seat for subsequent negotiations. So far, I do not believe that the Government have gone far enough in addressing this issue and I hope that the Minister can give us some clarification, at the very least on the procedural steps, but ideally on what the Government would like to see as an alternative to EU membership if we were to vote to leave the EU.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I ask her whether—either on the previous occasion when we had the Scottish referendum or in the event that there is another Scottish referendum—it is the Labour Party’s policy that the Government should in advance set out what the procedures would be and how they would set about breaking up the United Kingdom? The parallel is clear: this is an important policy view that she is taking. Is that the view of the Official Opposition?
Baroness Morgan of Ely
It is far more complicated. We are talking about 28 member states which will all have a say on our destiny in terms of our relationship with them in future. That is a completely different situation from the situation in Scotland. So no, I do not think there is a parallel here but the Government should come forward with some clarity, in particular on the procedural process.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made important points in his speech earlier this evening about the nature of this referendum and the fact that what the leave scenario will look like will be less clear to the public. That is certainly true by the very nature of this referendum. He has called for the Government to set out the relationship that they envisage for the European Union in the event of a vote to leave the EU, and he rightly highlights that it would be for the Government to negotiate on any future relationship in the event of a vote to leave.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and just now the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, have made it clear that it is the matter of the process which is important for the Government to clarify, and I shall certainly seek to do that among giving other answers to questions that have been posed.
The second part of the government amendment earlier today—Amendment 24B, which the House agreed to—seeks to address the earlier call of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for the Government to set out what some of the alternatives to membership might be. In response to the noble Lord’s amendment, we have proposed a duty that would require the Government to describe some of the existing arrangements that other countries have with the EU, where they are not members. I believe that this is as proportionate and reasonable a response as we can provide.
Noble Lords have called for any government amendment to set out evidence-based and authoritative information in a way that is as useful to the public as possible. However, I do not believe that it would be helpful, or indeed appropriate, for the Government to have a commitment in legislation to confirm at this early point exactly what the UK’s envisaged relationship would be with the EU, should the UK electorate vote to leave. I think that I can be more helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, as a result of the conversations that we have been able to have today, and look more deeply at the intention behind the amendment. I hope to come to that fairly shortly.
My noble friend Lord Hamilton correctly referred to the fact that this referendum is advisory not mandatory, but I can assure him that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said that we will abide by the decision of this referendum, whatever it is. The Prime Minister has said that the Government, of course, are now focused on delivering a successful renegotiation. Therefore, we feel that we cannot speculate on the types of possible arrangement that could be negotiable—not negotiated, but actually achieved—with the EU. In my right honourable friend’s speech at Chatham House, the Prime Minister gave his view on some of the existing alternatives. He made clear that Switzerland has had to negotiate access to the single market sector by sector. He pointed out that Norway is part of the single market but has no say in setting its rules.
What we sought to do, through my earlier Amendment 24B, is to provide the public with useful information about those existing models and others that other countries may have. We sought to meet the aims of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, as far as possible at that point. We made it clear then, and we have throughout our discussions at Second Reading and in Committee, that it is the campaigners on both sides of the debate who will have strong views about the arrangements. Any information published by the Government will be heavily scrutinised and interpreted in different ways by the campaign groups to make the strongest arguments for the case for remaining or leaving. One side is likely to argue that the Government have not been ambitious enough and that far more should have been possible, and the other side, I suspect, will argue the opposite.
The result for the public may be confusion—I appreciate that—rather than providing useful information. This would have the exact opposite effect from that which noble Lords have said they wish to support over the course of our debates. Indeed, if we were to set out early and in statute an envisaged relationship in the event of a vote to leave, it would simply invite media headlines because it would be interpreted that the Government were sending a strong signal that we had already prepared to exit the EU. I confess that I do read the Daily Mail and I can see the headline hitting me already. If I were to accept the amendment tonight I would be stepping into that bear trap. I know that that is not the bear trap that the noble Lord intended—that was not his intention.
As I said earlier in the debate, should there be a vote to leave, the Government would then at the appropriate moment need to engage with processes provided under our international obligations, including those under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. Of course, processes such as Article 50 have never been used in the past. This would be a precedent if it were to happen and that would make it all the harder to speculate on how such a negotiation might play out. Indeed, there could be unpredictable consequences to entering into a process to leave under any scenario, including that which encompasses the Article 50 process. Much play has been made about Article 50—I said to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, earlier today that I now carry it around with me in my handbag wherever I go. Therefore I know that I also referred to it in some detail at an earlier stage in Committee and set out the processes that it engages. I will not abuse Report stage by reading again from the full text of that.
As I mentioned briefly but will now say more fully to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, before the referendum we will of course lay out what this process would involve. In this scenario, as in any scenario, the Government would seek to protect the interests of the British people. That is exactly what noble Lords would expect us to do. There has been some question about the whole issue of the process being tangled in international law—yes indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, raised an important question about whether the UK would abide by its international obligations. I can reassure him concisely that, of course, the UK will abide by its international obligations. The Government are committed to upholding the rule of law, including under any of the different scenarios for withdrawing from the European Union. I was most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern for crystallising so clearly the problem at hand, as he so often does in this Chamber, and making it clear that international law requires the Government to go through the proper procedures if they wish to resile from a treaty obligation. That is certainly the case.
Indeed, my right honourable friend has made it very clear throughout his time as Prime Minister that he holds dear the golden thread. The golden thread means not only that we have government that is not corrupt and is careful of people’s interests, but involves strengthening international law, not weakening it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Given that the Prime Minister said that he rules nothing out, and that the Government will abide by any result in the referendum, surely we must assume that the Government are absolutely confident that they can make the necessary arrangements to enable us to leave the EU, and therefore this is a bit of a red herring.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I am not quite sure what the colour of a herring may be, but all I can say is that I am sure that my right honourable friend could fillet it quite nicely.
However, the problem is that the result would not be predictable. This is the picture that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has carefully teased out. Clearly, there could be unpredictable consequences; that is why I am not in a position tonight to accept the amendment. There is also an issue about timing. It is simply not feasible, or indeed in the national interest, to tie the Government’s hands in legislation by setting out our preferred, almost negotiable, alternative before we have had the referendum, let alone before we know the consequences of the vote. We are focused on delivering a successful renegotiation. This debate, led by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has teased out the implications of the process. I hope therefore that I have put on the record more clearly the Government’s view of how those processes would be engaged. Although I am not able to accept the noble Lord’s amendment tonight, I hope that I have put on record sufficient information to enable him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I thank the noble Baroness and all those who took part in this debate, particularly those who supported me. However, I am left worrying what the Scots have against me. When you think about it, everybody who spoke in support of my amendment was not a Scot and everybody who attacked it was a Scot—the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton, Lord Forsyth and Lord Lamont. I believe that the Stoddart family hailed from Scotland. Anyway, we Scots are a cantankerous lot.
I wish to comment on only three points from the debate. First, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and indeed with the Minister, that the fact that the referendum is advisory, not mandatory, is a distinction without a difference. If the country votes to leave, we leave—that is for sure. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that I thought we had an agreement that we both were clear that any free trade agreement was perfectly possible. I am sure that it is perfectly possible although, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, reminded us, there are free trade agreements and free trade agreements. Saying that it is possible does not guarantee that it is perfect. Where I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is that I do not believe that it would be possible to secure full voting membership of the single market with no concomitant obligations on expenditure commitments. I do not believe that that is on offer or that it could be offered. That is where I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. I am very grateful to my only Scottish ally in this matter—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—for confirming that my understanding of the law, although amateur, was in this case, by great good luck, correct.
The noble Baroness has moved a long way, for which I am very grateful. She has listened to what has been said in non-Scottish accents in various parts of the House during this debate. I think she is saying that, in the event that the country voted to leave, the Government would invoke Article 50—that that is the process that would be followed. I think she is also saying that the country would need to know before the referendum that, because we would be in an Article 50 negotiation, we would be unable to dictate the terms of our withdrawal—that that would be a matter for negotiation and that there could be, in her words, unpredictable consequences. I think she is saying that that is factual information, not speculative, which it would be the duty of the Government to make clear. The leave campaign will assert that we can dictate whatever terms we like. The stay campaign will assert that an Article 50 negotiation would, indeed, be a bear trap, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. But what is important is that the Government should say what in their view would be the—
Lord Green of Deddington
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but does he agree that—
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
I do not think this is the time for interruptions. Noble Lords should remember that we are on Report.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
The noble Lord, Lord Green, and I are diplomats. We do this stuff all the time.
I shall look very carefully at what the noble Baroness has said. It seems to me she is saying that the country would be entitled to know in advance whether Article 50 would be invoked; that that article is not a fait accompli, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said; that we would be unable to dictate our terms; and that there would be unpredictable consequences. If that is what the noble Baroness is saying, I see no need to press my amendment now. If that is not what she is saying and I have misheard her, we might refer to the matter again at Third Reading, but I hope that we shall not have to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Green of Deddington
“Report on the consequences of the United Kingdom staying in the European Union: net migration
No later than 12 weeks prior to the appointed date of the referendum, the Secretary of State shall publish, and lay before each House of Parliament, a report on the impact of continued membership of the European Union on the scale of net migration to the United Kingdom and its consequential effect on the future population of the United Kingdom.”
Lord Green of Deddington
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 27. I can be very brief, as the ground is familiar but very important.
I welcome the Minister’s introductory remarks. She steered a very careful course to avoid advocacy. However, her presentation seemed a little one-sided. There would be very serious consequences of staying in the EU as well as of leaving it. Unpredictable consequences apply to both staying and leaving. The EU is not a stationary ship. It has considerable momentum in various directions, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, pointed out. Therefore, it is only right and fair that both scenarios should be considered and that factual and objective information should be provided on both.
I have selected two consequences of great concern to the public. Amendment 26 draws attention to net migration and its consequences for our population. Noble Lords will be aware that migration from the EU has doubled in two years. At 180,000, it is now about half our total net migration and will have a huge impact on our population—indeed, an inevitable impact. The latest population projections are based on net migration of only 185,000, but even at that rate we will have to build a city the size of Birmingham in the next five years. In the next 25 years, our population will go up by 10 million. I make no apology for repeating that key point. Any report from the Government will have to set out this stark prospect. I say “stark” because 79% of the population of England—if I dare refer to England—believe that our country is already overcrowded.
Amendment 27 addresses the medium-term consequences for the UK of the situation in southern Europe. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, questioned the advisability of mentioning refugees in the context of a referendum campaign. I entirely accept the need for care but I also believe that we should level with the public, especially perhaps when the issues are, indeed, sensitive. It is now apparent that the European Union has lost control of the borders in Greece and Italy. The number of migrants is likely to run into several million over the next several years. More importantly for us, because we do not have a land border, under present arrangements all those who will acquire EU citizenship will gain the right to move to the UK. What is more, they will get an automatic right to bring family members who are not EU citizens. This is clearly a matter of real importance to the public and should be covered in any reports that the Government might issue. I beg to move.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Green. It is important that these matters of immigration, however unpalatable they may be sometimes, are brought out into the open. The point that he made, which I also made in my speech, though it did not seem to find favour with noble Baroness, is that we should also look at the consequences for this country of staying in the EU. This amendment touches on that and is worth supporting. Surely this will be one of the pivotal arguments. Again it might not be popular to say so, but immigration and control of our borders will be a major topic during this referendum campaign. To have something about it in the Bill would be very useful.
I hope the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Green, will find favour with the Government, because the public will certainly be interested in it, given the huge waves of immigration that are coming our way and will continue coming our way—I agree with the noble Lord—with huge consequences not just for numbers but also for infrastructure, schools, hospitals and accommodation. There are many consequences here and I know people are concerned about this. This is an important amendment to look at carefully and I hope the noble Baroness will follow that.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for missing the first part of the noble Lord’s short speech. Since he referred to the population issue earlier, perhaps I might be allowed to say a few words. Incidentally, the reason the balance of competences report did not include population is that it is not one of the issues on which the European Union has any competence. There have been indirect references to population issues in one or two of the provisions of the treaties. I think it is the treaty of Amsterdam that has an obscure protocol in which the Republic of Ireland says that nothing in the treaties should be construed as countermanding Article 41 of the Irish state constitution, which is about abortion. While we are on the abortion issue, the efforts that Catholics in Scotland are now making to ensure that abortion law is not only not pulled up to the European level but pushed down to the Scottish level demonstrate that population issues are extremely sensitive.
Lord Green of Deddington
My point is not that population falls under EU competence. Our membership of the EU and the fact that we have no way of limiting the number of migrants from the European Union obviously feed directly into net migration, which accounts for virtually all the long-term haul of our population increase.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, I follow the Migration Watch UK publications in detail. One way or another, I have also been involved in migration issues since the end of the Cold War. One of the things by which I am most struck is that population and migration flows are very complex. When you close one door the flow comes in from another, as we see at the European level and also at the British level. It is very hard to close our doors more than we do.
The issue of secondary migration that the noble Lord raises in the second half of his amendment is also complex and delicate. I agree that it is one at which we need to look in more detail. But much of what Migration Watch does, and this amendment, ignores the important pull factor in British migration. I am struck, for example, that the newspapers in recent days have talked about the NHS going out to recruit additional nurses from abroad, while at the same time we are being told in the comprehensive spending review that the Government will cut nurse training and impose fees on nurse training in Britain. A better example of a pull factor in migration could simply not be found.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has made some very interesting comments. I learnt two things. First, I understand now why migration was not included in the review of competences. He explained that that was because the word used was “population”, whereas had one asked the question about movement of labour or migration, perhaps it would have been different. Secondly, the noble Lord made quite a persuasive case, on one ground, for the necessity of migration and the inevitability of a degree of migration. I found it interesting that he was a regular watcher of Migration Watch. I was fascinated to hear that. But the arguments that the noble Lord put forward are the very things that would be considered in the Government’s publication if the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green, were accepted.
I was somewhat neutral towards the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green, because I have been trying to argue that all these reports that have been called for are the issues that ought to be debated during the referendum campaign. But everybody else has been coming forward and saying we ought to include this and that. When I look at the list compiled by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, of things that ought to be considered in the publication, the one thing that is obviously missing is migration. Why did the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, not say that the publication ought to include migration?
I have been converted to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green, both by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, were here to support it.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, I, too, would like to say some words in support of the noble Lord, Lord Green. He says that we have to level with the public on this and I think that is absolutely right. Net migration into this country last year was 330,000 people. That is a very large number of people. I totally accept that perhaps only half of them came from the EU but this is certainly something that we have to address.
I am particularly interested, as was the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in Amendment 27. I would like to know from my noble friend the Minister exactly what the mechanics are with regard to people who have come from outside as part of this refugee crisis into somewhere such as France, who then apply for a French passport, which then enables them to come to the United Kingdom under the free movement of labour. Can she fill us in about how this process takes place? This is obviously an extremely worrying aspect of these migration flows. At the moment we are in a position to say that we are not members of Schengen and we can probably do something not to have to accept any of these people. But of course, if they are given European passports, that is rather a different story. Can she give us an insight into her understanding of this process?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, we do not support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Green, mainly because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, they are highly speculative, impossible to calculate, unpredictable, and not based on factual information that the Government have. Confusing the free movement of labour with migration and simply putting everyone in together will not lead to a rational debate.
The free movement of labour has been an important component of the EU. Certainly, people have come here to work. Where they have not come here to work, the Government have been addressing those issues in terms of the benefits system, as the Labour Party has also committed to do.
I have no doubt that in the course of this referendum campaign, the noble Lords, Lord Green and Lord Willoughby de Broke, will repeat what they have said. They will make this issue part of the referendum campaign and I will take great pleasure in making sure that other voices are heard in that debate which challenge some of the assumptions about migration. But for the purposes of the EU referendum campaign, it is wrong to confuse the free movement of labour with migration, and it certainly is not capable of being subject to a rational report.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, Amendments 26 and 27, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, would create a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to publish two very specific reports no later than 12 weeks before the date of the referendum, and to lay these reports before each House of Parliament.
The first of the reports, in Amendment 26, would focus on the effect that remaining in the European Union would have on net migration to the United Kingdom. The second would include information on access to citizenship for non-EU citizens within member states. As I have set out, and as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, just alluded to, the Government have come forward with amendments designed to provide information that is as useful as possible to the public, ensuring that they are able to make an informed choice. In addition, these reports should be appropriate for the Government rather than the kinds of reports that campaigning groups or other groups not related to the campaign might commonly issue in any event. We have said throughout that whatever the Government produce in the way of reports must be objective and grounded in fact.
The Government already publish information on migration issues in this country. The Home Office issues a quarterly release of immigration statistics from administrative sources. These statistics are complemented by the Migration Statistics Quarterly Report of the Office for National Statistics. Indeed, I understand that the next set of figures is due to be published this Thursday. In addition, the Office for National Statistics periodically publishes quantitative projections, looking at future figures and trends. That is it—they look at the likely future figures and trends. The Government should publish only reports that are grounded in fact and objective.
The wording of Amendment 26 is clearly speculative, because it asks the Government to publish,
“a report on the impact of continued membership of the European Union on the scale of net migration to the United Kingdom and its consequential effect on the future population of the United Kingdom”.
One can speculate on that, but one cannot provide statistical information grounded in fact that would guide the public in a non-directional way about how to vote in a referendum. I understand the noble Lord’s concern, but there are ways in which information is already provided, and it is better provided by others rather than by a statutory requirement on the Government.
On Amendment 27, my noble friend Lord Hamilton raised the issue of free movement. The amendment asks the Government to lay a report giving information,
“on the current length of time taken for people who are not European Union citizens to acquire citizenship in each member state”.
That in itself is not information to which the Government would have right of access, so I am not sure how a statutory requirement could be placed upon us. The amendment also asks us to report on,
“the extent of free movement within the European Union that accompanies such citizenships and accrues to family members of those citizens”.
Again, this is a matter of reporting on the law of other countries rather than conditions in this country. My noble friend Lord Hamilton raised a serious point about migration, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that in his negotiations with our European colleagues—the other 27 states—one of his four requirements is that there should be reform of the impact of migration, particularly as it relates to welfare law.
I am afraid that my noble friend will have to wait a little while before we have a debate on exactly what the impact of the law on free movement is. But I am sure that the usual channels will arrange good opportunities for debate, because if they do not, the Government will not be able to set out our case—which we need to do. I feel confident that the usual channels will be there first, before I can even ask. I understand the concerns underlying the amendments. I hope that I have been able to explain why it would be inappropriate for them to go into the Bill—but also why their content will, indeed, be the focus of much debate, not just by Government and by Parliament but by all the campaigning groups. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Green, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Green of Deddington
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. The hour is late, so I shall be even briefer. There certainly are pull factors. There has been inadequate training in the past, and we have even cut our budgets for training. Secondly, I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who spoke about EU migrants coming here to work—but 75% of them are in low-paid employment, so they are not a huge benefit to our economy. As for speculative projections, the Government produce population projections every two years. I assume that those are objective and grounded in fact, and could therefore be published, with the immigration assumptions underlying them.
As for Amendment 27 and the Government’s right of access to the citizenship laws of other countries, they have already answered Parliamentary Questions on that subject, so they clearly have some information. If they need any more, they have 27 embassies that could, I hope, help them. Apart from that, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has already said it all, so I shall say no more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
“Guidance for charities on engagement with the referendum
The Electoral Commission, in collaboration with the Charity Commission for England and Wales, the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland and the Office of the Scottish Regulator, must issue joint guidance confirming the principles that apply to the engagement of charities with the referendum.”
Baroness Morgan of Ely
My Lords, I apologise for submitting this amendment at such a late stage in our discussions, but I believe that essential clarification for charities about their ability to be involved in the EU referendum campaign needs to be set out. This is a probing amendment.
The EU referendum is essentially a single constituency vote, and charities from across the UK should be able to engage fully and equally with that referendum if they wish. The problem, however, is that existing guidance from charity regulatory bodies differs across the UK. Charity law that regulates political campaigning should be the same UK-wide, and I am sure the Minister will agree that there should not be any cross-border disparity. What we need, therefore, is a single set of rules which will create a level playing field across the UK and clarification for charities that are registered with more than one of the charity regulators.
We believe that it makes sense to base this guidance on the tried and tested model of the charity guidance for the Scottish referendum. Let us remember that this has been proven in a fierce campaign north of the border, facilitating engagement while ensuring that charities are still subject to strict rules to act prudently and independently. Let me be clear: we are not setting out what the joint guidance should look like in this amendment. We accept and suggest that it should be carried out by the regulators themselves.
I request that the Minister gives us an assurance that she will seek the full co-operation of the various national charity commissions, so that common guidance can be issued for the whole of the UK in adequate time, prior to the start of that referendum campaign. I beg to move.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, as far as I can see, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has put her finger on a slight problem here. The Bill, as I understand it, allows some charities to become permitted participants and permissible donors. But at the same time, Charity Commission law basically says that charitable contributions should not be used for political purposes. I understand that Justice Hoffmann—now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann—ruled in 1991 that:
“There is no doubt that campaigning, in the sense of seeking to influence public opinion on political matters, is not a charitable activity … it is not a proper object of the expenditure of charitable money”.
It seems that we have two conflicting judgments being made, one by the Bill and the other by charity law. It would be very helpful if my noble friend the Minister could cast a bit of light on this. Are we now saying that charities are to be allowed to involve themselves in campaigning, against the judgment of Justice Hoffmann? I am a little confused about where we stand on this.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to welcome the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, because it touches on an area that could cause considerable confusion and difficulties to charities. I am involved with a number of them and have known some of the problems that have arisen in the context of elections. It is quite clearly not a question of campaigning in a party-political sense but, equally, charities have a viewpoint on changes that can affect their fundamental raison d’être. They need to be able to put forward information for people to consider without being seen as campaigning. That dimension is complicated by the difference in the legislation that exists in different parts of these islands.
This is clearly a probing amendment and I very much hope that the Minister will at least be able to come back at Third Reading on this matter, if not tonight. Before I sit down, I thank her very much indeed for the way in which she and her colleagues have handled the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, and the outcomes we have had from it.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for pointing out that this is a probing amendment. She was able to give us enough advance notice of this late-stage amendment to enable us, I hope, to gather together the reassurances that she and others rightly seek. Under charity law, political activity by charities is subject to strict rules. Charities are also subject to requirements of electoral law. My noble friend Lord Hamilton asked for some clarification on what appears to be obfuscation. That is what I hope to do at this stage, because he is right: it is important that the role of charities is clear and respected.
In England and Wales under charity law, a charity may engage in non-party political activity to support its charitable purpose where the trustees consider it to be an effective use of the charity’s resources. One is thereby pursuing the reason why the charity has been set up—what its mission is—but one is not permitted to take part in party-political activity. A charity must never support a political party or candidate, and must always take care to preserve its independence when engaging in any political activity.
Charity law is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the rules are similar. There is already guidance for charities on referendums: for example, the Charity Commission for England and Wales published guidance in July 2014 entitled Charities, Elections and Referendums. The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator published guidance last year ahead of the referendum on Scottish independence. The Charity Commission for Northern Ireland has produced general guidance for charities in Northern Ireland on political activity.
So we have had Charity Commission guidance in England and Wales, and the Scottish Charity Regulator and Northern Ireland Charity Commission have issued guidance. To complete the picture, the Charity Commission for England and Wales has already said that in principle it will be happy to work with the Electoral Commission, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland on this subject. However, it does not believe that there is a need for much additional material given the existing guidance for charities across the UK, some of which I have just referred to.
The Charity Commission for England and Wales and the Electoral Commission are meeting tomorrow to discuss the joint promotion and communication of their guidance in order to promote charities’ awareness and understanding of the rules that apply. I also understand that the UK charity regulators are due to meet later this week, providing a timely opportunity to discuss this issue and consider the potential for collaboration on such guidance. While the provisions of the Bill apply across the UK, we must recognise that charity law is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland. We must therefore also respect the independence of the different regulators and their entitlement to reach their own views in particular cases.
Given my explanation about the collaboration that is not just happening normally but is happening now, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary, given the willingness of the Electoral Commission and UK charity regulators to work collaboratively on this specific subject.
I do not think that the noble Baroness intended her amendment to be self-operative, because clearly it will create an unnecessary burden for the regulators, which she does not intend. She asked me to say whether the regulators have demonstrated a willingness to collaborate on guidelines. I say yes, and they are coming up with the evidence for that, as well.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, I am intrigued by whether she is saying that this is a one-off issue of conversation to do with the referendum, or is the word “political” and how it is used by the Charity Commission for England and Wales going to be subject to some new regime?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, perhaps I can unpack two parts of my response. With regard to the word “political”, clearly there are regulations and guidance that cover political activity across the whole range of what may happen in the United Kingdom, obviously including Scotland and Northern Ireland. So there is therefore a basis on which the regulators and charities work.
I then referred separately to the meetings that are taking place this week, which are looking specifically at the referendum and what it might entail. So we are applying the general to the particular to ensure that the way they collaborate is effective for the particular referendum. I hope that that is helpful.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
I thank the noble Baroness for that clarification. I think we have to remember that charities are anxious to be careful in terms of how they get involved politically—obviously, party-politically would be impossible, but they have a duty to further their charitable purposes. That means, for example, that if they were in receipt of EU funds and if they found the EU regulatory burden too much, they would need to be able to express that in some way. So I think that clarification is necessary. I thank the Minister not for pursuing that not just with the Electoral Commission but with the regulators.
I finish by thanking the noble Baroness for the way she has conducted the whole of this European Union Referendum Bill. It has been very interesting. It has been difficult, sparky and fractious at times, but we have got through it, and I thank the noble Baroness for the way she has conducted the whole debate. I am glad that we have managed to collaborate in the way that we have.
Northern Ireland (Elections) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2015
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dunlop
That the draft Order laid before the House on 2 November be approved.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument, the Northern Ireland (Elections) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2015, makes a number of changes to the legislative framework for Northern Ireland elections. Some are minor administrative points, and I will focus on the two most substantive provisions.
The draft order makes provision to allow the retention of certain entries on the Northern Ireland electoral register for a further year. Northern Ireland is unique within the UK in that it does not hold an annual canvass to refresh its register. Since 2006, the register in Northern Ireland has been maintained not via a canvass but through a system of continuous registration which relies on cross-checking electoral data against prescribed official data streams. This approach is possible because all electoral registration in Northern Ireland has been individual registration rather than household registration since 2002.
Following the last full Northern Ireland canvass in 2013, provision was made to retain some entries on the register where the individuals in question had not returned the canvass form but where the Chief Electoral Officer had no reason to question the validity of their entry. The Electoral Office for Northern Ireland was able to assess the validity of entries for these non-respondents, as all the individuals in question were individually registered and the electoral office’s data-checking facility with both DWP and health service records allows a high level of assurance on people’s current address and other key information.
Let me be clear that the entries that relate to these non-respondents were all checked after the 2013 canvass and have been continuously checked since then in response to alerts from other government data sources. The Electoral Office for Northern Ireland receives regular updates of data from a variety of official sources, including the DWP, the Registrar-General and Business Services Organisation. BSO holds all the details of individuals on GP and dentist lists in Northern Ireland. If there is an inconsistency between the data on the register and that received from the other data sources, the electoral office issues chasing letters to the individual and then a final warning. If the individual does not respond, they are removed from the register.
Of the 112,000 registered electors who did not respond to the 2013 canvass, about 10,000 have been removed from the register and more than 20,000 have been successfully re-registered. Approximately 82,000 voters are therefore affected by the provision we are considering today. The original provision made in 2013 to retain these particular entries on the register was for two years and will expire at the beginning of December this year when the new register is published. However, it was always the intention that the retained entries should not be removed in advance of the next Northern Ireland Assembly elections. Due to the clash of the parliamentary general election and the Assembly election which was originally scheduled for 2015, the date of the Assembly election was postponed until May 2016. That postponement is the reason we need the extension of these provisions for one further year.
Both the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland share the Government’s view that the retention of these entries for a further year is desirable in the context of the continuous registration system employed in Northern Ireland. We fully intend that this will be the final provision made to retain non-respondent voters. We propose to introduce digital registration in Northern Ireland in 2016, and in the context of easier online registration and the publicity associated with its introduction, non-respondent voters will be given clear notice that they will come off the register in December 2016 if they do not take action.
The second substantive provision made by this order is to allow the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland not to be guilty of an offence if they take steps to fully correct procedural errors made at Assembly elections that would otherwise be a breach of their official duty. Currently, for all Northern Ireland elections, with the exception of those for the Assembly, the relevant legislation provides for the Chief Electoral Officer not to be guilty of an offence if they take steps to remedy in full an administrative error or omission. The order will correct this anomaly and bring the provision in respect of Assembly elections into line with the provisions for parliamentary, European and local elections in Northern Ireland. Although this is an electoral matter, which is therefore not devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, it tangentially touches on criminal justice matters. Your Lordships will wish to know that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Ben Wallace, has written to the Northern Ireland Minister for Justice to inform him of our intentions in this as a matter of courtesy.
Lord Tyler
At the end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Order is inconsistent with the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2015.”.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, on 27 October, on the comparable order for England, Wales and Scotland—to which my amendment also refers this evening—this is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said:
“I do not understand how shortening the transition period contributes to the accuracy of the register”.—[Official Report, 27/10/15; col. 1129.]
As so often, he summed up the situation admirably, and in so doing completely demolished the Government’s case that evening. Sadly, he did not then follow the logic of his own analysis and did not vote for our amendment to persuade Ministers to think again. Even more disappointing was that a number of Cross-Bench Peers, who rightly pride themselves on being independent of party politics, voted to support a blatant move to distort the electoral register in favour of one particular party—the Conservative Party.
This order, by contrast, follows the logic of the summary of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, but only in relation to Northern Ireland. It would delay the completion of the transition from head-of-household registration to the full implementation of individual electoral registration—IER—in the Province for a further 12 months, as the Minister explained. The Explanatory Memorandum claims:
“In essence, Northern Ireland and Great Britain currently operate very different systems”.
That is true. As the Minister explained, IER was developed in Northern Ireland earlier than on the mainland. So for those of us who have been watching these developments—this evolution—over a number of years, the initial reaction must surely be that it should be further advanced in Northern Ireland. There ought to be a prima facie case for moving on in Northern Ireland because it has had plenty of time to develop the new system. Far from that, of course, the order does the reverse.
The Explanatory Memorandum also reports, as the Minister said, that the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission have both recommended that those electors on the register who have not since confirmed their registration details should be retained on the register until December 2016. Members of your Lordships’ House who attended the debate on 27 October will recall the strong recommendation from the commission that the same should apply to England, Wales and Scotland. Indeed, given that Northern Ireland has had more time to develop the transition, one would think that the case for England, Wales and Scotland was much stronger. On that occasion, the advice from the commission was then ignored by Ministers despite the very special and particular nature of the commission’s statutory responsibility to Parliament.
The Minister referred to the elections to Stormont next May. In the previous debate, we were looking very carefully at the implications for the elections to Holyrood and the Welsh Assembly, where it may be thought that the same arguments apply. What is so different about Northern Ireland elections and electoral registration there?
Noble Lords may also recall that, on that occasion, the Minister constantly justified the Government’s denial of the commission’s recommendation on the grounds that there could be hundreds or thousands of ghost voters—ghost entries on the register—if the transition continued for a further 12 months. I reread Hansard this evening and counted a dozen such references in the Minister’s speech alone, and other government supporters followed suit.
I pointed out in my contribution that if there were so many ghost voters in October 2015, it was highly likely that a fair proportion of them would have been ghosts in May 2015, at the time of the general election. I said then:
“Ministers claim that some or many or most of those 1.9 million entries on the electoral register may be false and potentially fraudulent … This is the register on which the general election was fought. Are Ministers really now saying that the whole election could have been based on a wildly inaccurate, potentially fraudulent register? What is the evidence for that? … Are Ministers now challenging the outcome of the election on those grounds?”—[Official Report; 27/10/15; col. 1098.]
Are the Government now claiming that there is a much greater danger of ghost entries on the mainland register, then and now, than in Northern Ireland? If so, what is the evidence for that? Others in the Chamber have much more experience of elections to the various levels of governance in Northern Ireland, but anyone studying the history of elections in the Province would surely challenge that interpretation and conclusion. Indeed, as the Explanatory Memorandum admirably explains, Northern Ireland does not have an annual canvass, so electors are not required to reregister each year. Noble Lords may be forgiven for thinking that this may mean that the register there is less accurate—less up to date—than that in Great Britain.
In truth, the only real difference between the political circumstances in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the UK is simply this: the Conservative Party has no seats in the Province, no likelihood of contesting constituencies there, and therefore no self-interest in distorting the register. Tonight’s order merely undermines the logic of the previous order and displays for all to see the double standards of Ministers. Our amendment simply reads that the draft order is inconsistent with the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2015. I beg to move.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I add a certain scepticism to that of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, although from a different angle. I would like to say how much I admire his concern for the proper functioning of electoral institutions in the United Kingdom. My point is different and relates to the future. The Minister has brought the draft instrument to the House and there is no choice. The argumentation on technical details is fine, although it requires a certain degree of trust in the Chief Electoral Officer—although I see no reason why he should be denied that trust. So there is no problem with the legislation as such in that narrow sense and, anyway, we must now proceed.
In his opening statement, the Minister talked about the reason why we are in this situation. It was entirely accurate from the Government’s point of view, but it is not actually why we are. The reason why we moved the date of the election to the Assembly a year later than the people of Northern Ireland had been told it would be was because of a deal between the local parties. There is no compelling, wider logic that said it must be at the same time as the elections in Scotland, and so on. There was no particularly compelling logic, though I can understand that there was a clash with the Northern Ireland general election. Essentially, the local parties themselves, worried that their performance was poor, said, “We need more time to put together a programme of governance”. As noble Lords will be aware, no such programme of governance actually appeared, even given the extra time. I simply make the point that this ruse should not be played again in the next Parliament. It is bad practice to tell any electorate, “This is a Parliament that will be there for four years—no, sorry, five years”. In Ireland 100 years ago, this was disastrous, because for very good reasons the general election that would normally have been held in 1915 was postponed, because of the First World War. That gave the people who lodged the Irish insurrection the great excuse of saying, “We are not revolting against democratic institutions, because they are dead. Do not tell us that the Irishmen in the Parliament that sits at Westminster have different views from us; of course they do, but they do not have a mandate. They were elected in 1910 on a five-year term and now their mandate has run out”.
This was a risky thing to do. What the noble Lord said about why it was done, from the Government’s point of view, is entirely correct, but it is not the underlying politics of Northern Ireland. I simply use this opportunity to say to the Minister that the next time the Government should be very careful about playing around with mandates, timing and duration. In the end, the parties that said, “Give us another year and we will give you a programme of government” delivered nothing.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, first, I am very pleased that the Government are allowing registered voters to be retained on the register for another year in Northern Ireland. Action taken to improve the accuracy and completeness of the register is always welcome. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, however, I regret the inconsistency of approach in respect of how voters are treated in England, Scotland and Wales and fully support his amendment.
It is in fact astonishing that we have had a system of IER in place in Northern Ireland since 2002 and that the Government felt it necessary on 2 November 2015 to put an order down for consideration in both Houses to allow a further year for voters to be retained. IER has been in force in Northern Ireland for only 13 years, yet this additional year of retaining voters until 1 December 2016 is deemed necessary. I recall the speech on 27 October 2015 from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who is in his place, telling us how IER had been in force since 2002, how well it was going, and that we needed to get on and complete the job in the rest of the United Kingdom.
In the rest of the United Kingdom we were some years behind: that is correct. However, the process was speeded up with the 2013 Act and then people in England, Scotland and Wales were given until 1 December 2016 to be verified under the new system, or they would be removed. But they have had a year taken away from them in order to complete the verification process, and they now have only until next Tuesday. Therefore an Act in place for two years and a year taken off the transitional period is contrasted with Northern Ireland, which has had IER in place since 2002 and is given an additional year. That does not seem very fair or consistent—it seems grossly unfair and completely inconsistent. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, will say that the canvass arrangements are different, but he cannot get away from the fact that in Northern Ireland these arrangements have been in place for 13 years. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and, on the Minister’s own Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, were full of enthusiasm for what had gone on there.
Paragraph 4.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Amendments to these provisions are required to extend this for one further year to ensure the electors who have not since confirmed their details remain registered for the Assembly elections in May 2016”.
I think that the elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Greater London Assembly, the Mayor of London, the mayor of Bristol, the police and crime commissioners in England and Wales, and thousands of councillors are just as important, and voters deserve the right to be treated in the same way. I do not recall a word being mentioned in the debate on 27 October in this noble House that Northern Ireland might need an extension of a further year. It would be very helpful to the House if the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, could take us through the process that led to this order being put down for consideration on 2 November 2015. Looking at the Explanatory Memorandum, I see that consultation has taken place with the Electoral Commission, the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, the Department of Justice and the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, who were also advised of an incidental impact of a criminal offence, in terms of change of official duties.
It is important for the House to understand whether all of that, along with the decision to grant the additional year, happened after 27 October when the additional year was removed from voters in England, Scotland and Wales, or whether the decision had already been taken before 27 October and the vote on the fatal Motion and the House was just not told about it. It was completely at odds with what the Government were seeking to do for England, Scotland and Wales, and it would have completely undermined the argument being put forward from the government Front Bench if the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, had made us aware of the proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, was in the House on 27 October and voted against both my amendment and the substantive Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. Was he aware at the time that this order was going to be put forward? It is very important for the House to be clear on the timelines and on how and when decisions were taken by the Government.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned some comments that I made. Actually I would have no difficulty if the proposal were to remove the 82,000, but the difference is that the people on the register in Northern Ireland are not ghosts. They had to have their national insurance numbers and so on verified at the time. So there is a significant difference in that these people clearly did and do exist. We have a continuous process of registration going on and other sources are found to verify their existence.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, said that the parties wanted the extension to 2015 for the election. Two parties did. My party did not, and neither did others; it was a decision between the DUP, Sinn Fein and the Government. When the people went to the polls in 2011, they thought that they were voting candidates in for four years. Although Scotland and Wales had been told that their Administrations would be there for five years, it did not apply in Northern Ireland. I regret that. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, made is also very valid.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Lord for that. I would say that the inconsistency here is staggering. IER has been in place in Northern Ireland since 2002, while we have had only two years in Great Britain. At the same time as we are giving an extra year to Northern Ireland, we are taking a year away from the rest of the United Kingdom. It is staggering.
Lord Dunlop
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Tyler, Lord Bew, Lord Kennedy and Lord Empey, for their contributions. The noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Kennedy, have reminded us of the recent debate over the end of transition to individual electoral registration in Great Britain, particularly regarding the concerns that they have over the impact on GB registers of removing the remaining carry-forward entries this December as opposed to in December 2016. However, what we are considering today are provisions for Northern Ireland alone, and I do not propose to rehearse the arguments and merits of what was determined in that case for Great Britain.
The fact is that the framework in place for ensuring the integrity of the Northern Ireland register is entirely different from that for Great Britain. In Great Britain, we are moving away from household registration and have decided not to carry forward entries that are not IER-registered by this December. We are acting to tackle concerns about ghost entries that the system of household registration gave rise to.
In Northern Ireland we have had individual registration for well over a decade. Every elector on the Northern Ireland register is individually registered. Because Northern Ireland does not have an annual canvass but instead checks entries through data streams, we can and do check the validity of non-respondents.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland have different systems for registration. We believe that there is merit in retaining these individuals on the Northern Ireland register, but that it is simply not appropriate in the case of Great Britain to retain non-IER-registered entries that have not been validity-checked and have not responded to the sustained programme of contact that GB councils have carried out. The chief electoral officer has made it clear that he has no reason to think that non-respondents retained on the Northern Ireland register are anything other than eligible voters. Given the framework of individual registration and data checking in place in Northern Ireland and the current expectation of voters and activists alike that non-respondents who have been validity-checked will remain on the register for the Assembly elections, I urge noble Lords to support this order and the range of provisions in it. I therefore commend this order to the House.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before the Minister sits down, I remind him that I put a number of points to him about when these decisions were taken—whether before or after 27 October—on what he knew when he was voting on 27 October and with regard to timelines. He has not addressed them at all in his response.
Lord Dunlop
I do not have that information, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, despite the advice of the Companion, on 27 October I was denied the opportunity to reply to the debate on my Motion or even to indicate whether I wished to withdraw the Motion or to test the opinion of the House. It seems to be my fate that this evening when I do not need it, I am getting that opportunity. As I shall explain, I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division.
If in Northern Ireland the process that has been described well by a number of colleagues is so much better and does not need an annual canvass, why do the Government not introduce those improvements instead of creating the entirely phoney spectre of ghost voters, as they did when they were dealing with England, Wales and Scotland? The Government have shown themselves to be adopting double standards on this issue. That does no credit to Ministers or indeed to the House or to the Government themselves.
This particular order is much more helpful than the one that we were addressing last month, and I support it. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure in anticipation of the receipt of a message from the House of Commons. In order to facilitate the resumption of the House, the annunciators will display a green strip giving an indication of the time of the resumption of the House.