House of Commons
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(8 years, 10 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, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
1. What estimate she has made of the number of homes that need to be brought up to the minimum band C energy efficiency standard by 2030.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
According to my Department’s latest fuel poverty statistics, less than 5% of fuel-poor households in England have a minimum energy efficiency standard of band C, leaving 2.2 million households below this standard. Bringing these households up to the minimum standard is a challenging ambition, but one we are determined to meet. That is why we have been clear that available support needs to be focused on those most in need. We will be reforming both the renewable heat incentive and the energy company obligation, to make sure that both schemes are sufficiently targeted towards the fuel poor and to tackle the root causes of fuel poverty.
Dr Huq
The Government recently spent £50 million of taxpayers’ money assisting a bunch of big businesses such as Sainsbury’s to change their lightbulbs. Meanwhile, they halved home insulation funding in the last Parliament, which was meant to help families out of fuel poverty. I will not ask how many Tories it takes to change a lightbulb, but does that not show whose side they are on?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Lady is in danger of misunderstanding demand-side reduction. Two pilots have been launched, and both have been effective in reducing the amount of energy used, which is one of our key targets in carbon emissions and energy security. That in no way interferes with our key objective of ensuring that we reduce fuel poverty at all levels.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to publish the statistics for Northamptonshire for the number of homes that do not meet that standard? One of the big issues we have in Northamptonshire is the very large number of new houses being built. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that all those new houses are required to meet that minimum standard?
Amber Rudd
I would be delighted to publish those statistics and will write to my hon. Friend with them. New-build houses are always built to a far higher standard than the existing build. The challenge of fuel poverty is almost eradicated for new builds, so I hope his constituents will be able to welcome affordable, warmer winters in future.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State managed to have any discussions with her Welsh Government counterparts about the wonderful Arbed scheme? Arbed in Welsh is to save. The scheme worked with 28 social landlords in its first phase, and worked with more than 5,000 homes on energy efficiency in its second phase. It is funded partly by European structural funds. It is a great example of energy efficiency and a great reason for Wales to stay within the European Union and the United Kingdom.
Amber Rudd
That is a very interesting proposal from the hon. Gentleman. I clearly should spend more time talking to my Welsh counterpart in order to learn from the good work that the Welsh Government are doing to address fuel poverty.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Energy Saving Trust has a useful website that directs people to the boiler grant scheme that we operate in Northern Ireland—a package of energy efficiency and heating measures is tailored to each household. Will the Minister consider that Northern Ireland example and consider providing something similar on the mainland UK?
Amber Rudd
I am aware of the interesting boiler scheme that is being run in Northern Ireland. I welcome such initiatives to address the difficulty of fuel poverty and of reducing heat and carbon emissions. The Mayor of London has launched a similar scheme. We will look carefully at how that works to see whether we can adopt it in the United Kingdom.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
2. What progress she has made on ensuring that local authorities decide all onshore wind applications.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
My hon. Friend has worked incredibly hard to support local communities in having their say on the siting of wind farms. The Department for Communities and Local Government updated planning guidance alongside its written ministerial statement on 18 June 2015, giving local authorities the final say. Now that the Energy Bill has completed its Committee stage, with my hon. Friend’s support, I can tell him that we are making excellent progress on delivering the Government’s manifesto commitment.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the Minister for that answer. Like me, she will know that the Conservative manifesto contained two pledges on onshore wind: one to remove subsidies and the other to change planning guidance. Given the growing concern about amplitude modulation coming from onshore wind turbines, when will planning guidance on that be given to local authorities?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend has personally done some excellent work researching this serious issue, and my Department has commissioned an independent review that includes many of the issues he has raised. We expect to receive the final report of the review shortly, and the Government will then consider how to take forward their recommendations, including on whether a planning condition might be appropriate.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister must be aware that applications for onshore wind power should be based on merit. Given what has happened over the past five years, is there not a real danger that the barmy army of nimbys on the Benches behind her will ensure, working with their local councils, that no good proposal goes through?
Andrea Leadsom
I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to some of my excellent hon. Friends, who are superb constituency MPs. We will have to agree to disagree. I am sure he would agree, however, that the role of an MP is to represent the interests of their constituency as they see them. We have now struck the right balance between the country’s need for superb renewables—it is now a very successful sector—and the need of local communities to have their wishes and their environment taken into account.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Prior to the Energy Act 2013, Scottish Ministers had full control over the renewables obligation. That power was removed on the clear understanding and promise that there would be no policy implications. Why was that promise broken, and will the Minister commit to backing the Scottish National party’s calls for that power to be returned to Holyrood as part of the Energy Bill?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is aware that the reason we are closing the subsidy for onshore wind a year early is in great part to avoid the additional costs to the bill payer of extra deployment beyond our calculations of what could be expected. This is about trying to keep consumers’ bills down. We have had a number of debates about fuel poverty, and striking that balance is absolutely vital. It is in the interests of the whole of UK that we do not keep burdening bill payers with more costs.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
What discussions has the Minister had with her colleagues in the devolved Administrations to ensure that wind applications made in those jurisdictions are able to be processed effectively?
Andrea Leadsom
As the hon. Lady will know, we have frequent conversations with Ministers in the devolved Parliaments and we try to ensure that they are included in all the discussions, as they certainly have been with those on onshore wind. As she will know, planning at all levels is being devolved to local planning authorities, and it will then be for the Scottish Parliament to decide exactly what the appropriate planning process should be for onshore wind in Scotland.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Can we have some consistency from the Minister? Why does she support the imposition of fracking on communities against their will? Why can she not extend the same courtesy to those communities that she has extended to those affected by wind farms?
Andrea Leadsom
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, onshore wind has already been deployed to a great extent. As I have just said, it is already at the level of deployment we expected to see by 2020, so it is right that local communities’ views should be taken into account. With hydraulic fracturing, however, absolutely no shale gas extraction is taking place anywhere in the UK at the moment. There are no wells, and there is not even any exploration, yet it is vital to the UK’s energy interests that we explore this home-grown energy, which could be vital for jobs, growth and of course energy security.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
3. What changes she plans to make to the structure of capacity market auctions before the next auction round.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
Security of supply is my No. 1 priority. The capacity market was put in place to ensure sufficient security of electricity supply. It supports existing technically reliable plants to remain in the market and, as coal and other ageing plants retire, it will enable new plants to be financed and built, securing our energy supplies for the future. Following the capacity market auction conducted at the end of last year, I have been considering whether any changes are needed, and I hope to be able to announce my conclusions shortly and to undertake any consultation quickly if we decide that any regulatory changes are needed.
Kate Hollern
Is the Secretary of State concerned that the latest capacity market option is having the unintended consequence of undermining capacity, as unfavoured power stations are mothballed or closed? Can the Government be certain that they can maintain security of electricity supply while reducing investment in the solar industry?
Amber Rudd
I do not share the hon. Lady’s views. The whole purpose of the capacity market is to guarantee security three or four years out and that is exactly what we are delivering. As I said earlier, however, having had two capacity auctions so far, we will be reviewing how we can improve so that the third delivers even more certain security going forward.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I am pleased to hear that the Secretary of State is willing to look again at the way the capacity market works to encourage cleaner forms of energy rather than a reliance on fuels such as diesel, which, sadly, was a large beneficiary of the latest round. Will she give us a timescale for when the new proposals will come forward?
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, which gives me the opportunity to point out that diesel was in fact 1.5% of the capacity market—a very small amount. However, it is absolutely essential to make sure that we have no risk at all to security, which is why diesel was included at that stage. I cannot give him an exact timeline, but I can say we are working on it intently at the moment and will be coming forward with proposals shortly.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Lady look to make changes to the capacity market, so that battery energy storage can compete and provide an alternative to thermal generation? Will she also look at final consumption levies that are affecting battery storage, because battery storage is not, of course, final consumption? It is just storage.
Amber Rudd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and share his enthusiasm for storage. We are at the moment working with Ofgem to address how we can best encourage it within a secure regulatory environment. I cannot at this point say whether it will be within the capacity market, but that is certainly one of the considerations we will be looking at.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
It is with sadness that I stand here without Harry Harpham in his familiar place. He was my Parliamentary Private Secretary and a much-loved and valued member of the shadow Energy team. Owing to his background, Harry never let us forget that energy is about people. Last month, he told the Yorkshire Post that he would be the last deep coalminer elected to this place. Our promise to Harry is to ensure that the voice of working people remains at the heart of the energy debate. I will miss him enormously. We will never, ever forget him.
The capacity market was supposed to bring forward new investment in gas power stations and ensure that we have enough back-up power stations in case of a power crunch. We know that it has failed on the first count. Now, one of the companies contracted to provide back-up capacity, SSE, has pulled the Fiddlers Ferry power station out of the scheme, throwing the Government’s entire policy into doubt. Will the Secretary of State give the House a guarantee that no other power stations will pull out?
Amber Rudd
Before I answer that question, I join the hon. Lady in sharing our condolences from the Conservative Benches on the sad loss of Harry, her friend and able Labour Member of Parliament.
On the capacity market, I reassure the hon. Lady that we are looking at it again to ensure that it delivers the mix of sources. As far as losing old power stations is concerned, she is as aware as I am that these are very old power stations and that it is not surprising that some of them are closing. In our plans for capacity and in our discussions to ensure security, we always plan for a certain amount of closures. We do not feel it is a threat to security of supply, but we take nothing for granted and will never be complacent. We will always make sure we have a secure supply.
Lisa Nandy
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Unfortunately, it is not the answer to the question I asked her. No new gas stations have come on stream since the Prime Minister took office. The final investment decision on Hinkley has been delayed yet again. Analysts said recently that renewables investment is about to fall off a cliff. I ask the Secretary of State again: can she confirm that no other power stations will pull out of this scheme?
Amber Rudd
I simply do not recognise the picture the hon. Lady portrays. It is, of course, a bit rich for Labour to point that out when it has absolutely no record of planning for the future. We are the Government who are delivering the first nuclear power station. We are the Government who are taking the difficult choices for the next 10 to 15 years. I remind the hon. Lady that the Carrington closed cycle is going to start this year.
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman says one. That is, of course, more than the zero to which his hon. Friend referred. This is exactly why we will be looking at the capacity market again, to ensure it delivers new gas.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
4. What plans she has to support the development of electricity storage.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
Energy storage was identified in 2012 as one of the eight great technologies where the UK can lead the world, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am a very keen supporter. More than £80 million of public sector support has been committed to UK energy storage research and development since 2012. We now are looking at what more we can do to improve the incentives for electricity storage in particular. We will be publishing a call for evidence soon. I do hope he will put his thoughts into that call for evidence.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the Minister for her answer, but may I be a bit more specific? As a spin-off from developing battery-driven cars, domestic battery storage is now becoming practicable and commercially viable, and indeed in America it is now taking off. What are the Government specifically doing to promote the adoption of domestic battery storage in homes?
Andrea Leadsom
As I say, we will shortly issue a call for evidence on energy storage at grid level—at battery generation level—to try to ensure that we give as much scope and capacity to energy storage in the system. At domestic level, people are starting to look at those systems and, as part of the improvement of house-building performance, builders are required to look at other opportunities such as battery storage, solar panels and the like. There will be more work on that, but, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is still at a fairly early stage as things stand.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
The energy storage industry sees 2016 as a breakthrough year, with many emerging technologies coming into the mainstream. Will the Minister concede that current subsidy cuts to renewables are lacking the foresight needed if we are to promote a genuinely green future in this truly innovative industry?
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly would not. Since 2010, £52 billion has been invested in renewables. The pipeline is still enormous. There are lots of new projects that will be coming to the fore over the next five to 10 years. It is simply not true to say that support for renewables is in any sense dropping off a cliff. The advantage of energy storage will be to deal with the intermittency of renewables, so it should be a win-win for the UK.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
5. When her Department plans to publish proposals on delivering a subsidy-free contract for difference mechanism for onshore wind.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
Our priorities are to decarbonise at the lowest price while always ensuring our energy security. That is why we have taken steps to end new subsidies for onshore wind. It was interesting, after my right hon. Friend’s announcement, to hear companies almost immediately seeking a subsidy-free contract for difference, which suggests that our analysis that this industry can stand on its own two feet was correct. We are calling it a market-stabilising CfD and we are listening carefully to industry on how it can be delivered.
Brendan O'Hara
The early closure of the renewables obligation has severely damaged investor confidence in onshore wind, which is a vital part of the fragile economy of my Argyll and Bute constituency. The Government desperately need to restore that confidence quickly. The Minister could make a start today by announcing a date for the introduction of subsidy-free CfD. Why will she not get on and do exactly that?
Andrea Leadsom
As I said to the hon. Gentleman, we are looking at it. It is not something that we would introduce just on the back of a fag packet; it requires careful consultation and consideration. He will appreciate, alongside all the other priorities, that a subsidy-free CfD is not cost-free or risk-free to the bill consumer, and we are absolutely determined to ensure that we keep the costs down for consumers in his constituency as well as right across the UK.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recognise, when she comes to introduce a subsidy-free contract for difference, that it will be subsidy free only if the price reflects the value of the electricity, and the value of the electricity depends on the time that it is produced, where it is produced and how reliably it is produced? Therefore, variable renewable electricity is worth much less than regular supplies from ordinary power stations.
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend points out exactly correctly that there are limitations to intermittent renewables technologies, and that there are costs associated with ensuring energy security when we become over-reliant on renewables. That is an absolute case in point. On the subsidy-free CfD, he is also right that we must take into account all the various costs. We are looking at the matter very closely. I am not making any promises here, but, alongside other subsidies and other CfDs, we are looking carefully at the proposition.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
May I follow the previous comments by suggesting that we introduce subsidy-free CfDs as quickly as possible? The most important thing that was needed in relation to onshore wind was to make sure that local communities did not have it imposed on them. The Government have rightly done that. What can the Minister do to ensure that where communities do want it, we get as much onshore wind as we can at the lowest possible price?
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree. The important thing was to give local communities the final say. I agree also that where local communities want more onshore wind, that should be supported. Nevertheless, as I said, even what we are calling a market-stabilising CfD would not be without risk or cost to the consumer, and our priority is to keep bills down for all energy consumers.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
6. What steps she is taking to support small-scale solar energy production.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
The solar industry is an amazing UK success story, with 99% of all solar panel installations taking place since 2010. We are determined to keep supporting this great industry, but we are also mindful of the need to keep costs down for consumers, so with our feed-in tariff review we have tried to find the right balance between the needs of the bill payer and those of industry. We project that the revised FIT scheme could support up to 220,000 brand new solar installations between now and 2019.
Alex Chalk
A reduction in the solar feed-in tariff was probably inevitable given the falling commodity prices, but many of us want to see a thriving solar industry in the UK. Although it is early days, what assessment has been made of the impact of the 63.5% reduction on jobs and prosperity in the UK solar industry?
Andrea Leadsom
I know that my hon. Friend has big constituency interests in the success of this industry. I can reassure him that our tariff reset was built on a huge data set submitted by industry and, in terms of domestic rates of return, nearly 5% will still be offered for well-sited projects. After our announcement, the Solar Trade Association said:
“The new tariff levels are challenging, but solar power will still remain a great investment for forward-thinking home owners”.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
14. The Scottish Government have led the way, setting ambitious building standards for every new build home, the Glasgow Commonwealth village being a prime example. Does the Minister agree that our goal should be for every suitable home to be equipped with solar PV?
Andrea Leadsom
I agree with the hon. Gentleman up to a point. What is essential for the UK right now is that new homes get built. That is our absolute priority; people are in desperate need of more homes being built. I can assure him that since April 2014 builders have had to consider the use of renewables in all their designs, and I am pleased that during the previous Parliament the energy standard for new buildings was improved by 30%.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
7. What representations she has received from her international counterparts on the proposed closure of the UK’s coal-fired power stations by 2025.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, the UK owes a great debt to the coal industry for all it has done to keep the lights on and keep our economy moving. Both I and officials in my Department regularly discuss a range of energy and climate change issues with our international counterparts, and it is clear from these conversations that the UK remains respected internationally for our ability to reduce emissions while at the same time growing our economy.
David Mowat
The Secretary of State will be aware that the day after the UK announced the closure programme, Germany commissioned a brand-new lignite building unabated coal power station as yet another addition to its coal fleet. In Belgium, Holland and Spain, coal use increased in 2014. Much of that electricity will be imported to this country through interconnectors, yet in my constituency the closure of Fiddlers Ferry was announced last week. Many of the workers there ask me how these various factors can be part of a coherent European energy policy. What should I tell them?
Amber Rudd
I start by expressing my sympathies for all those workers in my hon. Friend’s constituency who have been impacted by the recent announcement of the closure of Fiddlers Ferry, as well as of Ferrybridge. On different countries in the EU making different choices about how to deliver their renewables targets, it is up to them to address how they reduce their emissions. Germany, for instance, is also having an enormous amount of solar. It has 52 GW of solar at an eye-watering cost of €10.5 billion.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The question is how we phase out coal use. Will the Secretary of State be taking new legislative measures to deliver on the Government’s commitment?
Amber Rudd
On coal—I think that was the subject of the hon. Gentleman’s question—we will be consulting and looking at the different methods we might or might not need. Those may be regulatory, or they may be legislative, but we have an open mind about how we achieve these things. That consultation will begin shortly.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
12. My right hon. Friend will know about the recent announcement of the closure of Rugeley power station, which is half in my constituency and half in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling). The station was sited there in the first place because of a coalmine, which, like many others throughout western Europe, is long gone. However, the closure may mean that up to 150 people are made redundant, although ENGIE says it will try to redeploy them elsewhere. Will my right hon. Friend commit to speak to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about actively playing a role in making sure that those people can be re-employed somewhere else?
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and we have, of course, spoken already this week about this matter. I have also spoken to his neighbour, whose constituency covers half the Rugeley power plant area. I will, of course, actively engage with my hon. Friend and his colleague to make sure that we do what we can for the people who have lost their jobs.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
Given that the timetable for the closure of coalmines is linked to the construction and bringing online of new nuclear power, and given that the board of EDF—a cash-strapped company that is dripping with debt—has this month yet again postponed giving a green light to the construction of Hinkley C, will the Minister commit to meeting EDF’s board and reporting back urgently to the House as to what the project’s status actually is?
Amber Rudd
I would dispute with the hon. Gentleman the direct connection he has made. The closure of coal will be part of a consultation, but it is influenced by many different things, including the age of the fleet, the wholesale price that is being delivered and other matters. On his question about EDF, may I reassure him that I have regular conversations with the board and the chief executive? I am confident that we will have good news soon.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The Secretary of State, in her energy reset speech, said that taking “coal off the system” by 2025 will
“only proceed if we’re confident that the shift to new gas can be achieved within these timescales.”
Bearing in mind that no new large gas-fired power station has commenced building in the past six years, and that the last two capacity auctions have underwritten the building of only one power station, which will probably not be built, what plans does she have to procure the building of new gas-fired power stations to ensure that her pledge is actually met?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the plan is to move from coal to gas so that we can reduce our emissions and have secure investment going forward. I am delighted to say that the Carrington closed cycle gas turbine will commission next year, and we have 12 additional CCGTs commissioned. I have also stated that we will have the capacity market adapted to make sure that we can deliver gas. It is going to be an essential part of the low-carbon mix, and it is this Government who are making the plans and securing energy sources for the future.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
8. If she will create one national electricity distribution market.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
The Government do not intend to introduce national electricity distribution pricing as this would weaken each network company’s local accountability to its customers and risk an overall increase in network costs across Great Britain. We are currently consulting, however, on the level of protection provided to consumers in the north of Scotland, which amounts to an average of £41 per household this year.
Ian Blackford
I thank the Minister for that answer, but may I point out what she said just before Christmas:
“It is not right that people face higher electricity costs just because of where they live”?
I agree with her. Why does she not now take action to introduce fairness into the electricity market? Why are people in the highlands and islands paying 2p per kWh more than people elsewhere? Why are people in my constituency being discriminated against? Do the right thing and create a national market.
Andrea Leadsom
As I have said to the hon. Gentleman —we have had this discussion a number of times—I sympathise with his point, but he needs to appreciate that a national charge would mean lower charges in some areas and increases in others. Specifically in Scotland, 1.8 million households would face higher bills while 700,000 would see reductions. This is a very serious problem; he cannot just wave a magic wand and have us change it.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
9. What steps the Government are taking to increase the contribution made to meeting targets on energy efficiency and on the use of low-carbon energy by residential buildings; and if she will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
Our new domestic supplier obligation will provide support to over 200,000 homes per year from 2017 for a period of five years by improving energy efficiency, tackling fuel poverty, and continuing to deliver on our commitment to insulate 1 million more homes during this Parliament.
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. We will engage with the industry in order to reform these grants—the renewable heat incentive and ECO, the energy company obligation. The Sustainable Energy Association is one of the stakeholders we will work with to make sure that our reformed system delivers even better value for the people who are really in need.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
We know there is a link between cold homes and excess winter deaths. Last winter, 43,000 people died completely unnecessarily as a result of the cold. What work is the Secretary of State doing with colleagues at the Department of Health to reduce excess winter deaths, specifically by ensuring that households meet minimum energy efficiency standards?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point this out. Any excess winter deaths are too many, and we work very hard across Departments to make sure that we do what we can to help people who are in the poorest homes. We do work with the Department of Health, but also with the Department for Communities and Local Government. There is more we can do through regulation to address cold homes and some of the energy efficiency measures that I would like to put in place in existing homes.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Yesterday the Park Homes Owners Justice Campaign was here launching its new PARK-LINE helpline and talking to Age Concern about its warm homes campaign. It then delivered a petition to the Secretary of State. Can she confirm that she has it and will give it active and proper consideration?
Amber Rudd
I did receive the petition yesterday. We have already taken steps to help people in park homes by ensuring that they are eligible for the warm home discount of £140 and can apply for ECO where appropriate. However, I am always looking for opportunities to be more helpful and to give more support for people in need, so I will look carefully at the petition.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Data Communications Company is an integral part of the roll-out of the Government’s smart meter programme, but it is now nine months behind schedule, and the delay is narrowing the window for the installation of SMETS 2 meters, with the risk that any additional cost might be borne by consumers. At the very minimum, can we have an updated impact assessment to reflect these delays and ensure that we are getting value for money for customers?
Amber Rudd
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are making good progress on smart meters. My colleagues and I have regular meetings with the energy companies about progress, and some of them are even ahead of schedule. However, we will continue to monitor the situation and continue to ensure that customers get the best value from smart meters, because this is an incredibly important infrastructure project that will help to reduce bills.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
10. What steps she is taking to safeguard protected areas from shale gas development.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
Shale gas could become a very valuable new industry, and it is in the strong interests of the UK to explore its potential. However, we are determined to protect our most valuable spaces and have consulted on banning surface-level drilling in the most precious areas. We have also regulated to set the minimum depth of hydraulic fracturing under sensitive areas.
Graham Evans
Last month, I held a second successful fact-finding fracking meeting at Helsby high school, ably assisted by the Environment Agency, Public Health England, and the Health and Safety Executive. Over 400 constituents from Frodsham and Helsby left better informed. What steps is the Minister taking to encourage regulatory bodies to engage further in such public meetings?
Andrea Leadsom
I am impressed by my hon. Friend’s managing three F-words in one parliamentary question. It is vital for local communities to have access to the facts about fracking and our stringent regulations, and I congratulate him on organising those important events. We are working with the regulators to make sure that they have every opportunity and encouragement from the Department to engage with the public. The Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, the Oil and Gas Authority and Public Health England regularly attend public meetings such as the one he mentioned, and they will continue to do so.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
An application was made to start drilling at a little place called Calow in the Bolsover area. Most of the villagers were against the application, and it was turned down by the local planning committee. It then went to the Government inspector, because Cuadrilla wanted to appeal, and the Government inspector turned it down. Now I am told that it is possible that the Government are quite capable of overruling the decision of their own inspector and allowing fracking. Is that correct?
Andrea Leadsom
First, may I wish the hon. Gentleman a very happy birthday? I am sure that all Members would want me to do so.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is a real challenge to, but a role model for, the House in the work that he does. I genuinely congratulate him and wish him a very happy birthday. In terms of the appeal, he has set out exactly what is supposed to happen. Local communities have their say and feed into the process. Developers can appeal, of course—it is right that they should be able to—and the inspector can turn it down. There is an appeal process. I am not sure about the specifics of the case he mentions, but the point is that democracy is done, and is seen to be done. That is very important.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
11. What discussions she has had with her Cabinet colleagues on limiting climate change to prevent greater future expenditure on adaptation.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
I am clear that the only way to address climate change effectively is through global action, building on the global agreement that the UK was instrumental in achieving in Paris in December. All countries need to act if we are to bring down emissions and minimise adaptation costs in the future. I want the UK to continue to set an example by addressing the 1.2% of global emissions that we are responsible for, while at the same time continuing to grow our economy.
Cat Smith
The Government’s advisers have warned them that if global temperature rises are not limited, there will be a big increase in flooding in the UK. The effects of flooding were felt acutely in the Lancaster district during Storm Desmond, when our substation was flooded and we lost the electricity supply for three days, affecting tens of thousands of homes and businesses. Will the Secretary of State commit to upgrading our adaptation plans, including our flood defence budgets, especially those for defending our electricity supplies?
Amber Rudd
I am aware of the impact of flooding in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and I remember her speaking during the debate that we had on the subject with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The best way to address dangerous climate change and its potential impact on extreme weather events is to get a global deal, which is why we have been so focused on trying to do so. I reassure her that I will work closely with my colleagues in DEFRA to ensure that we have a national adaptation programme in place.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
One thing that we have to do in the UK to meet our obligations under that international deal is to reduce further our emissions from buildings. When people buy a more efficient car, they pay less tax than they would on a less efficient model. Should not the same apply to the taxation of buildings?
Amber Rudd
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that addressing buildings is an incredibly important part of trying to meet the renewable energy targets that we have set for 2020 through the EU. I am working closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government to see what action we can take to address that, but buildings are an important part of the mix.
Mr Speaker
I would be reassured to know that the Secretary of State does not literally address buildings.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Surely one of the most important things that the Secretary of State can do to limit climate change is publicly to state how she will meet the shortfall in our legally binding renewable targets for 2020. She knows that beyond 2017, her Department projects a 25% shortfall across the heating, electricity and transport sectors. The Eurostat data released yesterday show the UK to be missing its target by the widest margin of any European country. What assessment has she made of the potential fines the UK may face as a result of that failure?
Amber Rudd
I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s catastrophic view of the progress that we have made. We already have nearly 25% of our electricity coming from renewables, and we believe that we may well exceed our target of 30% by 2020. In terms of the overall renewable target, I hope he will welcome, as I do, the fact that we have already exceeded our interim target, which was 5.4%; we are now at 6.3%. However, we are aware that we need to make more progress, and we have set out clearly what we will do during this Parliament to address the shortfall.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
13. What steps her Department is taking to ensure the long-term future of the offshore wind industry.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
My hon. Friend will be aware that I announced last November that, in addition to the 10 GW I expect to be installed by 2020, the UK could support up to 10 GW of new offshore wind in the 2020s, subject to costs coming down. The next contract for difference round will take place by the end of this year, and I will set out further information in due course so that potential bidders can start planning their bids.
Oliver Colvile
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Offshore wind is an important part of renewable energy policy but so, for that matter, is marine energy. What progress have the Government made on the marine energy park to be situated down in the south-west?
Amber Rudd
I am aware of the good work that my hon. Friend has done this year and the progress he has made, and that Plymouth’s world-leading expertise is at the heart of the south-west marine energy park. Last year, I was delighted to host, with him, a conference in Plymouth to take forward marine energy planning. I can reassure him that we will continue to work with him to ensure that Plymouth stands at the front of any marine energy park.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The development of Hornsea Project One by DONG Energy will be funded by UK taxpayers and UK energy bill payers. How will the Government use their new procurement guidelines to ensure that UK content, such as UK steel, is used in that development?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this matter. May I reassure him that we are having regular meetings with DONG and with the MPs involved to ensure that the UK content is as high as possible, within the procurement rules?
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
15. What steps her Department is taking to ensure that changes in gas prices are passed on to consumers.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
16. What steps she is taking to ensure that reductions in the wholesale price of energy are passed on to consumers.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
As the hon. Gentlemen may be aware, average domestic gas prices fell by £37 during 2015. Six major suppliers have announced a further cut in their tariffs; two more have announced that this morning. It is a good start, but the Government expect all suppliers to pass on reductions in the costs of supplying energy to consumers. I have met all the major energy suppliers in recent months to make that point clear.
Jim McMahon
Will the Secretary of State join me in celebrating the work of our local councils in assisting people to save energy? Oldham Council’s collective buying scheme has attracted 8,700 households to sign up to it, each of which will save about £170. In Nottingham, the first local authority energy company, which employs 30 staff, is hoping to sign up 10,000 households.
Amber Rudd
I will join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating his council on doing that. Some individual councils are doing exceptionally good work on group switching and are trying to help their constituents. I visited Nottingham last year to see the good work that has been done there. I hope that more councils will follow that lead.
Martyn Day
Does the Secretary of State think that the Competition and Markets Authority should, as part of its investigation into the energy market, introduce measures to make switching suppliers easier, as the consumer group Which? has called for?
Amber Rudd
Like the hon. Gentleman, I am impatient to receive the comments of the Competition and Markets Authority. It was predominately to address the difficulties with switching and the difficulties that some consumers find in engaging with the energy market that the Prime Minister referred the energy market, via Ofgem, to the authority. I certainly hope that it comes forward with such suggestions.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
Just over a year ago, the Government announced an investigation into whether families should pay less for their energy because of the fall in the wholesale price of gas. The Chancellor told The Telegraph:
“Falling oil and gas prices should bring cheaper household bills”.
A spokesman added that the Government were conducting a series of studies of utility companies to examine whether action was needed. The investigation was backed by the Prime Minister, the then Energy and Climate Change Secretary and the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It was reported that Ministers would be watching the energy companies “like a hawk”. What happened to that study, and what action was taken?
Amber Rudd
I can reassure the hon. Lady that we continue to watch the energy companies like a hawk. I am pleased that we continue to see reductions, with two more being announced just this morning, and I hope she will join me in welcoming them. The great news for consumers is that they are not faced with the price freeze that I cannot forget Labour promised last year. If that had happened, none of these reductions would have taken place.
Mr Speaker
Progress has been rather slow today, on account of some quite long questions and some long answers, but I do not like Back-Bench Members who are waiting patiently to lose out. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne will not lose out. I call Angela Rayner.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
17. Whether the Secretary of State has had discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on proposals to increase VAT on solar panels.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
A recent European Court of Justice ruling found that the reduced rate of VAT on certain “energy saving materials” was in breach of EU law. As a result, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs recently consulted on changes to the rate of VAT and is considering the responses. If the rate of VAT does change, we will consider the options for how to maintain a suitable rate of return for investors under the feed-in tariff.
Angela Rayner
May I, along with the Minister, wish my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) a happy birthday? I am so pleased that he is still winning. He is fantastic.
Following on from the question from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), the proposed hike in VAT would raise the typical cost of a 4 kW residential solar PV system by nearly £1,000, even though industry experts advise us to retain the lower tax rate for solar under the recent ECJ judgment. The Government are keeping the lower rate for heat pumps, biomass boilers and combined heat and power units. The same should surely apply to solar PV thermal; otherwise we will have the perverse situation in which electricity generated from fossil fuels is taxed at 5% VAT, while homeowners have to pay 20% VAT for their own renewable energy. Can the Minister not persuade the Chancellor to reverse this tax hike and, if she cannot, will she make commensurate increases?
Andrea Leadsom
I want to be clear with the hon. Lady that this is not the Chancellor’s choice. As I have made very clear, this is an EU Court ruling; it is not our choice. In the event that we have to impose an increase in VAT, we will look at the returns to investors under the feed-in tariff.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
Since the last Question Time, there has been a dramatic fall in the oil price. The Government are clear that the broad shoulders of the UK are 100% behind our oil and gas industry, the hard-working people it employs and the families it supports. The Government have set up the Oil and Gas Authority to drive collaboration and productivity in the industry. We recently set out an action plan to back the export of our world-class skills in oil and gas, and to diversify the economy of the north-east of Scotland, including through investment in exploration, innovation and skills.
Nusrat Ghani
Will the Secretary of State outline what progress is being made to secure vital infrastructure investment in the energy sector? Are not thinking for the long term and investing in infrastructure the best way to get secure, low-cost electricity for my constituents in Wealden? Before I forget, I wish the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) a happy birthday.
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are tackling the legacy of under-investment, the failure to deliver the next generation of energy projects and the energy security black hole that were left by the last Labour Government. We are getting on with the job of building a system of energy infrastructure fit for the 21st century. We have made substantial progress in securing infrastructure investment. The UK has enjoyed record levels in the deployment of renewables over recent years and it maintains a healthy energy investment pipeline, as is shown in our national infrastructure plan.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
Last week, a Bloomberg report showed that the UK is the biggest beneficiary of European Investment Bank funding for clean energy projects and we are the third largest recipient of the new European fund for strategic investments, which is being spent mostly on energy. Some 70,000 jobs are expected to be created as a result. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is further evidence that Britain should stay in the European Union?
Amber Rudd
There are, of course, tremendous benefits from a united energy market, and I am interested and excited to work on the progress of the energy union.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
T4. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that energy companies automatically switch their customers to the cheapest tariff possible, because many constituents find the current system confusing and somewhat disappointing?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend puts his finger on a sensitive and tricky issue about delivering the best for consumers, which is what the Government want to achieve, while also encouraging competition. I ask him to wait for the Competition and Markets Authority report, which I hope will address the issue, and then I believe we will make some progress.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
At Prime Minister’s questions on 27 January, the Prime Minister said about oil and gas:
“I am determined that we build a bridge to the future for all those involved”—[Official Report, 27 January 2016; Vol. 605, c. 260.]
Following his visit to Aberdeen, it is clear that that bridge will be built on the cheap. Industry needs meaningful support in the forthcoming Budget, so can we have less talk about the broad shoulders of the UK, and will the Secretary of State put her back into delivering the change we need?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman is being a little churlish about the significant investment that the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom are putting into the north-east, particularly to ensure that jobs and skills are secured. I am working across Departments, and chairing a ministerial group, to ensure that those skills are preserved, and I will be working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that we have a taskforce to take that forward. I hope he will also welcome the £250 million put into Aberdeen for its city deal, but there is a lot of progress to be made and a lot more to take forward.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
T6. Will the Secretary of State consider how the current system model, including the National Infrastructure Commission, National Grid and Ofgem, could be reformed to make it a more flexible and independent part of an energy infrastructure that is fit for the 21st century?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in this sector, and he will be aware, as I am, that National Grid as system operator has played a pivotal role in keeping the energy market working. As our system changes, we must ensure that it is as productive, secure and cost-effective as possible. There is a strong case for greater independence for the system operator, to allow it to make the necessary changes, and we will work alongside the National Infrastructure Commission to consider how best to reform the current model.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
T2. As Valentine’s day approaches, will the Secretary of State support the climate coalition “Show the love” campaign and encourage all Members to wear the green hearts that we have been sent, which symbolise how so much of what we love, wherever we are in the world, is affected by climate change?
Amber Rudd
That is a very interesting approach, and it is always good to welcome Valentine’s day. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could give one of those hearts to the birthday boy who is sitting in front of him.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
T7. Dozens of my constituents are employed in the solar power industry, and I meet them regularly. May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) in asking the ministerial team to continue to assess and analyse what effect the changes to solar subsidies are having on microbusinesses and small and medium-sized businesses that are engaged in the solar industry?
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
As my hon. Friend knows, the solar industry is a great UK success story, and we are set to exceed massively our targets for solar power, achieving almost 13 GW of solar energy capacity forecast for 2020. With our revised tariff we expect up to 220,000 brand-new solar installations between now and 2019, which will give a rate of return of nearly 5% to well-sited installations.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
T3. Pinsent Masons recently published a report on the prospects for the oil and gas sector in 2016, which highlighted that 67% of oil and gas executives see the UK as a prime opportunity for growth over the next three years, under the right fiscal environment. What fiscal support is being considered for the oil and gas industry ahead of the Budget?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that fiscal changes are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I reassure him that we take seriously the support that we want to give to the UK continental shelf and all the jobs around it. I chair the cross-ministerial group, which also includes a member from the Treasury.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The new Anglia local enterprise partnership’s oil and gas taskforce has developed a package of measures to support businesses and workers at this difficult time. Will the Secretary of State consider a proposal from the LEP for the Government to match the local funding that it is providing?
Amber Rudd
I hesitate to agree to any financial commitments in this Chamber, but I am always interested in looking at proposals from my hon. Friend.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
T5. What progress is the Secretary of State making on getting state aid consent for the strike price for island communities in offshore wind projects? When does she expect to go out to consultation on what that strike price should be?
Andrea Leadsom
We absolutely appreciate that industry, across all technologies, needs clarity on Government policies in future allocation rounds so that it can manage its investment decisions, and we aim to support that. We are currently working with Her Majesty’s Treasury to finalise the budget for future auctions, and we will set out more information as soon as we can.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her robust and informative response to my Adjournment debate about the Humber estuary on Tuesday evening. May I draw her attention to a statement issued to the local media by DONG Energy? The statement is wet, woolly and non-committal. Will she reaffirm her determination to be involved in the future developments in northern Lincolnshire?
Andrea Leadsom
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his excellent support for his area. I was delighted to respond to him in the Adjournment debate, and I can absolutely assure him that there will be no wriggle room; in order for the UK to benefit properly from our decision to support new offshore wind, we will require UK content and the UK supply chain be a key beneficiary of it.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
T8. What plans does the Secretary of State have to allow large-scale solar generators to apply for a contract under the contract for difference mechanism?
Amber Rudd
We do not have plans at the moment for a large-scale solar contract. What we have found is that the large-scale ground mounted solar industry has confirmed to us that it does not need any subsidy and that because costs have fallen to such a great degree, it can continue, subject to planning permission, to develop and to supply electricity without a formal contract. That is surely in the better interests of the taxpayer and the bill payer, if it can be achieved.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Given that Cheshire has a centre of excellence in relation to the nuclear industry, what steps are the Government taking to ensure funding for new nuclear centres in the universities in the north of England?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend may be aware that in the recent spending review one area where we did get an increase was in innovation. Specifically, we have allocated half of the new increase for small modular reactors. We are working on delivery in that area with universities and with Innovate UK and we will continue to do so.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
T9. The Select Committee has found that scrapping the Government’s support for carbon capture and storage technology puts at risk the UK’s international commitments on tackling climate change and makes it more expensive to do this. We have also lost out on about £250 million-worth of EU investment. Can the Minister just explain to me how this makes sense?
Andrea Leadsom
Our view is that CCS has a potentially important role to play in long-term decarbonisation. We continue to invest in the development of CCS; we are investing more than £130 million to develop the technology through innovation support. My Department is looking at what our new policy is to develop this important technology.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
T10. Electrical network losses from theft and so-called “copper losses” are estimated by the Department to cost consumers in excess of £3 billion annually. What recent analysis has the Department undertaken on the potential contribution of power line carrier technology to address this issue?
Andrea Leadsom
This area interests me a great deal. Obviously, it is a complete disaster if pipeline tapping—in effect, stealing—takes product away from consumers which then has to be paid for. This is a vital area and I am looking at it. I am not familiar with the proposal the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but if he would like to write to me about it, I would be happy to take a look at it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Historically, all mining has been prohibited under the city of York. City of York Council passed a motion to say that no licences should be given for fracking, yet a licence has been given. What guarantee will the Minister give that the local voice now will determine what happens?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me a chance to explain that the licence is not a licence to frack—that sounds a bit Bond-like; it is simply a licence to be able to consider the seismic opportunity of the shale gas that is potentially underneath. It is absolutely not a guarantee that anything will happen at all. There is then a whole planning process to go through, including environmental assessments, health and safety assessments and so on. And there is a very clear local planning process, which is very well communicated and with which she will be very familiar.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
This morning, energy experts reported that we were way behind on the target emission levels set at the Paris COP and in the fourth carbon budget. This comes only weeks after the important agreement in Paris. How on earth can this be the case?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman might be aware that the Paris agreement called for temperature increases to be limited to a maximum of 2°, yet the intended nationally determined contributions—the voluntary contributions from each country—only reached 2.7°, so that comes as no surprise. Everyone who signed up to the agreement—let us celebrate the fact that nearly 200 countries did so—knows that there is more work to do. It is not the end of the journey; it is just the start.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but we must now move on.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Select Committee statement
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to introduce PACAC’s latest report to the House. Our main conclusion is that while there is evidence that the principle behind EVEL commands popular support, we have significant doubts that the current Standing Orders are the right answer or that they represent a sustainable solution to the English question. They may be unlikely to survive the election of a Government who cannot command a double majority of English and UK MPs. The Government should use the remainder of the 12-month period in the run-up to their promised review of the Standing Orders to rethink the issue and to develop proposals that are more comprehensible, more likely to command the confidence of all political parties represented in the House of Commons, and therefore likely to be constitutionally durable.
On complexity, we note with concern the comments of a former Clerk of the House, Sir William McKay, who described the new Standing Orders as
“a forest in which I lose myself”.
That former Clerks of the House of Commons—individuals steeped in decades of learning about the law of Parliament and parliamentary procedure—should have difficulty in discerning what these Standing Orders mean should raise serious doubts about them.
It is regrettable that the new Standing Orders have been drafted, like legislation, by Government parliamentary draftsmen. Never again should Standing Orders be drafted by the Government, rather than by our own Clerks. Revisions made to Standing Orders to make them more coherent and transparent should be made by the House, for the House, as a matter of principle.
On sustainability, our report notes the stridency of the opposition to the new Standing Orders from those on the Opposition Benches—all those on the Opposition Benches—which underlines their vulnerability. Only the Conservative party voted in favour of the new arrangements. The Standing Orders therefore face a high risk of being overridden as soon as there is a non-Conservative majority in the House of Commons.
The shadow Leader of the House noted in his evidence to the Committee:
“It is certainly feasible, if not probable”
that a future Labour Administration would revoke the new Standing Orders. That the Standing Orders have attracted such hostility and can be removed on the basis of a simple majority must raise doubts about whether they can ever be regarded as anything more than a temporary expedient. Currently, they cannot be considered to be part of a stable constitutional settlement that will endure.
It is too soon to say what the constitutional implications of the new Standing Orders might be, but we note the difficulties raised by trying to reconcile EVEL with the continued operation of the Barnett formula. It is increasingly perverse that decisions made about spending in England determine what is spent in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Alternative schemes of territorial funding will have to be examined.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has described the devolution test used for the certification of English only, or English and Welsh-only, issues as “a very simple test.” It is difficult to see how a neat, one-size-fits-all test can be applied to a highly complex, political and asymmetrical set of devolution dispensations. We note that it is highly likely that interested parties from inside and outside the House will want to make representations to the Speaker on how he adjudicates this test. We agree with the Procedure Committee that there is a case for the Speaker to establish and publish a procedure for how he would handle such representations.
Above all—this is of most importance—our report points out that the ad hoc approach to change in the constitution of the Union, which dates back only to the devolution reforms initiated by the Labour Government in 1997, and which has treated Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, England in different ways at different times, has been characteristic of constitutional reform since the 1990s. The Government must abandon this ad hoc approach and explore a comprehensive approach for the future of relationships between the Westminster Parliament and the component parts of the United Kingdom. That will be the subject of our continuing inquiry into the future of the Union, and of our subsequent reports on the subject. We are pursuing this by developing conversations, in private and in public, with an open mind to build up trust and understanding between all the Parliaments and Assemblies of the United Kingdom and among all political parties. We have had a successful visit to the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff, and we will visit Holyrood in March. We will issue further reports to the House in due course on the progress of those conversations.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The report is most welcome, and I thank the Committee for its efforts. The report makes it clear that EVEL, in its current guise, is not coherent, transparent or sustainable. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we now need the wider constitutional convention that Labour has called for since before the election? Does he agree that the Government should support expert views such as that of the McKay commission, which set out an effective system to replace the current bureaucratic mess? We are willing to work with the Government to find a better system to strengthen English voices in Parliament, but it cannot be right that some Members in this place have a veto when others do not. Does he agree that the Government should heed the report and, during their review of EVEL proceedings, return to the drawing board to find a fairer solution that we can all support?
Mr Jenkin
I agree in part with the hon. Lady, and I am grateful for her remarks.. The McKay commission was as unsatisfactory, in many ways, as the present proposals. It is in the nature of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly that English MPs have no say over the laws that they make, so the veto to which she refers is merely a quid pro quo. Interestingly—and I stress this point—the principle behind English votes for English laws seemed to have quite a lot of popular support, even in Scotland, although that view is controversial and not entirely shared by the Scottish National party member of the Committee. As for the constitutional convention, we have not taken evidence on the matter. I do not think that there is an appetite for reopening the entire British constitution to an interminable process that would take years. We need a quicker solution.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Committee on the report. It is plain from the report and what he has just told the House that EVEL is yet another step in the endless and unbalanced process of devolution in the UK that has gone on for some time. Does he really believe that we are now within reach of a settlement that has some chance of holding in the next Parliament? Will it be possible to introduce proposals that command universal consent and put this endless constitutional debate finally to bed?
Mr Jenkin
I do not think that we are within reach of such a settlement. I think we are a very long way from such a settlement, such is the chaos inflicted by these piecemeal and bitty reforms. Many of them, such as the Scottish Parliament, we now accept as permanent parts of the constitution, but we are a long way from a common understanding of how everything should be knitted together again to preserve something like the United Kingdom. We are even a long way from agreeing, with an open mind, on the kind of relationship that the four parts of the United Kingdom should have with each other. We are just starting those conversations. We are talking in terms, and with openness, to people of whom we have been implacable opponents. That fresh approach will lead to renewed trust and understanding, on which we might eventually frame a new settlement of some kind, but I think we are a long way from that.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
In the SNP, we have never objected in principle to the concept of English votes for English laws, not least because it is a logical consequence of independence for Scotland. However, the Committee’s report confirms, as we have said all along, that the current Standing Order procedure is a guddle, a bùrach and, in short, a complete mess. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the system is further complicated by the complete lack of transparency in the estimates process, as confirmed today by the Leader of the House, which effectively means that Scottish MPs will have no real say on how Barnett consequentials play out in Scotland, and therefore the entire system of EVEL must be urgently reviewed?
Mr Jenkin
Our report does not use the kind of language that the hon. Gentleman adopted, and I think that we are in danger of getting trapped in conversations that will not get us anywhere. That is why we are trying to have a different sort of conversation with Members of the SNP, north of the border as well as down here. That is the future direction in which we would go. One problem that he and I will have to wrestle with is the nonsense that the spending of the Holyrood Parliament and the Scottish Executive is determined by what we decide for ourselves in England. The Barnett formula was designed for a different United Kingdom, and it is not fit for purpose for the United Kingdom that we have or for the hon. Gentleman who, if he gets the full fiscal autonomy that he wants, will be deeply out of pocket as we will not be paying anything.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his chairmanship of the Committee. Its consideration of the future of the Union is an extremely useful piece of work. The report sets out some useful background to where we are now, and explains what has led to the imposition of EVEL through Standing Orders. The problem dates back to the West Lothian question, which was well rehearsed but which, the Committee concluded—albeit on a divided vote—was given insufficient attention in 1997 when the legislation was considered. Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is one further lesson we can learn from the report, it is that in all matters constitutional, we should hurry slowly?
Mr Jenkin
In my speech in the Chamber on Second Reading of the Scotland Bill, I said that we might rue the day we passed the legislation. Even the then Prime Minister has rued the day that he passed it. Now is not the time for regrets, however; now is the time to learn from experience. There is some urgency to resolve the very serious anomalies that now exist in our constitutional arrangements—for example, they exploded during the general election, as we remark in our report, and perhaps even determined its outcome—in order to provide stability. We should tread carefully, but with some urgency.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
This is a worthwhile report. It identifies EVEL as a foolish piece of legislation that will, perversely, live up to its acronym and accelerate the process of the break-up of the United Kingdom by putting up barriers between the four countries. It has already created great resentment by creating four classes of MPs.
Does the hon. Gentleman rather regret following the addiction, which has become an incurable one in his party, of blaming Labour Governments for everything that has ever gone wrong? The suggestion is that the Labour Government of 1997 was remiss in not taking account of the West Lothian question—the expression was coined in 1977 by Enoch Powell, after a speech by Tam Dalyell—but no party has tried to come to grips with it. It really is an imaginative rewriting of history, trying to get some kind of retrospective justification, to suggest that it was a live issue in 1997, when it was not. Have we not followed a large number of ad hoc, piecemeal decisions by this House by making another, even more piecemeal, decision?
Mr Jenkin
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, to all members of the Committee who have contributed to the report. It is a pleasure to work with them. I do not entirely share his view that this is a “foolish piece of legislation”, because we do not use the word “foolish” in the report and it is not legislation. We do not blame the Labour Government for everything, but I did just point out that the former Labour Prime Minister has expressed such a regret.
The fundamental point is that we must end this ad hoc approach to constitutional reform. We must take a much more comprehensive approach. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I sit on the Procedure Committee, which has done an exhaustive study on this matter, but I am speaking for myself. I must say that my problem with all this—both my hon. Friend and I are romantic Unionists, who think the Union is more important than anything else—is that we are inflaming opinion in Scotland and Wales, but our current arrangements will not change the result of a single part of a single Bill throughout this Parliament, because we have an overall majority. If we do not have an overall majority next time, the other political parties, given that every other political party in the House is dead set against it, will simply cancel the Standing Orders on a wet, rainy afternoon, and no one will care because it would have been on page 20 of the manifesto.
Is not the solution to all this still to try to work towards some form of consensus? Surely it should be possible for those on the two Front Benches to work out something that actually solves this problem, and if it is not possible, we should at least try. Otherwise, what are we doing, apart from inflaming opinion against the Union in Scotland?
Mr Jenkin
I am acutely aware of that. We have argued about this, and I agree with my hon. Friend much more than I used to about the danger of inflaming opinion in Scotland. It has to be said, however, that having produced this report today—I did one interview on “Good Morning Scotland”—there has not been a huge reaction to it. It is a very Westminster village, techie subject, but the problem is that it has the potential to create deep political grievances.
It was a fatal error for the 1997 Parliament to consider this issue too boring for words and to ignore it. We will rue that day. To base a constitutional reform on the complete absence of consensus is extremely dangerous, but that is what we have done with these Standing Orders. That is why I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be working towards some form of consensus. That may be impossible: in putting in place these structures, we may have created a constitutional Gordian knot that cannot now be undone or resolved. In that case, I hope that the conversations we are beginning to open up with all parts of the United Kingdom will lead us towards an altogether different kind of debate about how to settle the future of the four countries that compose the United Kingdom.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
I would contradict the hon. Gentleman because this issue is headline news in Scotland. It is a really big deal and it is newsworthy. Where I agree with him, however, is that he is quite correct to point to the asymmetric nature of devolution. Devolution took decades, and we are not finished forming it yet—I hope there is only one destination that devolution can reach—but these proposals were rushed through extremely quickly and I quite agree that they need to be binned. We must think again about how to make this work, and we must achieve consensus with the Scottish National party. I hope he agrees that if there is an opportunity to sit down and thrash out the proposals, we can do so.
Mr Jenkin
The proposals only become an issue in Scotland if they are misrepresented—but they are capable of being misrepresented, and that is why they are unsatisfactory.
I cannot vote on matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament in relation to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and all this is trying to do is to make sure that there is a measure of restraint on how he votes on the same matters in relation to my constituency. That is perfectly logical. The problem is that what is resolved for Scotland in the form of the Scottish Parliament is resolved for England in a completely different and almost incomprehensible way. The lack of consensus on that leaves us in a very difficult situation.
However, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to go around stirring up a false grievance in his constituency, which would be quite difficult, on the basis that he should somehow be able to vote about schools, hospitals or even tax rates in Harwich, when he cannot vote on those matters in respect of his own constituents. The Scottish Parliament will vary the rate of Scottish income tax; that is not something on which he can vote in this House. These matters are very complicated.
This is my advice to the House. Let us approach this in a different way. Let us have a more frank and open conversation. Perhaps we should have more conversations in private so that we can befriend and learn to trust each other and make progress on that basis.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for his statement, and he and his Committee for their excellent report. Pages 25 to 27 are packed with juicy soundbites. One is:
“It is highly regrettable that the 1997 Parliament voted to proceed with devolution…without proper consideration being given to the well-rehearsed West Lothian Question.”
I say, “Hear, hear” to that. The report goes on to say that
“we have significant doubts that the current Standing Orders are the right answer or that they represent a sustainable solution.”
It also states that it is up to the Government to be
“working towards a new and durable constitutional settlement for the United Kingdom”.
He has entitled his report “part one” and I understand that further parts are to follow. How many volumes does he think his Committee will produce? In which volume will he come up with the answer to this thorny question?
Mr Jenkin
I cannot answer either of the last two questions, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks and for reading out to the House some of the report. This may be a long journey, but I think we must approach it with an open mind. We must be prepared to think what we thought we would never think. We must be prepared to sit down with people we have implacably opposed in the past. I hope, in that spirit, that the House will accept the report and that it will support the Committee’s work on future inquiries and reports.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right that the Government should slip out just before the recess a written parliamentary statement about the closure of 86 family courts in England, which will restrict access to justice? Given that there has been so much interest in the House about that, it would have been so much better if the Minister had come to the House and talked to us directly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
The hon. Gentleman has put that point on the record, and I thank him for doing so.
Short Money and Policy Development Grant
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Leader of the House to make a statement on Short money and the policy development grant.
Mr Speaker
I call the Minister with responsibility for constitutional reform.
John Penrose
That includes the policy development grant, Mr Speaker.
As the shadow Leader of the House will already know, the Electoral Commission has been consulting on changes to policy development grant, and there have been informal discussions about parallel changes to Short money between the political parties as well. I can confirm that we plan to initiate further, more formal consultations on Short money shortly. There will be plenty of time and opportunity for views to be expressed on both sides of the House, and I am sure, if he runs true to form, he will use those opportunities well.
I am also required, under the terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, to lay a statutory instrument before the House to adjust the shares of policy development grant between political parties to reflect the results of the recent general election. This statutory instrument is nearly ready and will be laid soon. I am sure it will then be scrutinised and debated carefully by the House, if it wishes, in the usual way.
Chris Bryant
Does the Minister agree that it
“cannot be right…for Opposition parties to be under-resourced, particularly when…the Government have increased substantially, from taxpayers’ money, the resources that they receive for their own special advisers”?—[Official Report, 26 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 428-9.]
Those are not my words; they were the words of Sir George Young, when he was the Conservative shadow Leader of the House, arguing for even more Short money for the Tories when the Labour Government trebled it for them in 1999. In opposition, the Prime Minister said he would cut the number and cost of special advisers, yet in government he has appointed 27 more than ever before and the cost to the taxpayer has gone up by £2.5 million a year. There is a word for that, Mr Speaker, but it is not parliamentary.
In opposition, the Conservatives banked £46 million a year in Short money, yet in government they want to cut it for the Opposition by 20%. There is a word for that, Mr Speaker, but it is not parliamentary. How can it be right for the Government to cut the policy development grant to political parties by 19%, when they are not cutting the amount of money spent on their own special advisers? Surely history has taught us that an overweening Executive is always a mistake. Surely, if a party in government needs financial support in addition to the civil service, it is in the national interest that all the Opposition parties should be properly resourced as well.
The Government have briefed journalists that they will publish their proposals on Short money tomorrow—in the recess—and that, basically, is what the Minister just admitted. Surely, above all else, this is a matter for the House. Short money was created by the House, and amendments have to be agreed by the House, so surely the House should hear first. Why, then, has the Leader of the House made absolutely no attempt to meet me or representatives of any other political party for proper consultation? Why did he fail to turn up for three meetings yesterday? Why is he not doing his proper job and standing at the Dispatch Box today? Mr Speaker, what is the word for this behaviour? Is it shabby, tawdry or just downright cynical?
John Penrose
I apologise fulsomely for not being the Leader of the House. I am sure that the shadow Leader of the House is looking forward to his weekly arm wrestle with him, but in the meantime I hope that he will accept having the other policy Minister—I am responsible for policy development grants—responding to his question and treat it as an amuse-bouche for his later work-outs with the Leader of the House.
To clarify one further point, I did not say we were launching “proposals”; I said we would be launching further “consultations”—and it is extremely important to understand that consultations involve a dialogue. The determined assault of the shadow Leader of the House is rather blunted by the fact that he will have a huge opportunity to contribute, as will others of all parties, as required, as soon as this consultation is launched.
One important point that the shadow Leader of the House managed to gloss over—I am sure inadvertently—is that Short money, contrary to the impression given by his remarks, has actually risen very substantially over the course of the last five years. It has gone up by more than 50%; it is more than 50% higher than it used to be. If we make no changes over the next few years, it will continue to rise still further. The population—the voters—who have had five or more years of having to tighten their belts to deal with the—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I appreciate that this is a high-octane issue, and it is because I judged it worthy of treatment today that the urgent question was granted. Members must, however, listen to the Minister who is, to be fair, among the most courteous of Ministers. He must be heard—[Interruption.] Order. There will then be a full opportunity for colleagues to question him.
John Penrose
Thank you, Mr Speaker. To finish my point, the country will not understand why politicians should be exempt from having to deal with the effects of the financial deficit that we were bequeathed by the last Labour Government. The reason why we have to tighten our belts as a nation is that whopping financial deficit. It cannot be right for politicians to argue that they should be in some way exempt—a special class—and not have to do their bit. Short money has gone up by 50% so far, and it will continue to rise if we do nothing. I think that the country expects us as politicians to set an example and to do our bit.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I have great sympathy for my hon. Friend the Minister who has been sent here to be shouted at by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) because I doubt whether he is the author of this policy or that he is responsible for determining the outcome. If the policy is as reasonable as the Minister insists, however, it is quite clear from these exchanges that the Government have handled the matter in a clumsy manner so that the Opposition feel they have not been consulted. On the other hand, could there be an agenda behind this change, which is rather more political in its intent?
I would like to inform Members that my Select Committee has already received correspondence from another Conservative Chair of a Select Committee expressing concern about this matter. We are looking into it and will be holding an inquiry. All sides should have a fair hearing so that these matters can be agreed by consensus.
John Penrose
I welcome the Select Committee Chairman’s pledge of a further consultation. That will provide further opportunities to air the issues around this matter in addition to—and possibly in parallel with, depending on the timing—the consultation I mentioned in my earlier remarks.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I declare an interest as the national secretary of the Scottish National party. I echo the points already made on Short money. Government is growing, special advisers are growing, the House of Lords is growing, but our ability to hold the Government to account is being stripped back. There is one rule for Tory cronies and another rule for everyone else.
The policy development grant poses serious issues for the headquarters, especially of smaller parties and especially given the prospect of a cut in the middle of devolved election campaigns. Will the Minister take on board the recommendations of the Electoral Commission? What opportunities will be there be for further consultation and cross-party negotiation on both these issues?
John Penrose
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the policy development grant has a slightly different mechanism. It has to be dealt with through a statutory instrument rather than by resolution of the House. The statutory instrument will be laid as soon as it is ready, whereupon the hon. Gentleman and everybody else will have an opportunity to debate it. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that the Electoral Commission has been consulting carefully and making recommendations about the revised shares to reflect the results of the last general election. I look forward to hearing his further comments at that point.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I make two points on behalf of my constituents? First, I absolutely agree with the shadow Leader of the House that the growth in the number of special advisers has got completely out of hand. If the Government want sensible policy advice, they should speak to their Back Benchers. After all, we are the ones who are in touch with our electorate.
Secondly, there should be some mechanism for measuring the effectiveness of the Opposition, because from where I am sitting it would seem that, pro rata, the Scottish National party offers a far more effective opposition than the present Labour party.
John Penrose
The shadow Leader of the House delights in using the standard format, “There is a word for that.” He has used that rhetorical device on several previous occasions, but one of the words he has not used is “shambles”, which is perhaps what my hon. Friend is suggesting about Labour’s performance on at least one or two issues.
I can happily confirm that the cost of Spads has started to fall since the last general election, which is tremendously important. I also heartily endorse my hon. Friend’s point that, in order to remain in touch with both the feelings of the House and those of the electorate, Governments need to listen to Back Benchers as well as to others very carefully indeed.
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that I was fortunate enough to be the Leader of the House who put through the settlement on Short money to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has referred? At the time, we had a massive majority and every opportunity to use office to disadvantage our opponents, had we wished. The Conservative party was politically on its knees, and financially as close to it as it had ever been. We had experienced one of the features of the proposal that is being considered, namely the freezing of the grant after it has been cut. We experienced inflation of 10% to 15% under the triumphant preceding Conservative Government. Consequently, not only did we treble the money and make special provision for the special needs of the Leader of the Opposition, but we inflation-proofed it. That is why the money has gone up for the past five years: it is his party’s own record on inflation that the Minister is criticising.
John Penrose
The right hon. Lady makes a very important point, but there is a crucial difference between the situation when she was in charge and the current situation: we have a huge deficit to deal with, while Labour inherited an economy that was doing incredibly well and a set of Government finances that were in a far stronger position. The difference is the deficit, and the reason for the deficit is sitting opposite me. I am afraid that that is why politicians and the rest of the country have to tighten our belts.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend, despite all the outrage on the Opposition Benches, just remind us again by precisely how much Short money has risen since 2010?
John Penrose
It has gone up by 50% when everybody else has had to tighten their belts, and if we do nothing, it will continue to rise further.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
I am delighted that the Government are cutting Short money; few things this Administration have announced have pleased me more. Does the Minister agree that this is public money and that the public will deeply resent it being spent on politicians to do more politics? Does he agree that the rules on Short money need to reflect the fact that the cost of doing politics—of doing policy, research and communication—have come down? We live in a world where Google is at our fingertips, so we do not need researchers. We also have Twitter and blogs so we do not need a whole department of press officers. Does he agree that the public will resent using public money to pay for Spads and shadow special advisers, who have watched too much of “The West Wing”, to sit in Portcullis House at public expense?
John Penrose
I agree with large parts of what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that the public will look at these contributions from the public purse—which taxpayers fund without choice, unlike other forms of political donation about which people do have a choice—and wonder why the political classes think that they should be exempt, particularly because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, it is far more possible nowadays to do this work in an efficient fashion and to deliver greater efficiencies. I believe that he has in the past turned down potential allocations of either Short money or the policy development grant to which he was theoretically entitled, and I compliment him on that principled stand.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Speaking as one who managed Short money and the policy development grant for the Conservative party when we were in opposition, I think that they are critical elements of what we need in order to function effectively in a democracy. I recognise that the grants have increased significantly, but I would gently say to those on the Front Bench that when making proposals about the future of these sums and how they are to be spent, due consideration should be given to the risks of their being spent more broadly in political parties, and also the opportunities that exist to fund a great deal of the work involved from sources outside political parties in the modern age of politics.
John Penrose
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and, as he says, he speaks from personal experience. I think that the crucial point we all need to remember—the guiding star—is that at some point whoever is in government will be in opposition, although I hope it will not be for a great deal of time in our case. We must therefore come up with rules that we are all happy to live with, whichever side of the aisle we are on.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
The Government are setting to one side all the conventions for dealing with issues of this kind. There is no precedent for them to proceed in this way. In fact, what they are doing does not amount to anything more than Bullingdon Club bullying of Parliament. They are treating Parliament as if it were a Department of Government, and an unfavoured Department of Government at that. Will the Leader of the House—sorry, I mean the Minister, although it ought to be the Leader of the House—tell us what he has done to defend the interests of Parliament, rather than the narrow political interests of the Conservative Government?
John Penrose
I would gently and respectfully demur from the right hon. Gentleman’s starting point. We have been undertaking some informal discussions between parties, which we are planning to make much more formal in the future, and I think that means that there will be plenty of opportunities for cross-party views to be gathered. There is absolutely no intention to subvert the will of Parliament. In fact, as you know, Mr Speaker, whatever proposals are made will have to be subject to debate and passage through the House when they eventually materialise.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend tell me how much money we are talking about, in cash terms? If he does not know, will he write to me about it, please?
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Can the Minister reassure me that all parties in the House will be fully involved in every stage of all the consultations? Will he also bear it in mind that a flat cut in both Short money and policy development grant will have a disproportionate effect on smaller parties, particularly regional parties? They are important elements in allowing us to function properly.
John Penrose
I can give the right hon. Gentleman exactly that reassurance. We will ensure that all political parties are involved in our consultation.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
If this is about responding to the deficit and the cuts are therefore justified, will the Minister explain how it is justified that the number of Spads has risen from 79 to 95, at an extra cost of more than £2 million?
John Penrose
As I said earlier, the cost of Spads has started to fall in the current Parliament. It is also important to remember that the total amount of Short money and policy development grant comes to dramatically more than the cost of Spads or anything of that sort.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Government, and the Conservatives, have form when it comes to rigging the electoral playing field. The Conservatives may have broken the law by spending more than the legal limit at by-elections. They are ramming through one-sided changes in the funding of political parties, while leaving in place their ability to raise huge sums from hedge fund managers. Now they intend to slash the Short money which ensures that Opposition parties can hold Governments to account. Can the Minister guarantee that the cuts will not be the final chapter in our transition from a multi-party state to a one-party state in which Robert Mugabe would be at home?
John Penrose
I do not know where to start in trying to rebut some of the absurd assumptions in that question, but I think that the short answer to all of them is “No.”
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
These proposals come on the back of the Government’s attack on Labour’s funding via the Trade Union Bill. It is clearly part of a partisan move to hit the Opposition and give the Government an unfair advantage, while leaving their own funding base of big donors untouched. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are now in favour of rigging the rules to suit themselves?
John Penrose
The hon. Lady will be unsurprised to hear that I disagree strongly with almost every word of her question. I am happy to confirm that I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Skills in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will give evidence on the Trade Union Bill to the House of Lords Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee later today, when we will perhaps have an opportunity to debate the proposals in even greater depth.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
The name is after the Leader of the House at the time, Edward Short, who provided money for the Opposition parties, particularly the Tories. Is the Minister aware that the measure he has announced will be seen, despite all his denials, as sheer spite against the Opposition parties, particularly the main Opposition party? The Government should be thoroughly ashamed of taking such a measure together with others to introduce, as was rightly said, a one-party state.
John Penrose
I am terribly sorry to disagree with such a senior and experienced Member, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman and others that the public at large have had several years of belt-tightening. They have had to deal with the effects of the deficit and have all had to contribute to try to close the yawning financial gap that we were bequeathed by the previous Government. They will just not understand—they will judge politicians and the political classes, as they see them, extremely harshly—if we are not willing to do our bit and make this work.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
There is a great sense of fairness in the British public at large and a much better sense of fairness among some Government Back Benchers. When the Minister is talking to the public about belt-tightening, it does not wash very well when they see the gala fundraisers the Conservative party is currently holding. If the proposal comes to this House of Commons for a vote, I warn him that reasonable people who value democracy and a healthy Opposition will not give him a majority.
John Penrose
The measures will in due course come to the House for a vote, and rightly so. They will be subject to proper democratic scrutiny in due course, so the hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to try to persuade others of his point of view, but I again draw a crucial distinction between the provision of public money, funded by taxpayers, who do not have a choice about whether the money goes to political parties, and voluntary political donations made by whoever it may be—individuals or trade unions. In the end, people should have a choice. That is the crucial distinction between those two sources.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Short money and the policy development grant are vital for parties such as mine in developing ideas and policies, which are the vital ingredients of any functioning democracy. If the UK Government are serious about cutting the cost of politics, why do they not reduce the membership of the over-bloated other House?
John Penrose
We are extremely serious about cutting the cost of politics. As you know, Mr Speaker, we have plans to reduce the size of this Chamber from 650 to 600 MPs, as was agreed in the last Parliament. The number of peers is going up, but the cost of the upper House is falling. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome that news and the news that there are ongoing political discussions on a cross-party basis on how other reforms might be effected in the House of Lords.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
If the money for democracy is cut and if the ermine-clad pantomime of the House of Lords is further bloated, contrary to what the Minister just said, is it not likely to bring shameless hypocrisy into disrepute?
John Penrose
There were an awful lot of negatives in that question, but I think that I get the hon. Gentleman’s drift. I take his point on the concerns about the overall size of the House of Lords, but it is important for us not to forget that it has managed to reduce its total costs. As I mentioned earlier, there are ongoing cross-party discussions on how to address its overall size. I encourage their lordships to continue those discussions and, with any luck, to produce proposals shortly.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Minister has repeatedly spoken this morning of tightening belts, but will he confirm that, when in opposition, the Conservative party took every penny of the £4.8 million Short money it was offered each year? There was no tightening of the belts then.
John Penrose
I cannot speak for what happened while we were in opposition, but I can confirm that we have on occasion handed back parts of, I think, the policy development grant because we were unable to spend it and we felt that it was appropriate to ensure that the taxpayer was reimbursed.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that 63% of the British population did not vote for this Government, and those people need to have their voices heard when policies hurt them. This is not about money for hotel rooms during by-elections; this is about democracy. Will the Minister start the consultation after the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has reported?
John Penrose
We are all anxious to crack on with this as soon as we can, and we would like to start the consultation shortly. Given the level of interest that has been made evident during this urgent question, I am sure that we would be criticised further if we were to delay the consultation. I would like to get on with it soon, if we can, and to allow plenty of time for people to respond over a period of weeks. I am sure that the Select Committee’s Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), will understand that timetable and that he will time his Committee’s investigations appropriately.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has increased the pay of one of his special advisers by as much as 42%. How on earth can it be justified for the Chancellor to lecture the rest of us on tightening our belts when that does not seem to apply to him?
John Penrose
As I mentioned before, the total cost of Spads since the general election has started to fall.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
This cannot be taken in isolation. The fact is that the Government do not like being held to account. That is precisely why we now have the Trade Union Bill, why charities are being gagged by the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill and why the Government are cutting the money to the Opposition. The truth is that they might be able to win a vote, but they cannot win the argument.
John Penrose
I keep on coming back to the central point that it is perfectly possible to undertake policy raising and policy development tasks more cheaply than before, as the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) mentioned. The rest of the country would not understand why, when everyone else has had to become more efficient, politicians should somehow be a special case. They would accuse us of feathering our own nests, and it would be extremely hard to justify that kind of action to anyone outside this place.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, you said earlier that the Minister was one of the most courteous in the House—indeed he is—but he has now been in denial for the best part of half an hour. Does he not accept that the combination of a Trade Union Bill attacking Labour party funds, a boundary review that is likely to favour the Conservative party and a reduction in Short money and policy development money gives the impression outside this place that the Government are acting like the bully in the playground? The damage will be inflicted not on a child but on the integrity of Parliament and on the health of our democracy.
John Penrose
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the boundary review. It is important that we all sign up to the principle that everybody’s vote, right the way across the country, no matter which constituency they might be in, should weigh the same. It cannot be right to have a system in which, in the past, Members of Parliament from some political parties have been elected in constituencies with many fewer people than others. People might justifiably ask why the Labour party, which benefited from that system for a very long time, is so against the notion of having equal votes for equal weight. I commend the new changes and the equalisation of the size of constituencies to all here.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Minister is desperately trying, and failing, to justify the 19% cut to the Short money in the context of a Trade Union Bill that takes funds from the Labour party, of stuffing up the House of Lords and of changes to the electoral register and general election boundaries. Will he now admit that the so-called one nation party is trying to create a one-party nation?
John Penrose
I compliment the hon. Lady on a well-rehearsed soundbite, but I have to tell her that I am not feeling terribly desperate at the moment. Indeed, I am feeling quite principled, because we are trying to make the system fairer and to ensure that our democracy works in a fairer fashion in future.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister has said several times we all need to tighten our belts, so can he just answer this question: how come the Chancellor of the Exchequer can increase his Spad’s pay by 42%? Just answer the question, please.
John Penrose
I believe that I already have. The cost of Spads has fallen since the general election.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is right when he says that in times of austerity politicians have to take their cut in expenditure. Will he therefore give a commitment that any percentage drop in Short money for the Opposition is more than matched by cuts in expenditure on Government Spads?
John Penrose
I can go broader than that. I can promise that the proposed cuts are the same as those being applied to all non-protected Departments right the way across the Government. This is not picking on any particular area at all. This is the standard cut, which every other Department that has not been protected has had to deal with. That is an important point to get across to the rest of the country.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
The number of Government political advisers is up to nearly 100. The number of political advisers on the highest pay grade is up 150%. The Prime Minister’s reportable salaries have increased by 51% and the Chancellor’s reportable political salaries have increased by 277%. When the Minister told us, just minutes ago, that the Government were tightening their belt on their political budget, did he deliberately mislead the House?
Mr Speaker
Order. I think understand what the hon. Gentleman was driving at, but it is wholly disorderly to deliberately mislead the House. The notion that somebody might do so should not be put to a Minister. The hon. Gentleman is extremely felicitous of phrase and I feel sure he can find another way to convey the thrust of what he wishes to communicate to the Minister. I very politely now invite him to do so.
Jonathan Reynolds
It appears that the facts contradict the Minister, so I just wonder if he made an inadvertent mistake in the statement he has made to us today.
Business of the House
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Will the absentee, part-time Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)
It is a pleasure to follow an urgent question responded to by the Minister responsible.
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 22 February—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill. I also expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement, following the European Council meeting.
Tuesday 23 February—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Education and Adoption Bill, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Wednesday 24 February—Opposition day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 25 February—General debate on European affairs.
Friday 26 February—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 29 February will include:
Monday 29 February—Estimates (1st allotted day). There will be a debate on the science budget, followed by a debate on end-of-life care. Further details will be given in the Official Report.
[The details are as follows: First Report from the Science and Technology Committee, The Science Budget, HC 340, and the Government response, HC 729; and Fifth Report from the Health Committee, Session 2014-15, HC 805, and the Government response, Cm 9143; First Report from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Follow-up to PHSO Report: Dying without dignity, HC 432; Sixth Report from the Public Administration Committee, Session 2014-15, Investigating clinical incidents in the NHS, HC 886.]
Tuesday 1 March—Estimates (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the 2015 spending review, followed by a debate on the reform of the police funding formula. At 7 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates. Further details will be given in the Official Report.
[The details are as follows: First Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, The FCO and the 2015 Spending Review, HC 467, and the Government response, HC 816; and Fourth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Reform of the Police Funding Formula, HC 476.]
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 25 February will be:
Thursday 25 February—Debate on the seventh report from the Communities and Local Government Committee on litter and fly-tipping in England.
Chris Bryant
Let me pay tribute to Harry Harpham. I know others have done so, but there are few miners left in this House and my constituents in the Rhondda would want to mark his passing with a warm comradely salute. And talking of miners, I would like to wish my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) an 84th happy birthday. He has still got the oomph of a 48-year-old.
I hope that the announcement made by the Leader of the House got you all excited, Mr Speaker, and that you were all atingle. I am genuinely excited, because if you read between the lines you will have spotted that Monday 22 February is going to be a very special day indeed. It is not just that the Prime Minister is making a statement on the EU Council. Far more importantly, 22 February 2016 will be the day the Government abandon collective responsibility on the EU. Cabinet Ministers will be hurtling down the corridors of power to get to television studios to be the first to go live on air to declare themselves an out-er. Forget the relief of Mafeking; forget the liberation of Paris; forget “Free Willy”; and even forget “Free Nelson Mandela”, because the 22 February 2016 will be known hereafter as the National Liberation of Grayling Day. Buy your bunting now, Mr Speaker.
Talking of the 22 February, the Leader of the House has also announced, finally, the mystery Second Reading Bill, which will be a Northern Ireland Bill. Will he ensure that the Committee and Report stages of that Bill are all taken on the Floor of the House, so that all Northern Ireland Members can take part in the debate?
Can the Leader of the House tell us the date of the State Opening of Parliament? We have fixed-term Parliaments now, so can he tell us whether it will even be in May? If it is to be in May, there are four possible Wednesdays. The 4 May is the day before local elections, so that is out. The 25 May is just before the bank holiday and would fall in purdah for the EU referendum, so will it be the 11 or the 18 May? Come on! Or are the Government intending to keep this Session going indefinitely, way beyond the European referendum, into the autumn and into next year? If so, will he give us some more dates for private Members’ Bills as we have no more Fridays allocated?
We have been saying for a while that the Trade Union Bill is partisan, petty-minded and vindictive, but now we know that the Government think so, too. After all, the Minister for Skills, who is the Minister in charge, has written to the Leader of the House, saying that large chunks of the Bill need redrafting—would you believe it?—because they are simply not “rational”—his word. He is seeking clearance on possible concessions to ease handling in the House of Lords.
Apparently, one concession under consideration relates to check-off—obviously, I do not mean the playwright—whereby most trade union members have their union subscriptions deducted from their pay and sent to their union by their employer. The Government want to ban check-off, but the leaked letter makes it absolutely clear that it would be illegal to do so in Scotland and Wales due to devolution, but how on earth can it be right for the Government to ban check-off at all? The Government’s own website makes it absolutely clear that this arrangement is entirely voluntary. This is what it says:
“There is no legal requirement for your employer to do this”.
For petty, partisan advantage a Conservative Government are intending to outlaw a perfectly sensible private contract between employer and employee. How does that fit with Edmund Burke and Adam Smith?
When the Bill was in this House, the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) quite wisely tabled a perfectly sensible amendment to allow check-off to continue. Why does the Leader of the House not stand up today and tell us that that is one of the Government’s concessions?
Also speaking of the Trade Union Bill, Lord Adebowale, a Cross Bencher, said:
“If ever there was evidence that the intention of the Bill is not entirely honourable, it is in the refusal to allow electronic workplace ballots”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 January 2016; Vol. 768, c. 63.]
Would it not be utterly hypocritical to campaign for the Tory candidate for Mayor of London, who was elected by Tory Members in an e-ballot, while refusing to allow trade unions to e-ballot their own members?
Will the Government finally back down on their preposterous 50% minimum threshold proposal for strike action? How many MPs would be sitting in this House if we had to get 50% of the electorate? Can the Leader of the House confirm that not a single Conservative MP achieved that? He got just 43%, so by his own logic he should not be here, but, frankly, by his own attendance record at the moment, he is not here anyway.
Going back to that letter that was sent to the Leader of the House, what really fascinates me is that it was leaked not to The Daily Telegraph, The Times, or Daily Mail but to the Socialist Worker. What is going on? Is there something the Leader of the House wants to tell us?
Talking of two-facedness, can we have a debate on pork barrel politics? After all, the Government were so terrified of losing their local government allocation yesterday that they bought off their own Members with a special slush fund of £300 million. How on earth did they decide how that money was to be allocated? Did Tory Ministers just sit down with their address books and shout out the postcodes of their friends and relatives and people who went to the black and white ball, while the Local Government Minister notched up £24 million for Surrey, £19 million for hard-up Hampshire, £16 million for Hertfordshire and £9 million each for Buckinghamshire and for the Prime Minister’s backyard in Oxfordshire? Why on earth are the five poorest councils in the land, with the toughest circumstances and with multiple levels of deprivation, getting not a single penny of extra money, while the richest are being showered with £5.3 million? It is thoroughly disreputable—it is Robin Hood in reverse.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman is clearly incapable of keeping his remarks to five minutes.
May I start by echoing the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Harry Harpham? It is always a tragedy when any Member of this House passes away, particularly after such a short time in this House. I am sure I express the sentiments of all hon. Members in sending good wishes to his family.
I, too, extend birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). I suspect he will not join me, although I hope that the shadow Leader of the House, as a great champion of equalities issues, will in celebrating the 41st anniversary of the first woman party leader in this country—a woman who became one of our greatest Prime Ministers, a great leader of this country. I am sure he would want to celebrate her achievement in demonstrating that the Conservative party is the one that creates opportunity for all.
As we heard yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, there is no doubt about the winner of this week’s quote of the week award:
“Oh dear oh dear omg oh dear oh dear need to go rest in a darkened room”.
The surprising thing is that that tweet from the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) was not about her party leader’s stunning success in launching his local election campaign 2016 in Nottingham, a city which this year has no local elections. Of course her comments came in the wake of her party being briefed on progress in its defence review. The party was told that Trident would soon be as obsolete as Spitfire because of a new generation of demon underwater drones that no defence specialist has ever heard of. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, indeed. This is the madness that has now engulfed the Labour party. And the hon. Gentleman still thinks he has any credibility sitting in the shadow Cabinet.
I am pleased to have been able to confirm that the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill will receive its Second Reading on 22 February. I place on record my thanks and congratulations to all those who have been involved in the negotiations leading to the publication of the Bill. I am also grateful for the constructive discussions that have taken place between the Government and Opposition parties about the Bill.
The only rather surprising thing is that when the shadow Leader of the House started jumping up and down last week about the Second Reading on 22 February, no one on his side had apparently bothered to tell him that all those discussions were happening. But we know that the hon. Gentleman is not much in the loop with his party these days anyway. At these sessions he asks for debate after debate, but when I give him and his colleagues an Opposition day and they pick their subject, it is virtually never on the subjects he says are important. He has asked for various things this morning. I have given him a new Opposition day, but I bet his party still does not listen to him.
It has not been a great week for the hon. Gentleman. He managed to turn an important debate about domestic violence into one about whether Welsh rugby fans should sing the Tom Jones song “Delilah” at the start of matches. He ended up in a spat with the songwriter, who said that the hon. Gentleman did not even know what the song was about. He may love the sound of his own voice, but right now it is not unusual to find that no one is listening to him.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
The roads around Glossop in my constituency have been gridlocked this week owing to the closure of Long Lane in Charlesworth. It is a short country road used as a shortcut. The congestion was so bad that a child who was taken ill on her way to school had to wait 20 minutes for an ambulance to get through. A road is proposed in our road building programme, but may we have an urgent debate about when and which is the quickest way we can get this overdue bypass built? The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) talks about out-ers; my constituents would like to get out of Glossop to get to work.
Chris Grayling
I congratulate my hon. Friend, who has been an assiduous campaigner on these issues. I know that the Department is considering road improvements in his area and has plans in development. I also know that he has an Adjournment debate planned for the week after next, when I know he will put his points across to the Minister with his customary effectiveness.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
May I too thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for the week after next? We on the Scottish National party Benches also express our condolences to the family of Harry Harpham. Obviously, we also wish the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) a happy 84th birthday. We might have had a bit of a difference with him initially about sharing the Front Bench, but we could not have a finer Member of Parliament to share it with.
We may be approaching Valentine’s day, but there is not much love coming from the Leader of the House. This morning, we saw the report on English votes for English laws from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee—and what a report it was. I hope we will start to see the death knell of the absurdity that is EVEL. It is over-complicated and ad hoc, it lacks transparency, and it is incompatible with Barnett. Those are not the words of the Scottish National party, although I would be proud of every one of them; they are the words of a Select Committee of this House with a Conservative Chair and a Conservative majority. Can we not just conclude that this dog’s breakfast is not fit for purpose? It commands no support beyond the ranks of the Conservative party, and it is deeply divisive. Let us go back to equality—equality of membership of this House—and not have division by nationality or geographic location of constituency. We have tried that. It has failed. Let us now move on.
One striking anomaly in this mess is that we still have to contend with Barnett consequentials. We all remember what the Leader of the House said: this is nothing to do with legislation, and there is no such thing as Barnett consequentials—a bit like the Easter bunny, I suppose. That is what he said: Barnett consequentials would be found in the consolidated spending Departments’ estimates process, but there is no difference in the way we are debating estimates—it is business as usual. Will he tell us, then, how we are supposed to examine the Barnett consequentials when the Speaker is invited to disregard it in English-only certification, and we cannot find it in anything to do with the estimates? Will he tell us where we can have these debates, and if necessary Divisions, on Barnett consequentials, because we cannot do that at all just now?
Everybody is working extremely hard to get a deal on the fiscal framework, and the Leader of the House will know of and appreciate their efforts. I hope the Scottish Affairs Committee report will help to find a solution to these difficult and fragile conversations. However, there does seem to be a real distance to go in achieving a coming together of minds on the “no detriment” principle. Will the Leader of the House tell us what happens if no agreement is reached? What would happen to the Scotland Bill if the two Governments reached no agreement on the fiscal framework? Can he categorically rule out this Government imposing a deal and a solution on the Scottish Parliament?
Last week, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—I am glad he is in his place—asked the Leader of the House when we could expect the Trident maingate decision, and we got the usual response from the Leader of the House that it would be sometime. I really hope that he—I hope he will rule this out—is not using the chaos and crisis in the Labour party on this issue to play games on something so important. I hope he will bring this critical decision to the House, regardless of the mess the Labour party is in, so that the House can properly debate it and vote on it.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman was right to echo the birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). We do look back nostalgically to last summer —to those mornings when the Scottish nationalists and the more Union-focused members of the Labour party rushed for the same seats. They then reached a peace agreement and an accommodation, and it seems as though happiness has reigned on those Benches ever since.
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asked about English votes. I have to say that the English votes process has bedded down pretty well in this House. I do not accept what he says about the changes we have put in place: they were set out in detail in the Conservative manifesto, and they are the right thing to do. At the moment, it is still the case that the hon. Gentleman’s responsibilities are very different from mine. I have a duty to represent my constituents on issues such as education and health; in his constituency, it is a Member of the Scottish Parliament who deals with those issues. It is therefore only right and proper that we have a settlement that reflects the reality of devolution and gives the English a fair say in what happens as well.
On the estimates debate, I have always regarded the hon. Gentleman as an influential Member of this House. However, the topics for the estimates debate are picked by the Liaison Committee. As a Committee Chair himself, he is a member of the Liaison Committee, so he is in a most effective position to secure the debates on estimates that he wants. Knowing how influential he can be, I cannot understand what went wrong. Why did he not get the debates he wanted? He needs to go back to his colleagues on the Committee and try to do better next time.
On the fiscal framework, the hon. Gentleman asked what happens if it does not work. Well, I am afraid that I am not going to accept the concept of failure. We will reach an agreement. It is in his party’s interest to do the right thing for Scotland and in our party’s interest to do the right thing for Scotland, and I am sure that we will.
On Trident, we will bring forward the motion for debate in due course. In the meantime, I think we are all enjoying the spectacle of the utter chaos on the Labour Benches. Surely not even those Front Benchers who are doggedly determined to hold on to their jobs could avoid the reality that they are now a total shambles.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
While the world focuses on the crisis in Syria, it is all too easy to overlook the unfolding crisis in Africa. The drought in Ethiopia is putting at risk over 10 million people who are in desperate need of food aid. The Government have responded, but much more needs to be done. Can the House consider this matter as a matter of urgency? Given that we are in recess next week, will my right hon. Friend bring it to the attention of the Secretary of State for International Development to see what urgent relief can be brought to those people?
Chris Grayling
I think we would all regard the current situation in Ethiopia as enormously distressing. I can assure my hon. Friend that discussions about this have already taken place within Government. The Government are already providing more than £100 million of aid to address this challenge, and we will continue to work with international agencies to do everything we can to alleviate what is potentially a dreadful humanitarian crisis.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House make time to debate the Government’s manifesto commitment to install smart meters in every household by 2020? This important move will help to end the pre-pay rip-off if the customers affected are prioritised in the smart meter roll-out.
Chris Grayling
This is a focus of the Government, as are broader changes to try to ensure that consumers get a better deal. We will make more information about this available in the months ahead. I shall make sure that the hon. Lady’s concerns are passed to the relevant Minister. She may also want to bring the matter to the Floor of the House through the Backbench Business Committee or an Adjournment debate.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
We are going absolutely over the top with the European debate at the moment. The only place that can make a decision to stop this is the House of Commons. May we have a debate in Government time so that all Members across the House can have a say on the EU referendum before it takes on a life of its own and we start to get more and more innuendos on the front pages of the press? Will the Government please make two to three days available so that Members can say what they really want?
Chris Grayling
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the role he has taken up in the Council of Europe on behalf of this country. This issue is enormously important. Of course, as I said earlier, we will be making time available for a debate. He is right that the debate that takes place both in this House and in this country needs to be a measured one that is based on facts and information. With all the talk about “project fear” and innuendo, we have to table information and make arguments in a measured way so that the public can make an informed decision before they vote in the summer, or whenever it is.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The Backbench Business Committee was aware that there was a possibility of getting some time on Tuesday 23 February, and we have a number of debates that we would possibly like to table for then. However, it is now only two sitting days away and we have not yet had an undertaking that there will be guaranteed time for such debates. We have an application for a debate on the serious issue of gangs and serious youth violence, but we would be reticent to table it unless we were guaranteed that it would get a good airing. We also have two debates that are time-sensitive for which we would like notification on tabling: one on Welsh affairs, which we would like to have as close as possible to St David’s day on 1 March; and one on International Women’s Day, which we would like to have as close as possible to 8 March. May I have some undertakings from the Leader of the House on this?
Chris Grayling
I am very much aware of the requests for the last two debates. We are discussing that and will seek to find the best way of making sure it can happen. As for the business on Tuesday week, there should be plenty of time available. We have consideration of two sets of Lords amendments, but I am confident that there would be time for a debate to take place on that day. Looking back at the experience of the past few weeks, it has tended to work okay, but I continue to keep the matter under review.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Today, the report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill was published, and the Intelligence and Security Committee published a report on the Bill earlier this week. There is a lot of public interest in the matter. Will the Leader of the House ensure that sufficient parliamentary time is allotted to consideration of what the Prime Minister has described as the “most important” Bill of this Parliament, so that the matter can be properly explored and debated?
Chris Grayling
I express the Government’s thanks to all who have been involved in scrutinising the draft Bill. My hon. Friend is right to say that the House must have appropriate time to scrutinise and debate the legislation. It will come before the House shortly, and we want to make sure that people have the opportunity to deal fully with the issues that it contains.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
The Prime Minister makes great play of the fact that as part of his European negotiations, he will strengthen the role of national Parliaments. Is the Leader of the House not therefore a little bit embarrassed about the fact that the debate on European affairs will be after the Prime Minister has negotiated, and that the Government have not given Parliament a proper day’s debate to consider what the Prime Minister should negotiate on?
Chris Grayling
I do not think that anyone in the House has been short of opportunities in recent months to make their views on the matter known. We have had extended statements and extended opportunities for questions. As the Prime Minister has conducted the negotiations, I do not think that he has been under any illusion about the different views that exist in this House.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I know that the Leader of the House will not tell us today the date of the forthcoming debate and vote on the Trident Successor submarines, but will he at least tell the House whether the Government have made up their mind to hold that debate soon, or whether they are determined to spin things out until the Labour party conference in October?
Chris Grayling
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, he will bring forward the matter for debate at an appropriate moment. In the meantime, perhaps we can have a debate on where the mysterious underwater drones that will render Trident redundant will come from.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Mr Islam al-Beheiry is an Egyptian television presenter and researcher who hosted a religious talk show. In June 2015, he was convicted of contempt of religion under article 98 of the penal code and sentenced to five years in prison with hard labour. On 2 February 2016, a court upheld his sentence. The TV show that he hosted was a way to debate Islamic interpretations, and that comes under freedom of religion or belief. Egypt has signed the international covenant on civil and political rights, so by upholding al-Beheiry’s sentence the country has violated its legal obligations to protect the right to freedom of religion or belief. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement on the diplomatic steps that the Government have taken to call for the release of Islam al-Beheiry?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I will make sure that his concerns are drawn to the Foreign Secretary’s attention. The Foreign Secretary will be before the House on Tuesday week, when the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to put that question to him.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Few things upset my constituents more than the potential impact of new housing development on their doctors’ surgeries, schools and local infrastructure. The Minister for Housing and Planning emphasised during proceedings on the Housing and Planning Bill the importance of local councils giving due consideration to impacts on infrastructure. Will the Leader of the House secure a written statement from the Housing and Planning Minister to give local councils proper guidance on how to apply that principle?
Chris Grayling
That is an important point. We need more housing in this country, but it is essential that the resources are made available through development schemes and smart local planning to establish the appropriate infrastructure. I will make sure that Ministers are aware of the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
In the ’70s and ’80s, at least eight young boys in my constituency were sexually abused in homes in north Wales. Lady Macur’s report has been on Ministers’ desks for at least the last two months. We understand that some of it may be redacted. If the report is truly independent, why are the Government sitting on it?
Chris Grayling
I do not know the reasons for the timing of the report, which I was instrumental in setting up when I was Justice Secretary. I pay tribute to Lady Justice Macur, who is a distinguished judge and who will have done the job as effectively as possible. I will make sure that the right hon. Lady’s concern is passed to my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary. Clearly, we want to do right by the victims.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you will be delighted to know that, at 10.15 this morning, my petition to save the hedgehog went live. It can be found at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/121264. May I ask my right hon. Friend to urge fellow Members of the House to help gather signatures to ensure that we have a further debate on saving the hedgehog?
Chris Grayling
I am sure everyone in the House today will commend my hon. Friend for his determination to pursue the cause of ensuring the protection of a noble species. I congratulate him on what he is doing. The hedgehog is an integral part of our country’s wildlife. [Interruption.] Despite what the shadow Leader of the House says, it is a very noble species and a very important part of our national heritage. I commend my hon. Friend for the work he is doing. I have no doubt whatever that when he comes forward with a successful petition, as I am sure he will, the Petitions Committee will make time available for such a debate.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
My constituent Mr K has received two fixed penalty notices—one for exiting a car park from the wrong exit, and another for parking in a business permit bay—and, as a result, he was told that he had failed the good character requirement for British citizenship. May we have a debate on proportionate decision making in the Home Office?
Chris Grayling
It is difficult for me to comment on the individual case. Clearly, we want people who apply for citizenship to be of good character. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that if the system has gone badly wrong, somebody should do something about it. The Home Secretary will be in the Chamber for oral questions on Monday week and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts that question to Ministers, who I am sure will want to take it up on his behalf.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust on the opening of its new dialysis unit in Kettering? This state-of-the-art, first-class, ultra-modern, world-standard kidney dialysis unit is located in Trafalgar Road, Kettering, near the centre of the town. May we have a statement from the Department of Health listing all the new infrastructure investments in our NHS, which will make a world of difference to the patients who need them?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am sure that this investment was a little bit helped on its way by the effective way in which he represents the town of Kettering. He highlights the very real new investments that are taking place in the national health service—new treatments, new equipment—all as a result of the extra funding we are putting into the national health service. The party now in opposition did not want to do that, and the Labour party in power in Wales is not doing it.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My constituent Coreen McClusker is a single mother of a nine-year-old girl. She suffers from depression, and she has been diagnosed with dyslexia. She has had no benefits money since July, and she is at risk of eviction, having been sanctioned no fewer than five times. She has not been informed of her rights by the Department for Work and Pensions. Will the Leader of the Heath help me to ensure that she gets a full investigation of this issue by Work and Pensions Ministers?
Chris Grayling
It is very difficult for me to comment on the individual case, but if the hon. Lady writes to me with the details, I will make sure that it is passed on to Work and Pensions Ministers so that they can look into it.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
One of the challenges we will face in the coming years is the need to address our skills gap, not least in engineering. May we have a debate on the provision of high-quality careers advice in our schools and colleges?
Chris Grayling
I know that this is a matter of great importance to the Education Secretary and that she is working on it at the moment. My hon. Friend makes an important point, because ensuring a smooth transition from school or college into work is an essential part of securing this country’s economic future. One thing we are trying to do to strengthen that is to increase the number of apprenticeships and to make it absolutely clear to young people that the apprenticeship route can be a very powerful and successful way into work.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
May we have Government time for a debate on the consultation by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on tips and gratuities? The consultation closed at the start of last November, but the Minister for Skills confirmed in a written answer this morning that no Government response is imminent. Just this week, Unite the union has exposed another scandalous practice in which the Melia Hotel International chain appears to take a 15% cut from tips and uses it to top up senior managers’ pay, which it describes as standard industry practice. Will the Leader of the House join me in saying that this is totally unacceptable, and urge his colleagues to move from consultation to action?
Chris Grayling
I have always taken the view that if someone is given a tip, either they should keep it or it should be pooled with their fellow members of staff. I know that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills takes this issue seriously and I will make sure that the specific concerns raised by the hon. Lady are passed to him.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Marsden football club in my constituency, which was established in 1900, is fighting for survival. Many matches have been postponed because of a flooded pitch and the clubhouse has been raided. That comes at the same time as a record TV deal for the premier league and discussions about ticket pricing in the premier league. May we have a debate on finances in football to ensure that not only fans but community football clubs get a good deal?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Local football clubs are an essential part of local communities. That is certainly the case in his constituency. I will certainly make sure that the point he makes is passed to the Sports Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) and those in the club who are working to raise charitable funds for the air ambulance service. That suggests to me that they are a really engaged group of people who are trying to do the right thing for the local community.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Today, the Ministry of Justice will publish a written statement that may close more than 80 courts in Wales and England, including the Crown, magistrates and family courts in Carmarthen. Surely a statement of that magnitude must be made on the Floor of the House so that Ministers are held to account. May we have an oral statement on this issue following the recess?
Chris Grayling
This matter has been under consideration for some time. The Secretary of State for Justice has been here on several occasions and the matter has been discussed and debated in this House. It is right and proper that the Government bring forward their conclusions to end the uncertainty.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The year of the monkey started this week and I hear that this brings out a mischievous streak in people. I am not sure if you are aware, Mr Speaker, but you are a rabbit. Some of your traits are being gentle, elegant, alert, quick and kind. The Leader of the House is a tiger, which is known for being over-indulged, but also for its bravery. Well, one has to be brave to go up against someone as diligent, dependable and full of strength and determination as our ox, the shadow Leader of the House. Members may or may not know that the Chancellor is a pig—quite literally, he is a pig! I will leave it there and simply ask the Leader of the House to join me in wishing my Chinese community, whose celebrations I will join this weekend, a happy Chinese new year.
Chris Grayling
All of us join the hon. Lady in wishing every member of the Chinese community in this country a very happy and successful Chinese new year. I hope that the celebrations over the next few days go well. I have to say that, on balance, I would rather be a tiger than an ox.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Yesterday from the Vote Office I collected the central Government supply estimates, 2015-16 edition, which, despite running to 700 pages, describes itself as a “booklet”. Can the Leader of the House tell me what opportunities I will have, as a Member from Scotland, to debate and amend the specifics in this booklet if I feel that they may have Barnett consequentials through EVEL legislation, and what the deadline is for tabling those amendments?
Chris Grayling
As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the Liaison Committee. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is sitting next to him, is on the Liaison Committee, so I am the wrong person to ask.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Every day, we see tragic pictures of people fleeing the horror of Aleppo. We see the anxiety building as they are refused entry into Turkey and there is the fear that they will make their way across the Mediterranean into Europe. May we have a whole day’s debate on the international crisis facing the world that is flooding out of Syria and on how we can take responsibility for that crisis, which has largely been created by the Assad regime and Russia?
Chris Grayling
We all view what is happening in Aleppo with enormous distress, and we desperately want peace in that country. As the hon. Lady knows, the International Development Secretary addressed that issue in the House at the start of the week, and we will continue to put substantial amounts of aid into Syria and the surrounding areas. She will know that the recent Syria conference in London raised more money in one day than any previous event of its kind, and I assure her that as far as is possible, this country will do everything it can to facilitate peace in Syria, the reconstruction of that country, and the opportunity of those people to return to their homes.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House will recall that many of us were critical of the World Health Organisation for its slowness in getting to grips with the Ebola disaster in west Africa. Another crisis is emerging from Brazil, and the Zika virus is spreading throughout South America and beyond. May we have an urgent debate on that virus and the impact that it will have on the rest of the world, and can we urge the WHO, and the great charities that stepped into the breach on Ebola, to act quickly and act now?
Chris Grayling
As the hon. Gentleman says, this is a matter of great international concern. The tales of tragedy that are coming from South America, and the impact of the Zika virus on pregnant women and babies, are enormously distressing. The Government will do everything they can to play a role internationally in tackling the crisis, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary will do everything they can to work with the WHO to ensure an appropriate international response.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
During last week’s successful debate on the role of men in preventing violence against women, and the urgent question on the Return of Kings, the Minister answered questions on the delay in ratifying the Istanbul convention on women’s rights, and indicated that the Government are keen to do so but need the primary legislation. Is the Leader of the House aware of any plans to bring legislation on that matter before the House before the summer recess? If not, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement on why that is?
Chris Grayling
The Government will certainly consider that issue. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot make any announcements at this stage about the contents of the upcoming Queen’s Speech, which will put forward a programme of legislation that is designed to address the issues faced by this country, but I will ensure that Ministers are aware of his concern.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The British Retail Consortium’s crime report for 2014-15 found that there were 41 incidents of violence and abuse per 1,000 retail employees, which is up from 32 incidents per 1,000 employees in the previous year. Three million people work in our retail industry, and I do not need to say how important their work is to our local and national economies. May we have an urgent debate about that unacceptable level of violence against our retail workers?
Chris Grayling
Any violence against a retail worker is unacceptable, as are the levels of violence that the hon. Lady describes. The police have many powers to deal with that and to charge and prosecute people, and I hope they will always view that as an important area in which to take action. The Home Secretary will come before the House on Monday week, so perhaps the hon. Lady will raise the issue with her then.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will probably be aware that within very short order, two separate debates in Westminster Hall have raised serious allegations of the deliberate undervaluing and downgrading of assets, forced bankruptcy and seizure of assets, and further allegations of collusion between banks, receivers and intermediaries. For my constituent, Alun Richards, that involved Alder King and Lloyds, but other banks and intermediaries were involved in cases considered by many other MPs. More than 10 cross-party MPs have written to the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee to ask him to investigate the matter urgently, and I have written to the director of the Serious Fraud Office to ask for a meeting. Is it time for a debate on the Floor of the House on that matter, and for the Serious Fraud Office to investigate those serious allegations?
Chris Grayling
I am not aware of the individual cases that the hon. Gentleman raises, but this is a serious matter and I hope that he will successfully secure an investigation from the Committee, which should respond to substantial and widespread concerns raised by Members. I will ensure that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is aware of the matter.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
When can we debate the warning given by a senior Japanese industrialist to the Foreign Secretary that the continuing financial fiasco of Hinkley Point is damaging the reputation of Britain internationally, and threatening further investment? Can we not recognise that the problems at Hinkley Point are terminal, and change to the practical technology of tidal power which is clean, British, free and eternal?
Chris Grayling
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government’s policy is not to put all eggs in one basket. We have probably done more than any previous Government in pursuing renewable energy in this country, be it wind, solar or tidal, but we believe that we need a mix of generation for the future, and that will include nuclear.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I wish to make a similar point to one made by the shadow Leader of the House. Do the Government intend to make a statement or hold a debate in Government time on the contradictory statements they are making on their anti-Trade Union Bill? I am of course referring to the aforementioned letter dated 26 January from the Minister for Skills, which is in stark contrast to the oral answer he provided to me on 2 February, when he said there would be no concessions on facility time and check-off. In the absence of any statement, will the Leader of the House tell us what his answer was to that letter of 26 January? Or is that also the exclusive property of the Socialist Worker newspaper?
Chris Grayling
These matters will be and are being debated in the other place, and they will be debated in this House again. Honourable Members will have to wait until those moments to discuss and debate them.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
If I can show I am related to the Prime Minister, will I get money for my libraries and Sure Start centres in Walsall? The shadow Leader of the House is right to say that we need a debate on good governance, because we need to know whether Ministers took into account relevant considerations and we need to know the reasons for the decisions for that settlement.
Chris Grayling
In a society that is free and able to express individual views, none of us seeks to gag our relatives, even when they disagree with us.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
May we have a debate about the operation of the child maintenance regulations? I have a constituent with a very difficult case, whose 17-year-old daughter has moved out of the family home into a third party adult property, against the will of the family. They have now received a claim for child maintenance from that third party. This does not seem to be within the spirit of the law, which is surely to ensure that children continue to be supported in the event of family breakdown.
Chris Grayling
This is an immensely complex area, and most of us who have been in this House for a long time will have had extensive experience of it, and frustrations and difficulties with it. Of course we all seek to bring individual cases to the Department and to the relevant authorities, and we will continue to do so. I am confident that Ministers will do their best to ensure that the regime in place will deal with the challenges and operational difficulties faced in the tragic situations around family breakdown.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On 21 January, I enlisted the help of the Leader of the House to arrange the meeting that the Prime Minister had promised with my constituent Mike and Tina Trowhill in order to discuss the national baby ashes scandal. The Leader of the House said he would come back to me, but I have not heard anything. I also asked the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) on 26 January whether she would help me, but I have not heard from her either. Politicians need to keep their promises and I hope I will get that meeting with the Prime Minister, which he promised to my constituents.
Chris Grayling
I checked on this and the hon. Lady has perhaps misinterpreted the wording of the Prime Minister’s response, but I have tried to ensure that she receives a ministerial meeting. If that has not come through yet, I will follow it up today.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The floods in York were devastating for so many because so many could not afford any insurance. They need every bit of help they can get, yet the Government still have not applied for the EU solidarity fund. May we have an urgent statement on why that has not happened and on what progress is being made?
Chris Grayling
The Government’s approach has been to try get finance to those who need it quickly and not to worry about complicated bidding processes, so that we ensure we provide help immediately to those who need it. If people look at the amounts of money that have been provided to the areas affected, they will see that we have done the right thing.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Last Saturday marked the 126th anniversary of the Llanerch colliery disaster in my constituency, in which 176 men and boys lost their lives in an explosion that devastated the local community. May we have a debate on the sacrifices made by miners, their families and their communities over many generations?
Chris Grayling
There is no doubt that mining communities played a huge role in this country. They provided the energy that kept this country and its economy going for decades. I am glad that in today’s world we can provide energy sources from a variety of different routes, which means that we do not perhaps have to subject those who did such sterling work in the past to those conditions today.
Junior Doctors Contracts
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Nearly three years ago to the day, the Government first sat down with the British Medical Association to negotiate a new contract for junior doctors. Both sides agreed that the current arrangements, drawn up in 1999, were not fit for purpose and that the system of paying for unsocial hours in particular was unfair. Under the existing contract, doctors can receive the same pay for working quite different amounts of unsocial hours; doctors not working nights can be paid the same as those who do; and if one doctor works just one hour over the maximum shift length, it can trigger a 66% pay rise for all doctors on that rota.
Despite the patent unfairness of the contract, progress in reforming it has been slow, with the BMA walking away from discussions without notice before the general election. Following the election, which the Government won with a clear manifesto commitment to a seven-day NHS, the BMA junior doctors committee refused point blank to discuss reforms, instead choosing to ballot for industrial action. Talks finally started—under the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service process—in November, but since then we have had two damaging strikes, which have resulted in about 6,000 operations being cancelled.
In January, I asked Sir David Dalton, chief executive of Salford Royal, to lead the negotiating team for the Government. Under his outstanding leadership, for which the whole House will be immensely grateful, progress has been made on almost 100 different points of discussion, with agreement secured with the BMA on approximately 90% of them. Sadly, despite this progress and willingness from the Government to be flexible on the crucial issue of Saturday pay, Sir David wrote to me yesterday advising that a negotiated solution was not realistically possible. Along with other senior NHS leaders and supported by NHS Employers, NHS England, NHS Improvement, the NHS Confederation and NHS Providers, Sir David has asked me to end the uncertainty for the service by proceeding with the introduction of a new contract that he and his colleagues consider both safer for patients and fair and reasonable for junior doctors. I have therefore today decided to do that.
Tired doctors risk patient safety, so in the new contract the maximum number of hours that can be worked in one week will be reduced from 91 to 72; the maximum number of consecutive nights doctors can be asked to work will be reduced from seven to four; the maximum number of consecutive long days will be reduced from seven to five; and no doctor will ever be rostered consecutive weekends. Sir David believes that these changes will bring substantial improvements to both patient safety and doctor wellbeing. We will also introduce a new guardian role within every trust. These guardians will have the authority to impose fines for breaches to agreed working hours based on excess hours worked. These fines will be invested in educational resources and facilities for trainees.
The new contract will give additional pay to those working Saturday evenings from 5 pm, nights from 9 pm to 7 am and all day on Sunday, and plain time hours will now be extended from 7 am to 5 pm on Saturdays. However, I said that the Government were willing to be flexible on Saturday premium pay, and we have been: those working one in four or more Saturdays will receive a pay premium of 30%. That is higher on average than that available to nurses, midwives, paramedics and most other clinical staff, and also higher than that available to fire officers, police officers and those in many other walks of life.
None the less, the changes represent a reduction compared with current rates, but that is necessary to ensure that hospitals can afford additional weekend rostering, and because we do not want take-home pay to go down for junior doctors, after updated modelling, I can tell the House that these changes will allow an increase in basic salary not of 11%, as previously thought, but of 13.5%. Three quarters of doctors will see a take-home pay rise, and no trainee working within contracted hours will have their pay cut.
Our strong preference was always for a negotiated solution. Our door remained open for three years, and we demonstrated time and again our willingness to negotiate with the BMA on the concerns it raised. However, the definition of negotiation is a discussion where both sides demonstrate flexibility and compromise on their original objectives. The BMA ultimately proved unwilling to do this.
In such a situation, any Government must do what is right for both patients and doctors. We have now had eight independent studies in the last five years identifying higher mortality rates at weekends as a key challenge to be addressed. Six of these say staffing levels are a factor that needs to be investigated. Professor Sir Bruce Keogh describes the status quo as
“an avoidable weekend effect which if addressed could save lives”,
and has set out the 10 clinical standards necessary to remedy this. Today, we are taking one important step necessary to make this possible.
While I understand that this process has generated considerable dismay amongst junior doctors, I believe that the new contract we are introducing, shaped by Sir David Dalton, and with over 90% of the measures agreed by the BMA through negotiation, is one that in time can command the confidence of both the workforce and their employers. I do believe, however, that the process of negotiation has uncovered some wider and more deep-seated issues relating to junior doctors’ morale, wellbeing and quality of life that need to be addressed.
These issues include inflexibility around leave; lack of notice about placements that can be a long way from home; separation from spouses and families; and sometimes inadequate support from employers, professional bodies and senior clinicians. I have therefore asked Professor Dame Sue Bailey, president of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, alongside other senior clinicians, to lead a review into measures outside the contract that can be taken to improve the morale of the junior doctor workforce. Further details of this review will be set out soon.
No Government or Health Secretary could responsibly ignore the evidence that hospital mortality rates are higher at the weekend or the overwhelming consensus that the standard of weekend services is too low, with insufficient senior clinical decision makers. The lessons of Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay and Basildon in the last decade are that patients suffer when Governments drag their feet on high hospital mortality rates, and this Government are determined that our NHS should offer the safest, highest-quality care in the world.
We have committed an extra £10 billion to the NHS this Parliament, but with that extra funding must come reform to deliver safer services across all seven days. This is not just about changing doctors contracts. We also need better weekend support services such as physiotherapy, pharmacy and diagnostic scans; better seven-day social care services to facilitate weekend discharging; and better primary care access to help tackle avoidable weekend admissions. Today, we are taking a decisive step forward to help deliver our manifesto commitment, and I commend this statement to the House.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It would have been good to have previewed this exchange during the urgent question on Monday, but we all know that the Secretary of State could not be bothered to turn up. You might also think, Mr Speaker, that the Health Secretary would do me the courtesy of responding to the two letters I have sent to him in the last week, but you would be wrong. So much for a seven-day health service! A five-day-a-week Health Secretary would be nice.
This whole dispute could have been handled so differently. The Health Secretary’s failure to listen to junior doctors, his deeply dubious misrepresentation of research about care at weekends and his desire to make these contract negotiations into a symbolic fight for delivery of seven-day services has led to a situation that has been unprecedented in my lifetime. Everyone, including the BMA, agrees with the need to reform the current contract, but hardly anyone thinks the need to do that is so urgent that it justifies imposition, and all the chaos that will bring.
The Health Secretary said NHS leaders had asked him to “end the uncertainty”, but can he confirm that that means they support “imposing” a new contract? One hospital chief executive, who the Secretary of State claims is supporting him, tweeted this morning:
“I have supported the view that the offer made is reasonable…I have not supported contract imposition”.
For the purpose of clarity, can the Secretary of State say categorically that all the NHS leaders whom he mentioned fully support his actions? Can he not see that imposing a new contract that does not enjoy the confidence of junior doctors will destroy morale, which is already at rock bottom? Does he not realise that this decision could lead to a protracted period of industrial action that would be distressing for everyone—patients, doctors, and everyone else who works in or depends on the NHS? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. Let me say this to Members on both sides of the House who are shouting: do it again, and you will not be called. It is as simple as that. If Members cannot exercise the self-restraint to be quiet while the Front Benchers are speaking, they have no business taking part in the exchanges.
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker.
What impact does the Secretary of State honestly think an imposed contract will have on recruitment and retention? Earlier this week, a poll found that nearly 90% of junior doctors would be prepared to leave the NHS if a contract were imposed. How does the Secretary of State propose to deliver seven-day services with one tenth of the current junior doctor workforce? How can it possibly be right for us to be training junior doctors and the consultants of tomorrow, only to export them en masse to the southern hemisphere? The Secretary of State needs to stop behaving like a recruiting agent for Australian hospitals, and start acting like the Secretary of State for our NHS.
What advice did the Secretary of State take before making this decision? He may not want to respond to my letters, but what does he say to the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, all of which have urged him not to impose a contract? What legal advice has he taken about how an imposed contract would work in practice? What employment rights do junior doctors have in this context, and what will happen if they simply refuse to sign?
The Secretary of State has been keen to present a new junior doctors contract as the key that will unlock the delivery of seven-day services, but that is a massive over-simplification, and he knows it. Although research shows that there is a higher mortality rate among patients who are admitted to hospital at weekends, there is absolutely no evidence to show that it is specifically caused by a lack of junior doctors. Will the right hon. Gentleman state, for the record, that he accepts that?
One of the real barriers to more consistent seven-day services is the consultants contract. Until now, at least, the BMA and the Government were making progress in those negotiations. Could not a decision to impose a new junior doctors contract put the consultant negotiations at risk, and make the delivery of seven-day services even harder? Will the Secretary of State also make it clear how the definition of unsocial hours will need to change in other contracts in order for seven-day services to be delivered, and which groups of staff that will apply to?
What we heard from the Secretary of State today could amount to the biggest gamble with patient safety that the House has ever seen. He has failed to win the trust of the very people who keep our hospitals running, and he has failed to convince the public of his grounds for change. Imposing a contract is a sign of failure, and it is about time the Secretary of State realised that.
Mr Hunt
The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) has made a number of incorrect statements with which I shall deal with later, but what the country will notice about her response is more straightforward. When we have a seven-day NHS, in a few years’ time, people will say that it was obviously necessary and the right thing to do. They will remember that it was not easy to get there, and they will also remember—sadly—the big call that she made today for short-term political advantage to be placed ahead of the long-term interests of patients.
Previous reforming Labour Governments might have done what we are doing today. Let me say to the hon. Lady that she has vulnerable constituents—we all have vulnerable constituents—who need a true seven-day NHS, and those are precisely the people that the NHS should be there for. Sorting this out should not be a party issue; it should be something that unites the whole House, and she will come to regret the line that she has taken today.
Let me address some of the hon. Lady’s particular points. She has said today and on other occasions that this has been badly handled. If she wants to know who has handled contract negotiations badly, it was the party that gave consultants the right to opt out from weekend work in 2003 and that gave GPs the right to opt out of out-of-hours care in 2004. Is it difficult to sort out those problems? Yes. Are we going to be lectured by the people who caused them? No, we are not.
The hon. Lady also questioned whether there was support for imposition. Let me just read her exactly what the letter that I got from Sir David Dalton says. He states that, on the basis of the stalemate,
“I therefore advise the government to do whatever it deems necessary to end uncertainty for the service and to make sure that a new contract is in place which is as close as possible to the final position put forward to the BMA yesterday.”
And what does Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, say?
“Under these highly regrettable and entirely avoidable circumstances, hospitals are rightly calling for an end to the uncertainty, and the implementation of the compromise package the Dalton team are recommending.”
The hon. Lady talked about the impact on morale. Perhaps she would like to look at the hospitals that have implemented seven-day care, including Salford Royal, Northumbria and one or two others. They have some of the highest morale in the NHS, because morale for doctors is higher when they are giving better care for patients. She also says that we should not impose the contract, but what she is actually saying is that if the BMA refuses point blank to negotiate on seven-day care, we should give up looking after and doing the right thing for vulnerable patients. What an extraordinary thing for a Labour shadow Health Secretary to say. She also said that we were conflating the junior doctors contract with seven-day working. Well, let us look at what the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges said in 2012. It said:
“The weekend effect is very likely attributable to deficiencies in care processes linked to the absence of skilled and empowered senior staff”.
Most medical royal colleges say that junior doctors with experience qualify as senior staff.
The NHS has made great strides in improving the quality of care. Since I have been Health Secretary, avoidable harm in hospitals has nearly halved, nearly 20% of acute hospitals have been put into a new special measures regime—and we are turning them round—and record numbers of members of the public say that their care is safe and that they are treated with dignity and respect. The seven-day NHS is not just a manifesto commitment; we are doing this because we are willing to fight to make the NHS the safest, highest quality healthcare system in the world. Today we have seen that the Labour party is not prepared to have that fight. Does not this prove to the country that it is the Conservatives who are now the true party of the NHS?
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking this clear and correct decision, because it is quite obvious that after three years, the BMA was prepared to let the whole thing drag on with talks and days of action until he either abandoned the seven-day service or gave the junior doctors an enormous pay settlement in order to buy their agreement to do it. In future discussions, will he keep concentrating, as he has, on the essential public interest, which is to meet the rising and remorseless demand on the service resulting from an ageing population and clinical advance? Will he also use the extra resources that the NHS is getting at the moment to deliver a better service to patients and not allow it to be taken away, as so often happened in the past—including a little more than 10 years ago in 2003—by very large pay claims by the various staff unions, as that would lessen his ability to give us the modern NHS that he is talking about?
Mr Hunt
My right hon. and learned Friend speaks with great wisdom and also great experience. Many Members will remember how, when he was Health Secretary, the BMA put posters of him up all over the country saying “What do you call a man who ignores medical advice?”, and there he was, smoking his cigar. I am sure that there have been Labour Health Secretaries who have had similar treatment. He makes an important point, however. Under the new Labour Administration of Tony Blair, huge amounts of extra resources were put into the NHS but, unfortunately, because of the impact of contract changes in 1999, 2003 and 2004, weekend care actually became less effective, not more effective. Now, thanks to the tough decisions we have taken on public spending and turning the economy around, we have been able to give the NHS a funding settlement next year that is the sixth biggest in its entire nearly 70-year history. We are absolutely determined that, if we are putting that extra money into the NHS, it should come with reform that leads to better care for patients. That is the Conservative way, and we will not be deflected from it.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I should like to pick the Secretary of State up on some aspects of his statement. On Monday, I challenged the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) to step away from the term “weekend deaths”. The Freemantle paper does not show that; it shows increased 30-day mortality in people admitted at the weekend, and there is actually a lower mortality rate at weekends. The junior Minister said that the Secretary of State was really careful, but he has made that suggestion twice in his statement today, and I think that that is very misleading.
What should have come from the Freemantle paper and others is an attempt to understand why these things happen. The only study that gives a clear answer and backs up the Francis report is the Bray paper on 103 stroke units, which showed that the single most important factor was the ratio of registered nurses. We should know what the problem is before we try to fix it. The one group of staff that is there, along with the nurses, is the junior doctors. They are not the barrier to achieving the 10 standards.
I welcome the progress that has been made since last November. In a debate in this Chamber in October, the Secretary of State seemed relatively unwilling to go to ACAS, but progress has been made since the negotiations started, and particularly since Sir David Dalton became involved in the past month. I therefore found it incredible to see on the BBC this morning that, having achieved 90% agreement and following a tweet at 4 minutes past 8 saying that we should now get both sides back to the table, the Secretary of State was going to impose the contract.
The problem with the recognition of unsocial hours might increase the difficulty that we already have in recruiting people to the acute specialties: A&E, maternity and acute medicine. They are already struggling, and this might well make things worse. I also still have concerns about the role of the guardian. The problem is that a junior doctor at the bottom of a hierarchy will have to go and complain, and we can imagine how difficult that might be in a hierarchical system and how easily that doctor could be labelled a troublemaker. So there are still things to be dealt with. I welcome the progress that has been made in the last month, but this is absolutely not the time to pour petrol on the fire and then throw in the towel.
Mr Hunt
I welcome the tone of the hon. Lady’s comments. I do not agree with everything that she has said, and I shall explain why, but they were immensely more constructive than the comments that we have heard from other Opposition spokesmen. She is right to say that the studies talk about mortality rates for people admitted at weekends. There have been eight studies in the past five years, or 15 since 2010 if we include international studies. She is right to say that we need to look at why we have these problems.
The clinical standards state that when someone is admitted, they should be seen by a senior decision-maker within 14 hours of admission. They will be seen by a doctor before then, but they should be seen by someone senior within 14 hours. The standards also state that vulnerable people should be checked twice a day by a senior doctor. Now, across the seven days of the week, the first of those standards is being met in only one in eight of our hospitals and the second in only one in 20. That is why it is important that junior doctors should be part of the group of people who constitute those senior decision-makers—consultants are also part of it—and that is why contract reform is essential.
The hon. Lady is right to say that this is also about nurse presence, and the terms that we are offering today for junior doctors are better on average than those for the nurses working in the very same hospitals, and better than those for the midwives and the paramedics. That is why Sir David Dalton and many others say that this is a fair and reasonable offer.
With respect to A&E recruitment, the impact of the contract change we are proposing is that people who regularly work nights and weekends will actually see their pay go up, relatively, compared to the current contract. These are the people who are delivering a seven-day NHS and we must support them every step of the way.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I know colleagues across the House will want to join me in thanking junior doctors for the valuable work they do for patients across the NHS. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I hope that they will look very carefully at the improvements in the offer, with a 13.5% increase in the basic rate and the very important safeguard that will discourage over-rostering at weekends by giving them premium rates if they have to work more than, or including, one in four weekends. I hope the BMA will also recognise and welcome the very important appointment of Professor Dame Sue Bailey to lead an inquiry into all the other aspects that lead to discontent with junior doctors. I wonder if the Secretary of State agrees that what we now need is to move forward in a positive spirit that brings this dispute to an end, takes the temperature down and recognises that we all want the same thing: safety for patients.
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for her very constructive comments. She is right. A 13.5% increase in basic pay is very significant, because, unlike overtime and premium pay, it is pensionable. It will help when applying for a mortgage and will mean more money on maternity leave. I think it will be much better for junior doctors.
The review that Dame Sue Bailey is doing, which was much-derided by the Opposition when I mentioned it in my statement, is actually very significant. One of the things that has gone wrong in training is that since the implementation of the European working time directive, we have moved away from the old “firm” system, which would mean that junior doctors were assigned to a consultant, who they would see on a regular basis and who was able to coach them on a continuous basis over weeks and months. That has been lost and many people think that that has led to much lower morale. We want to see what we can do to sort that out.
Finally, I want to echo what my hon. Friend said about going forward in a positive and constructive spirit. When, as a Government, we took the decision to proceed with implementing new contracts, we had the choice of many different routes, because, essentially, we can decide exactly what to choose. We have chosen to implement the contract recommended by NHS chief executives as being fair and reasonable. That is different from our original position. We have moved a considerable distance on most of the major issues, but it is what the NHS thinks is a fair and reasonable contract and we need to move forward.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State, I am sure, has the grace to acknowledge that the application rate for specialty training has fallen since the Government put forward their proposals last year, but does he have the logic to accept that if he gets fewer junior doctors the problem he is trying to solve will only get worse?
Mr Hunt
We now have 10,600 more doctors working in the NHS than we did five years ago and we are investing record amounts going forward. There has been a lot of smoke and mirrors about what is actually in our contract proposals. I hope all trainees and medical students will look at the proposals and see that independent people have looked over them and believe they are fair and reasonable—actually better—for junior doctors, and that we will continue to be able to recruit more doctors into the NHS.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
As one, like myself, gets a bit older—some might say clapped out—one relies on the NHS more and more. People like me—I have just had an operation and might have another coming up—get worried about strikes. I hope the Secretary of State will try, from now on, to build the morale of junior doctors. Surely the NHS is not for the Conservative party, the Labour party, doctors or nurses, but for the people? Why should people like me, who are admitted to hospital on a Saturday, have a greater chance of dying? He has to take on the vested interests and stand up for the people.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, if we look at the change happening in global healthcare, the big movement is towards putting patients in the driving seat of their own healthcare. If we want the NHS to be the best in the world, we have to be confident that we are giving patients the best care in the world. That is why I completely agree with him and why I said in my statement that there is no reason why this could not be something the whole House can unite behind. What we cannot do, however, is look at eight studies in five years and say that we will act on this just as soon as we can get a consensus in the medical profession. We have been trying to get that consensus now for over three years. There comes a time when you have to say, “Enough is enough” and do the right thing for patients.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I know the Secretary of State does not usually listen to people with a bit of experience, but, as somebody who has spent 40 years dealing with trade disputes and their aftermath, may I ask him how he expects industrial relations to improve when he has imposed a contract, accused the negotiators of lying, and effectively said that the members were fooled by their own negotiators? He has now told us today that he will build into the contract a differential between the antisocial payments paid to these professionals and those paid to other professionals working next to them. That is a recipe for disaster. Will he put in the Library a full list of what he believes are the so-called lies that were told by the leaders of the BMA? Will he explain how he expects to get things back on an even keel, something that was asked for by the Chair of the Health Committee?
Mr Hunt
As someone who I fully concede may have more experience of industrial relation disputes than me, let me just say this: it is very clear that we are able to progress when there is give and take from both sides; when both sides are prepared to negotiate and come to a deal that is in the interests of the service and in the interests of the people working in the service. That was not possible. It is not me who is saying that; that is was what Sir David Dalton, a highly respected independent chief executive, said in the letter he wrote to me last night.
Some of the things that the BMA put out about the offer—for example, it put up on its website a pay calculator saying that junior doctors were going to have their pay cut by 30% to 50%—caused a huge amount of upset, anger and dismay, and were completely wrong. I do not think it would be very constructive for me to put in the House of Commons Library a list of all those things, when what I want to try to do is build trust and confidence. The differential between doctors and other workers in hospitals is what the BMA was seeking to protect. It still exists, but we have reduced it from what it was before because we think it is fairer that way and better for junior doctors.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I add to what my long-time comrade, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said by delving into a bit of history? In 1977, I was knocked off a motorcycle by a careless driver on a Sunday. Because staff were not in the hospital, the wound could not be cleaned until it was x-rayed and because the wound could not be cleaned, I got an infection. This is not just about increased mortality rates; it is about the prolongation and exacerbation of small or routine episodes and injuries. Will the Secretary of State, in his calm and measured way, say again to the House that when we look back on this episode people will be very surprised that it took nearly 40 years—from my accident—to bring about this long-overdue reform?
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He talks about x-rays, which illustrates the point that this is not just about doctor presence but the presence of those who are able to do x-rays, MRI scans, CT scans, get results back from laboratories and so on. A whole suite of things are necessary for seven-day care. He is also right to point out that there are huge savings if we get this right. For example, if someone gets an avoidable pressure ulcer because they have not had the care that they should have received over a weekend, they are likely to have to stay in hospital for over 10 days longer. That will cost the NHS several thousand pounds more and that is why, in the end, this is the right thing to do economically as well as ethically.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
There are huge pressures everywhere in the NHS. For instance, GP out-of-hours services are under an incredible strain and cover is very limited in some parts of the country. What is the Secretary of State doing about those pressures and the additional strain that could be triggered by an exodus of doctors, following the imposition of the doctors’ contract? Will he entertain the idea of a commission, as advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and by others on both sides of the House, to find a long-term consensual solution to the growing health and care challenges that we face?
Mr Hunt
The trouble with commissions is that they tend to take rather a long time to come up with their conclusions, and we need to sort out these problems now. That is why the Chancellor promised an extra £3.8 billion for the NHS next year, and why we said that we want 5,000 more GPs working in general practice, which will help out-of-hours services. We have a five-year plan that the NHS has the funding to implement, and that will transform out-of-hospital services. I hope that those developments will address the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his patience and resolution in bringing this matter to a conclusion. Does he share the real sadness that so many of us feel that these wonderful young people who come into the health service to be doctors with such high ideals are caught up in this terribly debilitating and damaging dispute? I ask him to reinforce his efforts to engage and speak directly with junior doctors and the medical profession as a whole and not allow the disruptive behaviour of the British Medical Association to destroy the relationship that we need to have with our doctors.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is right. There was absolutely no reason to have this dispute, because the things that we are trying to sort out—seven-day care and safer care for patients—are what every doctor wants to happen. Indeed, they choose medicine as a profession from the highest of ethical motives, and we want to support them. I share his sadness that it has come to this, but given that the counter-party in the situation is not willing to budge, we have to take action to remove uncertainty and to do the right for patients and for doctors. I will certainly continue to engage. The new commission headed up by Professor Dame Sue Bailey will also look at wider issues of morale, which will make a big difference.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I must advise the House that, so far, we have got through eight questioners in 14 minutes, which, by the standards of the House operating at its best, is poor, so we need to do better. That means shorter questions and, frankly, rather pithier answers.
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I had a further email on this subject from a doctor in my constituency this morning. He thanked me for forwarding replies from the Department, although he did say that they were disappointing. He said that the BMA had proposed a contract that met the Government’s cost-neutral requirements, but that it had been rejected. Is that true?
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on always having at the forefront patient care and the wellbeing of young doctors? Did it not give the game away when the BMA said that this was a blow against austerity? Will he remind the House how much extra money has gone into the NHS, by contrast to what happened under the Labour party?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that, regrettably, there are some political elements inside the BMA. The great irony is that, without the austerity measures that those same people opposed in the previous Parliament, we would not have been able to give the NHS its sixth biggest funding increase ever.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
When I watched the Secretary of State on the TV on Sunday, two things struck me: first, he got paler as the letters from junior doctors were read out; and secondly, he made it clear that it was the senior doctors not being present that was the barrier to a full seven-day NHS. Why is it then that he is picking a fight with junior doctors?
Mr Hunt
We need senior decision-makers to be present. They are the most important people when it comes to delivering seven-day care. Most of the medical royal colleges accept that a junior doctor who has had a substantial amount of training does qualify as a senior decision-maker, which is why we need them more.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The BMA has taken the oversubscribed political sub-speciality of spin doctoring to a whole new level. May I express my admiration for the Secretary of State for his ability to keep his cool under the sort of provocation that he has had, and ask how a 13.5% increase in pensionable pay could possibly lead to problems with recruitment and retention?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend speaks with personal knowledge. One of the things that has been wrong with junior doctors’ contracts for many years is that basic pay is too low. They therefore feel under huge pressure to boost basic pay by premium working, and that has led to some of the distortions that we see. So, yes, it is a significant increase in basic pay, which will be a very big step forward.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I have spent 30 years in the world of work, representing employees, conducting negotiations and solving disputes. I have seldom seen a sense of grievance so grotesquely mishandled, insulting the intelligence of junior doctors by telling them that they do not understand what is on offer. Does the Secretary of State not feel a sense of shame that his handling of this dispute should have so poisoned relationships with junior doctors, who are the backbone of the national health service?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman can do a lot better than that. We have been willing to negotiate since June. It was not me who refused to sit round the table and talk until December; it was the BMA, which, before even talking to the Government, balloted for industrial action. What totally irresponsible behaviour that is. If Labour were responsible, it would be condemning it as well.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement today and for all the work that he is doing to deliver a truly seven-day-a-week NHS, which we all really want for our constituents. Will he confirm that the BMA, the royal colleges, the Government and the wider NHS are all now agreed on the need to improve weekend care, which, as Professor Sir Bruce Keogh has said, is both a clinical and a moral cause?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a huge amount of support for doing the right thing for patients, which is why it is so extraordinary that the BMA has chosen to defend the indefensible, not to sit round and talk about how we can do this, as any reasonable doctor would have done and—to go back to the earlier question—to put out deeply misleading comments to its own members that have inflamed the situation and made it far worse than it needed to be.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Royal College of General Practitioners has reacted to the decision to impose the contract by saying that it is shocked and dismayed. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has said that the decision will exacerbate the recruitment and retention issues that the NHS currently faces. Why does the Health Secretary ignore the concerns of those two royal colleges?
Mr Hunt
When those colleges have had a chance to look carefully at our proposal, they will find much that they can commend. For both psychiatrists and GPs, we are putting in a premium to attract more people into those specialties, which will be immensely important both for them and for the NHS.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State draw to the shadow Secretary of State’s attention the research in the Netherlands that has shown that seven-day working has dramatically cut stillbirth rates—by 6.8% in the Netherlands—and has the potential to have a real impact on survival rates for young babies?
Mr Hunt
I commend my hon. Friend for her campaigning on that issue. She could not be more right. Just before Christmas, a report by Professor Paul Aylin said that the mortality rates for neonatal children were 7% higher at weekends, which underlines just how important it is to get this right.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
On 5 December 2011, the Government tried to cut unsocial hours for “Agenda for Change” staff. At a time when morale right across the NHS is so low, will the Secretary of State guarantee that he will not bring forward cuts, because the reason behind the unsocial hours cut that I mentioned was to introduce seven-day working?
Mr Hunt
We have no plans to do so, but I cannot be drawn any further, except to say that we do have to deliver our manifesto commitments. The specific issues that we have identified with respect to seven-day working relate to consultant and junior doctor presence, and that is what we are focused on putting right.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the very clear way in which he has kept the House up to date on the progress of all this. It is very important not only that we free up beds in hospitals, most certainly at weekends, but that we should be making much greater use of our pharmacies to deliver better healthcare within the community. Will he explain how that might happen?
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
On Sunday, I witnessed the seven-day working at a Welsh hospital, where a clinic was held in Nevill Hall for the convenience of patients and to get maximum use of an expensive gamma camera. The Secretary of State constantly denigrates the work of the Welsh health service, but will he pause to congratulate the Welsh and Scottish Governments, who avoided the misery of the strike and will also avoid the poisonous legacy of resentment that he will face from junior doctors?
Mr Hunt
The Welsh and Scottish Governments may have avoided the difficult decision that we are taking in the NHS in England, but the longer they go on avoiding the issue, the longer they will have higher mortality rates at weekends, which we are determined to do something about.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. If we do not have enough junior doctors, patient safety cannot be guaranteed. In his statement, he referred to reducing the number of hours, nights, days and rostered weekends for doctors. Does he believe that that will ensure that there will be no strike? What safeguards are in place for patients, nurses and senior doctors if an agreement cannot be reached?
Mr Hunt
It is because an agreement cannot be reached that we have to take the measures that we are taking today. The bits of the new contract to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention are the bits that will have the biggest impact on the morale of junior doctors, because we are saying that we do not think it is right for hospitals to ask them to work five nights in a row or to work six or seven long days in a row. We are putting that right in the new contract. That will lead to less tired doctors and better care for patients.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I met a large group of junior doctors in my constituency to discuss the new contract. They were highly professional and totally committed to the NHS, but for the first time some of them were considering working abroad. One of them told me that, although she loved her job, she would never let her daughter train as a junior doctor now. Does that not demonstrate that the low morale—the despair, frankly—and the likely flight of junior doctors as a consequence of imposition is a huge threat to the future of our NHS?
Mr Hunt
The biggest threat to morale for doctors is not being able to deliver the care that they came into the profession to deliver. That is why we are sorting out a proper seven-day NHS, particularly for junior doctors who work in A&E departments at weekends, where they often do not have the support they would get during the week and do not have as many consultants around as there would normally be. That is what we are trying to put right. I appreciate that it is very difficult when the counter-party in the dispute does not want to negotiate, but in the end Governments have to decide what is right for patients and what is right for the service, as well as what is right for doctors.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Hull has traditionally struggled to recruit doctors in specialties such as A&E, general practice and psychiatry. I am concerned about the royal colleges’ warning that the imposition of the contract will have a detrimental effect on staff morale and staff retention in the NHS. Will this not make things even more difficult for areas such as Hull, which struggle to recruit in the first place?
Mr Hunt
We want more doctors and more nurses in the NHS, but in the end, if we are putting extra money in to recruit these extra doctors and nurses, it is fair to the public who are paying for their salaries to have reforms that mean their care gets better. That will apply to the hon. Lady’s constituents in Hull, who want a seven-day NHS, just as my constituents in Surrey do.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The Health Secretary repeatedly accuses the BMA of misleading junior doctors, yet 98% of them voted for industrial action. Without exception, every doctor I have spoken to said that the last thing they wanted to do was to go out on strike. Doctors are some of the brightest and most intelligent people we have in our country. Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that they cannot make up their minds for themselves?
Mr Hunt
It is interesting that when that vote was held, the BMA had not sat down and talked to the Government, despite repeated invitations. I personally met Johann Malawana, the leader of the junior doctors committee, and invited him to talks. Despite those repeated invitations, they refused to talk; they decided to ballot for industrial action. How serious are people about reaching a negotiated settlement if that is what they do?
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State clarify something in his statement for me? He says that “those working one in four Saturdays or more will receive a pay premium of 30%. That is higher on average than that available to nurses, midwives, paramedics and most other clinical staff”. The staff he cites will be employed on bands 4 to 9 under “Agenda for Change” terms and conditions. If they work Saturdays, they receive plain time plus 30% for working then, so can the Secretary of State tell me how he has calculated an average? I do not understand his mathematics.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), there were no strikes in Wales yesterday. However, on the point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), there was an increase of 10% in the budget, equivalent to 135 places for nurse training, which is so critical for cover. That may be what led to a communication that I received from a junior doctor in England who said, “Could we have your Minister for Wales, please?” What does it say about morale in the NHS in England when, in football and rugby parlance, the Minister has lost the confidence of the changing room?
Mr Hunt
I think that is the first time in living memory in this House that a Welsh MP has got up and said that they think things are better in the Welsh NHS. Just look at the waiting times that people face for basic operations on the NHS in Wales—far, far longer than in England. We will take no lectures about how to run the NHS from Labour in Wales.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I represent three fine hospitals and one great medical school, and I spend a lot of time listening to junior doctors and medical students. The Secretary of State talks about the crisis in morale in the NHS among junior doctors. Does he not recognise that his handling of the dispute has done so much to enhance that crisis, and that today’s announcement will make it so much worse?
Mr Hunt
Not at all. The choice I had was to do something about mortality rates at weekends or to duck the issue. Under the Conservatives, we do not duck issues about mortality rates. We do the right thing for patients. After Labour’s record, I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would be a little more circumspect.
Points of Order
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In an earlier exchange in Energy and Climate Change questions, the Secretary of State said, in response to a question that I posed to her, that large-scale solar is already subsidy-free. I think she may have inadvertently misled the House. As I understand it, under the Government’s banding review, they are proposing a subsidy of £34 per megawatt-hour. How can I get the Secretary of State to correct her statement?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I was not here during DECC questions but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, Ministers take responsibility for their own statements. He has put the matter on the record.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier in business questions, I raised the case of my constituents, Mike and Tina Trowhill. I had raised the matter in Prime Minister’s questions on 4 November and the Prime Minister had promised a meeting with my constituents. I raised it with the Leader of the House because it is now the middle of February and it has proved very difficult to arrange that meeting. The Leader of the House said that I had misinterpreted the response from the Prime Minister. I have checked Hansard for 4 November. I said:
“Will the Prime Minister agree to meet Mike and Tina to discuss why we need national and local inquiries into what happened to baby ashes in such cases?”
His response was:
“I am happy to arrange that meeting.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 964.]
I do not understand how I have misinterpreted that and, more to the point, how my constituents, who have now been waiting three months for a meeting with the Prime Minister, could have misinterpreted it? Can you assist me in how I should take the matter forward?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Lady has already taken the matter forward by putting it on the record. No doubt, the Minister on the Treasury Bench will take it further. Perhaps the hon. Lady will be written to, at least.
Housing Associations and the Right to Buy
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Select Committee on Communities and Local Government
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
We come now to two Select Committee statements. Mr Clive Betts will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and I will call Mr Clive Betts to respond to those in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. Front-Bench Members may take part in questioning. The same procedure will be followed for the second Select Committee statement. I call the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, Clive Betts.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to present our report on housing associations and the right to buy. I would also like to thank Craig Bowdery, our Committee specialist; Professor Christine Whitehead, our specialist adviser; and Professor Ian Cole and his research colleagues at Sheffield Hallam University for their help in producing the report.
There is clearly a housing crisis in this country, so the Committee wanted to look in greater detail at one of the Government’s key policies: extending the right to buy to tenants of housing associations. That was a Conservative manifesto commitment, so the Committee did not question whether it should be implemented. As is appropriate for Select Committees, however, we scrutinised how it was being implemented. We also looked at other Government policies, such as the 1% reduction in social rents, pay to stay and starter homes, which will all have an impact on the provision of social housing and on housing associations.
We had a large response to our request for evidence, with more than 175 written submissions, and we heard from a range of witnesses, including housing association chiefs from across England, Scotland and Wales, council leaders and representatives of tenants and mortgage lenders.
Throughout our investigations, we found a great deal of uncertainty—that was a key point—and a lack of detail. The robustness of the funding model for the right to buy is extremely questionable, and we call on the Government to cost the programmes fully as a matter of urgency.
Shortly after our investigations began, a deal to implement the extended right to buy voluntarily was reached between the Government and the National Housing Federation. We recognise that a voluntary deal is a way of delivering a key policy from the Government’s manifesto while maintaining the independence of housing associations, and that, in the circumstances, it is the best way forward for both. However, there remains much uncertainty in the wording of the agreement. A minority of associations voted against it, and some abstained, and we do not yet know how the right to buy will be imposed on them and how binding the terms of a voluntary agreement can be.
Another issue is exactly how much discretion each association will have to decline sales. Can they, for example, choose not sell any of their homes in a certain area, or will they sell them on a case-by-case basis? Similarly, what is the appeal process for tenants who are refused the right to buy?
The extended right to buy is designed to increase home ownership and housing supply. We support those aspirations and the principle of giving people the opportunity to own their own home, provided that the homes sold under the right to buy are replaced on a one-for-one basis and that housing continues to be delivered across all tenures to meet the country’s housing needs. We feel there are unresolved issues, and we remain concerned that the Government’s policies could have a detrimental effect on the provision of accessible and affordable housing across all tenures, particularly on affordable rented homes.
We looked particularly at houses in rural areas, where there is often high demand. Limited land availability means that it can be challenging to build new homes to replace those sold through the right to buy. For our rural communities to thrive, it is important that young people and those on lower incomes can afford to live in them. The terms of the voluntary agreement included the ability of housing associations to offer a portable discount in place of selling a home. Given that rural areas such as national parks can be large, it remains to be seen how that will work in practice.
We are concerned that the extended right to buy could hinder the provision of specialist and supported housing schemes. Homes in such schemes are expensive to build and can be harder to replace, but they provide essential services to those living in them. We also believe that to avoid confusion or possible legal challenges, restrictive covenants on specific sites and properties built using charitable funds should be explicitly exempt from the extended right to buy.
We found that large numbers of homes sold through the statutory right to buy to council tenants had become rental properties in the private sector in a relatively short time. That is a concern because the private rented sector is often more expensive than social housing, and the quality of homes can, in some cases, be lower. Selling much needed social assets at a discount, only for them to become more expensive in the private rented sector, is therefore a significant concern for the Committee.
Measures to restrict homes sold through the right to buy from ending up in the private rented sector need to be explored. We suggest that those might include a provision that any right-to-buy homes resold within 10 years should first be offered to local housing associations or the local council, which could choose to buy them at market price. They might also include a restrictive covenant requiring a minimum period of owner-occupation. Those are matters for exploration.
The Government propose to fund the extended right to buy with the proceeds from the sale of high-value council homes. The definition of “high value” has not yet been announced, and it is long overdue. The precise mechanism by which this policy will be funded contains too many unknowns and unclear definitions. However, we observe that public policies should usually be funded by the Government, rather than through a levy on local authorities. If only those councils that have retained some housing stock are required to make the payment to fund the right-to-buy discounts, the effect on communities, and the financial risk for local authorities, will be greater in some areas than in others. That is another reason for our belief that a national policy should be funded nationally.
We received much evidence on the proposed funding, and we are concerned that the sums do not add up. We cannot be sure that the proceeds from selling council homes will cover the costs of providing right-to-buy discounts, the costs of building replacement council homes and the brownfield regeneration fund. We urge the Government to publish their figures and to clarify the funding mechanism as soon as possible.
The success of the extended right to buy largely depends on the homes that are sold being replaced and on the housing supply being maintained. We appreciate the size of the challenge of building more homes to meet demand, but we seek more details from the Government on how they will meet their objective of achieving at least one-for-one replacement of the homes sold. They must take steps to ensure that the homes built to offset right-to-buy and council home sales meet the needs of local communities and have a tenure mix that reflects local circumstances.
Another policy that could impact on housing associations and the provision of rented housing is the new legal duty on councils to ensure the provision of 200,000 new starter homes across all reasonably sized sites. It is important that homes for affordable rent are also built where the need exists, particularly because starter homes now count towards satisfying the affordable housing allocation in section 106 agreements. Starter homes should not be built at the expense of other forms of tenure; it is vital that homes for affordable rent are built to reflect local needs. To put that in context, about 250,000 housing association rented homes have been built in the last 10 years through section 106 agreements.
Another policy change is that housing associations have been required to adapt to the fact that the Government are reducing social rents by 1% a year for four years. That reduction in housing association’s income is significant and could impact on the pastoral services provided. It could also impact on associations’ development capacity and the viability of supported housing schemes. It will affect different housing associations in different ways. We welcome the recent announcement that supported housing rents will be exempt from the 1% reduction for a year while the Government review the situation.
Before the 2016 autumn statement, the Government should provide some certainty over rent levels post-2020, to assist long-term business planning and increase investor confidence. We support their efforts to deregulate housing associations, and we argue that giving them the freedom to set their own rent levels is the next logical step.
It is clear that the housing association sector is undergoing a substantial change. We encourage the regulator to adopt a framework that is based on risk, rather than factors such as size, and that recognises the sector’s diversity. Regardless of how housing associations might change in future, it is vital that they remain mindful of their social mission and philanthropic purpose.
The Government have ambitious plans to address the severe housing shortage, and they are seeking to do so by prioritising affordable home ownership. None the less, rented housing at full market rents and sub-market rents will continue to be essential to meet the needs of many in our society and should exist alongside other forms of housing.
Finally, I thank all members of the Committee for working assiduously and collectively to produce this unanimously agreed report.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his statement, and him and his Committee on its report? I was interested in conclusion 96, which says:
“It is important that housing associations which generate surpluses apply them to delivering new housing.”
In his report, the hon. Gentleman highlights the fact that the department has identified
“that the housing association sector had a surplus of £2.4 billion”,
which it could make use of. Does he share my concern that there is tremendous scope for more efficiencies in housing associations? Is he as concerned as I am that some chief executives of housing associations receive very large salaries indeed?
Mr Betts
That was an issue the Committee was mindful of. That wording in the report is very clear. Where there are large surpluses, and there are housing shortages to be met, housing associations should look to make sure those surpluses are spent in a way that delivers more homes.
It is also important that housing association boards look at how their resources can be managed to the maximum efficiency. The public sector as a whole has had to have an eye on efficiency in the last few years. The housing associations are deliberately not in the public sector, and the Government have taken steps to deal with that issue. Nevertheless, they receive public funding, and they should make sure they spend that public money as efficiently as possible.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I welcome this unanimous cross-party report, which reinforces criticism and opposition already voiced by Conservative Members and by the Conservative-led Local Government Association about the huge loss of affordable homes in rural and urban areas alike as a result of the Housing and Planning Bill. The other place is set to examine the Bill’s provisions on housing associations’ right to buy and the forced sale of council homes on 3 March, so what steps will my hon. Friend take to make sure that peers know all about this important report before then?
Mr Betts
I would have thought that making this statement today was a start to that process and give the report some publicity. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be sending messages to his colleagues in the other place where he wants to draw particular aspects to their attention. A key issue is how the right-to-buy scheme should be funded. I think it would be very helpful for their lordships if the Government were to produce the calculations on how the sale of high-value council assets in relation to right-to-buy discounts, the replacement of the sold-off council homes, and the brownfield regeneration fund—which I think we can all support as a very good principle—can all be funded. We need to see the Government’s figures given that we had evidence from the Chartered Institute of Housing that the maximum amount raised from the levy would be about £2.2 billion a year, which would not cover the three costs that need to be covered to meet the Government’s intentions.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome the statement from the Chair of the Select Committee, on which I am pleased to serve. I can confirm that this report was, helpfully, agreed on a cross-party basis. I commend him for his diligent work in ensuring that we did come to such an agreement even though it was quite difficult at times. Does he agree that it is important to increase not only the supply but the mixture of tenure? One of the key concerns that the Government have addressed, thanks to an amendment to the Bill, is that social rented homes sold will be replaced on a two-for-one basis. I think that is warmly welcomed. We also need to make sure that the homes that are sold are for owner-occupation and do not end up in the private rented sector market, because that denies people the right to own their own home.
Mr Betts
When a home is bought under the right to buy and the Government then continue with their policy of selling a council home to pay for it, if both those homes could be replaced with properties that meet the needs of those communities, I think everyone would feel a lot more comfortable about the direction of travel. As I understand it, the two-for-one replacement is a London-only commitment at this stage, and it is not precisely clear what the tenure of the two-homes replacement would be. That is one of the unanswered questions. Another is that we do not yet know how the levy raised on councils would be distributed around the country. Presumably the specific requirement for London means that some sort of regional ring-fencing will be in place, but we do not know precisely what that will be until the Government say so.
Yes, there is a concern about homes being bought under the right to buy and then becoming homes in the private rented sector. We can all see why that is. When people have bought their council homes, we see the front doors and front windows appearing in those newly bought homes, and a few years later we go back and probably see the roofs that have not been repaired, indicating that those homes have been passed on to the private rented sector. That is a challenge the Committee identified, and I hope that the Government will work with the National Housing Federation to explore how it might be dealt with.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, thank the Chair of the Select Committee for bringing forward this report. I have always supported the right to buy. This is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, but I still want to ask a question. In Northern Ireland, we have changed the tenancy arrangements such that a tenant has to stay for an extra five years before they can have a right to purchase. Another change is that tenants have no right to buy a bungalow or adapted disabled accommodation because of constituents’ insatiable demand for such housing. Has the Chair given any consideration to those two conditions in Northern Ireland? Did any discussions take place with the Northern Ireland Assembly or with other devolved regional Administrations to gauge their opinion on what they do? That would perhaps allow us to have a uniform set of rules or criteria across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Mr Betts
We had witnesses from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so we did look across the board. We did not look specifically at extending the qualifying period for the right to buy, but we did look in some detail at supported housing. We thought that the discount should not be eligible in relation to the right to buy. The problem is that in some cases where a property cannot be sold, a portable discount can be given to another property, but if a person needs supported housing, then saying to them, “You can’t buy that house but you can have a portable discount to another supported housing unit somewhere else” does not really add up. We need clarification on that because we were very concerned about the prospect of losing supported housing in this way.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
First, I apologise to the Chairman and members of the Select Committee for not being here earlier; I have been serving on a Bill Committee. I hope they will appreciate that I whizzed down as soon as we finished the sitting.
I thank the Chairman and the entire team who worked on this report, and everybody who gave evidence, for their time and effort. It is a deep report that we will look at with interest. I am sure that members of the Committee and the Chairman himself will appreciate that there may be things that we do not entirely agree with; we have that debate from time to time. Through the voluntary agreement, our policies in the Housing and Planning Bill and our housing policies in general, we have been very clear that we support, and will continue to do all we can to support, the aspiration of home ownership, and the right to buy plays an important part in that. I welcome the time and effort that the Committee put into the report, and look forward to the debates on these issues in the period ahead.
Mr Betts
I would probably be disappointed if the Minister did agree with everything in the report. The Committee members were absolutely at one on this. We support the aspiration of home ownership—how could we not when we are homeowners ourselves? People would look at us askance if we came to a different view. We did not say that we were against the right to buy; rather, we raised a number of fundamental questions about how it could be funded. We would like the Minister to provide in response the information, the evidence and the facts and figures to back up the Government’s policy so that we can have a better view as to how it will work in practice.
Future of the Union: English Votes for English Laws
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Backbench Business
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Equitable Life
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Before I call Bob Blackman to move the motion, I must tell the House that we have two very heavily subscribed Back-Bench debates. In the first debate, we will start with a time limit of five minutes, and in the second one, the limit will be four minutes. With that in mind, I call Bob Blackman.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House congratulates the Government on providing a scheme to compensate victims of the Equitable Life scandal; welcomes the Government’s acceptance of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings in full; notes that the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have been in had maladministration not occurred; further notes that most victims have only received partial compensation compared to the confirmed losses and that the compensation scheme is now closed to new applicants; and calls on the Government to ensure that the entire existing budget allocated for compensation to date is paid to eligible policyholders and to make a further commitment to provide full compensation for relative losses to all victims of this scandal.
I draw Members’ attention to the fact that I am the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders. I share that honour with the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who regrettably has to be in another debate, otherwise he would have been here. I hope that he will be able to get here and put his point of view before we conclude. The all-party parliamentary group is one of the largest groups in Parliament, if not the largest group, with 195 members drawn from all political parties.
When I was elected in May 2010, I signed only a limited number of pledges. One that I was very happy to sign, having investigated the matter fully, was a pledge to seek justice for Equitable Life policyholders. There is no doubt that this has been an outrageous scandal in respect of the length of time it has lasted and the repeated failure of Governments of all persuasions adequately to compensate people who were the victims of a scam. These were hard-working people who invested their life savings in a pension scheme that they believed was secure.
We all know that when one invests on the stock market or in such schemes, the market can go up or down. The difference between this scam and other such schemes is that Equitable Life went round inducing people to put their life savings into it, promising huge bonuses and payouts. It swept up enormous amounts of money and numbers of people who thought that it was a great scheme. In reality, the scheme could not finance itself. It could never meet the commitments that it had made. That was very dangerous, but the regulator knew that it was going on, as did the Government and the Treasury. They conspired to prevent it becoming public knowledge so that people carried on investing their money and losing money.
To make matters worse, it took not only court action, but the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to bring to the attention of the public that this was maladministration of the worst kind. The last parliamentary ombudsman made it clear in her excellent report that Equitable Life policyholders who had suffered a relative loss should be put back in the position they would have been in had they not suffered as a result of this scam. I seek to ensure in this Parliament, as we did in the last, that all Equitable Life policyholders are given the compensation they are due.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
After all the debates, the truth is that 95% of Equitable Life with-profits policyholders have received just 22% of their relative losses. That is the bottom line, is it not? The Government have a responsibility, given the maladministration that clearly happened, to help the many elderly people who have faced such appalling losses.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that clear statement.
There are three sets of policyholders: the pre-1992 trapped annuitants, who were to get not a single penny under the compensation scheme; the with-profits annuitants, who were to get 100% compensation; and the pension holders, who got 22.4% of their relative losses, as my hon. Friend said. The coalition Government set up a compensation scheme, which I was pleased to support. However, it is a scandal that if someone purchased their policy on 31 August 1992, they got nothing, but if they purchased it on 1 September 1992, they got 100%. The rationale was that if the pre-1992 trapped annuitants had looked at the regulated accounts, they could have seen that there was a problem and that it was a scam. The reality is that when people sign up to such schemes, they do not expect to have to do that. I applaud the Government for taking steps, following the legislation, to partly compensate the pre-1992 trapped annuitants.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
My hon. Friend has done great work with the other members of the all-party parliamentary group. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the fact that, as you know, for a number of reasons I will not be able to stay for the whole debate. Many of my constituents were victims of this scam. Does he agree that when there has been a failure of regulation, as there was in this case, the Government essentially stand behind the regulator, so the moral responsibility ultimately falls on the Government, regardless of party? Although the coalition did something, the financial constraints that enabled it to argue that it was not able to do as much as we would have wished at that time are beginning to ease. Do not decency, honesty and equity demand that we revisit the amount of compensation that is due to these people, who saved and did the right thing, and who, frankly, have been let down by Government agencies as much as by Equitable Life?
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that clear conclusion.
The Government allocated £1.5 billion of compensation to policyholders who had lost money. Some £45 million was then promised and delivered to the pre-1992 trapped annuitants. The Chancellor accepted at the Dispatch Box in November 2010 that the total loss was some £4.1 billion, so the shortfall in compensation is £2.6 billion.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this issue forward for debate in the Chamber. I am sure that, like me, he has received representations from elderly decent people who have done the right thing throughout their life and who invested in Equitable Life in order, they thought, that they had a secure pension in the long term. The Government need to foster a savings culture and promote pensions. Does he not think that the failure to compensate people in full for what they did responsibly and in good faith risks undermining the culture that we need to develop for the future of this country?
Bob Blackman
When people make an investment decision, they understand that the market can go up or down. What made this scheme different from other investment choices was that it was a scam, and we should recognise it as such. It was a scandal. There is a moral duty, as hon. Members have said, on the Government to provide full compensation.
What has changed is that the Government set a time limit for the submission of new applications for compensation and said that they had to be in by 31 December 2015. Therefore, we now know the total number of people who are due compensation and can look at how the compensation scheme is operating. I have no doubt that the Minister will outline the progress that has been made in compensating individual policyholders.
I want to draw attention to two elements. A contingency fund of £100 million was deliberately set aside because, at that time, it was not known how many policyholders would need to be compensated. Also, because it has not been possible to trace a large number of policyholders—I think it is about 110,000—there has been an underspend of some £39 million. My first ask of the Minister is that that £139 million goes to the people who have suffered loss. That would not cost the Treasury anything because it has already allocated that money.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. This is an important matter for my constituents, particularly those who worked at the carriage works in York, which has closed, many of whom have suffered from mesothelioma. For some of them, it is too late. Is not expediency an important criterion for the Government to consider so that the survivors have the opportunity to receive compensation?
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention.
Because of the different categories of policyholder, the pre-1992 trapped annuitants—of which 9,000 are still alive—have a minimum age of 88, and most are in their late 80s or early 90s. They are coming to the end of their lives, and it is right that they should seek and receive compensation. It is wrong and reprehensible that some of those individuals who invested their money have had to exist on pension credit, when they expected to have a proper pension scheme. Those 9,000 people should receive the £100 million contingency fund, which would lead roughly—I will leave the Minister to consider the detail—to an average of about £12,000 compensation each. That would be a dramatic change for those individuals who are coming to the end of their lives.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate on a matter that affects a number of my constituents. The Government have cited affordability constraints as a reason for not bridging the gap and providing full compensation. Given that we are now in 2016, and the Chancellor constantly tells us that the economy is in a far stronger position, should we urge him to look again at the issue, so that those who have been so badly affected and who have worked all their lives and invested in a prudent fashion, should be compensated?
Bob Blackman
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Lady. We now know how many victims there are, and what the payouts have been. For with-profit annuitants, 38,135 victims have received £336 million, and those payments will continue over the next few years. However, 890,472 victims have received only 22.4%, and it has been difficult for members of the scheme to understand the basis on which that has been delivered. As has been mentioned, the Government said that they could not afford all that money to pay people out, but people who are in that position will need compensation over several years. They do not need all the money to be put into the scheme upfront; they need it to be spread over a number of years while they are pensioners. As the economy recovers, the Government should supply additional funds, as the Treasury can afford it, to top up the scheme and ensure that those who suffered relative loss receive the full compensation package due.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentions the hundreds of thousands of people who are waiting for full compensation. How much additional money does he feel that the Government will have to come up with over that compensation period?
Bob Blackman
We must find a further £2.6 billion to meet the commitment that all of us signed up to. Those of us who made that pledge said that we wanted full and fair compensation, and the Chancellor made it clear at the Dispatch Box that that was the figure, although he was only able to come up with £1.5 billion at the time. The shortfall is now £2.6 billion. I could go through a whole list of other things that the Chancellor has found money for but that have perhaps less merit than the plight of those elderly people who invested their money.
I do not expect the Minister suddenly to say, “Don’t worry, we’re going to provide all the money. Here it is”—it would be good if he did—but the Chancellor will be at the Dispatch Box on 16 March to deliver the Budget, and I hope that he will announce further compensation for the pre-1992 trapped annuitants so that they receive full compensation. I also hope he will confirm that none of the money that has already been pledged will be clawed back at the end of the scheme, and that further moneys will be made available as and when that is allowed in the Treasury forecast.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his work on behalf of the victims of the Equitable Life saga. It surprises me that the Treasury has not yet conceded that it will have to spend the £139 million that it has in its coffers on this compensation, as it expected to, rather than take it as a windfall. Surely that is the starting point.
Bob Blackman
I completely agree with my hon. Friend—that is the starting point, but to be fair to the Treasury, we expected and hoped that the agency would be able to trace more victims of the scandal so that they could receive the compensation due. Tracing has taken place over an extended period, and I applaud the Government for using many different means to try to trace those individuals. Some people will have died, some have moved multiple times, and some were in all sorts of pension schemes that then moved on. Some people had small pension policies and may not have seen any point in requesting compensation. However, we now know exactly how many victims there are, and there is no excuse for retaining the contingency or the underspend.
I know that a number of Members wish to speak, so in conclusion, this is all about justice for people who have suffered loss. Indeed, not only did they suffer that loss, but it was avoidable. The Government, the company and the regulator knew that the scam was going on, but it was too big to fail because had it done so, the Government would have had to come up with all the compensation straightaway. This is a matter of justice, and on behalf of the all-party group for justice for equitable life policyholders, I pay tribute to the Equitable Members Action Group for its wonderful work over the years in bringing the plight of those people to light in both the public eye and in Parliament. The fight will go on until every single policyholder who suffered relative loss is receiving full compensation. I invite the Minister to receive comments from across the House, and to do the right thing by people who have suffered injustice.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I have been contacted by a number of constituents who were affected by the collapse of Equitable Life. One woman wrote to me to say:
“I myself have lost over £40,000, and have only received £12,000 in compensation. Does this sound fair to you?”
Successive Governments have failed to appreciate the anger that this issue has caused people. A couple who contacted me asked why the Treasury had provided 100% compensation to Icelandic bank depositors, when they had received only a fifth of the sum that they were due and had planned their retirement around. They said:
“In the years prior to our retirement we actually took money from our own savings to top up our pension payments and feel that we have lost twice over. We would have been better off being irresponsible and spent every penny we had and then relied on the State. It seems the government departments are hoping that we will die and the problem will go away.”
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Library briefing points out that there is a ticking time bomb because the beneficiaries of the scheme are elderly. Like my hon. Friend, I have received representations from many constituents. Has she heard the same sentiment that I heard expressed by Brian Watkins, who faces losing up to £40,000 and thinks that the Government are waiting until policyholders die, so that they do not have to deal with them? Surely, we should reassure those people, and the Chancellor should find that money down the back of the sofa.
Melanie Onn
I agree, and our constituents in London and the north of the country clearly share the view that this is a significant issue. People feel seriously let down by the Government’s failure to act on this matter in a timely fashion. I wonder whether the Minister is confident that the current regulations are strong enough to prevent any repeat of what happened. Future investors will be particularly keen to know that they are not going to fall into a similar trap and that if a similar situation were to come to light in the future, the Government would engage with the victims and allow their voices to be heard when trying to devise a solution.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about victims feeling that their voices are not being heard; that is the message that has come across loud and clear from my constituents, who have also been affected and have found themselves re-mortgaging their homes in their old age just to make ends meet. Does she share my concerns on that?
Melanie Onn
It must be a significant concern to people to find themselves at retirement age without the money they were expecting, having prudently invested. The example I gave was of people taking money out of their savings to top up their pensions, and they would have expected to have some security in their older years.
It is welcome that the Government do step in where regulation has failed; but unfortunately, the delivery is too often lacking. We know about this in Grimsby, because there has also been appalling maladministration of the fishermen’s pensions and the fishermen’s compensation scheme. Despite it being 30 years since those were due to pay out, a constituent of mine is still waiting and has not received the £3,000 that he is due, simply because of poor record keeping. The Government must understand that when compensation packages are devised, the mechanism to deliver them must be properly put in place and all the calculations must be done appropriately, and where money is promised, it must be delivered. The Government need to ensure that the regulation of these industries is robust and they need to be quicker to compensate those who lose out in the future.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
Much of what I wanted to say has been mentioned already by other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has been a fierce and consistent champion for Equitable Life policyholders. I wish to make very clear my continued support for the Equitable Life policyholders in my constituency, and I believe the best way to do that would be to resurrect some comments I made in a speech in this House almost six years ago. That speech was one of my first after being elected in 2010, and it brings into sharp relief just how long some of us have been trying to get justice for those of our constituents affected by the collapse of Equitable Life, some of whom lost thousands of pounds.
I pointed out the following in that speech:
“Several hon. Members have suggested today that the Equitable Life scandal—and a scandal it was—is complicated, but for me it is actually quite simple. It is about fairness to a group of people who were badly let down by the regulatory failures of their Government. I went into the recent general election supporting a Conservative manifesto that made a promise to Equitable Life policyholders in my constituency. It said:
‘We must not let the mis-selling of financial products put people off saving. We will implement the Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.’”
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
My hon. Friend refers to that manifesto commitment in 2010. May I tell him that in the previous Parliament I helped to set up the all-party group and that we interviewed the then shadow Ministers at that juncture and they promised they would do everything to help the people affected? My constituent, Mr Meinertzhagen has lost half his pension as a result of this terrible tragedy.
Gordon Henderson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to my attention.
I continued that speech by saying:
“I wish to take this opportunity to assure policyholders in my constituency that I for one do not intend to go back on that election pledge.
Most people accept that Equitable Life policyholders were the subject of Government maladministration, and that is certainly the view of the ombudsman, Ann Abraham. There is some dispute on all sides, however, about the level of compensation that should be paid to policyholders. Sir John Chadwick’s report established that the relative loss suffered by Equitable Life amounted to between £4 billion and £4.8 billion, and the Financial Secretary, in his statement to the House this July, supported that figure. However, Sir John then used a series of convoluted calculations and speculative assumptions that allowed him to suggest a cap on the total amount of compensation that should be paid. He then went on to reduce that cap figure to just 10% of the relative loss figure that he himself originally calculated.
One of Sir John’s most telling assumptions was that the majority of policyholders would have invested in Equitable Life irrespective of maladministration. That is a very big assumption that cannot be proved or disproved…
Like many Members, I have been in touch with many of those policyholders, and all they want is fairness, because they are fair-minded people. However, they are not stupid people, and they recognise that in these times of austerity even they must shoulder some of the burden needed to bring down the country’s massive debt mountain.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 834-35.]
That was my position in 2010 and that position has not changed.
The Government went some way towards compensating those who lost money in the Equitable Life scandal, but that compensation met only part of the loss, so the Equitable Life investors in my constituency received partial justice. In truth, partial justice is no justice at all, and I urge the Government to give people justice now.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
It is a somewhat novel experience for me, as a Scottish National party Member, to stand up to support a motion that starts by saying
“this House congratulates the Government”.
However, I do so because this matter has been dragging on for a large number of years. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) said that he had been dealing with this for six years. I was first elected to this House in 2001, and I have been talking about it for coming up to 15 years now. This all started when the policyholders won their case before the House of Lords in 2000, so they have been fighting this for 16 years. Many Administrations refused to take it seriously, but I give the coalition Government credit for finally grasping the nettle and introducing a scheme. We may not agree with all the terms of the scheme, but that Government did do something about this. I see from a note I received from the Library that it appears that, when the scheme closed on 31 December, some 125,000 policyholders had not come forward to submit a claim. That is a large number of people who have not even got any money out of the existing scheme.
It took a report from the ombudsman to get the ball rolling on compensation, and I suppose the reason we are still debating it today was her conclusion:
“the diversion of scarce public resources is a relevant consideration which should be taken into account and weighed in the balance along with other relevant considerations”.
In introducing this debate, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said that the agreed sum outstanding was some £2.5 billion, but it is not entirely straightforward to see exactly what sum is required to put the policyholders back to where they would have been in terms of the relative loss. I have seen figures of up to £5 billion and as low as £500 million in this regard. First, we have to be clear exactly what the figure is. The Government, policyholders and the Equitable Members Action Group must agree what the figure is, because at the moment a large range of figures are being talked about.
The action group has consistently campaigned for full compensation. It is a disgrace that people have got less than a quarter of what they should have received, all because of the Treasury. That is where I disagree slightly with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who said that the Government stand behind the regulator, as in this case the Treasury was the regulator for the relevant period during the 1990s. The Government have a direct responsibility for what went wrong in this case, which is why compensation is due. As has been pointed out, many policyholders have received compensation amounting to only about 22% of the losses.
Over the years, like many Members, constituents, many of them elderly, have come to me about this matter. Sadly, time has whittled down their numbers. One constituent, a Mrs Smith from Arbroath, told me the other week that she did everything she should have done. She made provision for what she expected to be a relatively good retirement not reliant on Government funds, but she was robbed of it because of a regulatory failure. Equitable Life was touted as a long-established, steady company. I used to be a practising solicitor and remember it well—not that I ever put any money into it, thankfully—but no one then realised the problem lurking below the surface.
The Government need to grasp the point about what happens from hereon in. We are now asking people to make greater provision for their own pensions, but that will work only if people are confident they will get the pension they are investing in. Equitable Life and other such scandals have greatly undermined that confidence. We need to show that when something goes wrong, through the fault of the Government, compensation will be available to put people in the position they would have been in. If we do not, the danger is that people will not be convinced to invest in the new pension landscape. In the future, the Government might face a much higher bill, because if we do not encourage people to invest in their own pensions, the state will inevitably have to step in. I urge the Minister to reconsider, given the confusion about the figure.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Quite a few people have not turned up whose names were on the list, so I am revising the speech limit up to seven minutes.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I can reassure Members that I probably will not take up seven minutes.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) not just on securing this important debate, but on his tireless work on Equitable Life since he entered this place in 2010. This sorry saga has been extremely long running. The hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir) indicated that he had been speaking about Equitable Life in this place for 15 years. I know from EMAG, which has also worked very hard and diligently provided information to Members, that every constituency has roughly 2,000 people affected by Equitable Life. I wanted to highlight that figure.
When I was first elected in 2010, I could reliably expect about 20 or 30 people to contact me about Equitable Life every time it was raised in the House. Ahead of today’s debate, the number of constituents who either emailed or came to see me in my surgery dwindled to just half a dozen. I found that interesting but also incredibly sad. There are many reasons why our constituents are no longer contacting us. First and foremost, there is the sad truth that many have passed away, and some are too frail to make contact. They might not have easy access to email. They might be in care homes or reliant on family or carers. For them, it is not simply a case of popping off a quick email. In many ways, however, the saddest cases are those who have simply given up and no longer see the value in contacting us because they do not expect anything to change. Those who were once optimistic they would recover their losses now no longer come to our surgeries because they do not expect to get anything.
Those who remain in contact, however, are forceful in their arguments. One reason they feel so aggrieved is that, as we have heard repeatedly, they acted responsibly and did the right thing—or thought they had. They made provision for their retirement and took out policies they expected to provide them with a comfortable old age and the means to support themselves in their retirement. The Government need to encourage and incentivise people to do exactly that. Equitable Life was a very sorry saga indeed, and one that has left a legacy of suspicion and mistrust. Those who invested bitterly regret their decision, but it has longer tentacles than that. Even today people point to Equitable Life as a reason not to bother saving for their future. We must not allow that to happen.
I do not intend to repeat the comments of the chair of the APPG or other hon. Members. They have already set out the case in the motion. Instead, I want to highlight the difficult circumstances of some of my constituents—good decent people saving for their retirement. For them, a foreign holiday is now out of the question. They are reliant on public transport in an area that has little of it, because they cannot afford to run a car. They expected their retirement to be comfortable; they did not expect still to be working—in many cases, well into their 70s. Eight years after the ombudsman’s report, they remain of the view that the compensation they have received is not adequate.
I know what my hon. Friend the Minister will say: he will highlight the element of the ombudsman’s report emphasising that the Government had to recognise fairness to the taxpayer as well policyholders. I do not regard £1.5 billion as “diddly squat”, as one of my constituents described it. It is an enormous sum, and I welcome the Government’s efforts to identify and compensate policyholders. My one request is that, for the sake of the Equitable pensioners, he keep the situation under review. I know the scheme is closed, but should public finances permit it, he should consider reopening it.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I declare an interest: I invested in Equitable Life while a special adviser. I cheerfully put 17.5% of my salary into an Equitable Life scheme over four years, when I worked for Malcolm Rifkind, and then watched, after I was elected to this place, as the whole Equitable debacle developed over the next decade or so. But at least I was sharing the pain of many of my constituents—well north of 3,000, according to an estimate given to me. The situation that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) laid out is exactly my experience. To start with, there was a substantial lobby, but that dwindled, although there remain some persistent people—I have their letters—who lost hundreds of thousands of pounds, and they come from all classes of annuitants and policyholders.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I welcome this debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that some people, like him and my father, did at least have time to make up the shortfall, but that others, including many of my constituents, simply did not have that time? Will he mention the fact that some people did not have the opportunity to recover their losses?
Crispin Blunt
My hon. Friend makes an extremely pertinent point.
On being returned in 2010, I found myself a member of the Government and obliged, at one level, to support their decision to limit the compensation to £1.5 billion. At the time, as the Prisons Minister, and the prisons budget being rather less than the total compensation required, I could understand, in the circumstances, why they decided to limit the overall compensation. I resolved, however, to speak in this debate and to re-examine the letters I sent out defending the Government’s position, and to re-evaluate my position to see whether it was reasonable.
I was much taken with the comments from the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), the former Chairman of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. This is about confidence in the entire savings system. I can remember Labour’s first Budget in 1997 and the consequences—unreported from the Dispatch Box—of IR35, which saw £5 billion cheerfully lifted from investors in pension funds through a tax on dividends. If a £5 billion change can be made in a Budget, announced not in the House of Commons but by press release, we need to be aware that we are dealing with vast numbers when it comes to pension policy. I tell the Economic Secretary, who is replying to the debate, that I believe we are on the verge of a substantial—and, for me, very welcome—change in pension policy. As part of that, we need to acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West that this issue is about confidence in the system as well as fundamental fairness to our constituents.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who introduced the debate so effectively, on securing it. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on setting up the all-party group in 2006-07 to reinforce the efforts that were already under way. He attempted to corral those efforts, make them more effective and secure from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats an undertaking that the issue would be addressed in their manifestos leading into the 2010 election. It is important to highlight that as a simple issue of fairness we need to revisit the sum of £1.5 billion and decide whether or not we have discharged our duty.
Daniel Kawczynski
I just wanted to remind my hon. Friend of my constituent Mr Meinertzhagen, whose living standards are suffering. He is now worried about the consequences for his wife when he departs from this world. It is a real struggle for him, and I hope my hon. Friend will join me in urging the Economic Secretary to find money and set it aside to help these people in desperate situations.
Crispin Blunt
My hon. Friend is entirely right. This is why these artificial divisions—between 31 August 1992 and 1 September 1992—are so unfair on the people involved. My constituent Derek Burton estimates his losses at around £175,000 as a consequence of his having invested before the cut-off date in 1992. That shows the impact on him of the changes that were subsequently made. These are enormous sums of money that have destroyed the planned retirements of thousands of my constituents—an average of 2,000 of every Member’s constituents have been affected.
Frankly, we have to grasp this problem and address it. I hope it can be done through the Budget and through further substantial and welcome changes to pension policy, on which the Chancellor absolutely deserves our support. By those means, he can address this lingering unfairness so that people can be given the confidence to invest in pensions again. The lesson I took from my little episode with Equitable Life was that I was simply not going to undertake any extra investment in pension schemes thereafter.
On the figures, I do not know whether we will get an answer from the Minister on whether £2.7 billion remains the sum required to put this right. In trying to do the mathematics, that figure does not seem to work out precisely to me, given that about £1 billion went to 890,472 policyholders who received only 22.4%. Provision should now be made for us to address this issue.
Maladministration was recognised and a clear recommendation was eventually made by Ann Abraham in her report, after various other people had looked at the problem. I have a lingering sympathy for some of the Equitable Life administrators at the time. The original legal challenge to their policies always struck me as ludicrous. It lost at every conceivable stage until the last one, when there was no possible course of appeal. Provision had not been made, as it should have been, for the possibility that they might lose the action. That was how the maladministration came to be identified in all the reports.
If we—the system—have overseen people not doing their job properly and not protected people who were wholly innocent, including those who were investors before 31 August 1992, it is right that we do our duty —out of fairness to them and to restore confidence in the whole pension system. If people find that they have invested resources other than their house in the biggest single asset they are going to invest in, and encountered circumstances utterly beyond their control, or utterly beyond any reasonable duty of care they would have taken to find out about what they were investing in; and given that Equitable Life was the most reputable pension provider around at that time, we need to put things right. We are now able to afford to compensate these people, and we should be able to do so by continuing significant pension reform to put this right properly and fully.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Stephen O’Brien, who fought tirelessly on behalf of Equitable Life policyholders in my constituency. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate.
The Minister may be surprised to know that some of my constituents who have received support from the compensation scheme have recognised the role of the coalition Government and want me to pass on their thanks to that Government for setting up the compensation scheme that has allowed them to salvage a little from the shipwreck that Equitable Life has in effect been. They fully recognise the good intentions of the last coalition Government in attempting to do something, when nothing had been done previously. I want to put that on the record.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the dignified yet forceful way in which EMAG has conducted itself—Mr David Wakerley in my constituency has been involved—shows the realistic view it has taken of what has been done so far, but this in no way addresses the needs of those left behind?
Antoinette Sandbach
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. A constituent of mine who wrote to me has lost 75% of his life savings. He is living on a pittance by contrast with the position he would have been in if Equitable Life had not gone under. There is a broad recognition among Equitable Life policyholders of the stresses and strains that the last coalition Government faced, particularly with a severe economic crisis and a ballooning deficit.
Of course, we are now seeing the impact of the long-term economic plan. When the Government were in difficulties and faced stark choices, I believe that my constituents recognised that and were grateful that the Government were willing to act. Now they can see that circumstances are changing, they are asking the Minister to keep this matter under review, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) suggested. We are in a different economic situation from that when this fund was originally set up.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, as indeed have others. I do not wish to be pedantic, but when we talk about “keeping the matter under review”, we must remember that pension holders are dying, which makes the matter very urgent. My hon. Friend is right to say that the economy has improved to the extent that the Government can afford to pay full compensation, but beyond that I think there is a moral duty. There was regulatory failure, so whether or not they can realistically afford it today or tomorrow, do the Government not have a duty to pay this money?
Antoinette Sandbach
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, because his point about regulatory failure is absolutely key. Had the regulator been doing its job properly and effectively, we would not be in this situation. That is what lies behind the requests for fairness, justice and equity for the policyholders, who were entitled to believe that proper, appropriate and fit regulation was in place and would keep their policies safe. That is the inherent injustice about which those policyholders are rightly aggrieved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has said, it is unarguable that the unspent £139 million must be distributed among the pre-1992 policyholders.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s argument. I think that all Members want to find a constructive, positive approach. It occurs to me that a number of those who are not eligible for compensation might be falling on social security benefits, which, of course, is a cost to the taxpayer. Perhaps this is too difficult for us as individual Members, but I wonder whether it would be possible to do some modelling in order to see whether that accruing cost to the taxpayer would justify changing the compensation profile at this early stage. If we are trying to find ways to find money to improve the compensation offer, perhaps that would be an option.
Antoinette Sandbach
I am sure that the Exchequer Secretary has listened to the hon. Gentleman’s submission and I have no doubt that he will pay due regard to it. The Government have announced that payments to non-profit annuity policyholders who are on pension credit will be doubled, so some action has been taken, but we will not get to the heart of the unfairness until the regulatory failure has been properly addressed. That is what I am arguing for on behalf of my constituents.
We know that there are difficult spending decisions to be made, but these people trusted the system and paid in, in good faith, over many years, only to find that there has been consistent, repeated and unwarranted failure of regulation, and that it was so bad that there was found to be maladministration. In such circumstances, our constituents should not be having to pay the price for the failure of Government.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
My hon. Friend has mentioned difficult spending decisions—which is true, to an extent—and the £139 million, which has already been voted through by Parliament. It would be completely wrong for that not to be used for additional policyholders, if they can be found. Indeed, if it were not used for that purpose, it would represent a windfall for the Treasury in this fiscal year, which cannot be the right answer. I am as interested as my hon. Friend is to hear the Exchequer Secretary explain the plans for that £139 million.
Antoinette Sandbach
The Exchequer Secretary would be in danger of undoing all the good work the coalition Government did in setting up the fund in the first place if he were seen to be mealy-mouthed, if I may put it that way—I know he most certainly is not—and were to withhold those funds and to seek to bring them back into the Treasury, given the huge injustice suffered by the policyholders.
I am not going to take up much more time, Minister, because I know that you have other Members to hear from. I urge you please to look at the settlement and at what you can do to support those who are in desperate straits, including constituents of mine, and to do the right thing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I remind Members that they are speaking through the Chair, so when the hon. Lady says “you”, she is speaking directly to the Chair?
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this incredibly important debate. In common with Members on both sides of the House, I have received a considerable amount of correspondence on the issue and met people in my surgeries who have been affected by it.
Other Members have mentioned this, but I want to pay particular tribute to the Equitable Members Action Group, which has done extraordinary work to highlight the issue and to represent members who have suffered as a result of the unfairness. The group members are persistent, dogged and effective campaigners and lobbyists. I have had the pleasure of meeting the EMAG chairman who covers the whole of the south-west. He is an extraordinarily effective campaigner.
As many Members have said, this is an issue of fairness. Policyholders who were doing the right thing and saving for the future have found themselves in an awful position. We need to take account of that. They have our sympathy, without doubt. Whatever solution we find, however, we also have to keep it in mind that we need to be fair to taxpayers as a whole. Although £2.6 billion is a considerable amount of money that would plug the gap and ensure that those who lost out are compensated in full for their losses, it does, none the less, place a burden—it is a big ask—on the taxpayer and the Treasury to find it. We need to be aware of that.
I am glad that the Treasury has responded to a number of letters from me. There has been a considerable amount of correspondence back and forth. I am particularly happy to have received a letter from a Treasury Minister, which addresses the need and, indeed, the desire to keep the matter under review. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) says, time is short, so I urge the Treasury not only to keep the matter under review, but to bear it in mind that, sadly, the passage of time means that it needs to be addressed quickly. The letter, which I received in response to a letter I wrote on behalf of the chairman of EMAG in the south-west, makes it clear that the Treasury welcomes submissions and ideas for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to include in the Budget statement. I am sure that the Treasury is taking account of all those submissions.
It is worth bearing in mind that the Chancellor has already announced—and I am sure he will announce more—extremely welcome changes and reforms to the pension system. I hope we can look at the issue as part of that wider package of reforms.
Tom Tugendhat
As the Treasury looks at that wider package, may I urge it to ensure that helping the EMAG pensioners is very much part of setting the conditions for other people to save? If people feel that their savings will go unrewarded, that undermines the tone that the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary have rightly set in the various pension arrangements they have made, helping people to realise that pensions are worthwhile and will help them in the future.
Peter Heaton-Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is, indeed, the tone of the pension package reforms that the Chancellor and the Treasury have made and will continue to introduce. The Equitable Life policyholders need to be part of that wider package.
Peter Heaton-Jones
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker).
Mr Robin Walker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) for rising at the same time. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) is absolutely right to say that this is part of a wider package relating not just to pensions, but to the savings culture more generally. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Exchequer Secretary has done fantastic things to support savers, particularly small savers, in his championing of the credit union movement? Any move in the direction of further support for Equitable Life savers would take that legacy further.
Peter Heaton-Jones
I entirely agree. The Government have done a great deal to support savers and to support and encourage those who invest for the future, and have done a great deal for pensioners as well. That is undeniable. I hope that, as part of the package, there will be some movement on the issue, and that it will be kept under careful consideration.
The letter that the Treasury Minister wrote to me in response to the letter that I wrote on behalf of the EMAG representatives in my constituency contains the welcome information that she is open to submissions in relation to the Budget. She also points out that the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report was published in 2008, and that—as we heard from the hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir)—it is only since the Conservative-led coalition Government came to office in 2010 that any compensation has been paid. It is important to remember that this Government started the ball rolling.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
I appreciate everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying, but there is clearly a difference between banks that have been mis-selling having to pay up for their misdeeds, and the Treasury, regardless of party—and the state, regardless of who are the Government of the day—paying for a regulatory failure. It is not a question of charity from a Government to the individuals who have suffered under Equitable Life. People suffer as a result of a regulatory failure, and therefore it is the Treasury’s duty to pay full compensation, just as it is the banks’ duty to pay full compensation to those who have suffered as a result of mis-selling.
Peter Heaton-Jones
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but let me return to a point that I made earlier. He refers to the Treasury paying compensation. The Treasury has no money; it is all taxpayers’ money. We need to strike a careful balance. There must be fairness, not only to Equitable Life policyholders but to taxpayers in general, because it is they who will ultimately have to foot the bill for any compensation.
Crispin Blunt
May I briefly make the point that there is a taxpayer interest here? If the savings culture is undermined, the taxpayers’ interests are absolutely at stake. We need people to invest in pensions to ensure that they are not dependent on the taxpayer in their retirement.
Peter Heaton-Jones
That is a good point, and I do not think that it is wholly at odds with the point that I was seeking to make.
I shall not delay the House for much longer. We all recognise that Equitable Life policyholders have found themselves in an impossible position—and, again, I pay tribute to all the work that they have done—but it should also be recognised that asking the taxpayer to provide £2.6 billion of compensation, if that is indeed the figure, is a big ask. Let me say to the Minister that that I acknowledge that balance, and I hope that we can find a way along what is a difficult path. I welcome the Treasury’s assurance that it will entertain all submissions from Members of Parliament, members of EMAG and members of the public, and will keep the matter under careful consideration so that we can resolve it in a way that will satisfy both Equitable Life policyholders and the interests of the wider taxpayer.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for initiating the debate, and I have been asked by my constituents to thank him for everything that he has done on their behalf over the years.
In 2010, when standing for election in North East Derbyshire, I engaged with many Equitable Life policyholders. They were your constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker, and they were full of praise for the work that you had done on their behalf. I added that to a lengthy list of reasons why you were returned and I was not. Having served my apprenticeship, I put some of those best practices to good effect when I was selected for the constituency of Bexhill and Battle, and was subsequently elected.
All the constituents with whom I have interacted have put their positions with clarity and with understanding of the economic challenges that the Government face in balancing the books. Given that those people had planned to save so sensibly for their own retirement, it is clear that prudence and budget-planning were second nature to them. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who has responded to my numerous items of correspondence on this subject both in person and in writing. Her explanations, and the time that she has given to explaining, have helped me to communicate with my impacted constituents, and for that I am very grateful.
As I interpret a recent letter from the Treasury, prompted by one of my constituents, I understand that the Government have closed the scheme to new compensation claims, and will reallocate unclaimed moneys remaining in the pool to policyholders who are receiving pension credit. I had understood the words
“I am sorry to say that no changes to the funds allocated to the Scheme are planned”
to mean that no new moneys would be added to the pool, and that the £1.5 billion paid out would be the final payment, in the light of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s direction that the Government should have regard to the impact on public finances. However, one of my more eagle-eyed constituent policyholders has read those words to mean that, while the manner in which the funds within the pool are to be allocated is fixed, that does not expressly rule out the possibility that new funds could be added to the pool, and go towards the £2.6 billion shortfall, during the current term.
I should be grateful if the Minister made it clear whether any further funds for the pool are expressly ruled out for this term, so that I can pass on that clarification to my constituents. It may sound perverse, but many of them would accept that position, because they have reached a stage at which they would like to have absolute finality, and to know whether it makes sense for them to continue funding the fight.
I also want to say something about the stated position for with-profits policyholders. The letter that I received from the Treasury states that they were compensated in full. I understand that the proxy value of the pensions of pre-1995 with-profits policyholders was calculated by virtue of a benchmark from the Prudential, which was considered to be a similar proxy for their own policies. However, I understand that in the case of post-1995 with-profits policyholders, the proxy value was calculated by the benchmarking of not only Prudential, but Scottish Widows. The appropriateness of the latter as a benchmark was disputed by some of my constituents on the grounds that it was a poorly performing policy. Those policyholders dispute the claim that they have received full value, and have drawn distinctions between their own policy and that of the Prudential, and the policy of Scottish Widows. I should like the Minister to tell me whether my understanding is correct. Perhaps he will also comment on why the Scottish Widows policy was seen as a fair benchmark for this exercise, if my contention is indeed along the right lines.
I should add that I empathise hugely with all the policyholders who have been impacted by the losses to their policies. However, I am also conscious that this matter was determined before my election, and that I was elected on a manifesto which promised to deliver a budget surplus. Adding a further £2.6 billion would mean that other constituents of mine would have to provide for it. I have explained that difficult concept in person to my impacted constituents, because I believe in being direct when a resolution is unlikely to be arrived at, and I am indebted to them for the manner in which they have responded to my direct approach.
George Kerevan
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he prefers delivering a budget surplus to delivering justice?
Huw Merriman
I was elected on the basis that there would indeed be a budget surplus. I think that it would be wrong of me to stand up and try to proclaim—this was mentioned earlier—that £2.6 billion could be found down the back of the sofa. If only it were that easy. I also believe in being direct and straight with my constituents, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am doing so now.
I support the Government in their approach to this difficult issue. Let me end by asking the Minister, on behalf of my constituents, whether the funding of the scheme is indeed final for this term, and whether the use of the Scottish Widows policy benchmark was justifiable.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to sum up the debate. I warmly thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and those who signed the motion. As has been pointed out, the wide-ranging all-party parliamentary group has 195 members from all parties, which demonstrates the interest hon. Members take in this matter. It was also said in the debate that, in each of our constituencies, there are around about 2,000 Equitable Life policyholders, which shows the scale of the problem we face and why we must take the matter seriously. I am delighted that we are having this debate today.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the outrageous scandal, which is exactly the point. He went on to talk about the perceptions of market risk—markets going up and down—and the promises that were given to Equitable Life policyholders. However, in the main, we are not only talking about promises, because Equitable Life gave guarantees to its policyholders. We ought to reflect on that point, particularly in the light of what he said in the debate about who knew within the company, the regulator and the Government. Ultimately, the Government must stand behind the regulator when there is market failure of the degree that took place with Equitable Life. That is their responsibility.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) spoke at the tail-end of the debate. I say to him that everybody understands that all parties want a balanced budget, but we also have a moral and ethical responsibility to protect the consumer interest. That is what we are talking about today. I ask the Minister to reflect on what was said by the hon. Member for Harrow East and others on looking for those who have pre-1992 annuities and considering what can be done for them.
Two broad themes have been mentioned time and again in the debate: fairness, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) and for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones); and regulatory failure, which goes back to the Government’s ultimate responsibility, and which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach).
The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) made the point about the 2,000 members and the fact that all hon. Members are still getting letters from constituents. Many of my SNP colleagues have had them in the past few weeks.
One of the most important points was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mike Weir) and others. We must have confidence in the financial markets. If we are not going to stand behind the policyholders in this case, that undermines the savings culture that we want. We want people to invest in pensions and know that there is consumer confidence problem. We must tackle that.
I want to put this debate in the context of the good debate we had just a couple of weeks ago on the Financial Conduct Authority. One much-discussed theme was the importance of consumer protection and trust. On the back of scandals such as those involving Equitable Life policyholders, it is clear that many consumers are concerned about whether they can trust the providers of financial services products, whether they can trust the regulatory regime to protect them, and whether the Government will discharge their obligations to protect the consumer interest. The significance of that cannot be overstated.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Given that the regulator was there to protect consumers and that the Government were standing behind the regulator, does my hon. Friend agree that, when that regulator failed to protect the consumer, the Government had a moral obligation to step in and protect policyholders?
Ian Blackford
I strongly agree. I can hear my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) commenting in the background—he made that same point in the debate, as did the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt). There is unity in the House on wanting a savings culture. We want people to retire with decent pensionable income, but we will create that confidence only if we show that we are prepared to stand behind the Equitable Life consumers. They were let down by the company and the regulator, and the Government have that moral and ethical responsibility to step in. That should not be underestimated.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is partly about building intergenerational confidence? We want people to start saving for pensions in their late 20s and their 30s. They need to have confidence that that money will still be there in a pot in future, and that there is a proper system of regulation. This is about building confidence for those who will save in future, and not just about the Equitable Life policyholders who have been affected in this instance.
Ian Blackford
I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman and am happy to associate myself with his comments. It is about creating that long-term stability in the financial services industry and ensuring that we have the right regulatory regime. We must have the right architecture for both private and public pension provision in this country. I hope all in the House have a shared interest in doing that. That is why the debate is so important, and why the Government must respond in the correct manner. How we deal with the long-running saga of Equitable Life is important in the context of his intervention.
Let us remind ourselves of the background. Equitable Life was a major provider of with-profits pension plans. A minority of policyholders invested in policies that offered a guaranteed annuity rate. That rate was set below the normal historical rates, but towards the end of the 1980s, that “normal” changed. Increasingly, the guaranteed annuity rate was over-generous and ultimately unaffordable to Equitable Life in the long run. In response, Equitable stopped sales and reduced the capital value of the pension pots by reducing discretionary bonuses. Guaranteed annuity rates were thus maintained only because the capital sum was far lower than had been expected.
Ultimately, GAR holders took legal action to stop Equitable from rigging pension payouts and won in the House of Lords in 2000, as my hon. Friend the Member for Angus mentioned in his speech. That judgment increased the financial burden on Equitable by about £1.5 billion, a sum that threatened its solvency. Equitable Life hoped to fill that gap by suspending distributions to policyholders and by selling the business, but it was unable to find a buyer. It ceased all further business and became a closed fund. It also had to reduce policy bonuses, and hence the ongoing pensions of investors. Pensions reductions of up to a third were common. It was a perfect storm.
Policyholders have long tried for compensation. Two ombudsman reports concluded that there had been maladministration and that injustice had been suffered. We should remind ourselves of what was said in the second ombudsman report. The conclusion stated:
“the Government should establish and fund a compensation scheme, with a view to assessing the individual cases of those who have been affected by the events covered in this report and providing appropriate compensation.”
I emphasise “appropriate compensation”.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
I want to highlight the case of my constituent, Mary, an ex-machinist, and her husband, an ex-electrician’s mate. They worked all their lives contributing to our society and economy for decades and opted to invest a substantial amount of money in a scheme—an Equitable Life scheme. Due to years of negligence by the company and different Governments, the money was snatched away. Sadly, Mary’s husband passed away last year and she was given only a small amount of compensation. Her husband is not here to see justice being served. Surely we must act for Mary and other Marys across the UK?
Ian Blackford
I wholly concur with my hon. Friend and her constituent. Other Members have made the point that there is a sense that the Government must act quickly because the policyholders are dying. We have a responsibility to deal with the problem in a timely manner.
I am conscious of time, so I will try to wrap up quickly. The 2008 report also stated that regulation was not implemented properly, meaning
“consistently, fairly, and with proper regard to the interests of those directly affected”.
We understand that that involved previous Governments—the Minister will be pleased to hear that not even I would blame the current Government for this one—but we do have a responsibility to reflect on what has been said and what actions we should take as a consequence.
All the parties involved accepted the ombudsman’s second report and accepted the case for compensation. During the inquiry, EMAG told the ombudsman that it had calculated the loss for those investing after 1990 at £3.2 billion if they remained with Equitable as against £4.6 billion if they had invested elsewhere. The final conclusion from the ombudsman states:
“The government should establish and fund a compensation scheme. The aim of such a scheme would be to put those who have suffered a relative loss back into the position that they would have been in had maladministration not occurred.”
We have all reflected on what the Government did with the £1.5 billion, but it is the issue of fairness that we keep coming back to.
This has already been mentioned, but it is worth stating again that before the 2010 election, the main Equitable Life policyholders’ action group, EMAG, lobbied MPs to seek support for compensation for its members. Perhaps as a result, the 2010 Conservative manifesto included this brief comment:
“We must not let the mis-selling of financial products put people off saving. We will implement the Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.”
It has been said today that the Government could not go beyond the £1.5 billion because of the financial circumstances at the time. Let us take this opportunity today to right that wrong and to plug some of that gap. I appeal to the Government to listen to all the points that have been made across the Chamber today and to do the right thing for the policyholders of Equitable Life.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this important debate today and on the articulate way in which he described the events that many of our constituents have faced. He touched on many of the issues that I will highlight in my speech. And of course it is always a pleasure to stand opposite the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).
I would also like to thank the various Members who have spoken today. I will not go through them one by one as I know we are pushed for time, but there were several emotional contributions that I would like to highlight. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) told the story of the lady in her constituency who lost £40,000 and got only £12,000 back. The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) said that she had noticed a decline in the number of constituents visiting her to discuss this issue and that, sadly, it was because many of them had either passed away or given up hope.
The fate of Equitable Life and those who invested in it has been debated in this House for more than 15 years by Members on both sides. I commend the work of the Equitable Members Action Group, which I will call EMAG for the sake of expediency. I would also like to thank the many Members of this House who have campaigned tirelessly on behalf of their constituents to ensure that this issue is not kicked into the long grass. It is difficult not to sympathise with the anguish and worry that many of those investors have experienced. Many have seen their nest eggs disintegrate, and they feel cheated. Over the years, it has become clear that, despite all the efforts to review the issue, there is no one universally agreed strategy to compensate them. It has therefore been difficult to establish a course of action that will truly put the matter to bed.
Along with many other Members, I appreciate the action that the Government have taken to compensate those who were disproportionately affected by this sorry affair. However, as we have heard today, concerns remain about the management and assessment of compensation payments. More than 90% of Conservative Members in the last Parliament signed the following pledge:
“I pledge to the voters of this constituency that if I am elected to Parliament at the next general election, I will support and vote for proper compensation for the victims of the Equitable Life scandal and I will support and vote to set up a swift, simple, transparent and fair payment scheme—independent of government, as recommended by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.”
The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury signed that pledge to provide proper compensation for those affected by the events at Equitable Life. It would be helpful to ascertain whether the Minister feels that the pledge has been fully met today.
The assessment of compensation payments—and the amount allocated by the Government—is not a simple matter. At the time of the second ombudsman’s report, EMAG estimated the losses incurred by policyholders investing after 1990 at £3.2 billion if they remained with Equitable Life and at £4.6 billion if they had invested elsewhere. In comparison, the 2010 Chadwick report assessed the loss at £500 million on the basis of assessing maladministration. There is therefore a clear difference between the principles used to calculate the EMAG estimates and those used to calculate the Chadwick estimates. All those figures are of course different from the £1.5 billion and the subsequent £500 million top-up offered by the Government. EMAG states that, according to its own calculations, the outstanding figure is between £2.6 billion and £2.8 billion.
I should also like to address the administration of the scheme generally. The National Audit Office reported in 2013 that the scheme had faced a number of administrative issues. The NAO appreciated, as do I, that the task of setting up the scheme was a difficult challenge. It was a complex operation undertaken in quite a short period of time. However, it noted that the scheme had significant issues with tracing the identity of some policyholders, as the data provided by Equitable Life were out of date. Following the publication of the findings, the Public Accounts Committee undertook its own report into the administration of the scheme and concluded that the Treasury had
“not used all information available to trace as many policyholders as possible”.
In April 2013, the NAO reported that only 35% of payments had been made and the PAC quoted that the Treasury estimated that it may not trace 17% to 20% of policyholders. As of 30 December 2015, the scheme had issued payments to 915,453 policyholders, representing 88% of those eligible—only a slight improvement since the PAC’s critical findings. Given that the scheme closed for new claims on 31 December 2015, will the Minister tell us how many of the remaining 12% of eligible policyholders were found? At the time, it was also recommended that the Treasury and National Savings and Investments would
“work with the Equitable Members’ Action Group to explore options for utilising data to contact policyholders who have not yet received payment”.
Will the Minister confirm, therefore, that the recommendations of the PAC with regard to that were acted on and that all reasonable steps were taken to contact eligible policyholders?
The NAO and the PAC also found that some policyholders were dissatisfied with the responses to their queries and complaints. They included policyholders receiving duplicate requests for the same information and generic responses in relation to specific queries. Will the Minister outline what steps were taken to ensure that customer service has improved since the reports and that it will remain at an adequate level for those policyholders who are still in receipt of annuity payments from the scheme?
The next concern I wish to raise with the Minister is the amount of money it has cost to administer the payment scheme. National Savings and Investments, an executive agency of the Treasury, was tasked with operating the scheme. It originally outsourced to Siemens, whose contract was then bought by Atos. The PAC expressed concern in 2013 that the Treasury was not achieving value for money in the contract with Atos to deliver the scheme. The contract was based on time and materials, and it is argued that there was a vast amount of waste of taxpayers’ money as a result. The total budget for administering the scheme was set at £57 million. In 2013, National Savings and Investments estimated that the cost would go £4 million over budget. Will the Minister confirm whether the payment scheme was delivered on budget, and, if not, by how much it overspent?
Finally, the PAC recommended that the Treasury undertake a lessons-learned exercise, as it felt the failures of previous Government compensation schemes had not been addressed when setting up the Equitable Life payment scheme. The Government accepted that recommendation and confirmed that they would produce two reports: one in November 2013; and a final report, to be shared with the PAC, the NAO and the Major Projects Authority in early 2016. Will the Minister take this opportunity to update the House on the progress of the second lessons-learned report?
On the subject of lessons learned, it is, above all, incumbent on us to ensure that future such scandals do not take place. Will the Minister tell us, therefore, what measures the Government have put in place to stop this happening again? In particular, pension fund providers and their fund managers continue to resist calls for transparency of costs and performance, so are the Government taking any steps to ensure that they inform pension scheme members of the true costs of investing? What plans do the Government have to review the governance arrangements for pension funds? Will he confirm that governance committees are currently without a fiduciary duty to their members in contract-based pensions and have they given any consideration to changing that?
It is clear that that although some progress has been made to address the anguish and loss caused by this matter, a number of questions remain. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)
This is an extremely important subject, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate and bringing it to the Floor of the House today. His tireless work and that of other colleagues has been of great importance to many of our constituents. There are many human stories, and we have heard a number of them today from colleagues across the House. I am grateful to have the opportunity both to set out what this Government have done to address this long-standing issue and to set the record straight on some of the background.
Equitable Life has been a very sorry tale, and we all share sympathy for those affected by it. As the motion notes, this Government have taken action to resolve the long-standing issue, which is something that previous Governments failed to do, as noted by my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones).
Although Equitable Life remains a going concern and continues to trade, its problems in the 1990s and at the turn of the century caused a great many of its policyholders to suffer financial and emotional distress. Many different factors contributed to the losses suffered by policyholders. The ombudsman’s 2008 report established the part played by the then Government.
When we came to government, we committed to implement the ombudsman’s recommendation that the Government should make payments to Equitable Life policyholders in recognition of the part that was played by the Government at the time. We took swift action, introducing the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill in 2010, with payments starting to be made to policyholders in June 2011, six months after the Bill received Royal Assent.
Mr Charles Walker
My hon. Friend knows that the thrust of this afternoon’s debate is a request for additional money to be made available on top of the money that has already been earmarked for compensation to Equitable Life policyholders. Will the Government be able to find additional money?
Damian Hinds
I will have to disappoint my hon. Friend, because the public finances remain in a very difficult state. Although the economy and our public finances have improved compared with where they were, money is still extremely tight.
We established a set of rules for the payments, based on the Government’s full acceptance of the parliamentary ombudsman’s findings. The scheme was based on the assumption that all policyholders considered the incorrect regulatory returns when making their investment and would have decided not to invest in Equitable Life had those returns been correct. Obviously, those are quite conservative assumptions. The Government used the ombudsman’s findings to calculate the resulting individual loss by assessing the Equitable Life returns against those of comparator companies. That led to an assessment of the loss from Government maladministration of £4.1 billion.
Despite the constraints facing the public purse, the 2010 spending review announced that up to £1.5 billion would be made available for payment to eligible policyholders. Out of that sum, following consultation, we decided to pay the with-profits, or trapped, annuitants in full. As a result, this group of policyholders will receive an annual payment for life, and the actuarial assessment of those payments is that the Government will be making payments to this group well into the next decade and probably beyond.
The total cost of those payments is assessed to be around £625 million—though that is dependent on how long policyholders live. Importantly, the £100 million contingency fund, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East referred, is an accounting provision to provide a safety net in case the annuitants live longer than the central forecast. The remaining £775 million of available funding was distributed pro-rata to other policyholders on the advice of an independent commission, and that resulted in a figure of 22.4 pence in the pound of their relative loss.
Of course I know that that was deeply disappointing to many, but these were difficult decisions that were taken in the light of the position of the public finances. As I said just now in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), public finances remain in a very difficult position, and we have to take decisions in the interests of overall fairness to all taxpayers.
Damian Hinds
I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me, but I will make some progress, as time is short.
Margaret Ferrier
With the Government preparing to usher in the successor to the Trident nuclear weapon system, which is estimated to cost £167 billion, I call into question the Cabinet’s priorities. If the Government can find money for that, they can find money to pay Equitable Life policyholders.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady’s definition of “on that very point” has a degree of elastic in it.
The motion notes that the ombudsman recommended in her report that policyholders should be put back in the position that they would have been in, had Government maladministration not occurred. What the ombudsman went on to say just after this recommendation, however, is that it was appropriate also to take into account the impact on the public purse when considering the funding of payments.
Damian Hinds
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must make progress. I know there is another debate to follow and I am time-limited.
The ombudsman has written to the all-party parliamentary group on the funding and said that the Government’s decisions on affordability and eligibility cannot be said to be incompatible with her report.
As announced in the summer Budget, and following more than four years of operation, the scheme closed to new claims on 31 December. As part of that closure, we did find a way to double the payments received by investors who had previously received the 22.4% of their losses, but who were also in receipt of pension credit. These further payments started just before Christmas and will be completed shortly.
There have been many representations regarding the group of policyholders known as the pre-92 annuitants. Although they were not included in the payment scheme for well-established reasons that have been debated in this House, the Government recognised that they were not receiving the income they expected from their annuities. Although that is not due to Government maladministration, in late 2013, those policyholders received a payment of £5,000, or £10,000 for those in receipt of pension credit.
The Government have also received representations about the fact that, as the economy improves, further funding should be made available to the payment scheme. The improvements our economy has made since 2010 are greatly to be welcomed and show that the Government’s long-term economic plan is working, but the plan is not complete and we have some way to go to fully restore the public finances. Based on latest outturn data, the deficit was £89.1 billion last year. That is why we have no plans to reopen the payment scheme after more than four years of operation. So apart from the ongoing payments to annuitants, which will continue for many years to come, our focus now is to complete the orderly wind-down of the scheme by summer this year.
We do not yet know what the final picture will be, but we expect that by the summer, close to 950,000 policyholders will have been paid around £1.1 billion by the scheme. That is a considerable achievement, given the issues that the payment scheme faced in tracing policyholders, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), who speaks for the Opposition, and exceeds the expectations set out in the National Audit Office report of 2013, to which she referred.
I will respond briefly to a couple of points made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East asked for a progress report on payments. As I said, we will know the final position on that by the summer and a report will then be published. We do not yet know the final position on the cash figures, but we expect the difference at the end to be lower than the £39 million that my hon. Friend referred to. The £100 million that I mentioned earlier, the contingency on the actuarial projections, is in a different category.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) asked for clarity, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne in an intervention, on whether more money would be forthcoming. I wish I could say that was the case, but because of the condition of the public finances, that is not possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle also asked about the Scottish Widows benchmark. This is a complicated issue, but the core concept in the scheme was the concept of relative loss, which has to take a view of the investment’s performance, compared with similar investments available elsewhere. The Scottish Widows fund that he referred to was not available to invest in, I understand, before 1995, whereas the Prudential investment was.
The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles asked whether the Treasury had taken all reasonable steps to trace policyholders. There was national advertising and various other tracing methods, including through the Department for Work and Pensions, and also a data list that came from EMAG with members’ details to help trace them. In terms of the spend on administering the scheme, our forecast outturn is within about 3% of the original budget.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) alluded to the contrast with savers in the Icelandic banks. Of course, that was a very different situation, where ex gratia payments were made to UK depositors in those banks. That was done as a result of a decision by the previous Government to guarantee all qualifying deposits when there was a danger of not having financial stability in the UK. However, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme was loaned the money to facilitate those payments, in the expectation that the money paid to UK depositors would come back from those banks eventually.
A number of hon. Members have raised the issue of general confidence in financial institutions and encouragement to save. That is very important to the Government, who have helped more than 5 million people to save for retirement for the first time, or to save more, through automatic enrolment. Individuals now also have the freedom to access their pension from the age of 55 if they wish.
The Government have also acted strongly on reforming financial regulation to ensure that it is fit for purpose in future. The Financial Services Act 2012 dismantled the failed tripartite system and created a new architecture and approach for financial regulation. I am confident that our actions have provided a robust framework for the authorities to work within.
I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and other colleagues for securing the debate, which has given us another opportunity to discuss these important issues. I also recognise the hard work the all-party group has done.
I appreciate that many policyholders are not receiving the income they expected, but by paying more than £1 billion to more than 900,000 policyholders, we have taken action to resolve the Government’s part in the Equitable Life issue. We have been able to pay in full the losses of the most trapped policyholders and to double the payments to vulnerable non-annuitant policyholders, as well as providing a one-off payment to the pre-1992 annuitants, who, though unaffected by the maladministration, were recognised by the Government to be suffering as a result of their declining annuity income. In doing that, we have balanced the needs of policyholders against the need to reduce the deficit and repair the public finances.
Bob Blackman
I thank hon. Members and all three Front-Bench speakers for the constructive and fair way in which the debate has been conducted. Almost 2% of the population have been affected by this scandal, and we have a duty to ensure that they are given full compensation for the loss they have suffered.
I thank the Minister for laying out his argument, and I thank those who have contributed on the personal views of different constituents. I listened carefully to the Minister, and the Treasury accepts that the compensation bill for Equitable Life policyholders is £4.1 billion. Of that, £1.5 billion has been paid out, which leaves a balance of £2.6 billion.
The Minister rightly said that compensation payments will be made well into the next decade for those who have suffered loss. It therefore seems reasonable to me and, I think, to Members across the House—the Chancellor will no doubt be listening to this—that as the economy recovers, our long-term economic plan comes to fruition and we reach a position where the budget is in balance, those who have saved for their retirement are given full and proper compensation.
As the economy recovers, therefore, the Government can top up the scheme if they choose to, and I urge the Chancellor to pledge to do that in his Budget speech on 16 March. As we reform pensions in other ways, we can then send out the signal to young—and not so young—people that it is right to save for the future and for retirement and that if such a scandal were ever to happen again, the Government would step in to protect the retirement incomes of those who do the right thing and save for their old age.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on providing a scheme to compensate victims of the Equitable Life scandal; welcomes the Government’s acceptance of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings in full; notes that the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have been in had maladministration not occurred; further notes that most victims have only received partial compensation compared to the confirmed losses and that the compensation scheme is now closed to new applicants; and calls on the Government to ensure that the entire existing budget allocated for compensation to date is paid to eligible policyholders and to make a further commitment to provide full compensation for relative losses to all victims of this scandal.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Before we come on to the next debate, I inform Members that I am going to raise the speech limit on Back-Bench contributions to seven minutes, in order that they are aware that they have a little more time than is shown on the annunciator.
Recreational Sea Bass Fishing
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the recent EU restrictions on recreational sea bass fishing are unfair and fail to address the real threat to the future viability of UK sea bass stocks; and calls on the Government to make representations within the Council of the EU on the reconsideration of the imposition of those restrictions.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this very important debate. Let me place my cards firmly on the table: I am a recreational angler, and a very passionate one. I have cast from many a beach in Cornwall. I have fished with plugs and lures from rigid-hulled inflatable boats. I have regularly fished and ledgered on the Camel estuary and taken great pleasure in digging my own lugworms—big long trenches of lugworms—and ragworms. It is great to be on the coast looking out over Daymer bay and Padstow with the sun going down, the tide coming in and the lines dipping into the sea, waiting for that bite.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Am I right in thinking that my hon. Friend enjoys visiting The Art of Fishing in Wadebridge—one of the best tackle shops in the country, let alone Cornwall?
Scott Mann
That is a shameless plug, but it is a fantastic fishing shop, I have to say. The chap there has some very good fishing rods and tackle that can be purchased at very reasonable rates.
I have set the scene for my fishing expeditions on the Camel. However, the situation this year is very different from that in previous years. For the first six months of this year, if I, as a recreational angler, caught a bass that was of legal size, I would not be allowed to keep it—I would have return it to the estuary—yet a commercial fishing boat that was netting on the estuary would be able to claim that fish and take it for the table.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that he has to differentiate with regard to commercial fishing nets, because driftnet fishermen are banned from landing any bass whatsoever?
Scott Mann
I will come on to some of the different elements of the fishing industry when I talk about the Cornwall inshore fisheries and conservation authority.
I am here today not just to speak for myself as a recreational angler but to speak up for the 900,000 recreational sea anglers in the UK. There are many parts of the fishing industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) pointed out. When I served on the Cornwall sea fisheries committee, we saw people with beam trawlers, people from the under-10-metre fleet, rod-and-line anglers, and many others who made a living out of fishing. There needs to be a properly managed inshore fleet so that we can have a sustainable future for our fishing industry.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
As another MP with a coastline, may I ask my hon. Friend to acknowledge that not only are some 10,400 jobs dependent on sea angling, but there is a whole lot of leisure industry business that supports sea anglers—accommodation and everything else—with sea bass fishing being, of course, the most popular form of sea angling? An enormous business worth over £1.2 billion, it is estimated, lies behind this.
Scott Mann
My hon. Friend makes an exceptionally good point, and I fully agree. I will go on to talk about some of the tourism benefits. We have seen some great uplifts in places such as Ireland and the USA, where there have been big recreational fisheries for a long time.
The crux of my argument is that it is grossly unfair to penalise rod-and-line anglers for the first six months of the year while commercial boats are allowed to operate in that period.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is a real need to have some data to support any action that is taken? Otherwise. it will be very difficult for us to work out a strategy as to what we should be doing.
Scott Mann
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to have data. The issue is that the data recently presented to the EU show that the bass fishery is in decline and needs to be managed effectively.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on being so generous with his time. He mentioned Ireland. My understanding is that following the depletion of sea bass stocks in the ’60s and ’70s, Ireland banned commercial fishing and concentrated on the recreational side, which has expanded its tourism base. Despite the expansion and re-strengthening of the stock of sea bass, Ireland continues to ban commercial fishing.
Scott Mann
The hon. Gentleman is correct. I believe that Ireland relies solely on the recreational sector, but that has been of huge benefit to the tourism industry. In the spirit of the Opposition, I will read not from Jeff or Rosie but from Paul. Paul is a sea angler in north Cornwall who wrote to me:
“After enjoying free and unfettered access to the inshore bass fishery for countless generations, it is understandable that many anglers feel aggrieved that they are suddenly having the right to take fish for the table so severely limited that in effect for many it will equate to zero.
What is not in doubt is that bass stocks are in serious decline and most anglers agree that steps should be taken to…reverse this situation. Despite the assertion that the cause of the decline has little or nothing to do with angling pressure, most anglers are content to accept reasonable reductions in the number of fish they can retain. Hence the widespread, uncomplaining acceptance of the three fish ‘bag limit’ introduced for recreational sea anglers in September 2015.
However, within the RSA community it was naively believed that the commercial sector would have been asked to make similar reductions in catch effort. No such drastic reduction in commercial effort was achieved. At this stage, many RSAs were both angry and perplexed”—
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Does my hon. Friend accept that the current proposals ban pelagic midwater trawling and impose a 1% bycatch limit on all mixed fisheries, including for fishermen who fish commercially from my hon. Friend’s constituency?
Scott Mann
I am aware of those regulations, but I am also aware that gillnetting and commercial fishing are still permitted in bass nursery areas.
Paul continued in his letter:
“The results of the negotiations are well known and in effect fall a long way short of the scientific recommendation…We call for an immediate review of the regulations in respect of the daily ‘bag limit’ for RSAs and a prompt correction of ill-judged legislation. It belies the intelligence of the EU commissioners not to recognise how illogical the rule is in its present form.”
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I want to make two points. First, the Commission has proposed the measures but does not decide on them. Those decisions are made by Ministers of national Governments, including our own fisheries Minister. Secondly, is the hon. Gentleman aware that last year, Labour MEPs, having received representations from recreational sea anglers, called for a multi-annual management plan for sea bass stocks that made specific reference to the importance of recreational fisheries, but UKIP and the Tories voted against it?
Scott Mann
I was not aware of that, and I thank the hon. Lady for making those points. I want to talk about some of the EU changes. I welcome the ban on French pair trawlers between January and April. They account for about a third of the bass taken in British waters, and many of the bass that they catch are spawning fish. Taking large spawning fish out of the ecosystem means there are no smaller fish to grow and become bigger fish. In the EU changes, we should be talking about reclaiming our territorial waters. The EU holds the common fisheries policy up as a shining example of joined-up thinking, but I am yet to find a commercial fisherman or a recreational sea angler who believes that the CFP is a good thing.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I am delighted to be drawn into intervening by the hon. Gentleman. May I draw his attention to a 3-inch piece in a right-hand column in The Times about six months ago—a tiny little thing—which reported that the long-running battle to replenish cod in the North sea was being won? Cod stocks are growing bigger, as we can read in the press again today. North sea cod has been replenished because instead of cod wars we have agreements based on science to replenish the stocks. Those agreements are working.
Scott Mann
I will try to check out that column in The Times. It is not my regular newspaper—I normally read The Telegraph and The Sun—but I will go back and check it. Such agreements may be fine in other waters, but we should have an understanding that our territorial waters inside the 6-mile limit should be protected for our fisheries and our people.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a splendid speech, which I know will be much supported by Christchurch fishermen. Does he agree that Iceland decided to take control of its own fisheries and that those fisheries are a fantastic success?
Scott Mann
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I agree that many fisheries people feel that that is the case.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that the huge decline in cod stocks was initially caused by the highly discredited common fisheries policy implemented by the European Union?
Scott Mann
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I recently read a book about the Bering sea and the mass stocks that it used to have. No fishery can be managed properly unless it is looked after effectively. We used to see huge shoals and salmon and sea trout regularly running the Camel, but such stocks no longer materialise.
Melanie Onn
The hon. Gentleman is being incredibly generous in giving way. One of the very significant reasons for the depletion of stocks is the advancement of technology in trawlers. The fact that deep-sea trawlers can go further using technologically very advanced sonar is one of the principal courses of depletion, not the common fisheries policy, as has been erroneously suggested.
Scott Mann
If our fishing boats have to go outside the 6-mile limit to catch fish, that surely shows that the fish are not actually within that limit and that fish stocks have been depleted over the years.
Recreational sea anglers fully accept that fishery resources are finite and that there should be controls on their activities—minimum landing sizes, bag limits, seasonal closures—to protect this public resource from over-exploitation. The Council of Minister’s recent decision to prevent recreational fishers from taking any bass for the first six months of 2016, while sanctioning commercial fishing for bass for the first four months, is irrational. The decision is a symptom of a fisheries management regime that is broken and a common fisheries policy that is unfit for purpose. The EU has displayed utter contempt for our recreational sea anglers and those whose livelihoods depend on recreational sea angling.
Scott Mann
I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.
Huw Merriman
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does he agree that, as those of us with coastal constituencies know, there is real anger about this interference? Does he also agree that we need to send a message from this House that we want locally line-caught sea bass back on our menus?
Scott Mann
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Locally caught sea bass has a premium price. It can be sold in local restaurants, and local businesses can make a profit from it.
I want to point out the madness of the current situation. Recreational sea anglers are members of the public who equip themselves with the tackle and knowledge necessary to access and enjoy public fishery resources. They selectively retain some fish for their own consumption, just as other members of the public enjoy Dartmoor, the New Forest or the Forest of Dean to forage for wild mushrooms, nuts and so on for their personal use. I believe that the EU is preventing our UK anglers from exercising their right—the right of our ancestors—to claim fish for the table, which is very wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made an interesting point about tourism, something I want to comment on. The Invest in Fish project, which was funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, was launched in 2004 and ran until 2007. It was a multi-stakeholder steering group that included fishermen, restaurants, fishing producers, merchants, recreational anglers and a number of other organisations. The objective was to examine ways in which fish stocks might be restored. In the south-west, it covered Bristol, Cornwall, Weymouth and Dorset.
The project involved numerous work packages, one of which was a study of the demographics and economic impacts of recreational sea angling. I will give some of the figures. The south-west has 240,000 recreational anglers, who cumulatively spend £110 million on their pursuit. In addition, some 750,000 days are spent at sea and the visitor spend is about £55 million. Recreational sea angling across the south-west therefore generates a total of £165 million of expenditure on bait, clothes, charter boats, boat ownership, fees, travel and accommodation.
Some places have recreational angling only, and I want to outline the benefits that that has brought. In the USA, the striped bass recreational fishery attracts anglers from all over the world and makes an estimated economic contribution to the country in excess of $2.5 billion. We must learn from the good practice in the USA and elsewhere, which delivers agreed resource sharing by species in line with fishery management advice, the best scientific evidence and economic objectives, as was said earlier.
There are jurisdictions in the British Isles, such as Ireland, that have fishery management policies that operate in favour of the most sustainable forms of bass fishing and the conservation of stocks. Bass has been a recreation-only species since the 1990s in Ireland, as was illustrated by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). That delivers an estimated €71 million to the Irish economy annually and supports 1,200 jobs. The Isle of Man is about to change the legislation covering sea bass to include a ban on all commercial bass fishing within 12 miles of the coast. Changes are happening around the world and we seem a bit slow to keep up.
Many of the fishing ports of north Cornwall used to be utilised regularly for fishing. In Padstow, back in the ’80s and ’90s, many people used to sit around rodding and lining off the pier. We do not tend to see that as much nowadays.
There are huge economic benefits to recreational angling. There are almost 900,000 recreational anglers in the UK and they pump £1.23 billion into the economy. There are almost 11,000 full-time jobs in sea angling alone. The “Sea Angling 2012” report found that the direct expenditure of sea anglers, after deductions, was £831 million. English anglers pay as much into the Treasury as the entire value of English fish landings, but receive no consideration in the reallocation of resources.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that we must consider not just the direct value of angling, but the wider impact on the economy? For example, those who come to Torbay for the sea angling will not only stay in a hotel, but buy a scone done in the correct way.
Scott Mann
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.
I will give two accounts from different parts of the sector before I wind up. The first is from a tour guide in the west country, who writes:
“About to start the new fishing season with a great deal of concern and trepidation for the future of recreational angling and how it may affect my business. Prior to the new rulings regarding Bass, I had a full diary for the year ahead, due to the uncertainty of our weather patterns in this country, this has proved to be an economic necessity as we lose so many days.
Now I find myself shielding daily emails from booked customers asking if the new rulings will apply to them, and would I consider turning a blind eye to the odd fish for the table as opposed to a cancellation!!!!”
I do not want anglers to be criminalised—that seems ridiculous. He continues:
“I consider myself as indeed are most of my customers to be conservation minded, but find these new rulings to be extremely harsh, especially when you consider that commercial fishing with rod and line and indeed netting will be allowed to continue within my ‘low pressure sector’. It is highly possible that I will be forcing anglers to return a fish right in front of a commercial line drifter”,
which could then keep the fish that has been returned. He went on:
“There is also the wider picture to consider, local cafes, tackle shops, bed and breakfasts”
and all the people who rely on that sector.
TV fisherman and bass guide Henry Gilbey—one of my personal favourite fishermen—stated:
“I am a full time fishing writer and photographer with a ridiculous obsession for bass fishing. I live within walking distance of the sea in south east Cornwall yet I spend more than two months each year in Ireland. Why? Because the bass fishing is better. I run guided bass fishing trips and I need as many photographs of bass fishing as I can get, and I would love to be promoting bass fishing in Cornwall. But I can’t. My local bass fishing isn’t good enough. The fact is that to access really good bass fishing I need to travel away from my home in Cornwall and help promote Ireland as a sport fishing destination. We could have bass fishing like they have in Ireland though…but we don’t. We need more and bigger bass for anglers to catch, and this can only come about via better management of the stocks. Bass are the king of our saltwater species and anglers want to catch them.”
They are simply being denied.
Scott Mann
I will not give way because I want to make progress.
To conclude I will quote from John Buchan who said:
“The charm of fishing is that it is the pursuit of what is elusive but attainable, a perpetual series of occasions for hope.”
I do not want to take that hope away from our recreational sea angling community, and I urge the Government to do a few things. First, will they review this decision and reverse the unnecessary catch-and-release policy for recreational sea anglers? Will DEFRA consider making a study of how much benefit rod-and-line angling produces for British tourism industries, and will it consider a complete ban of gillnetting in bass nursery areas? I look forward to hearing the views of other hon. Members, and I hope to sum up the debate at the end.
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who made a brilliant speech, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I also welcome him to the all-party group on angling, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). I look forward to some pleasant days out.
I am a terrible fisherman, so restraints such as the 42 cm landing size, the one-fish-per-day limit, or the moratorium will not affect me because I do not actually catch anything. However, I have great affection for the recreational angling community, and this is a great opportunity to debate the issue. I do not think we have discussed recreational fishing since December 2014, when the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) secured an Adjournment debate on bass fishing. After that debate we were optimistic about the future direction of travel of Government policy, but I am afraid we stand here today pretty disappointed about where we have got to.
Angling is one of the highest participant recreational sports across Havering, Barking and Dagenham, and in the country at large. If we joined conversations in recreational angling chatrooms, and talked to people from the Angling Trust and the Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society, we would quickly appreciate the concerns across the country. Anglers are desperate to help to rebuild bass stocks in a fair, efficient and proportionate way, and we were looking forward to making real progress at the December Council of Ministers meeting.
The basic problem now is that the recreational angler feels singled out and that EU fishing Ministers have unfairly targeted them in the new six-month moratorium. That moratorium risks criminalising thousands of law-abiding people, and it will be difficult to enforce without the active support of angling clubs, anglers and the Angling Trust.
Evidence suggests that charter boat bookings are already down, which will impact on tourism revenues and potentially put some operators out of business. Anglers fishing from April to June will have to return all their bass, yet a commercial boat can come alongside and catch and kill the same fish. Ministers have boasted that these supposed conservation measures will have little effect on commercial inshore bass fishing, while also claiming that they have secured a good deal for bass stocks. Those statements cannot both be true. We therefore need to find out what the Government’s actual position is.
DEFRA’s own “Sea Angling 2012” report shows that there are 884,000 sea anglers in England, who directly pump some £1.23 billion per annum into our economy. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned, bass are the most popular recreational species, and bass angling is worth some £200 million in England alone. Let us cut to the chase: for the past decade and a half, recreational sea anglers have been led to believe that their most popular sporting fish would be managed sustainably and be acknowledged as a valued recreational species. Why is that? It is because politicians of all parties have told them so.
In 2002, the Prime Minister’s strategy unit commissioned a report on the benefits of recreational sea angling. That report, “Net Benefits”, was eventually published in 2004, and it said:
“Fisheries management policy should recognise that sea angling may…provide a better return on the use of some resources than commercial exploitation.”
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on “Net Benefits” said:
“We support the re-designation of certain species for recreational use and recognise the benefits that this can bring from both a conservation and economic point of view.”
In the 2014 debate, the hon. Member for Meon Valley, who is now a Minister, concluded his speech by saying this:
“does the Minister agree that the development of sea bass fishing as a recreational activity is the best long-term solution to both the ecological and the economic sustainability of the fishery, as proved by the Irish sea bass experience, the striped bass fishery of the north-east coast of the US and many other examples?”—[Official Report, 3 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 119WH.]
Today, we ask the same question: what is the Government’s policy? We ask that as the derogations drive policy in the opposite direction to that argued for by the hon. Gentleman and the Government report in 2004.
Do not get me wrong, I am not attempting to make a party political point about this. For example, under the last Labour Government, the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), tried to increase the minimum landing size to 42 cm, but he was replaced by a new Minister who caved in to the commercial lobbying and annulled the statutory instrument that would have delivered this important conservation measure. My right hon. Friend was actively supported in those attempts to introduce that minimum landing size by the then Member for Reading, West, who, sadly, is no longer an MP, even though he is very much active in the Angling Trust and continues to lobby on behalf of recreational anglers.
There is a recurring theme throughout the past 20 years, whereby the ecological case has been consistently put by the recreational side, backed up by Government reports and all-party groups, and this has been accompanied by limited actions of Governments of various persuasions, given pressures from the commercial side. Here we are again today making the same points and trying to give voice to the recreational angling community.
In Ireland, bass has been designated a recreational species since 1990, delivering an estimated €71 million to the Irish economy annually and supporting more than 1,200 jobs. Ireland is also in the EU. The Isle of Man is about to embark on a similar policy. As well as highlighting the ridiculous anomalies with the current situation and the unfair treatment of recreational anglers, this debate today is really about trying to find out the longer-term thinking of the Government, so we do not have to return to this question again and again, whoever is in power.
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
I am not a recreational angler, but I have every intention of taking it up. It sounds an immensely enjoyable pastime and one in which all Members of Parliament should partake. I do, however, have an inshore fishing fleet to speak up for, and I have to say that one thing I am depressed about as a result of reading some of the briefings for this debate is the tone that is taken towards decent inshore commercial fishermen. These are men and women who have families to support. They are not large concerns. Having clung to a traditional fishing industry, in places such as Appledore, Bideford and Clovelly, they have found the rug gradually pulled out from under their feet.
I agree with my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas). We are dealing here with an insane, illogical, irrational, fatuous policy. It is absolutely crazy that anglers cannot take two or three fish home for the table, when, at the same time, the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), has obtained derogations that allow netting to continue. Of course on the face of it, if we take the one, it is strange we do not take the other, but I propose a reason to the House. Ministers know, when negotiating in Brussels with their counterparts in other countries, that if they take away bass from the inshore fishing fleet, they will have nothing left to catch. In the north Devon industry, which I represent, they cannot catch spurdog; there is no cod, plaice or sole; no thornback ray; no blonde ray; and now there is a ban on small-eyed ray, which represents 40% of the take for the northern Devon fishing industry. Fishermen say to me, “What do we catch?”
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the ban is pitting the recreational fishermen against the under-10 metre fleet? I and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) met our Sussex inshore fisheries and conservation authority last week and found out that, as a direct result of the ban on sea bass, there are now restrictions on shellfish.
Mr Cox
I do agree. The policy is crazy, and Ministers know it. They wrestle with their consciences, they feel guilty and they try to push the envelope for the inshore fleet, but they know that the situation is untenable. They know that decent men and women with livelihoods to protect cannot go to sea for more than a few days a year and cannot cover their costs. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann). Of course the position is crazy. It is an insane policy.
Of course the rod-and-line sea anglers must feel a sense of injustice. It is a direct and perverse consequence of a failed policy. That is the difficulty. How do I go back to Bideford and Appledore and say to my fishermen, “There’s nothing for you to catch”? Catching small-eyed ray, the last thing on which they depended, was banned in December. Why do we think my hon. Friend the Minister came back with derogations for gillnetting? It was because he knew that the small-eyed ray was banned, which meant 40% of the northern Devon fishing industry cut at a slice. Was there any consultation on that ban? No. Was there any warning? No.
The real injustice is the whole failed policy. It is time we got out of it. The people of this country will have the chance to withdraw us from it in just a few months. Then we can have a properly managed fishery in which the rod-and-line men and the sea anglers can be treated properly, and the inshore fleet, on which traditional coastal communities depend, can breathe again when we introduce common sense back into the counsels of our fishing policy.
Mr Cox
No, I am not listening to a former Minister who presided over this policy and went cap in hand to Brussels begging for scraps. It is time we took back our fisheries policy. That will bring justice to the people my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall spoke for and to the decent men and women who have nothing to fish for in the north Devon fishery.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! What are the Government doing risking Europe’s sea bass for their foolish, unfair, ineffective and fishy decision on sea bass fishing? Members might ask what I am doing here out of my darkened room—it is nothing to do with defence; I do not eat fish; and I am not an angler. Thanks to 40 years of living with an ecologist, however, I know an environmental disaster when I see one.
I have constituents who are sea anglers who came to my surgery and asked me to take an interest in sea bass fishing. Unfortunately for me, I happen to know the former Member for Reading, and when someone knows the former Member for Reading, it is very dangerous to ask him, “What is the issue about sea bass fishing?” because he will tell them.
Mrs Moon
I appreciate the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—I should never have done it, but my constituents wanted to know, so I wanted to know, and thus I am here today. I am also a Member who has a coastal resort, in which sea bass fishing was a very popular activity, so I started looking at the facts.
Everywhere I looked, it was very clear that there was an urgent need to rebuild bass stocks—and nobody seems to dispute that. It is the core bottom line. It is an environmental and economic imperative, and everybody will agree on that. We know this because in 2014, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas recommended an 80% cut in bass mortality across the EU area for 2015, following a rise in bass landings from 772 tonnes to 1,004 tonnes. We were taking more out of the sea than was sustainable. The bass stock in the North Atlantic fishery is 527 tonnes—well below the trigger point of concern for the exploration of the seas, which was set at 8,000 tonnes. Future regenerations of sea bass stocks are now in danger.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
This is just a small point, but I think the hon. Lady meant to say 5,250 tonnes.
Mrs Moon
I thank the Minister for the correction; he is absolutely right.
In December 2015, the EU Fisheries and Agricultural Council met to formulate a package of measures and regulations, but the agreement that was reached was both unfair, ineffective and, quite honestly, unbelievable. The regulation of recreational and commercial bass fishing, which came out of that December meeting, has exposed a rotten relationship between the industry and Government, both in the UK and across the EU.
Mrs Moon
No, I would like to make some progress.
During the run-up to the December meeting, the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) who is responsible for farming, food and the marine environment, was lobbied from all sides, but from everything I have seen and all the evidence sent to me, preference seems to have been given to commercial lobbyists. I am told that recreational anglers were granted a 30-minute telephone conference call with the Minister, whereas commercial lobbyists seem to have been in contact with UK Ministers and officials throughout the negotiations. Members will be aware that if we are going to carry out a consultation, it needs to be open, honest and not biased towards an already decided outcome.
I believe that the initial proposals were well received by all sides, but particularly by recreational anglers. There was to be a complete ban on recreational and commercial fishing, including catch and release, in the first half of 2016; then, in the second half of 2016, a monthly 1-tonne catch limit for vessels targeting sea bass and a one fish per day limit for recreational anglers and the reintroduction of catch and release.
Mrs Moon
I have already said no.
After lengthy conversations with the commercial sector throughout the negotiation period, EU Fisheries Ministers granted a surprise, namely a four-month exemption for commercial hook-and-line bass gillnet fishing, which accounts for 50% of bass fishing. The strict ban on recreational fishing will remain in place, and the monthly catch limit for commercial vessels has been increased from 1 tonne to 1.3 tonnes. Those outside this place who have never had the joy of seeing a gillnet should be made aware that it leads to the violation of EU fish-size regulations by allowing for the catch of undersized fish, which are then thrown overboard dead. They do not help conserve fish stocks, because the undersized fish—the next generation of fish—are thrown back dead.
I do not usually quote Christopher Booker of The Sunday Telegraph, but I agree with him that the EU is using a
“sledgehammer to miss a nut.”
Yet the regulation is endorsed and supported by this Government.
I may not be an angler, but I know nonsense when I hear it. The EU Fisheries Ministers, in conjunction with UK Ministers, are talking nonsense when they try to spin this fix-up as a considered and environmentally sound policy. They falsely claim that bass gillnet fishing has a minimal environmental impact; that the measures are beneficial both for the commercial fishing sector and for bass stocks; that, because drift netting has been caught by the moratorium, bass stocks will increase; and that drifting accounts for 90% of all bass fishing.
We need to know where the Minister got that 90% statistic from, because it is misleading and contradicts data published by the Government’s own Marine Management Organisation, which in 2014 stated that netting constitutes 62% of all commercial bass catches, with drifting responsible for only 20%.
How can this Government possibly justify increasing conservation-damaging gillnetting, yet ban recreational angling? I had thought that the Minister had mistyped the policy and that he in fact intended to ban gillnetting and to increase angling, but that was not the case. Recreational angling represents the sustainable future of bass fishing and it should not be banned.
The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government negotiated a stunningly bad deal. I cannot think of a worse deal that they could have come back with for recreational bass fishermen in this country. It is no good beating around the bush.
I make no apology for enjoying visiting the website of the Art of Fishing in Wadebridge. I have never visited the shop, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) will send the team my regards when he sees them this or some future weekend.
Why was the Government’s deal so stunningly bad? They have come back and trumpeted a six-month closure. That sounds like pretty good news, until we realise that they have negotiated a four-month derogation for gillnets and hook and liners. Over the next 10 months, each of the boats will be allowed to take up to 1.3 tonnes a month—in other words, 1,300 fish a month, or 13,000 fish a year. Indeed, it is a 1 tonne increase on what they could take last year.
Let us be clear: anglers account for less than 10% of the bass killed and taken out of this country’s waters, yet the value of recreational bass fishing is estimated to be £200 million to the economy, while the figure for bass stocks landed by commercial fishermen is an estimated £7 million.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Will the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that, according to the European Commission, recreational sea anglers take 25% of the total stock caught, and that the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas has increased that figure to 30%?
Mr Walker
And ladies—account for 25% or 30% of all the hundreds of thousands, the millions, of bass that are taken. There they are, those recreational anglers, filling up their wheelbarrows and taking them down the high streets of our fishing communities! What a load of rubbish that is. It defies belief that organisations that pretend to be serious expect us to swallow such utter nonsense.
Let us be clear about this. The value of a bass on the dock is about £3.50. The value of that same bass to recreational angling is about £100. It is worth 28 times more to recreational anglers than it is dead on the slab, going to market.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good case for getting out of Europe. Does he feel, as I do, and as many other Members in the Chamber do, that it is about time we had control of our fishing grounds around the shores and in the seas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? We make the decisions, and let us do it ourselves.
Mr Walker
Of course I agree that we should have control of our fishing grounds, which is why I shall be voting to leave the European Union, but that is an argument for another time. I do not want to stand here and attack commercial fishermen who fish for bass, because I think that there is a golden opportunity here. As was pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), there are very few fish left in the sea for inshore commercial fishermen to target.
Oliver Colvile
I thank my hon. Friend—my very good hon. Friend, whom I have known for many years—for giving way. Do we not need to ensure that a bass stock is available? That is key, because if there are no bass, there will be nothing for anyone to fish for.
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend has made an excellent point, although I do not think that the proposals that were negotiated, or agreed to, by the Government take us any nearer to that stage.
As I was saying, there are very few fish left in the sea for inshore commercial fishermen to target, and once they have finished with the bass, there will be nothing left. So here is the opportunity: let us create a recreational bass fishery that is the envy of the western world. In 1984, it was decided in the United States, on the east-coast Atlantic seaboard, that the inshore striped bass fishery would be recreational only. That fishery is now worth $2.5 billion to the economy, as people from around the world travel there, booking charters and staying in hotels in order to go out and catch those wonderful fish.
This is the opportunity that remains open to our coastal communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall said, it has been seized in Ireland, and that recreational fishery is now worth £71 million a year to the entire Irish economy.
Mr Cox
Does my hon. Friend agree that the fishing tackle industry, and the supply of fishing tackle, are vital to all these crucial areas? May I commend to him the Summerlands fishing tackle shop in Westward Ho!? It is a superb exponent of that particular art, and I hope that he will go and see it and buy something from it.
Mr Walker
I think that, during his speech, my hon. and learned Friend unwittingly invited my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall and me to join him for a bit of fishing. We shall be able to introduce him to the delights of recreational angling, and that fishing shop will be the first place that we visit after breakfast, at 9.30 in the morning.
But I want to be serious about this. There is a huge opportunity here. As I have said, the value of recreational fishing—bass fishing—to the Republic of Ireland’s economy is £71 million. The value of the entire commercial catch of bass in this country is £7 million. I put to my hon. Friends representing fishing communities that the real prize, the real money and the real future for their inshore commercial bass fishermen is being at the forefront of creating recreational fisheries. There is a laboratory—a live case study. We can forget Ireland and the USA because they are established and thriving. The Isle of Man has decided to pursue that route to create jobs for charter captains and fishing guides, and jobs in hotels and restaurants. That is the opportunity that presents itself.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
On the words expressed earlier about the Europe and the CFP, does the hon. Gentleman find it remiss of the Prime Minister that he did not prioritise fisheries in any part of his negotiations with Europe?
Mr Walker
I wish the Prime Minister would be more bullish when he comes to defend fishing interests. I remember fishing with the hon. Gentleman in Shetland. He was sitting on the side of a beautiful loch as it neared midnight on about 8 July. He said, “Charles, why are you using a fly and not a worm?” I leave him to justify his position in that matter with his own constituents.
Let us not make this a row between recreational fishermen and inshore fishermen, who have also had a pretty rough deal. Without threatening jobs, could we start to think collectively about creating a new opportunity for what remains of our inshore fleet to thrive and prosper, and about having a sustainable fishery and not one that is here today, gone tomorrow? As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon made clear, many fisheries around his coast have been here today and gone tomorrow, and they are now in the last chance saloon.
I have spoken for longer than I thought I would, and I took a couple of interventions, which I greatly enjoyed, but be in no doubt that the Government will continue to be harried and harassed on this matter, because there is no other word to describe their dealings in the European Union but failure.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and thank the Backbench Business Committee for the debate.
Bass tastes great served at a dinner party or a simple supper. My mother had a very special way of cooking bass that was caught with a rod and line at Queener Point off Rame Head near my home. Bass has always been a highly prized fish. Some people dream of winning the lottery. My late husband Neil—my late, fantastic commercial fisherman—dreamt of catching a bag of bass.
I am here to talk about all fishermen, not just recreational sea anglers and not just commercial men. In addition to recreational sea anglers, two other groups are affected by such terrible measures: trip boats that work out of Looe and Polperro, taking groups of anglers out to sea with fish with rods and lines; and commercial fishermen who trawl or net for a living. Recreational sea anglers spend their leisure time fishing for hours, and it is only right that, when they get a bite and reel in their catch of bass, they can take it home for their supper. Recreational fishing is a very popular pastime for locals and visitors alike. Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, it is estimated that landings of recreational bass account for about 25% of the total. I have heard that the European Commission is challenging the UK because it is not recording the landings of bass in a reasonable way.
Cornish mackerel handline vessels often use charter trips as a way of ensuring that they have an economically sustainable business. Commercial vessels from the south-west rely on bass in the winter months. To presume that they can make up the economic loss with other species shows a complete lack of understanding of the commercial fishing industry and its seasonal nature. It is essential to have joined-up fisheries management for all fishermen, and restrictions must look at the socioeconomic impact on coastal communities. Recreational fishermen provide support for tourism, and commercial vessels provide support for harbour repairs and local infrastructure.
In 2006, the Labour Government announced that the minimum landing size for bass would be increased from 36 cm to 45 cm. This was to apply only to UK vessels operating within the 12-mile limit. Labour reconsidered, however, and announced in October 2007 that the minimum landing size for bass would remain at 36 cm. The December 2014 Fisheries Council could not agree on bass conservation measures. The Angling Trust expressed its disappointment and called for domestic measures in UK waters, including raising the minimum landing size to 45 cm, strengthening the UK’s network of bass nursery areas, moving away from netting towards line-caught methods and limiting the catch per commercial boat. There was no mention of bag limits, I hasten to add. The Angling Trust should be careful what it wishes for when the European Commission is involved.
I am sure that the UK’s request for emergency measures on 19 December 2014 was made for genuine reasons, and all fishermen accepted that some conservation measures were necessary. Those emergency measures included a three-fish bag limit for anglers, and 18 kg a day limit for demersal boats—which was workable—and a ban on mid-water trawls until the end of April, which was accepted because that was the time at which the fish were spawning. In September 2015, the minimum landing size was increased to 42 cm, which was a sensible conservation measure. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea published advice on 30 June 2015, before an assessment of those emergency measures. Its paper acknowledges that there were uncertainties in the assessment due to inaccuracies in historical landings.
To maintain a sustainable fishing industry—I include recreational sea angling in that description—I propose that in the short term our Minister immediately asks the European Commission to revert to those emergency measures, so that we can make a real assessment of the bass stock. I also propose that the bycatch for demersal trawlers should be increased from 1% to a workable 5%, because discarded bass do not survive. What is the point of throwing this stock back into the sea dead when it is not covered by the European landing obligation? Discarded bass would have a very low survival rate.
Mr Charles Walker
Does my hon. Friend agree that the great advantage of commercial hook-and-line fishing is that there is a greater chance of returning undersized bass or bass over a certain size that we might want to release for breeding?
Mrs Murray
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, but my point is that some commercial vessels rely on catches of bass and it is too costly for them suddenly to change their gear. Believe you me, I know about this because I spent 24 and a half years married to one such fisherman. Preventing drift netters from bass fishing is vindictive. They cannot catch any other species during their seasonal fishing, although they could of course simply add weights to their nets, fix them to the seabed and carry on.
Maria Caulfield
I completely agree with my hon. Friend on that point. There are fishermen in Newhaven in my constituency who invested in new nets just before Christmas. Because there was no notice of the ban, they had no way of planning for it, and this has decimated the fishing industry in Newhaven.
Mrs Murray
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I have seen how the industry and fishermen are affected by changes to the rules, and to introduce such a measure so quickly when it costs a lot of money to invest in gear is simply nonsensical.
I acknowledge that the Minister may need to ask the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write to me on this matter, but will he please reveal why the ban on drift netting was not announced until after the Council meeting, and not at the end of the debrief with the industry? I am sure he did not intend to allow fishing representatives to believe that all static net fishing had an exemption.
This is a clear example of how the common fisheries policy has destroyed fishermen. The draconian CFP has caused fishermen from Looe and elsewhere to fish alongside French boats in the south-west 12-mile limit, and see those boats land about 10 times more haddock. Our fishermen have sent me images of their charts showing French fishing vessels inside our six-mile limit, while their path and speed suggests that they were actually fishing. To take this forward to prosecution under the CFP, the UK would need evidence of the gear in the water or confirmation from the fishery protection vessel.
I understand that the 2016 herring quota has been exhausted already and we are only in February. Sprat and Cornish pilchard boats cannot avoid catching herring and they are subject to the pelagic landing obligation. Will the Minister meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) to talk about that, because it is really important to our fishing industry?
Enough is enough. Fishermen are fed up. The UK has to get control of our 200-mile median line, so that our Fisheries Minister is able to make the rules without going cap in hand to the European Commission.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I have to reduce the time limit to five minutes, because we are running out of time.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I will try to be quick so that others can speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope Members will understand if I do not take interventions. I have been tempted into making some points. There have been some very good speeches by Members who know a lot more about the fishing industry than I do, but my opening point is that the Europe issue is a red herring.
Even if we had control of our own waters, we would have to have the right conservation measures to balance conservation with the survival of fisheries. We would have to do that come what may. I alluded earlier to North sea cod. Even if we had not been part of the common fisheries policy, and even if I had not been the Minister who started the trend for bringing back devolution of decision making on the North sea alongside Scottish colleagues and others, we would still have had to have made that decision for the good of our fisheries in the long term. We need the focus to be on the conservation of stocks, which is, ultimately, good for recreational fishermen and commercial fisheries.
The Minister has a very difficult task. When he goes to Brussels, he argues for the UK—it is not as though we do not have a voice, and he is there alongside colleagues from Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland—and he has to do a difficult thing: he has to represent fishing communities while taking account of the science. Yes, I understand that that is difficult, but my question to the Minister is why is the decision on bass such a departure from the science? That is the fundamental question. I understand the difficulties he has when he goes to Europe, but there is such a difference between what ICES and the science clearly says—science is never perfect, but it is pretty good to go on—and what the Government have come up with. That is what we need to hear today. This issue is not between recreational anglers and commercial fisheries—or it should not be, although sometimes it seems to descend into that—but about the balance between using the science effectively in negotiations and keeping the fisheries alive.
The fundamental question in my very short contribution is this: why is there a chasm between the science and the final outcome of the December fisheries negotiations on bass? The joy of the North sea cod result was that we had to strike a balance for more than a decade and we did it. Yes, fishermen were not happy, but they are a lot happier now that the cod is recovering and that they have bigger fish to land in their vessels. We need to do the same with bass and all other species as well.
The question that I leave the Minister is this: why is there such a gap? I have experienced the difficulties of fisheries negotiations, but he must understand that there is a chasm between what the science was telling him and the outcome. Is it because there was a huge pressure from the fisheries communities and the Minister gave way? I have certainly been faced with the situation in which we almost had to close fisheries off the west of Scotland and off north-east Ireland. We managed to pull away from that, but it was difficult. There is such a chasm now that I must ask whether the Minister has just dispelled the science and let rip.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Cheshire is not known for its coastal communities, largely because it has none. However, it does have some very keen recreational fishermen. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) who said that the policy is crazy and that it is absolutely insane to criminalise recreational anglers for removing one or two fish from the sea while allowing commercial fisheries to behave in the way that has been described. It simply does not make sense. Speaking as someone who comes from the other side of the European debate to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, I can say that this is exactly the kind of insane EU policy making that discredits the whole European Union.
I was slightly surprised by the sentiments expressed by the hon. Members for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), as of course there is a large degree of subsidiarity involved here whereby both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have an ability to regulate their inshore fleet, to designate their own conservation zones and to apply their own conservation criteria. If those communities do not agree with the policy, the decision making over the inshore fleet is devolved, and, effectively, changes can be made.
The answer to this is not simply to leave the EU, because the reality is that there are many treaties between EU and non-EU countries that regulate the fisheries but that are not in the common fisheries policy. Those pre-existing treaties are one reason why the CFP has historically failed over so many years. They have caused many, many problems and undermined attempts at an EU level to try to resolve things. I have, however, considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) who talked about French boats landing three times the amount of haddock as her local fleet. It is a real problem and it is inherently unfair. It just seems to me that this whole area needs to be looked at again.
The real point is that if we do not protect sea bass, we will not have any fish to fish. ICES said that, on a scientific basis, no more than 541 tonnes of sea bass should be fished in the central and south North sea, Irish sea, English channel, Bristol channel and the Celtic sea. In the past year alone, the UK has landed 1,000 tonnes. That seems wrong.
We need to consider the time that it takes for sea bass to mature. It takes from four to seven years for them to reach a size to spawn. If the UK is landing virtually double the tonnage that has been recommended on a scientific basis for the whole region, is it any wonder that we are in crisis? If there is that opportunity for recreational angling to reinvigorate coastal communities in a different way and to boost tourism and provide that extra pound that circulates in the local economy with all the benefit that that brings, surely we need to look first at line-caught sea bass, rather than allowing netting or drift fisheries. The common fisheries policy causes a great credibility gap for the EU. My recreational anglers in Eddisbury see that hypocrisy and do not like being criminalised.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I shall be brief. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Being on the Backbench Business Committee, I learned a lot about sea bass reproduction, when my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) regaled us all with the reasons why we should have this debate.
I am grateful to my constituent Chris Packer who wrote to me yesterday setting out the impact in Torbay, where there are about 3,000 recreational anglers. My constituency, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), is one of the most beautiful coastal parts of the whole country and has a thriving seafood industry, as well as a commercial fishery. I have the waters of Brixham harbour in my constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) has the harbour itself in hers, so there is a strong interest.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) that the question whether this is a “leave” or “remain” debate is a red herring. Whatever our position in relation to the European Union, we will need to have an agreement with other nations.
Kevin Foster
I apologise to my hon. Friend. Her intervention will have to be very brief, and I will not take the extra minute.
Mrs Murray
If the UK were not part of the CFP, our UK Minister could make the rules that apply to our waters.
Kevin Foster
We would still almost certainly end up having to co-operate with the countries that border the channel and the North sea to ensure that we had a coherent fisheries policy.
There should be no distinction between recreational and commercial fishing. Instead, we should focus on the science and the methods. In my constituency the rod-and- line commercial fishermen came to lobby me. They catch relatively small numbers, and do so in a way that allows them easily to check the size of the catch they are landing and return to the sea immediately any fish that do not meet the requirements, meaning that they are likely to survive. If we debate whether this is commercial or recreational, we get into the position outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall. In theory, a recreational boat could go out and have to return, whereas a commercial rod-and-line boat could be beside it, using the same method for catching. That is bizarre.
I welcome the debate. The importance of the industry should be recognised, not just on account of those who participate directly in it, but as part of wider tourism and visitor attractions, particularly for constituencies in Devon and Cornwall, and certainly for my own. I welcome the contributions we have heard so far. There are real concerns about the system currently in place and they have been well explained during the debate. Whatever system we have, we will end up with some restrictions. Nobody here today is suggesting that we should not preserve the stocks and build them up, but we need to do that on the basis of science and evidence. There has been a slightly false division between commercial and recreational fishing, when the important issue is what we are taking out and what methods we are using to do that, based on clear science.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
I speak on behalf of the small-scale coastal fishing community in my constituency, based on the River Hamble in Warsash, which has been fishing the Solent for centuries. Records from 1235 show that herring, cod, plaice, sole and bass were once in plentiful supply. The Prior of Hamble used to send 20,000 oysters to the monks at Winchester every year.
Today the local fishermen own small inshore fishing vessels, which I recently visited. They use a rod and line, and long lines to catch bass. Their families have been fishing the Solent for generations, but life is hard for them. They do not fish for recreation, but to earn a living. However, after taking account of their running expenses and the hours they work, they do not even earn the minimum wage. Now, they face destruction as a result of the six-month ban on bass fishing, the changes to quota sizes and the increase in the minimum landing size. They are a community on the verge of total collapse.
How did we get here? The quotas at the heart of the common fisheries policy have excessively affected British fishermen. Why our Fisheries Department ever allocated 96% of all quotas, no one can understand. The small-scale under and over-10-metre vessels received only a derisory 4% of the quota.
The common fisheries policy has caused the absurdity of discards. Healthy fish are thrown back into the sea, skewing the natural relationship between man and sea. For all of time, man has harvested the riches of the ocean harmoniously and intuitively. Then, the European Commission constructed a system so bizarre that it gave rise to the problem we face today: depleting stocks of fish. Instead of enabling the natural equilibrium, we have now imposed artificial, heavy-handed management measures and quotas. These have been in place for the whole of my life, and they are now causing our fishermen to catch and throw back fish that could otherwise feed people.
Let us consider cod stock. Once it was a staple of the British diet, but it was nigh on driven to annihilation. The huge total allowable catch reductions and the savage days-at-sea restrictions were big mistakes. At worst that meant that in the North sea, one cod would be discarded for every cod retained on board. That is at odds with all we do by experience, and it is injurious to the health of our oceans.
The common fisheries policy, for that is what I am describing, is one example of how pan-European interference can change—no, distort—what was previously a perfectly healthy model. The policy has been driven by a Commission addicted to drastic measures characterised by clumsy and blundering legislation. Bass now faces the same fate as cod stock. This knee-jerk moratorium on fishing for bass will kill off the fishing community in my constituency.
Set in the local context, the ban is too stringent. The Solent already has many restrictions as a result of UK and European protection designations. In Southampton Water, we have one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, with fish stock nurseries and other obstacles for fishermen to navigate. That has made it impossible for them to fish alternatives, such as mullet and sole, which might otherwise make up quotas if bass is limited.
This small-scale, sustainable industry is suffering as a result of attempts to prevent overfishing by large-scale industry trawlers further out to sea in the channel. Those in the industry are receiving no compensation for their loss of income or to buy new equipment. They have nowhere else to turn.
It is not easy to reach agreement on matters to do with the European Union—something we are all very aware of at the moment. Although I will not stray into wider EU issues now, I can say that the way the Warsash fishermen will vote in the EU referendum is clear for all to see.
Lastly, I do not profess to match the expertise of those of my constituents who live, breathe and work in the sector, but I ask whether extra measures can be taken to protect them from being annihilated by this deal. That would avert massive unemployment. Declining fish stocks will destroy our fishing industry. That will cost us fish and fishermen. As the precious stone set in the silver sea, Britain deserves more.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I am glad to be able to say a few words in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on his entertaining and energetic opening speech. He is clearly an enthusiastic angler. I have to say that although my late father was an angler, I have never cast a rod in anger myself. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s advertising for The Art of Fishing in Wadebridge—he was egged on by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker)—will stand him in good stead with his local communities.
As many Members have said, it is unfortunate that we have got to a stage where there is a dispute between recreational and commercial fishing, because that is in nobody’s interest. We must remember that this has happened because of the scientific evidence on depletion of the stocks. The situation is not new. It goes back to 2013, when ICES advised a 36% cut and was ignored, and then, in June 2014, recommended an 80% cut in bass mortality for that year. As a result, the stock has been in decline, and now these draconian measures are being brought in.
Sea bass is an important stock for recreational and commercial interests in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) rightly said, the reformed common fisheries policy now has a regionalisation element, and the Scottish Government do have some powers in this regard. In fact, they are now putting in place conservation areas, and they have introduced the Wild Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, which is currently going through the Scottish Parliament. We have a great many interests in angling and deeper-sea fishing. On the estuary at Montrose in my constituency, there is salmon fishing, which is also relevant. There are disputes between the commercial salmon fishers at the estuary mouth and those who angle further up the river for these important fish. We have fishing in many of our rivers—the Tay, the Spey and many others. That brings in a great deal of tourism, and thus a great deal of money to the Scottish economy. It is calculated that while fishing brings about £500 million to our economy, aquaculture overall brings in about £1.86 billion, so it is a very important aspect.
Mike Weir
If the hon. Lady does not mind, I really want to get on.
It is important that we do not get into a dispute between the two sides. I appreciate that anglers are very angry about some things, but we must also think of the needs of the commercial fishermen—the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) made an excellent point about that. It is about balancing these needs to get to a stage where both sets of interests are represented. I am sure that we can do that, but it needs a bit less megaphone diplomacy between the two sides and a bit more getting together and seeing how we can co-operate to ensure that we are not destroying our inshore fishing fleets.
The issue of pulling out of the EU is perhaps a red herring—no pun intended. The Minister will still have to make these difficult decisions, whether within the confines of reform of the common fisheries policy or in the context of UK-only policy. It is no easier either way when he has to look at the scientific evidence. The EU argument should not be relied on in this.
I grew up in the town of Arbroath, which had a very good fishing industry when I was young, but it has basically gone now. There is some crustacean—lobster and crab—fishing, and there are trip boats that take anglers out to fish in the North sea, but the large-scale fishing industry has gone. It is fair to say that in the past the Scots have had their difficulties with the common fisheries policy, but we are making progress with a new regime. It has meant that Scottish fishermen have made great sacrifices, but the fishing stocks are now beginning to improve, and we do not want to throw that away. There are difficult decisions to be taken all round, but let us not fall out about it—let us get the two sides together and see what we can do so that both can enjoy their fishing.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on securing the debate and putting the case of recreational sea bass anglers so strongly. He spoke with great passion about his fondness for fishing, and he showed particular enthusiasm when he got on to the subject of lugworms. Several hon. Members have highlighted the need not only to conserve sea bass stocks but to restore them to sustainable levels. Hon. Members spoke about what the hon. Gentleman described as the “madness” of the situation in which recreational anglers are treated differently from the commercial industry. Questions have been raised about the extent to which the Government have caved in to the demands of the commercial fishing lobby and the long-term consequences of failing to take tough action. The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) described the policy as insane, illogical and fatuous. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), who is a keen angler, said that the ecological case has been consistently put by the recreational side, but has not been listened to by the Government under pressure from the commercial fishing lobby.
Bass stocks across Europe are in trouble, and urgent action is needed to conserve and rebuild the remaining spawning populations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) made clear, she can recognise an environmental disaster when she sees one. The decline is largely the result of commercial overfishing over the last 30 years, rather than of recreational sea angling. Increased fishing effort, targeting of spawning aggregations and juvenile fish, and loss of nursery habitat in estuaries are also factors.
Kerry McCarthy
No. As has been noted, it is only in fairly recent times that sea bass has been commercially fished. The 2004 “Net Benefits” report by the Cabinet Office recommended that fisheries departments consider making bass a recreational-only species, although that was not carried through.
In 2014, ICES recommended an 80% cut in bass mortality across the EU for 2015, having previously recommended a 36% cut for 2014, which was not implemented. Bass landings by UK vessels rose by 30% in 2014, from 772 tonnes to 1,004 tonnes. That was yet another example of expert scientific advice being ignored, with predictable consequences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who has a great deal of experience of the matter as a former DEFRA Minister, said, it is important that we show that we can work with the science. He questioned why there was such a chasm between the science and the policy that was adopted. For 2016, ICES recommended a 90% cut, and some expect that its next advice, due in June this year, will be to recommend a complete moratorium lasting several years. That is what happens when early warnings are not heeded and action is not taken.
The Marine Conservation Society recommends a full six-month moratorium, followed by more stringent monthly catch limits and a range of avoidance and selectivity measures. As the MCS says, current measures
“have not come close to the reductions in fishing mortality needed to allow the stock to recover to levels capable of sustainable exploitation”.
The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) has argued that commercial fishermen cannot easily change gear. I have sympathy for that view, but they are in this situation because sea bass stocks have dropped to such a low level. The hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) made a similar point. I entirely accept her argument, but we are at the stage that if drastic action is not taken, the fish will simply not be there for people to catch.
The UK led in Europe on introducing the 2015 package of emergency measures to protect bass stocks, but it is estimated that these have reduced catches by only 36%. The European Commission accepts that the measures did not go far enough, but its 2016 proposals were watered down by Ministers at the EU Fisheries Council, with commercial sea bass fishing being closed for only two months of the year rather than the six-month moratorium during the spawning period that was proposed by the Commission. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, it was a stunningly bad deal.
Other Members have questioned the accuracy of the figures and assumptions used; why gillnetting is still being allowed; and the treatment of recreational anglers, who, somewhat perversely, will have to return all bass caught from April to June, but a commercial boat could come alongside and catch and kill the same fish.
It is clear that the current watered-down proposals will not do enough to protect sea bass stocks. The approach of making somewhat ad hoc, year-on-year decisions, which take on board ICES advice to some extent, but in some cases ignore it, is not a prescription for achieving a sensible long-term policy. It risks ignoring the lessons of previous stock collapses and forcing the introduction of a complete moratorium on all forms of bass fishing.
Does the Minister accept that the measures to date have not achieved the desired outcome, and that further action is now needed at EU level? Does he agree that over-fishing inevitably has consequences, and that the faster that depleted stocks can recover, the better? Did the UK support the Commission’s call for a six-month moratorium, or were we party to watering down the proposals in the Council of Ministers? If so, does he now think that that was the wrong thing to do? Does he agree that it is important to take national action to tackle illegal, unregulated and unreported landings?
I understand that the UK has been sent an infringement letter about the poor quality of its commercial landing records. We hear reports of huge numbers of unrecorded landings, a thriving market in black fish, netting rules that are regularly flouted, and a buyers and sellers exemption that allows unlimited, unrecorded sales of 30 kg transactions from licensed vessels to consumers. I hope the Minister can tell us what he plans to do about that, as well as about what the UK can now do to secure a sustainable future for sea bass.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
As someone who is not the fisheries Minister and whose constituency is stuck on the top of a mountain, I feel I am being drawn from my native rivers and well out from the pelagic realms into very deep water. My main responsibility has been to listen very carefully to this highly intelligent and serious debate. I will communicate all the arguments that have been made to the fisheries Minister and I will make sure that DEFRA takes them into account, responds to them in detail and takes action.
In the seven minutes I have left, it will not be possible for me to do full justice to all the speeches and interventions. May I say, however, that it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate? One of the most striking things about it, as one can see in the Chamber, is the great strength, good humour and, indeed, good looks of anglers. I have been very struck by the sense of generally energetic, tanned men, such as the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who is looking cheerful and bouncy. I have a general sense that this sport brings out a stress-free, cheerful life, and that it is to be praised. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) also contributed to the debate in an intervention.
As someone who is new to the debate about sea bass, it is striking that it is bringing to the surface the very serious tension between EU fisheries policy and UK policy, and between the interests of anglers and the interests of commercial fishermen. Navigating our way through that is quite tough. Very strong statements were made by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who particularly stressed her family connection with commercial fishing, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), who took us all the way back to medieval abbots, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), whose speech was perhaps more suitable for mobilising a brigade for war than for a technical discussion of maximum sustainable yields.
The hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir) made us think about the role of aquaculture in relation to sea bass. One reason why sea bass is a very striking fish is that it is, or so it seems to an outsider, the next salmon—the next great challenge we face in the debate in the United Kingdom. It is clearly an unusual fish, as people found when they developed aquaculture in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It struggles to get out of the microscopic eggs, it produces juveniles that have difficulty in tracking down their prey, and it has to create its air sack by rising to the surface and filling it with an oxygen bubble. In fact, the species suffered what was essentially an extinction event in the Mediterranean. We are now talking about the north-east Atlantic, but the Mediterranean sea bass was in effect eliminated during the 1960s and 1970s. Most of its presence there now appears to be related to farmed sea bass that have escaped.
That is why the challenge that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) made to us to focus hard on the science is so important. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) focused on biomass, particularly breeding or spawning biomass, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) focused on landings. The shadow Secretary of State pointed to the issues around tonnage and black fish, particularly the landing of 1,100 tonnes in 2014.
This is a serious subject and the science is at the core of the debate. It does not matter whether we are talking to commercial fishermen or the angling community: the question is: what is the state of sea bass? Of course, sea bass has been on an extraordinary rollercoaster since the early 1980s. We went from minimal tonnage to a single spike year in the 1980s in which we hit nearly 13 million tonnes of biomass. Very warm conditions seem to have created an enormous number of sea bass. Along with changes in our eating patterns, that created the phenomenon, which did not really exist before the 1980s, of commercial fleets going into the Atlantic after sea bass to feed these new tastes. A series of cold winters from 2009 onwards appear to have led to a serious problem in new juvenile production, when combined with the large levels of catching, as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out.
The best analysis that we can currently reach on the subject comes from ICES. We believe that we are catching about 5,000 tonnes and that that is about 30% of an 18,000 tonne biomass. However, if we look at breeding biomass, the figures appear to be lower. I see the hon. Member for Ogmore is looking at a piece of paper. Does he want me to give way briefly?
Huw Irranca-Davies
I thank the Minister for a very detailed answer, which is focused on the science. The ICES evidence points to the necessity of an 80% cutback in the year ahead and a 90% cutback after that. Those cuts are massive and stringent. Will the Minister respond to the suggestion that we will actually be looking at about 20%? Is that accurate?
Rory Stewart
I notice that since the emergency of Daesh, people have really struggled to pronounce ICES. It is causing more and more of a problem. Foreign affairs and defence appear to be entering into fishing debates.
To answer the hon. Gentleman, the 80% reduction is a reduction from a current maximum sustainable yield, which we believe to be about 13%—that is the best science—from the current catch rates and landings, which seem to be striking at about 30%. The question clearly is whether the measures taken in December Council will achieve those targets. I will come on to that now.
The key thing is that most of us in this Chamber agree that we need a solution—in fact, everybody in the Chamber probably agrees that we need a solution—that achieves a healthy bass stock. Again, I am very much not speaking as an expert, as this is outside my field. The measures that were taken at the Council were, broadly speaking, steps in the right direction. I think hon. Members would agree with that. The most important actions that were taken—this relates to the question from the hon. Member for Ogmore about the 80% reduction—were those that related to the pelagic fleet. In particular, the measures on drift netting—not on fixed gillnets, but on drift netting in general—were important, especially in relation to pair trawlers.
One debate in this House is about what kind of impact those measures will have. Will they reduce by 70% or even more the amount that is caught, as one would hope, or does more need to be done? I think that we would also embrace the move from 36 cm to 42 cm. The reason for that, which I do not need to point out to the House, is that we will get more spawning stock because the animals will get to a greater age.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Does my hon. Friend agree that in 2005, the UK fisheries Minister wanted to impose that increase just on UK fishermen? Now, it will at least be imposed on anybody who goes out from any member state to fish for bass.
Rory Stewart
That is a very good point, but it is important to remember that one reason why the EU dimension matters is that these fish are very widely distributed. I have talked about the Mediterranean variety, but they exist all the way from the Mediterranean right up to the north Atlantic. About 70% of the catches—it is hard to put a figure on this, but certainly the majority of the catches—in the north Atlantic come from French boats. It is extremely important, therefore, to the UK fisheries that an agreement is reached at the European level if we are to create a sustainable biomass and a maximum sustainable yield on catching.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), in a characteristically energetic, cheerful and engaged speech, attacked the specific conclusions that were reached in relation to fixed gillnets and, in particular, the 1.3 tonne limit and the two-month closure.
Let me move to a conclusion. There seems to be a consensus in the House that there is more to do and that we must consider our next steps, several of which have emerged from the debate. First, we must all agree that the huge achievement in the Council—I am sorry that more people have not pointed this out—was to get all member states to agree on the figure for the maximum sustainable yield. That is absolutely vital. By getting them to agree on a 13% take, we have a target for 2017-18 that we can use to leverage in exactly the kind of arguments made by my hon. Friend about the tonnage catch for individual boats. We must have those conversations throughout the summer and the rest of the year, and keep relentlessly focused on that target.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Angus made a powerful point about ensuring that, through the regional advisory council network, we have people in a room who are seriously focused on an agreed target of meeting that maximum sustainable yield—as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall pointed out, that also extends to commercial fishing. The 25-year environment plan that DEFRA is introducing will provide us with an opportunity to lead a pathfinder that will focus on a marine area. Hopefully that will allow us to explore the kind of ideas that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall focused on in relation to striped bass and the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham focused on in relation to Ireland, namely the potential social and economic benefit that can come from developing a sustainable bass angling industry.
This has been an impressive debate given the level of science, detail and constituency commitments involved. In defence of the deals that are being struck, we have achieved an enormous amount in addressing the biggest problem, which was the pelagic large drift and pair trawlers, and that is a big achievement. We have also achieved an enormous amount in getting agreement at European Council on the maximum sustainable yield, and that target will be vital. We have done that in a way that has attempted to respect the interests of commercial fishermen, and also to engage anglers. If we can achieve that target by 2017-18—and it will be tough—a lot of these issues can be revisited. If we do not achieve the right path towards that target in the coming year, we will have to revisit the catch for commercial fishermen. I call on the patience and understanding of the House as we address an issue that is important not just to this country, and that is the preservation of a unique iconic species: the branzino, the spigola, the lavráki, or for us, the bass.
Scott Mann
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this exceptionally good debate. I am pleased that the 900,000 sea anglers have had their voices heard today, and that we have had the opportunity to express their concerns. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) made some interesting points about ecology, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) spoke eloquently about the benefits of coming out of the EU, and how we might be able to control our own inshore fishing fleet. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) always speaks eloquently about her inshore fleet, and I invite the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) to partake in a charter boat catch-and-release opportunity with Bass Go Deeper, a bass fishing company that works out of Cornwall.
What has come out of this debate is that we must follow the science, because without fish in the water there will be no recreational or commercial fishing. I thank the Minister for his response and for his idea of exploring how tourism could benefit from recreational angling. I urge him to consider the views expressed by hon. Members, as well as those of the angling community, and to fight as hard as he can in future weeks, months and years for the recreational angling community.
Question put and agreed to,
Resolved,
That this House believes that the recent EU restrictions on recreational sea bass fishing are unfair and fail to address the real threat to the future viability of UK sea bass stocks; and calls on the Government to make representations within the Council of the EU on the reconsideration of the imposition of those restrictions.
Heidi Alexander
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During today’s oral statement on the junior doctor contract, the Secretary of State for Health said, “Along with other senior NHS leaders…Sir David has asked me to end the uncertainty for the service by proceeding with the introduction of a new contract”. The Health Service Journal has this afternoon contacted the 20 senior NHS leaders the Health Secretary referred to in his statement, and at least five have replied to say that they do not support his decision to impose a new contract. I am concerned that in making this claim the Health Secretary may have inadvertently misled the House. Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how best the Secretary of State can correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, but she will appreciate, as the House will, that it is not a point of order for the Chair. She has a point that she wishes to draw to the attention of the House, and she has used this mechanism so to do. I am quite sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what she has said and that her concerns will be conveyed to the Secretary of State. Whatever the Secretary of State says in this House is a matter for him and not a matter for the Chair.
Poppi Worthington
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), I should inform the House that as the coroner has now decided that the inquest into the death of Poppi Worthington should be resumed, the subject of this debate may, to some extent, be sub judice. Having carefully considered the matter and the public interest in it, Mr Speaker has decided to exercise the discretion allowed to the Chair to waive the usual restrictions on references to matters sub judice. However, I urge the hon. Gentleman and other Members present to be very careful in what they say and to take due account both of the resumed inquest and of the continuing possibility of a prosecution. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind in dealing with such a very sensitive subject, as will the rest of the House.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will heed your very appropriate warning on these matters. Indeed, the precise nature of what can and cannot, and should and should not, be disclosed is an important issue in this debate, as I will go on to discuss. I want to thank colleagues who have been right behind the push to try to salvage some justice after the death of Poppi Worthington and to press for the changes that this investigation clearly must lead to, both in the way the police operate in these matters and in social services. I am grateful to the Minister for her time today in the meeting, and it is good to be able to follow on so directly with this public debate.
Poppi Worthington died in December 2012, when she was 13 months old. We are now in February 2016, so more than three years later I am still having to come to this House for answers. Indeed, it has been only weeks since it has been possible to discuss this matter in public, because of the extensive, deeply surprising and in many ways concerning injunction that was placed upon reporting this matter. That was only partially lifted by Mr Justice Jackson’s ruling last month.
I will briefly go through some of the key facts, before moving on to the questions I hope the Minister will answer. On 11 December 2012, Poppi Worthington was put to bed by her mother a perfectly healthy child. Eight hours later, she was brought downstairs by her father lifeless and with troubling injuries, including significant bleeding from her anus. She was just 13 months old when she died. It then took until June 2013 for the full post mortem to declare the cause of death as “unascertained”.
In August 2013—eight months after Poppi’s death—Paul Worthington, her father, was brought in for questioning. That was the first time he had been questioned by police. He had twice before been questioned in relation to different child sexual abuse allegations. Critical evidence, such as Poppi’s clothes and last nappy, had been lost or never gathered by police. The media have reported that Mr Worthington’s laptop was not requested by police at the time, and by the time they eventually asked for it, the device had apparently been sold and sold again and so was unavailable to the police’s store of evidence.
In March 2014, a fact-finding report was delivered in private in a family court. Court records dated 18 December 2014 make it clear that lawyers acting for Cumbria County Council originally applied for a 15-year ban on the disclosure even of Poppi’s name. In the judge’s words, their case for secrecy included the claim that
“disclosure of alleged shortcomings by agencies might be unfair to the agencies”.
The coroner’s inquest in Barrow town hall took just seven minutes to declare her death as “unexplained”. That is less than a quarter of the time we have for this debate.
It took legal action from a variety of media organisations to force a second inquest, after the first was declared insufficient and therefore unlawful. I pay tribute to several people in the media who have pushed for this tirelessly, particularly Clare Fallon of “BBC North West Tonight” and the North West Evening Mail, whose Justice for Poppi campaign is still gathering signatures on the Downing Street website for the full and independent investigation that I believe is necessary, given the scale and breadth of the failings.
It then took until July 2015 for the High Court to order the second inquest. In November, Mr Justice Jackson in the family court released part of his original fact-finding judgment from the March before. This revealed that Cumbria police conducted “no real investigation” into Poppi’s death for nine months, despite a senior pathologist at the time raising concerns that Poppi might have suffered a serious sexual assault. It then took until this January—just last month—for Mr Justice Jackson to give his final, very clear verdict: based on medical evidence, he believed that Poppi had suffered a penetrative sexual assault before her death. It was only after this judgment that the second coroner’s inquest could get off the ground. It had been requested in January 2015 and confirmed in July.
We heard earlier this week that the second inquest would commence in March and that we would find out the timetable soon. Worryingly, the senior coroner has indicated that it might not even be concluded this year. Meanwhile, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has put together a report into failings by Cumbria police that names several officers. The report was finished last March—nearly a full 12 months ago—and leaked to the BBC, but the IPCC is currently still refusing to publish it. Similarly, a serious case review by Cumbria Local Safeguarding Children Board is being withheld, despite the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) making it clear that the publication of neither of these reports could prejudice the coroner’s second inquest.
In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service is reviewing the evidence to see if a criminal prosecution is possible. The fact that it is in doubt is surely largely the result of the astounding failures by the police in their handling of this case. The clear question to the police, which must now be taken up, is why they did not act immediately after a pathologist raised the prospect of a serious sexual assault. Why did they not keep hold of vital evidence from the scene?
Those questions demand serious action from the force itself and from the Government. That brings me to the following serious issues: the nature of and justification for the refusal by the IPCC to publish its completed report; and the appointment and continued tenure of acting Chief Constable Michelle Skeer.
We are told that lessons have been learnt by the force, but we cannot judge because we are not permitted even to see the IPCC report into what went wrong. We do not know exactly why these failures occurred. We do not know if those responsible have been held properly accountable. Most importantly of all, we do not know if new systems have been put in place to stop this happening again.
I have written to the IPCC to ask for the release of its report. It refused on the grounds that it could prejudice the second inquest, the disciplinary processes that have yet to be fully undergone or a future criminal investigation. My case to the Minister today is that none of those three potential justifications holds any water.
Let me deal first with the idea that the report could prejudice the second inquest. The inquest, by definition of course, looks at the cause of death. It looks at the period of time up to death occurring. The IPCC report is concerned exclusively with the police investigation into that death, so there is zero overlap between those two periods of time. One cannot logically prejudice the other. While I understand that the Minister cannot command the IPCC, as it is currently constituted, to do anything—it is an independent body for justifiable reasons—I urge her to comment on her view of the logic of that case.
Neither is it legally possible to prejudice disciplinary proceedings, which are yet to get under way. That is my clear legal understanding based on evidence I have seen provided to the BBC. I would like the Minister to confirm that. The key failure we face is whether there is the prospect of mounting any criminal investigation at all.
When I was first able to question the Minister a couple of weeks ago after Mr Speaker granted me an urgent question on this matter, I called for a separate force to be brought in, given the manifest failures of the original investigation. I wanted a separate force to be brought in to take over this investigation. The Minister and I have been able to discuss this outside the Chamber and I understand that she does not yet have the necessary information to make a judgment on that, but part of the necessary information will be the IPCC report that is currently being withheld. Every day that goes by, the evidence trail gets colder, and every day without justice for Poppi is a day in which her killer, if she was unlawfully killed, is able to walk free.
Will the Minister confirm that she wants to see the report as quickly as possible, preferably through full and open publication? If that is not possible, is she prepared to ask for a private copy like that provided to the police and crime commissioner, who has confirmed that, although he is not allowed to refer to it publicly, he is able to use it to make judgments?
It has become apparent that the police and crime commissioner, Mr Richard Rhodes, had not received the report when he endorsed the temporary promotion of Michelle Skeer from deputy chief constable to acting chief constable after Chief Constable Jerry Graham was forced to stand down temporarily on the grounds of ill health. Regulations state that the PCC should be given an unpublished report only if it relates to the chief constable, but he was not made aware of the contents of this report, even though he was required to endorse the temporary promotion of a woman—this is clear, because the report has been leaked to and reported on by the BBC, and it has been shown to me—whom it directly names and criticises for her actions in this case. She is now overseeing the force’s path of improvement from the case, despite the fact that she was directly implicated in it.
Is the Minister as troubled as I am by this situation, and will she agree to re-examine the regulations and procedures, to ensure that this kind of thing cannot happen again? If a report relates to someone who may be promoted to the position of chief constable, the police and crime commissioner should automatically be given sight of that important evidence.
I have come to the conclusion that it is unsustainable for Michelle Skeer to continue in the post of acting chief constable, because that is to the detriment of restoring confidence in the police force and the process of change that it now needs to carry out. She was named in the report from which the police force needs to recover, and the manner of her appointment was flawed. The Minister will probably say that that judgment is not for her, but for the PCC to make. However, if the PCC reaches that view, will the Minister at least pledge to give him her Department’s assistance in finding an alternative acting chief constable while the permanent chief constable returns to health?
These are incredibly difficult and distressing matters. No professional intentionally allows such horrific cases to go without justice. Police officers go to work to prevent and to solve crimes, and social workers go to work to protect children, but that has not happened in this case. Although this is a difficult and complex issue, the Government face a binary choice: either they must be prepared to step in and do all they can to increase transparency and to remove the logjam and the cloud of secrecy hanging over the case, or they will end up being part of a system that perpetuates that secrecy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on securing the debate, and thank him for the points that he, along with others, has raised about this deeply sad and troubling matter today and previously. He is an excellent constituency Member, and I know how hard he works for his constituents. The fact that he is continuing to campaign on this deeply troubling matter is a credit to him, and a credit to the constituents who elected him. I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the advice that you gave at the beginning of the debate. I shall bear your words in mind.
The circumstances surrounding the death of Poppi Worthington are extremely distressing and disturbing. I am sure that other Members who have read the press reports and court findings have found them as profoundly upsetting and moving as I have, and I am sure that we share a determination to try and discover what happened in Poppi’s case, Any failings in the police response, or the response of any other agency involved, must be identified, and action must be taken to ensure that they are never repeated.
However, as I made clear in my comments to the House during a debate on this matter on 20 January, I cannot comment on this case in detail. Indeed, it has become even more crucial for me to maintain that position since the announcement on Tuesday by senior coroner David Llewelyn Roberts that the inquest into Poppi’s death will reopen on 18 March. I know that Members will share my primary concern that, in discussing this case, we should not inadvertently prejudice a much-needed judicial process. The House will understand that, to that end—whatever my personal views may be on the terrible nature of Poppi’s death—I am constrained by the ongoing proceedings, and am therefore unable to make any detailed comment today. I urge others, in the Chamber and outside, to consider and take heed of that approach.
Members will be aware of the allegations of police failings in the original criminal investigation of Poppi’s death in 2012, which have been investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The IPCC looked into whether that specific investigation had been conducted thoroughly and appropriately, and whether investigative opportunities to obtain key evidence had been identified and acted on appropriately. It is, of course, the role of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to assess the overall functioning of the force.
The IPCC’s subsequent investigation report was given to Cumbria constabulary on 1 April last year, so that it could consider the report and determine what action to take. I should point out that HMIC will have regard to the force’s response to the IPCC report in the course of its inspections. All forces are inspected annually on their overall effectiveness, and, in addition, HMIC has a rolling national child protection inspection programme which looks specifically at each force’s child protection arrangements.
I fully understand the level of public interest in Poppi’s death, and I fully understand why there have been calls by, among others, the hon. Gentleman for the IPCC report to be published immediately. I know that the IPCC has written to the hon. Gentleman to explain its position, offering to meet him to discuss the matter further. I have met IPCC officials to discuss the matter, and I understand its position. I appreciate that we must balance the interest of the public in these matters with the wider public interest in ensuring that the integrity of ongoing and any future proceedings is not jeopardised. The IPCC has made it clear to me that it will not release the report while disciplinary proceedings are ongoing. It has also told me that the second inquest may be a jury inquest, and that it does not wish to release the report until there is certainty about whether that is the case, because otherwise there might be prejudice in regard to the inquest.
John Woodcock
The Minister and I know that that is the justification, but does she at least understand my bafflement, given the entirely different timeframes that are being discussed, as I set out?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman and I discussed that point earlier. I sympathise with his position, but that is the IPCC’s position and its guidance. I should make the point that I want to see justice done and to uncover the failings. As long as the people who are able to find that out and make those decisions have all the information available to them, that is my priority. I do not want anything to jeopardise that and I do not want anything that means that justice is not done. As long as the people who make those decisions and who can get to the bottom of the situation know what happened, that is the priority.
John Woodcock
I thank the Minister once again for giving way—this will be the last time I intervene. I hear what she says on that point, but if she were to see the report in private would that be useful to her in making a judgment on whether another force ought to be brought in? Surely it would be useful for her to see that information in private.
Karen Bradley
I met the IPCC this week. It does not give reports out and has to wait for the appropriate moment. There is not a process by which a Minister can see those reports. It would not be appropriate for Ministers to see reports before it is appropriate for them to be released to the public.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s point, I should explain that there is no obligation for the IPCC to provide an investigation report to the police and crime commissioner as part of any due diligence exercise on a potential promotion candidate within a force. The IPCC’s obligation to provide that report to the police and crime commissioner applies only when it relates to the alleged misconduct of a chief officer for whom the PCC has a statutory responsibility. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the PCC having full sight of all information when an appointment is made. I have asked officials to look at whether anything can be done, because it could involve somebody going to a different force—they do not have to be within the same force—and it is important that PCCs who are considering a candidate for a chief officer role have all the information pertinent to the appointment when they make the decision. The hon. Gentleman asked about advice that can be given by the Home Office to the PCCs who are looking for new recruits. I assure him that any PCC who approaches the Home Office for advice on recruiting a new chief officer will receive that advice.
I stand with those who urgently want to understand what has happened in this case, but I also want to see justice served and the truth to be established. We must be careful in our haste to see justice done that we do not inadvertently prevent it from being done. In addition to the inquest into Poppi’s death and the ongoing disciplinary proceedings at Cumbria constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service is reviewing the file on Poppi’s case to decide whether to launch a criminal prosecution. To avoid prejudice in any of those cases, the IPCC intends to publish its report after the conclusion of all the proceedings I have mentioned. That may disappoint some, but we must recognise the rationale for that decision.
The IPCC has investigated allegations of police failings in relation to Poppi’s death, but the criminal investigation remains a matter for Cumbria constabulary. I know there have been calls for that investigation to be reopened and for a fresh one to commence. It is of course open to the police to review the investigation, but that is an operational decision for the force that will need to be considered in the light of what, if anything, a review could realistically achieve. It is for the chief constable of Cumbria to consider whether the investigation should be reopened and whether another force should take on the investigation in order to maintain public confidence. Whatever my personal convictions, it would not be appropriate for the Home Office to intervene in this situation.
I once again thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue and extend the offer of continued dialogue and meetings. We all want to get to the bottom of what happened and to see justice done. I acknowledge that many questions have still to be answered in this terrible case. Like other Members, I want to see the outcome of those proceedings. I look to the outcome with interest, but I want them dealt with as speedily as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft European Union Referendum (Conduct) Regulations 2016
(8 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft European Union Referendum (Conduct) Regulations 2016.
It is a pleasure, as always, to have you looking after us during our deliberations, Mr McCabe. The draft regulations, which are largely procedural, set out the detailed framework for the administration of the referendum poll. They are a piece of vital, but generally ignored, electoral plumbing to set out how the polls should be run. In fact, we had a roughly equivalent discussion a couple of week ago about regulations setting out conduct in the process for the recall of MPs in perhaps this very room.
I thank members of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which approved the draft regulations on 5 February, and members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place for their consideration of the measure. The regulations specify matters such as how ballot papers will be issued and how voting will take place in polling stations. They also specify the arrangements for absent voting, which provide for people to vote by post or by proxy if they do not want to vote in person. They cover arrangements for the count and the declaration of results, as well as how ballot papers and other referendum documents will be disposed of after the poll. They also apply existing electoral offences, such as double voting, to the referendum.
All elections have conduct rules, which are a routine but necessary part of every British poll. We have modelled these conduct regulations on the rules that were used to administer the parliamentary voting system—alternative vote—referendum in May 2011, which were themselves modelled on those used for ordinary UK parliamentary elections, so they will be relatively familiar to election administrators. The Parliament and Government of Gibraltar will make equivalent rules for the administration of the referendum there. In addition, minor changes to the UK rules have been needed to reflect the fact that the European Union referendum will take place in Gibraltar as well as the United Kingdom. We have also taken into account changes in electoral law since the 2011 referendum, as well as recommendations from the Electoral Commission. For example, in line with the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, the regulations provide for people queuing at the point when a polling station closes to vote.
Hon. Members will recall that the conduct regulations were published in draft in July 2015 to give the Electoral Commission, Members of Parliament and any other interested parties an opportunity to review them. That gave electoral administrators significant advance notice, thus allowing them to begin planning far in advance of the poll. The responses that we received, which were largely technical, were carefully considered before the regulations were finalised. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your benign chairmanship, Mr McCabe. As the Minister indicated, the draft regulations are not particularly contentious, but they are nevertheless important for ensuring that the referendum, when it comes, is conducted efficiently and fairly. They are essentially, as he said, plumbing matters. Other regulations will deal with more contentious and important issues, such as the date of the referendum, how long the referendum period will last, referendum-related expenditure, and the process by which the Electoral Commission will designate the lead organisations for both campaigns. We hold our breath on that matter, because it will be interesting to see which organisation is given responsibility for conducting the no campaign. That is not a political point; I am saying this objectively.
The Opposition support the regulations. They are well worked through and there has been a great deal of consultation, but I do have a few questions for the Minister. I am glad to see the inclusion of the innovations, modest though they are, introduced by the ERA Act. Lessons have been learned from the conduct of the alternative vote referendum in 2011.
Police community support officers can now attend polling stations, and there is a great deal of sense behind that, because it will relieve pressure on the police, but of course PCSOs have limited powers. If there was a serious fracas or potential infringement of electoral law at a polling station, it would be embarrassing to say the least if a PCSO was not able to deal with the situation because his or her powers were limited. The situation would then have to continue while the PCSO called in the assistance of a properly designated police officer. I understand the practical benefits of having PCSOs as well as police officers, but I envisage a possible difficulty arising, too. Will the Minister comment on that?
I am pleased that the Government have largely taken the Electoral Commission’s suggestions into account but, according to the Government’s own explanatory memorandum, the suggestion on the extension of emergency proxy votes has not been accepted. The memorandum states:
“In order to maintain the integrity of the electoral process, the Government considers that the emergency proxy provision should not be drawn too widely and therefore has not included the provision recommended by the Electoral Commission in the instrument.”
Will the Minister expand on that a little? I understand that proxy votes are being extended for people who are engaged in business activities or on military service. Why did he decide not to accept the Electoral Commission’s advice to have a further extension of the proxy provisions?
My next question is about who is entitled to vote. The Minister specifically said that there are provisions in the regulations to allow citizens of Gibraltar to cast their votes, but if people in Gibraltar can vote, why not people in the Falkland Islands, too, and why not people who consider themselves to be British in the 11 other overseas territories? The case can be made that the vote should be extended to all people who consider themselves to be British, because of course the Falkland Islands and the other overseas territories have some kind of relationship with the European Union as well as with Britain.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Although the hon. Gentleman makes a moderately compelling case that other overseas territories should be considered in such a way, surely he recognises that Gibraltar is a unique case. Gibraltar is on the European mainland, so the question is whether it should be counted as part and parcel of Spain or part of the United Kingdom. As he is well aware, it obviously counts as part of the United Kingdom for European elections, so there is some sense in maintaining that slightly analogous situation specifically for Gibraltar while not extending it elsewhere.
Wayne David
I am not arguing against the case for Gibraltar, which I recognise has a unique relationship with Britain and the rest of the European Union. I am simply posing the question of whether there is an argument for extending votes in this referendum to people in the 12 overseas territories that belong to the United Kingdom. Those territories are referred to in annex IV of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community, so a legal relationship has been defined, albeit it is not the same kind of relationship as that of Gibraltar and the United Kingdom.
Let us not forget that there are 1,650 registered voters in the Falklands. They were registered for the 2013 referendum in which they almost unanimously—barring three voters—decided that they wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom, to all intents and purposes. I am sure that the people of Falkland Islands would consider that—morally at least, if not in terms of the technical specifics—they should be able to cast their votes. I am sure that they would point out that, in an equivalent French process, people in an overseas department, such as La Réunion or Guadeloupe, would be able to cast a vote, because those people were able to do so in the 2005 French referendum on the so-called constitutional treaty. Those overseas departments are, to all intents and purposes, very similar to our overseas territories. I will be intrigued to hear the Minister’s response to those points because there is a case for treating everyone in the same way.
My final question is about the count and declaration, although I might be straying a little beyond the regulations. It was announced in December that the final declaration of the result would take place in Manchester, but why there? Why not London, Cardiff or wherever? I understand that there will be collation centres for the 12 regions, but have the Government made a decision about the venues for those centres? The natural place for the venue in Wales would be Cardiff, but it would be nice to know precisely which cities have been chosen, if that has been stipulated, and whether arrangements are in hand to ensure that there will be a smooth count. I also understand that there will be 382 counting officers who will operate locally and feed information to the regional centres before a national announcement is made. I know that regional declarations will be made—I am sure that many will watch with interest what happens in Wales and Scotland—but will the local results be announced to the public?
What will happen at a local count if an individual who is accredited to be there calls for a recount? Regulation 47(1) states:
“A person within paragraph (2) who is present at the completion of the counting (or any re-count) of the votes in a voting area may require the counting officer to have the votes for that area re-counted…but the counting officer may refuse to do so if in the officer’s opinion the requirement is unreasonable.”
To ask the obvious question, what is the meaning of “unreasonable”? Surely there should be criteria to determine whether a vote is very close so that an officer is not in the invidious position of having to make a subjective decision about whether a recount is required. Will the Minister clarify the situation and explain why the imprecise word “unreasonable” has been used?
Labour Members will support the regulations, but I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to my comments.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments about the regulations.
I would not suggest that hon. Members should do anything other than approve the regulations, although it would create an interesting precedent if we had a referendum without any rules on its conduct. However, I wish to raise a few points, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them today or assure me that they will be taken into account as we get closer to the date of the referendum.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked why the declaration would take place in Manchester, but it has to happen somewhere. If it was in London, a lot of us, including many people in Wales, I suspect, would be asking, “Why always London?” The real reason for the decision is that when we see the size of the bill for repairing this place, we will all want to move to Manchester, because it will be the only place where we can afford to build a Parliament, and I suspect that a lot of people in the north of England would support that.
The hon. Gentleman also asked a question about the reasonableness, or otherwise, of a request for a recount, but it is impossible to predict every scenario for a referendum in which every vote in every ballot box is equally likely to be the decisive one that swings the entire result. In a parliamentary election, the returning officer and everyone else can see how close a result will be, and sometimes at an early stage in the process, so if someone who has clearly lost by 8,000 or 10,000 votes asks for a recount, that is unreasonable. However, although it might appear that there is a large majority on one side after the first few areas have declared, there is always the possibility of that position changing as more results come in. An area that declares with a majority of 10,000 might have a miscounted or misclassified bundle of 100 votes, but those 100 votes could be decisive in the event of a close overall result. In such circumstances, we must leave things to the professionalism of the counting officers and expect the chief counting officer to be prepared to say, “Do you know what? This is now so close that we need to look at every contested declaration, just to make sure.” We all agree that we cannot afford to have a result that people think is unfair or somehow fiddled, whether due to error or another aspect of the process.
Let me ask the Minister about various aspects of the regulations. On timetabling, I fully understand why bank holidays are not counted as working days when calculating the period of notice, but I ask the Minister to respect the fact that while we have things in Scotland called “bank holidays”, which are sometimes the same as those in England and sometimes not, no one in Scotland, apart from the banks, pays a blind bit of attention to them. Many places have traditions of local public holidays during which schools, and often public services and businesses, close. The dates of such holidays vary from place to place, are often based on long-standing traditions and are jealously guarded by local people. It would be unreasonable to ask that the Government try to avoid a clash with any local public holiday in Scotland, but I ask them to be aware of those holidays. It might be better for them to avoid the process affecting any time of the year when such public holidays tend to congregate, which is May and June, so perhaps the Minister will heed what I am saying about that.
Regulation 58, which deals with the public inspection of papers, has a link with the Data Protection Act and the question of who is allowed to see marked registers. I know personally of examples of when the availability of such registers to agents or political parties allowed a party to satisfy itself and its supporters that there had not been large-scale personation. On one occasion of an unexpectedly high turnout in an election, it transpired that the marked register for that election showed a significant number of people as having voted, despite the fact that previous registers showed that they had not voted for 10 or 15 years. As an agent was allowed to get the new information—he already had the historical information—he could make his own inquiries, and it turned out that those people had, for whatever reason, decided to vote. It could therefore be demonstrated that what appeared to be a highly suspicious pattern of voting was completely legitimate. Importantly, that allowed the candidate who lost the election to say to his supporters, who were claiming foul, to say, “We lost fair and square—live with it.” Such a statement by a candidate has a lot more power than one from the authorities. I therefore ask the Government to bear in mind that it is sometimes vital for the integrity of the entire process that such information is made as available as possible within the confines of data protection legislation.
As this is not clear from regulation 45(1), will the Minister confirm that the expectation is that, when possible, the count will begin at the close of poll so that results will start to be declared as quickly as possible? I know that there are some places where, because of their remoteness, the count is traditionally done the following day, but if the intention is that the count be carried out overnight on the Thursday, it will be useful for everyone to know that as soon as possible.
Anyone with experience of either working in a polling station or attending a count will have been greatly impressed by the dedication and professionalism of everyone who works in those places. Just look at the hours that the count staff have to put in before and after the count. They are a huge group of people to whom democracy itself owes a great deal of gratitude. The Minister should be aware that it might be more difficult to recruit that army of people to spend all Thursday night carrying out an important part of the democratic process if they are expecting to take the kids who have finished school on their summer holiday on the Friday afternoon—the Minister will understand what I am saying. In my experience, a significant number of those who work at polling stations and at counts have children, and in some parts of these islands towards the end of June, a lot of families with children will be about to go on their summer holidays, so I ask the Minister to bear that in mind.
Although I can understand why we want to go through a process in which the regional draft declarations have to be agreed by the chief counting officer before being announced, that needs to be done in a way that does not lead to the pile-up of results that we have seen in other referendums. At the time of the devolution referendum in Scotland, there was a requirement for each local authority to get authorisation from the chief returning offer before announcing the result. Inevitably, two or three councils declared very quickly, and then about 15 were all ready to go within an hour. I was at the count in Fife—the third biggest count in Scotland.
Wayne David
I remember the devolution referendum in Wales, when the result was on a knife edge, with a mere 6,000 votes in it. It was suggested that the final information, which came through from Carmarthen, was held back deliberately to increase the drama and suspense before the final declaration. It really was on a knife edge: many people thought that there had been a small no vote, but because of Carmarthen, the result was a small yes vote. I was wondering whether this time there is a possibility—I do not say it is good or bad—of a similar control of results coming from different parts of the country, as happened in Wales in 1997.
Peter Grant
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I remember watching the results coming in from Wales and seeing the face of the Labour leader in Wales when the decisive result came in. I have to say, he did not look delighted, but I am sure that things have moved on since then.
At the Fife count, we waited between an hour and an hour and a half after everybody knew the result there. At that time, Scotland’s vote on the first question—about having a Scottish Parliament—was 75% yes, so everybody knew the result on the straight yes/no decision, but the returning officer had to keep the staff there for more than an hour after they knew they had done their job and there was nothing more for them to do. That was not fair to them or to the returning officer.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the suggestion that results had deliberately been held back. In another, more recent, referendum, in which the vote did not quite go the way that I intended, I would have been quite happy if the result from Fife had been lost and no one had bothered to add it to final tally. However, we waited in the count hall for between an hour and an hour and a half, with nothing visibly happening, and that started a rumour that Gordon Brown was going to be paraded as the man who saved the Union. We were assured that that rumour was completed unfounded and that the sudden appearance of an intense police presence was pure coincidence.
I ask the Minister to ensure that a clear instruction is issued that no declaration is to be delayed unnecessarily, for any reason whatsoever, so that there can be no suggestion that any particular place has been chosen to make the decisive announcement—the one that guarantees victory for one side or the other. I understand why the chief counting officer will want to have oversight of the whole process, but we cannot allow that to delay the public’s knowing the result of an important referendum.
Having stood outside local polling stations in every election since 1987 and been at every count as well, it is interesting to be part of the process of making the rules that those hard-working returning officers and their staff will have to work by. Despite the primary legislation’s limitations, the regulations should give us a referendum after which the public will be as certain as they can be that, whether they like the result or not, it will have been the choice of the people.
John Penrose
I welcome the support in principle for the regulations expressed by the hon. Members for Caerphilly and for Glenrothes. They said that they were content that the regulations should go forward, although they had questions to ask, which I shall endeavour to answer. The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that we will consider perhaps more contentious statutory instruments in this referendum process, for example to set the date of the referendum and the designation period. Those are for another time, so I will not try your patience by talking about them, Mr McCabe; I will stick purely to what I hope is the relatively uncontentious piece of electoral plumbing before us.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the police officers at polling stations should be warranted police officers or PCSOs. Ultimately, it is down to local police forces, in conjunction and discussion with local election administrators, to decide where possible flashpoints and hot spots, if any, might be. They will know from previous elections which polling stations might have problems and which are unlikely to, and they will need to distribute their resources appropriately to reflect that. One would hope and expect that they will have people on stand-by or already available there. The important thing, as the hon. Gentleman rightly observed, is that there is more potential for police involvement at polling stations, should that be necessary—we all hope that it will not—to ensure that an orderly and safe poll, and, most importantly of all, a secret ballot, is properly concluded.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the extension of emergency proxy votes. We are trying to be a little careful because, as he will know, the report into electoral fraud that is being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) is due shortly. We will have to wait and see what it says, but it might have recommendations about postal voting and proxy voting as part of the overall position on electoral reform, so we will probably want to wait until it is published before making any substantial changes either to relax or to tighten up those rules. Of course, when the report does come out, I am sure that we will scrutinise it carefully.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether Gibraltarians should be treated the same as those in other overseas territories. I think he may be implicitly making common cause with my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who is very keen on ensuring that other overseas territories outside the continental mass of Europe have an opportunity for closer involvement in British democracy, and potentially to send MPs to Westminster. I encourage him to discuss that with my hon. Friend in detail, should he be so minded. Beyond that, I can add little to the elegant response to the hon. Gentleman’s point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, other than to say that our starting point was that the franchise—I think we covered this when we considered the primary legislation for the referendum—should be based on that for a UK parliamentary election. That explains why some of the other places around the globe that the hon. Member for Caerphilly cited are not part of the franchise. There have been limited changes, which we tried to minimise, but given Gibraltar’s special status within the continent of Europe and the fact that Gibraltarians get to vote in European parliamentary elections, we felt that that was worthy of one of the very few alterations to the basic franchise.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why Manchester was to be used for the declarations. The hon. Member for Glenrothes said that many people in northern England would support the idea of Manchester, but I suggest gently that he might want to tread a bit carefully because, from what I understand of the local and regional rivalries between cities in the north of England, he might not find that there is quite such a degree of unanimity about Manchester being the right place when people start to consider competing bids from other cities.
Peter Grant
Would not the Minister accept that even Manchester and Leeds may be united in their opinion of London?
John Penrose
The hon. Gentleman might think that some of the rivalries between English cities outside London are strong; I think they could rival that between Celtic and Rangers.
Matters such as the location and distribution of the regional counting centres are primarily for the Electoral Commission, because it is effectively the chief counting officer for the referendum, unlike in a normal parliamentary or local election, when that is done by local councils. The Electoral Commission will be in charge of many of the decisions about where things can be efficiently done.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes asked when the counts will start and how long they will last. In general, they will start as soon as practicable after the close of poll, although there will be some geographical issues with transporting ballot boxes around and so on. They will continue overnight so that we have a prompt declaration. Beyond that, this is a matter for the Electoral Commission, but its guidance applies in a similar way as in parliamentary elections. It will realise that the country will not be particularly understanding of unreasonable delays. People will want an answer, and they will want it quickly. The commission will understand the importance of a prompt and efficient count.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked about recounts which, again, are covered by the usual rules. The situation is heavily dependent on the professional good judgment of local count administrators, who are well trained and in most cases very experienced, because they handle many other elections. They are the people to whom we, as Members of Parliament, have spoken at our individual counts at parliamentary elections about bad and doubtful ballot papers, and whether there needs to be a bundle check of this or that part of the count. Those same rules will, broadly speaking, apply in the usual way to ensure the general level of good order we have all, rightly, come to expect in British elections, no matter what their purpose.
I hope that I have covered all the points raised and that we can move to approving these regulations, given the welcome cross-party support that has been evident today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft European Union Referendum (Conduct) Regulations 2016.
Petition
Park and ride scheme on Bathampton Meadows
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 13 stand part.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 14 to 16 stand part.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Clause 17 stand part.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
The Committee will see that I have not selected any amendments that would leave out clauses or schedules. That is because the more effective proceeding is simply to vote against the stand part question, but the amendments were a helpful and proper indicator. As clauses 13 to 17 and schedule 1 to 3 are all closely dependent on clause 12, no amendments to any of them were selectable. I propose that it is convenient to consider the clauses and schedules together in debating the question that clause 12 stand part of the Bill. Members will have the opportunity, should they wish, of dividing the Committee on individual clauses or schedules in turn.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady, on this sunny February morning. The clauses and schedules together end the subsidiary status of the Prudential Regulation Authority and integrate microprudential regulation more fully into the Bank of England. I hope I can make it clear that the changes increase the PRA’s effectiveness, but do not undermine its independence.
First, I will talk about increasing effectiveness. Placing the Prudential Regulation Committee on the same footing as the Monetary Policy Committee—and, with our changes, the Financial Policy Committee—will elevate the status of the microprudential responsibilities of the Bank to the same level as monetary policy and macroprudential policy. That reinforces not only to Bank staff but to the public to whom the Bank must be transparent and accountable that the Bank is not simply an organisation dedicated to setting interest rates, but one with equally important macro and microprudential responsibilities.
The Bank has told us that closer integration has increased the feeling among PRA staff that they are integral to the Bank’s mission and have broader opportunities for progression across the whole Bank. That can only assist recruitment of the best people to the supervisor. Another benefit is increased clarity of governance. As the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards noted in discussing the existing regime:
“The accountability arrangements of the new structures are more complex than those of the previous regulatory regime. The PRA is a subsidiary of the Bank, and the FPC is a sub-committee of the Court of the Bank.”
Ending the subsidiary status of the PRA and establishing the PRC, MPC and FPC on the same statutory basis simplifies and clarifies Bank governance.
A further benefit of ending the PRA’s subsidiary status is that it enables the members of the new committee to devote more time to microprudential policy and operations. As the Governor explained at the Treasury Committee, the change will
“liberate…a portion of the time of the members of the PRA Board that is spent duly exercising their responsibilities as directors of a company”,
while noting the important responsibility PRC members will continue to have for ensuring the prudential regulation functions are adequately resourced. The Governor concluded
“that time is freed up to do their core job—what they are there for—which is to provide guidance on judgment-led supervision.”
For example, the PRC will not have to spend so much time discussing IT provision since that will be a concern for the Bank at large, and ultimately for its governing body, the court. Equally, whereas the PRA board had to be involved in discussions on staff terms and conditions and recruitment, the new committee will be able to leave those important concerns to the wider organisation and focus more on supervision.
Secondly, in terms of protecting independence, the PRA is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank, staffed by Bank employees. The Bank appoints the non-executive directors of the PRA board, subject to the approval of the Treasury. The transfer of the PRA’s functions to the Bank does not therefore transform the PRA from a body that is independent of the Bank to one that is not.
It may be worth explaining what “independence of the PRA” actually means. The Basel core principles on banking supervision state that legal safeguards should ensure that a regulator has
“operational independence, transparent processes, sound governance, budgetary processes that do not undermine autonomy and adequate resources”.
The Bill provides for all of those things. It provides that the Bank’s PRA functions may be exercised only through the new Prudential Regulation Committee. The Bank may not exercise its prudential regulation role in any other way.
The Prudential Regulation Committee will have a clear majority of external members. There will be at least seven external members, including at least six appointed by the Chancellor plus the CEO of the Financial Conduct Authority, and five internal members, comprising four Bank officers and one member appointed by the Governor. It is important to note that that is an increase in the weight of external members from the PRA board, on which a majority of only one is required.
Continuing with the protections for the PRA’s operational independence, the Basel core principles call for transparent processes and sound governance. The Bill sets out clear processes for the new committee’s decision making. The core principles also stress adequate resources. Every year, the committee will report directly to the Chancellor on the adequacy of its resources and the independence of its operations. The requirement for the Bank to separate resolution and supervisory functions will ensure that the UK complies with the European Union directives that insist on separation.
Finally, the Bill grants a strong statutory role to the PRA’s chief executive. He or she will be responsible for the day-to-day management and implementation of the prudential regulation strategy, and for determining how resources are allocated, managing policy development and overseeing supervisory decisions that do not reach the level of the committee. Our changes will increase the PRA’s effectiveness without undermining its independence. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this sunny day, Mr Brady, or indeed on any other day.
The effect of clause 12 will be to demote the PRA from being a separate authority to being a mere sub-committee within the Bank of England. We tabled an amendment to remove the clause and those that are consequential upon it. We think that the Treasury is dismantling another significant part of its regulatory reforms, which came into being through the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. The clause would make the Bank of England as a corporate entity responsible for microprudential regulation. Our principal concern is with the manner in which microprudential regulation is to be conducted. We are concerned that the new PRC will be less independent than the PRA.
The risk is that the Government are demoting concerns about microprudential regulation by devolving the functions of the rule-making, free-standing regulatory authority, which is supposed to oversee that, to a sub-committee of the Bank. That is not a minor matter. The PRA is a separate corporate body and a distinct authority. It can be held separately liable and accountable for its actions and interactions. If it becomes merely a committee within a much larger corporate body, it will not be possible to hold it to account in the same way.
In the other place, my shadow Treasury colleague, Lord Tunnicliffe, said:
“The thing that keeps it clean is the fact that the PRA is a subsidiary—an independent company, as mentioned, governed by company law—and, therefore, there has to be an arm’s-length relationship between it and the FPC.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 2015; Vol. 765, c. 2005.]
I do not believe that moving the PRA closer to the Bank and, by definition, closer to the FPC is a good thing. The present separation works and should continue.
The former Treasury Committee Chair, Lord McFall, said that the clause is
“downgrading the PRA to a mere committee”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 2015; Vol. 765, c. 1059.]
The desubsidiarisation—a bit of a mouthful—of the PRA may simplify the Bank of England’s governance, as its current and outgoing chair, Andrew Bailey, said at the Treasury Committee. But will it make it more competent and more effective in carrying out its work? Our concern is that it will not, and there is no evidence that we are aware of to demonstrate that.
In Mr Bailey’s discussion at the Treasury Committee, the Chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), raised concerns that there will not be sufficient independence owing to the make-up of the committee’s membership. He highlighted:
“the Chairman of the FPC, who will also be the Chairman of the PRC, who will also be the Governor of the Bank.”
Mr Bailey said,
“We have to be very clear in our own roles and thinking which hat we are wearing at any given point in time”.
He also said that the body will be more integrated into the Bank, but that it also has certain functions that it needs to carry out independently. The Governor was also pushed on this, again by a Treasury Committee member, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who said:
“In addition to being Governor, you chair the Financial Stability Board, you are a member of Court, and you chair the FPC, the MPC and soon the PRC.”
He warned that,
“the institutions are set up in such a way that they strongly depend on the Governor’s capacity to act independently in different contexts.”
Also at the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for East Lothian asked the Governor whether the overlap of personnel meant there were grounds for conflict
“if we have the PRC reporting on its independence from the rest of the Bank.”
I am sorry to quote the Treasury Committee at such length, but the discussion there threw up contradictions, and it is not clear to me that those contradictions have been sufficiently resolved. So can the Minister say whether the body can be both more integrated and remain independent? We welcome joined-up thinking and ensuring a broad overview. We also heard about the dangers of groupthink in Committee the other day, and the Governor of the Bank told the Treasury Committee that the Bill did not specifically address that. If we have too many key persons juggling too many tasks, is there not a risk of oversight being impaired or conflict of interest setting in?
An authority employs its own staff who are therefore dedicated to the pursuit of its particular goals, in this instance microprudential regulation. By creating a committee of senior figures, microprudential regulation becomes simply another series of talking points among senior executives, as opposed to an ongoing regulatory activity. There are many very important functions that must be performed by a microprudential regulator in the wake of the last financial crisis: first, the conduct of stress tests to ensure that individual financial institutions are putting to one side sufficient capital. That is a microprudential activity that relates to the solvency of the institutions. We are surely not arguing that it is no longer important.
With the creation of new starter banks, there is a greater need than ever for microprudential regulation as those institutions start up in business. If we continue to start new credit unions and new blockchain banks and so on, microprudential regulations remain fundamentally important. Also, there continue to be high street banks in financial difficulties, such as the Co-operative and Britannia. The danger of the Prudential Regulation Committee being appointed as is currently suggested makes it more likely that groupthink will develop.
The strength of having different agencies in existence simultaneously is that there is a useful tension between them as each of them considers the same question from a different angle in terms of the systemic risks, the risks to the solvency of individual banks, and in terms of activity on individual markets. So the political and economic context should be considered elsewhere beyond those regulatory bodies.
It is remarkable that we are witnessing what some commentators would call a downgrading of micro- prudential regulation UK at a time when financial institutions such as the Co-operative Bank and the Britannia, as I have just mentioned, face such serious solvency problems. The PRA was created for exactly that sort of situation. I therefore want to spend time on the arguments raised in relation to that change.
It has been stated that the PRA is being put on the same footing as other activities and that it is being taken back in-house. Taking the PRA back in-house is an odd idea. The PRA is currently a subsidiary of the Bank of England, so it is already in-house. A subsidiary is something that is owned by a parent company; the PRA was already a part of the Bank of England and in any event was answerable, through a statutory scheme, to the Governor.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
Like other Members, I add my delight at serving under your chairmanship on this bright morning, Mr Brady.
There is no best way of constructing the Bank and its regulatory functions. In this instance, however, having set up a structure, I think we should let it work itself out and see what the issues are, rather than tear it up so quickly. From that perspective, I will support the line of argument followed by the hon. Member for Leeds East.
May I remind the Minister and the Committee that we have been here before? There was a long period when the Bank was effectively the prudential authority, and it did not do a good job. One can mention the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. One can mention Barings. The Bank failed at the very simple task of examining the imminent failure of major banking institutions and not ensuring that that did not happen before it became a public catastrophe.
For that reason, in the Bank of England Act 1998, prudential conduct responsibility was taken away from the Bank and invested in the Financial Services Authority. That model, as we saw subsequently, did not work, in the sense that completely separating prudential conduct from the Bank led to a chasm between the two agencies in terms of who was letting whom know and who was responsible for tidying up.
In a sense, the halfway house that we now have, where we have put prudential conduct into the orbit of the Bank but kept it semi-discrete, is better than what we had before. Will it work in the long run? I doubt that any bureaucratic system ever works in all circumstances, but we have set it up; let us test it to destruction before we make another bureaucratic change. From that point of view, we have a model that seems to work.
The issues brought up in the Treasury Committee related particularly to the resources that were deployable to the PRA to conduct its activities and whether the main board of the Bank was providing sufficient financial and staff resources to the PRA to allow it to do its work. My worry is that the change proposed by the Government makes it too easy for the Bank’s main board to ration resources for the soon-to-be PRC. It would be better to leave a degree of independence within the PRC, so that if it comes to a debate over resources, the PRC has some muscle and can go public if it feels that it is not getting the physical and staffing support it needs from the main board.
We may need to come back to the structure of the Bank at some point; the Minister may want to reflect on that. As I said in the previous sitting, we are in danger of creating too many committees of the Bank. We may be in danger of reinforcing a silo mentality, even though the Governor serves on all the different committees. We may have to discuss at some point whether we need to separate the Monetary Policy Committee and the Financial Policy Committee, but we should certainly test the prudential part of the administration in its present form. Changing it now simply because we will get a better and prettier bureaucratic chart is not a sufficient reason.
Harriett Baldwin
As I am sure you are aware, Mr Brady, desubsidiarisation of the PRA is not something they talk about very often down at the Dog and Duck, but it is incredibly important. Committee members have raised important issues, to which I would like to respond.
If one were in the pub discussing the Bank of England, the extent of people’s knowledge of what it does probably would stop with the changing of interest rates; the hon. Member for Leeds East made that point clearly. He said that the change represented a downgrade of the incredibly important microprudential responsibilities of the PRA, but I would argue that it is an upgrade, in the sense that it gives the PRA the status of a committee—the Prudential Regulation Committee—that has the same status as the Monetary Policy Committee. That reinforces to not only Bank staff but drinkers in the Dog and Duck and the public at large that it is an incredibly important function. I completely agree with hon. Members who raised that point.
The microprudential responsibilities of the prudential regulator are extremely important. The hon. Member for East Lothian made the important point that, in the 300 years of history of the Bank of England, until its independence under the Bank of England Act 1998, there were obvious failures. Firms did fail, and no one should be under the illusion that we are in a zero-failure regime for banks.
However, it is clear that the decision to separate that microprudential function and move it to the FSA created a system that was tested to destruction. That separation under the failed regulatory regime of tripartite arrangements meant there was insufficient communication between the microprudential regulation at the FSA and the day-to-day liquidity challenges that banks were experiencing in the markets in the run-up to the crash. That seems to me the strongest possible argument for having moved the microprudential function back to the Bank of England. I am glad that Committee Members have supported that important change. By following the logic of that argument, one is compelled to see that it makes sense to go one step one further, and change the PRA from being a subsidiary into being at the heart of the Bank with the same status as the Monetary Policy Committee.
By making the points he did, the hon. Member for East Lothian has made my argument for me—for having that much closer feeling of all staff being part of one Bank, which is the agenda that the Governor has set out. That not only gives a much higher status within the organisation to the incredibly important function of microprudential regulation but it reinforces the ability of the organisation to communicate with the important other parts of the organisation, and gives them more time to do it. They will not have to worry about all of the responsibilities of being a separate company.
Harriett Baldwin
I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman, a thoughtful and intelligent man, is nodding vigorously as I make my argument.
The hon. Member for Leeds East asked what prompted the decision. It was very much the one-Bank agenda that the Governor has followed. He argues that it makes sense to have different points of view and not be captured by groupthink. Although I agree with the importance of having a range of views on these committees, I would counter that argument by saying that the tripartite arrangements were so clearly inadequate that that difference meant that no one spoke to each other about what they were seeing.
I hope that the Treasury Committee returns to evaluate how the transition has worked. I want to reassure hon. Members on resources, because they are incredibly important. We want to ensure that the microprudential function does not have to compete for resources or find itself starved of them. It is important to note that the levy will continue to provide those resources. No changes are being made under this legislation to the available resources for microprudential regulation.
The hon. Member for Leeds East mentioned the importance of the role of the Governor. Of course, the Governor is an incredibly important person who sits on all the committees. That is an important function of having a one-Bank organisation. He is obviously a very responsible person. With those responsibilities comes accountability, not only through the Chancellor but to Parliament through the Treasury Committee. I emphasise that that arrangement does not change as a result of these clauses.
Having reviewed all the questions raised against making the changes, I insist that the changes will improve the Bank of England’s governance.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 18, page 16, line 12, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) publish any notice under subsection (1) within one month of giving such a notice, and”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 38, in clause 18, page 16, line 14, after “before”, insert
“and make a statement to both Houses of”
Rob Marris
It is a ray of sunshine to be serving under your chairmanship on this bright day, Mr Brady. Amendments 37 and 38 are straightforward, and I am sure that the Government will accept them, so perhaps we can move on to debate the clause. Proposed new section 1JA(1) gives the Treasury the power to give directions to the Financial Conduct Authority. The rest of the new section deals with how that power shall be exercised at least once in each Parliament, and with the publication of those directions. Our straightforward amendments would tidy that up.
One must recognise that there is a balancing act between the FCA’s independence and the need for public accountability, refracted through the Treasury. That is always difficult, and we accept that, but there is a bit of a problem with the Financial Conduct Authority. Immediately after Second Reading a couple of weeks ago, there was a debate for more than two hours in which I think it would be fair to say that Members from both sides of the House expressed grave concerns about some of the actions or inaction of the Financial Conduct Authority. It is purportedly independent of the Government and the Bank of England, but there is so much cosy overlap.
We have Dr Bailey, who now seems to have all kinds of hats. I stand to be corrected, but I think he is the deputy governor for prudential regulation and has been the chief executive officer of the Prudential Regulation Authority since April 2013. He is therefore also a member of the Bank’s board of directors, the PRA board and the Financial Policy Committee, and now he is going to the Financial Conduct Authority. There are questions not about that gentleman’s integrity, but about perceived conflicts of interests and so on. There is someone on the FCA board, Jane Platt—she also joined in April 2013—who is the chief executive of National Savings and Investments. Sir Brian Pomeroy, CBE, joined the FSA board in November 2009. I think that he may still be on the FCA website.
The FSA was abolished because it was, shall we say, pretty useless. Private Eye, correctly in my mind, used to characterise it as the Fundamentally Supine Authority. If we look at the prosecutions, or the lack thereof, and the steps taken by the FSA after the crash in 2008, or the lack thereof, it did not exactly cover itself in glory as an institution. I make no comments on the individuals within it; I am referring to the institution. The Government recognised that, and therefore we had the Financial Conduct Authority.
It is all a bit cosy. The noun of this Committee thus far seems to be groupthink. That refers to the risk that those who have a cosy relationship will start to be blinkered in the way in which they exercise their regulatory functions. The FSA has been characterised by Professor Alastair Hudson, whom I thank for his assistance in tackling what is quite a technical Bill. He said, “The FSA previously began to think of itself as being in partnership with the financial institutions which it was supposed to regulate.” I think he had a point. So, I suspect, did the Government, which is why we now have the FCA, not the FSA.
However, there is still a big question mark over the FCA’s relationship with the Government, which is to do with how independent it is. The Minister has previously told the House that the FCA’s decision to abandon its investigation into the culture of banking, which had not actually started, had nothing to do with the Treasury. That, of course, touches on questions of groupthink, blinkered thinking and so on. I do not impugn her for saying that, but looking at it from the perspective of Labour Members, that is a surprising situation. It is relevant to what we are discussing, because of course proposed new section 1JA, to be inserted by clause 18, talks about the Treasury giving directions to the FCA in certain circumstances.
The FCA, in its business plan for 2015-16—the year we are in—said that it would do a culture review:
“In 2015/16 we will conduct a new thematic review on whether culture change programmes in retail and wholesale banks are driving the right behaviour, in particular focusing on remuneration, appraisal and promotion decisions of middle management, as well as how concerns are reported and acted on.”
It would have been very useful to have had the fruits of that culture review before us when debating the Bill.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are quite a number of studies that indicate that approximately 70% of major organisational failures can be attributed primarily to cultural problems?
Rob Marris
I was not aware of that statistic, but it does not entirely surprise me. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
We have the chair of the FCA’s foreword to its business plan for 2015-16—as I said, the current year. That is John Griffith-Jones, who by the way worked at KPMG from 1975 to 2012; we all know that KPMG has questions to answer about what it was doing in relation to the financial institutions in the lead-up to the meltdown in 2008. I was talking about cosiness; he comes from KPMG, and he said in that foreword:
“In our last Risk Outlook we identified the seven most important forward-looking areas of focus in our view. We do the same again this year. Unsurprisingly, given the long-term nature of these risks and the underlying drivers, the list is largely unchanged. Poor culture and controls continue to concern us, notwithstanding the efforts being made by firms to improve both.”
So there he is, in his foreword to the business plan, less than 12 months ago, stressing again the concerns about “poor culture and controls”. The FCA said in the business plan that would investigate the culture of banking and financial institutions and then, in a whiff of smoke, it was gone—no investigation whatsoever. The Minister says that is nothing to do with the Treasury, but I hope she will recognise that the Opposition are a little concerned about the relationship between the Treasury and the FCA. We are concerned about how much control and direction the Treasury can give the FCA.
The FCA is constitutionally a creature of statute, hence the Bill and previous legislation, but in everyday terms it is somewhat a creature of the Treasury. It would be helpful if, when addressing clause 18 and the minor amendments 37 and 38, the Minister said a little more about the current relationship between Her Majesty’s Government, refracted through the Treasury, and the FCA, and what she foresees that future relationship being in the changed landscape that the Bill introduces.
Harriett Baldwin
Clause 18 is effectively about remit letters, which I think is why the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to bring a lot of fairly extraneous issues into discussion. I will respond to some of them in the course of my remarks.
It is important that regulation takes account of both the implications of the economic environment for the regulators and of the regulators’ own impact on that economic environment. I am sure all members of the Committee agree with that. That is reflected in the statutory remits of the regulators. For example, both regulators have a duty to have regard to the desirability of sustainable economic growth in the medium or long term. The objectives of both regulators recognise the importance of effective competition, and I trust that members of the Committee do not wish to raise any controversy or have any criticism about that.
Clearly, therefore, both regulators need to understand how the Government’s economic policy may affect their work. I want to be absolutely clear that the recommendations in the letters that the Government will be able to send to the regulators will indicate the Government’s economic policy. They will be recommendations and will not be binding. They will certainly not be what the hon. Gentleman termed “direction”. They will not compromise, modify or override the regulators’ statutory objectives in any way, nor, importantly, will they relate to individual firms or cases.
The hon. Gentleman raised one of his favourite topics: the fact that the FCA had a bank culture review in its business plan for the year ahead. Despite my assurances to him in the Chamber that the first the Treasury heard of that was when it was covered in the media over the new year, he does not seem convinced by what we have said. We have replied to numerous written questions with the same response, and I repeat it for his benefit today.
The FCA is clearly operationally independent. It took an operationally independent decision to change what it is going to focus on over the coming year, and that decision was made completely separately from the Government.
Rob Marris
I take what the hon. Lady says. Is she comfortable that that was the right decision for the FCA to take? It was made by a body that is so incompetent that it could not even monitor the share dealings of its own staff.
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he thinks that I should have no operational interference in whether the FCA does a cultural review study, obviously I should not have any operational interference in whether it reinstates the study. That is the situation in which operational independence results. Where the Government have a role is through sending these non-binding remit letters and through the power to appoint the chief executive and the board. The hon. Gentleman has described the history of the predecessor organisation, the FSA, and obviously we had to abolish that organisation—that is the power of the Government of the day. His party’s Front Benchers have a range of different and fairly eccentric ideas about the independence of the Bank of England, which are on the public record. I will not entertain the Committee by talking about them.
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman is serving in the team of a shadow Chancellor who wants to end the independence of the Bank of England.
Roger Mullin
I hear and accept entirely what the Minister says about not interfering in operational matters. However, I invite her to indicate whether, at some stage, a review of the culture would help the Government.
Harriett Baldwin
I think we can all agree that that would be a fascinating study to read, but I will not get involved in directing the FCA to change its business plan. That would be interfering with the operational independence of the FCA, which I am sure Opposition Members do not want me to do.
Rob Marris
I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous in giving way. Actually, I never said anything about not interfering in operational matters. She rightly says that, in theory, the Government could abolish the FCA. This clause does not cover a directive to the FCA; it talks about a recommendation. A recommendation from the Treasury, a body that could abolish the FCA, is something akin, in everyday parlance, to a directive. Pursuant to proposed new section 1JA(1)(b) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, such recommendations could be on “how to advance” one or more of its operational directives.
Harriett Baldwin
I have outlined some of the things that the Government put in their remit letter, which is not binding on the organisation but provides important context for what the Government, elected by the British people, want to focus on.
Let me now turn to the amendments. Amendment 37 would require the Treasury to publish the recommendations it makes to the FCA within one month, and amendment 38 would require the notice laid before Parliament to be accompanied by a statement to each House. The amendments raise the important issue of transparency, which is at the heart of the Government’s proposals for these remit letters. The remit letters themselves form an important element of transparency, and they provide a transparent and formal means of conveying Government economic policy to the regulators, so it is an important part of the provision that the Treasury must publish its recommendations and lay a copy before both Houses of Parliament.
These probing amendments have been useful to confirm how the process will work. I assure members of the Committee that I cannot foresee any circumstances in which the notification for either regulator would not be published and laid before Parliament within a month. I am happy to commit the Government to that practice. I am not going quite as far as accepting the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, but I am happy to commit the Government on the record to that practice. I hope my assurance will be sufficient.
We need to retain flexibility about the best way of informing the House. For example, the updated recommendations might be issued as part of the Budget statement. In that case, it would be more appropriate and efficient for the House to be informed of the new recommendations in the Budget speech, as has happened when the FPC remit letter is updated at that time.
The hon. Gentleman raised a few other points, and it might be helpful if I respond to them. Without criticising Mr Andrew Bailey in any way, the hon. Gentleman did imply that he thought he was doing too much. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Mr Bailey will stop being the chief executive of the PRA on the day he moves over to be chief executive of the FCA. The hon. Gentleman referred to conflicts. I hope that he is not alluding to any specific conflict of interest, because that would be inappropriate in terms of impugning Mr Bailey’s integrity.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a “cosy” relationship. There were a lot of allegations relating to the fact that many individuals involved have worked with, and have experience of, other organisations. However, that is where the operational independence, structure and framework of statutory duties and responsibilities, as set out by Parliament, is so important. FSMA, for example, made it clear that the terms of all appointments have to ensure that the appointee cannot be directed by the Treasury or any other person, including the Bank.
When we make appointments, we consider the appointee’s current and previous background—of course we do —including any material conflicts. In our view, it would be entirely appropriate for people who are appointed to these important functions to have extensive experience of a relevant institution. Therefore, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right to talk about “cosiness”; he ought to be saying how important it is to have experience and wisdom in the statutory framework that we are discussing.
Without more ado, I hope that my points on the amendment and the clause have been sufficient to satisfy the hon. Gentleman. I am very grateful for his probing amendments. I hope I have been able to address the concerns and that the clause may stand part of the Bill.
Rob Marris
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Diversity
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Harriett Baldwin
The clause shows how valuable it can be for Ministers to have their Bill start in the House of Lords, given that we often find that we benefit from their insights as the Bill proceeds through the other place, particularly on subjects on which their lordships have so much wisdom.
The clause amends the general regulatory principles that apply to both the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. That is a direct way of ensuring that the regulators fully consider the differences between types of business, including—importantly—mutual institutions, across the breadth of work that they undertake, when it is appropriate to do so. The clause makes it clear that both regulators must take into account the differences between the varying forms of business organisation adopted by firms, including —importantly—mutual societies, where appropriate whenever they are discharging their general functions.
I hope that introducing the clause, which puts consideration of mutuality and other types of business organisation into the regulators’ guiding principles, provides reassurance that the Government strongly support a diverse financial services sector and the part that mutuals play in achieving that. We are building on previous action that the Government have taken to support the sector, including: carving out the building societies from the Independent Commission on Banking ring-fencing regulations; increasing the maximum interest rates that credit unions may charge on loans from 2% to 3% a month; spending £38 million in the credit union sector through the Department for Work and Pensions credit union expansion project; and ensuring that universal credit and pensions payments may be paid into a credit union account.
Moreover, Government support for the Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Act 2015, which received Royal Assent in March 2015, underlined our commitment to fostering growth and competition in the sector by seeking to address mutual insurers’ inability to access external capital without the need to demutualise.
Clause 19 provides a further step to ensure that regulators fully consider the particular issues that relate to mutual institutions and other forms of business across all their work. It highlights the role of mutual financial institutions in the UK’s evolving financial services marketplace and ensures that, where appropriate, the specific challenges that the mutuals sector faces are taken into consideration when the regulators are discharging their general objectives.
Rob Marris
We on the Labour Benches—I do not know about colleagues in the Scottish National party—welcome clause 19. I say that as someone who first joined a credit union more than 40 years ago. Diversity is important in the financial sector, as in many sectors. The parallel that some of us may remember from our schooldays is crop rotation, for which we need ecological diversity. If we go for monoculture with crops, it is seriously bad news if a pest comes, because our one and only crop is gone.
There is a parallel with financial institutions. By and large, the mutuals sector, including building societies, fared better than mainstream, privately owned banks in the crisis. Where there were problems, in particular, was with some former building societies that had demutualised. I say that as someone who voted against demutualisation for at least three building societies. Two of those were the Staffordshire and the Cheltenham & Gloucester. We lost both of those, but we won with the Nationwide building society—it is still a mutual, and I still have an account there. It is a very big mutual—a very big financial institution. At the other end of the spectrum are institutions such as the Wolverhampton credit union—I am not sure what it is called now, because it keeps changing its name—of which I have been a member for many years. Compared with the Nationwide building society, it is a very small institution, but that is part of diversity.
I am pleased that this Government and their predecessor, the coalition Government, have embraced diversity. The Minister mentioned some of the things that have been done: the £38 million for credit unions and the £2 million. I salute the work that the coalition Government did, and that I hope this Government will continue to do, in relation to the mutuals sector. For example, the previous Government supported disclosure of lending data by the main high street banks to understand patterns of lending across the UK. There has been the lowering of barriers to entry to the financial services market to help to increase competition—challenger banks and so on. I do not think that the Minister mentioned the good work on schools-based financial literacy programmes, which were brought in. That is not directly about mutuals, but it has to do with that concept of a broader view to financial services than simply the high street banks.
A few more things need to be done, and if you will indulge me briefly, Mr Brady, I will mention one or two of them. I am indebted to the Community Investment Coalition for some of these suggestions. A review of existing affordable financial tools would assist, as would supporting and encouraging FinTech innovation, which the Government are starting to do—it is likely to be a growing sector—but it needs to be done in a way that will also benefit people on lower incomes. Also needed is a clear direction to economic regulators—something we discussed in our debate on the previous clause—to ensure that the financial services market provides easily understandable and appropriate products. There is a constant battle there, because products keep mutating and so on. Broadening and strengthening the existing voluntary framework for disclosure of lending data would take further what the Government have already done.
It would be useful to have stressed by the Government—practising some of their recommendations to the FCA, not directions—the value and importance of community finance. They need to ensure some competition and diversity in the financial services sector, which should benefit all communities if it works properly. A review of community finance provision across the UK would be very helpful to identify where there are strong and sustainable community finance providers, but also where there are gaps in provision. Again, that would be carrying on the work of the previous Government, which this Government, in their nine months, have carried on with clause 19 on diversity.
The final suggestion is about trying, inasmuch as Government can, and they have a role to play—the Minister mentioned the £38 million for the credit union sector given by the previous Government—to scale up the community finance sector. For example, there could be assistance with investment in IT infrastructure—not the FinTech stuff, just IT infrastructure for the community finance sector. Computers are still quite expensive, let alone programming and so on. If the Government could assist with that, with their push towards diversity, as exemplified in the clause, that would be very helpful.
Harriett Baldwin
I will respond briefly because we are now in an area where harmony is breaking out. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments on diversity in the financial sector and the points he made about community finance. That is something we feel strongly about. He mentioned some of the aspects such as the challenger bank agenda. He did not mention the new bank unit that has just been set up between the FCA and the PRA, shortly to be the PRC.
The hon. Gentleman did mention the importance of affordable financial tools. We have set up the financial advice market review, which is designed to make advice more affordable and accessible. He also mentioned FinTech, and we are enthusiastic about ensuring that the UK remains the best place in the world to locate a FinTech business. We are seeing a dramatic growth in that sector at the moment. He will also be aware of the importance of the peer-to-peer sector in providing community finance across the country, and what we are doing to encourage that.
There is a range of different things and he highlighted some of them. Interestingly, he mentioned a review. I am not convinced by that idea, based on the fact that in the 13 years of Labour government there were 20 reviews into competition in banking, but only one new bank was set up. In the previous Parliament, eight firms got banking licences, and we have set ourselves the ambitious goal of 15 new firms to get banking licences during the course of this Parliament. That is something we are very focused on and I appreciated the hon. Gentleman’s comments on that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Extension of relevant authorised persons regime to all authorised persons
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Harriett Baldwin
I fear that the harmony in the Committee might diminish with clause 20, which introduces schedule 4, making provisions to extend the senior managers and certification regime across the financial services industry to all authorised firms, replacing the discredited approved persons regime.
Before setting out the reasoning for that, it is worth outlining the history and development of the senior managers and certification regime. Currently, individuals who work in the financial services industry are regulated through the approved persons regime. Under that regime, authorised financial services firms may not employ a person to perform “controlled functions”, by which is meant functions specified by the Prudential Regulation Authority or the Financial Conduct Authority in their rules, unless that person has been approved by the appropriate regulator following an application by the firm concerned.
The financial crisis in 2007-08 and more recent events have highlighted concerns about the performance and behaviour of many of the individuals working in the financial services industry. It is clear that the approved persons regime has not been a successful way of regulating individuals working in the industry.
As the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards argued, the regime is too broad and insufficiently focused on senior management. In fact, it called it a “complex and confused mess”. Specifically, the commission criticised the approved persons regime for being mostly
“an initial gateway to taking up a post, rather than serving as a system through which the regulators can ensure the continuing exercise of individual responsibility at the most senior levels within banks”.
In addition, the commission noted that there was a lack of clarity around the responsibilities of individuals at the senior level, and that institutions did not take enough responsibility for the fitness and propriety of their own staff at more junior levels. It is clear, therefore, that the approved persons regime is not fit for purpose. It is being replaced from March by the senior manager and certification regime for firms in the banking sector.
This regime requires the regulatory pre-approval of individuals at the top of the firm, along with statements of responsibility setting out the areas of the firm’s business for which they are responsible. It also requires certification for other key individuals upon hiring, and thereafter annually.
This new regime represents a significant strengthening of personal accountability among the top senior management in firms. It will improve corporate governance, thereby advancing the safety and soundness of regulated firms. It also provides a more effective and proportionate means to raise the standards of conduct of key staff more broadly, supported by robust enforcement powers for the regulators.
It is important to recognise, however, that the activities of firms outside the banking sector can pose significant risks to market integrity or to good outcomes for consumers, and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards expected that the deficiencies of the approved persons regime would not be confined to the banking sector.
Consequently, the Government have decided to extend the senior managers and certification regime to all authorised financial services firms in all sectors of the financial services industry. This action is also supported by the recommendations of the fair and effective markets review, which argued that misconduct in fixed-income currency and commodity markets had not been limited to banks. Indeed, the review noted that extending the senior managers and certification regime would emphasise the personal responsibility of individuals working in all firms to observe proper standards of market conduct.
The application of the senior managers and certification regime to all authorised financial services firms will bring in a stronger, more comprehensive regime across the financial services industry. It will enable the effective and efficient regulation of groups with a variety of financial services firms within them, and it will support a level playing field for competition. Therefore, extending the senior managers and certification regime to all authorised firms is covered by clause 20.
Rob Marris
Mr Brady, I seek your guidance. We on the Labour Benches have no problem with a schedule 4 being added to the Bill, which is what clause 20 would do—we are therefore content with clause 20. However, regarding the exact content of schedule 4 and the attendant linked debates, we wish to have an opportunity —in a moment—to put our views, after the stand part debate on clause 20, I would suggest.
The Chair
I can reassure you, Mr Marris, that there will be an opportunity subsequently to do exactly that.
Rob Marris
Not on clause 20 itself, no.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Extension of relevant authorised persons regime to all authorised persons
Rob Marris
I beg to move amendment 33, in schedule 4, page 58, line 2, leave out paragraph 18.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That the schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 21 to 23 stand part.
Amendment 34, in clause 24, page 19, leave out lines 29 to 34.
Amendment 31, in clause 24, page 19, line 34, at end insert “and insert new subsections (6), (7) and (8)—
‘(6) Where the authorised person mentioned in subsection (5) is a relevant authorised person, as defined under section 71A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, subsection (5)(d) does not apply and subsections (7) and (8) do apply.
(7) If the FCA satisfies itself that a person (P), who is a senior manager in relation to a relevant authorised person, is guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsection (5)(a)-(c), then P shall be guilty of misconduct, subject only to subsection (8).
(8) But P is not guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsections (5)(a)-(c) and (7) if P satisfies the FCA that P had taken such steps as a person in P’s position could reasonably be expected to take to avoid the contravention occurring (or continuing).””
Amendment 35, in clause 24, page 20, leave out lines 1 to 6.
Amendment 32, in clause 24, page 20, line 6, at end insert
“and insert new subsections (6), (7) and (8)—
‘(6) Where the PRA-authorised person mentioned in subsection (5) is a relevant authorised person, as defined under section 71A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, subsection (5)(d) does not apply and subsections (7) and (8) do apply.
(7) If the PRA satisfies itself that a person (P) who is a senior manager in relation to a relevant PRA-authorised person is guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsection (5)(a)-(c), then P shall be guilty of misconduct, subject only to subsection (8).
(8) But P is not guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsections (5)(a)-(c) and (7) if P satisfies the PRA that P had taken such steps as a person in P’s position could reasonably be expected to take to avoid the contravention occurring (or continuing).”
Clause 24 stand part.
Rob Marris
The lead amendment in this group, amendment 33, stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East. Unless the Government accepts this amendment—I hope they do—we will seek your permission to divide the Committee, Mr Brady.
I thought that I would start with this group with what may be some of the less contentious material; the contentious material is likely to focus on schedule 4 and particularly on clause 24, the reverse burden of proof, and so on. Starting with the perhaps more straightforward stuff—that does not mean that we should all be friends and agree on this—it would help if the Minister could provide clarification regarding clause 21(3)(a), which states that the Treasury may
“confer functions on the FCA”
by regulations. What kind of “functions” do the Government have in mind that the Treasury might confer?
Much more important and perhaps more contentious is clause 21(3), which says:
“Regulations under subsection (2)”—
that is, made by the Treasury if it so chooses—
“may…modify, exclude or apply (with or without modifications) any primary or subordinate legislation (including any provision of, or made under, this Act).”
So clause 21(3)(b) gives the Treasury regulatory power to modify, exclude or apply primary legislation, as well as other powers. I am uneasy about that as a constitutional way forward. No doubt, the Minister will tell me that that has been done by Governments when I served as a Back Bencher, the previous coalition Government and so on, but I still think that, on a constitutional basis and particularly on something as important as the financial stability of our economy, an explanation from the Minister of why the Government are seeking powers under the Bill by regulation to be able to amend primary legislation would be helpful.
Overall, clause 21, “Rules about controlled functions: power to make transitional provision”, seems fairly sensible. Examples of controlled functions include being a director of a regulated firm, overseeing the firm’s systems and controls, being responsible for compliance with rules and so on. One would expect a Government to ensure that there were proper rules about such controlled functions. However, there is that concern about regulations making primary legislation.
Clause 22 deals with the administration of the senior managers regime, part of the senior managers and certification regime which, as hon. Members know, I prefer to call SMACR, or “smacker”, because it suggests what may on occasions metaphorically need doing to those involved in financial services who step out of line. The clause makes a number of changes to the senior managers regime, and perhaps, because these have been wisely grouped together, that will come out in the wash during the debate on reverse burden of proof.
Clause 23, “Rules of conduct”, is not so controversial, I suspect, but there is a question mark for me. I draw the Committee’s attention to subsection (3)(c) which omits section 64B(5) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. I stand to be corrected, but as I understand it, section 64B(5) imposes a duty to report when a manager or senior person knows or suspects that someone in their firm or organisation has failed to comply with conduct rules, and clause 23 is about rules of conduct. If the rules of conduct clause in the Bill omits what appears to be a strong and central provision of previous legislation, that is prima facie extraordinary. If a duty to report actual or suspected wrongdoing is to be removed, I scratch my head. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me and the Committee either that I have misunderstood what the soon-to-be-omitted section 64B(5) does, or that, although that subsection does what I think it does, other provisions are being brought in that strengthen or are at least equivalent to that provision of the 2000 Act.
George Kerevan
I will be reasonably brief, because the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West has covered a lot of the points. The burden of our amendments 34 and 35 is to preserve the existing Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, which has not yet come into force—it comes into force next month—with regard to the reverse burden of proof. I think that at this stage, before the reverse burden of proof has been tried, to take it out of the legislation sends the wrong signal to the financial community. That is the most serious issue. We could argue the rights and wrongs of what is the best possible kind of regulatory regime, but much of this depends on mood, culture and signals.
The senior managers in the financial community in the City of London have been worried about the import of this legislation—there is no doubt about that. I understand that in their circumstances, because I have met many of them and they are not going out of their way to impose regulatory infractions. I think there is a new mood in the City, with people trying to get it right. Some senior managers were fearful of the extent of the legislation, but it would have been better to have tried to talk to them and explain it than, by withdrawing it, to imply that something was wrong and that it was too onerous. The signals were all wrong.
First, given the fragile nature of public opinion about the banking system, one would implore the Minister that withdrawing the legislation is not a good thing to do. What we are engaged in today is not an exercise in bank bashing, but trying to find a regulatory system that not only works, but finds the public confidence we desperately need. We need only look at the fact that since the autumn banking shares across western Europe, including the UK, have collapsed by about 37%. That shows that the markets are jittery about what is going on in the banking system. I press that on the Minister.
Secondly, where did the idea of the so-called reversed burden of proof come from? It has got into the legislation, and it came through the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. We then have to ask: did the commission come up with the idea? Did its members suddenly think, “That would be a good idea”? There was lobbying on behalf of key figures in the regulatory community and the political sphere who said, “This is a good idea and you should look at it.” I gently say to the Minister that some people who raised that idea originally have now run for cover, and I think that sends the wrong signal. It suggests that in the regulatory family and within Government people are willing to press legislation home. That is dangerous for clarity in such a regime.
Thirdly, the one argument that has been brought up that one should pay heed to about the reverse burden of proof is proportionality. In widening the senior managers and certification regime through the legislation, which is the correct thing to do, there is a danger that we place onerous burdens on smaller companies or make them fear that such burdens will be put on them. I accept, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West said, that there is a reasonable case for splitting the application of the reverse burden of proof between senior managers in the major systemic institution banks and funds and the smaller companies. How far I am prepared to press my amendments will depend on how emollient the Minister will be, but even if that is to be applied as a blanket rule, it is ultimately up to the PRA and the FCA to decide at what point they use their powers.
I remind the Minister that there has to have been a regulatory infraction before the reversed burden of proof comes into play—something serious has to have been proved to have gone wrong by either the FCA or the PRA, or by both. The senior named managers in their sphere of operation are already culpable for something having gone wrong, so all the legislation says is, “You have to prove why you got it wrong. You were in charge, you were on the deck and something has gone wrong.” It does not pick on that manager randomly. Something has gone wrong in their sphere of operation, so it says, “Why did that happen? You were responsible. Tell us what went wrong.” Even in the sphere of the current legislation and widening the certification regime, it is still up to the FCA or the PRA to say to a senior manager, “Tell us.”
I am willing to say that if that makes things clearer and helps get over the proportionality argument so that we can keep the degree of scrutiny and responsibility for the same managers in the systemic institution, that might be the way to go. So far, the Government have been in wholesale retreat from the original legislation of only two and a half years ago. They are sending the wrong signal in doing that, and the Minister has to explain why, when there are alternatives, she feels the need to take this measure off the statute book.
Harriett Baldwin
It is important that I take this opportunity to send a strong signal on financial services. The financial services sector is vital to the strength and health of the UK economy. We have seen what the opposite looks like, and we know we do not want that to happen again. I emphasise that we are very committed to effective, strong regulation of financial services, to ensure financial stability, market integrity and strong protection for consumers. There can be no more important element of that regulation than the surrounding conduct. Conduct, and responsibility for conduct, are vital to the financial services sector. I welcome this opportunity to send that strong signal.
I also reiterate, for the Committee’s benefit, that we have done a number of other things outside the scope of the Bill. For example, we have introduced a new criminal offence to ensure that criminal penalties, including imprisonment, can be imposed upon people who manipulate key financial benchmarks such as LIBOR. We have brought in the toughest rules of any major financial centre when it comes to clawing back bank bonuses. Bringing in the senior managers and certification regime for the whole financial sector, which I remind the Committee includes a duty of responsibility to cover all financial services firms, is a very important strengthening of the failed and lacklustre approved persons regime. We are also bringing in new criminal offences so that criminal penalties can be imposed on senior managers whose reckless misconduct in managing a bank results in that bank’s failure.
The group of provisions we are considering cover, in a number of clauses and in one schedule, changes to the senior managers and certification regime, as well as amendments tabled to the provisions relating specifically to the replacement of the reverse burden of proof with the statutory duty of responsibility. I will explain briefly the purposes of the provisions in the group before addressing the amendments tabled by Opposition Members and trying to respond to points raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West.
Schedule 4 makes detailed technical changes to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 that are needed to extend the senior managers and certification regime to cover all authorised financial services firms, including removing the definition of a relevant authorised person. It also makes a small number of consequential amendments to the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013.
Clause 21 gives the regulators expanded powers to include transitional provisions in their rules when they make rules that create new controlled functions or change the definition of an existing controlled function. They will need those powers when they specify the new senior management functions that will form the basis for rolling out the senior managers and certification regime to all authorised persons. Clause 21 also gives the Treasury a power to make any additional provision needed in connection with those rule changes through regulations.
Rob Marris
I wonder whether the Minister has a chance now or in a moment to deal with a concern I expressed about clause 23(3)(c), which is to omit section 64B(5) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, about the duty to report wrongdoing and so on.
Harriett Baldwin
I fully intend to address that. The hon. Gentleman will have to bear with me, I am afraid. I am getting a little confused with all my different subsections, as he did in his remarks. I will, however, be addressing that.
On the hon. Gentleman’s earlier question about why we did not simply implement the reverse burden of proof, allow time for it to bed down and see how it worked, my colleague in the other place, Lord Bridges, has pointed out that evidence had already started to emerge that unhelpful effects were becoming apparent as firms prepared for its introduction. We were losing the essence of the purpose of the regime, which is to ensure that everyone knows and understands their responsibilities and what they are for. We therefore felt that there was no need to wait before making the changes.
Clause 23 also removes a provision that requires firms to report all known or suspected breaches of rules of conduct to the regulators. That requirement is unnecessary, because the regulators can use their existing powers to require firms to notify them of matters that they want to know about. The provision, which requires notification of all suspected, as well as confirmed, breaches of rules of conducts, is unnecessary because it goes much further than the principles we want to operate. It would be unnecessarily onerous for firms and regulators.
As the hon. Gentleman can imagine, such a provision could effectively force firms to work out a point at which the possible indications of a breach of rules of conduct might amount to a genuine suspicion. Firms would need systems to ensure that the information is captured and transmitted to the regulators, and having been notified of a suspicion, the regulators would have to decide whether to investigate and, if appropriate, consider what action to take. In many cases there would be nothing more than suspicion, so no action would be taken, but meanwhile the regulators would have to consider and prioritise all notifications received. That would be bound to limit their ability to respond appropriately in real cases, thereby imposing costs and burdens on the regulators and using up their time. Similarly, it can be argued that the suspicious activity reports used in the money laundering regime generate many false positives.
The Government thought hard about the provision and decided that removing the requirement would help to ensure that the regulatory system can work proportionately, without putting potentially costly burdens on firms that are disproportionate to any regulatory gain. Regulators will continue to be able to require firms to notify them of matters that they want to know about. The provisions introduced by the 2013 Act as section 64C of the 2000 Act remain. The requirement that firms must report disciplinary action that they take against employees will therefore remain in force. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
Amendments 31 and 32 would reinstate the reverse burden of proof for banking sector firms—the banks, building societies, credit unions and systemically important investment firms regulated by the PRA. Amendment 33 would allow the definition of the “relevant authorised persons” to remain in the Financial Services and Markets Act, which would be needed for amendments 31 and 32 to work as intended. Amendments 34 and 35 would apply the reverse burden of proof to all authorised persons across the entire industry. I will address the specific problems that each amendment would cause.
It is important that the Committee understands that the reverse burden of proof is simply not necessary to embed senior manager accountability in the senior managers and certification regime. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards clearly established that the approved persons regime was wholly inadequate. We believe that the senior managers and certification regime clarifies the responsibilities of individual senior managers, which is something that any effective regulatory regime must deliver. Moreover, it will deter senior managers from taking a reckless or negligent approach to managing their responsibilities in the first place. I know that the whole Committee will agree with that. The duty of responsibility is a powerful incentive that encourages senior managers to take effective action to prevent such failings.
I have already set out how the new regime will deliver a step change in senior manager accountability. Regulators and firms will have the necessary clarity about who is responsible for what, and there will be no wriggling off the hook. Senior managers will need to take full ownership of their respective areas of responsibility. Each bank will have to submit to the regulators a responsibilities map, which will set out how responsibility for the business of the firm as a whole is allocated and minimise the risk of any responsibilities falling through the cracks between different senior managers.
The new regime places tough obligations on senior managers to act responsibly, and imposes stringent penalties if they fail to do so. For example, under the duty, a senior manager can be found guilty of misconduct by the regulator if a breach of regulation occurs in the area of the firm’s business for which they are responsible and they did not take reasonable steps to avoid the contravention. It does not matter whether they were aware of the regulatory breach. As in the example that the hon. Gentleman raised earlier, ignorance is not a defence. What matters is whether they took reasonable steps to prevent the breach. If they did not, they are guilty of misconduct. They will not be able to avoid liability simply because the email trail has gone cold.
Removing the reverse burden of proof does not change the penalties that can be applied. If found guilty of misconduct under the statutory duty of responsibility, a senior manager will face an unlimited fine or prohibition from working in the industry. As the chief executive officer of the Prudential Regulation Authority, Andrew Bailey, said, introducing the statutory duty of responsibility instead of the reverse burden of proof
“makes little difference to the substance to the new regime…This change is one of process”.
The Government are rolling out the senior managers regime to all authorised firms, including the fixed-income currency and commodities market. In the light of that extension of the regime, we must consider whether it is appropriate to apply the reverse burden of proof to every single firm in the financial services regulated sector, given how rigorous the regime is.
I sense you are getting slightly restless, Mr Brady, but I am nearing the end of my remarks. Amendments 34 and 35 would apply the reverse burden of proof to all authorised persons, the vast majority of which are small firms. It would be simply disproportionate to apply it to senior managers in all of those firms. I have spoken about the overly legalistic approach. We think it could lead to a perverse outcome, leaving senior managers in the largest firms less exposed to legal risk under the reverse burden of proof than those in small firms.
I have spoken at length about the clauses and set out why I strongly disagree with the Opposition’s amendments. I hope I have convinced everyone of the merits of my argument. I ask the Committee to oppose the amendments and accept the clauses.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Sarah Newton.)
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
That the schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 21 to 23 stand part.
Amendment 34, in clause 24, page 19, leave out lines 29 to 34.
Amendment 31, in clause 24, page 19, line 34, at end insert “and insert new subsections (6), (7) and (8)—
‘(6) Where the authorised person mentioned in subsection (5) is a relevant authorised person, as defined under section 71A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, subsection (5)(d) does not apply and subsections (7) and (8) do apply.
(7) If the FCA satisfies itself that a person (P), who is a senior manager in relation to a relevant authorised person, is guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsection (5)(a)-(c), then P shall be guilty of misconduct, subject only to subsection (8).
(8) But P is not guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsections (5)(a)-(c) and (7) if P satisfies the FCA that P had taken such steps as a person in P’s position could reasonably be expected to take to avoid the contravention occurring (or continuing).””
Amendment 35, in clause 24, page 20, leave out lines 1 to 6.
Amendment 32, in clause 24, page 20, line 6, at end insert “and insert new subsections (6), (7) and (8)—
‘(6) Where the PRA-authorised person mentioned in subsection (5) is a relevant authorised person, as defined under section 71A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, subsection (5)(d) does not apply and subsections (7) and (8) do apply.
(7) If the PRA satisfies itself that a person (P) who is a senior manager in relation to a relevant PRA-authorised person is guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsection (5)(a)-(c), then P shall be guilty of misconduct, subject only to subsection (8).
(8) But P is not guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsections (5)(a)-(c) and (7) if P satisfies the PRA that P had taken such steps as a person in P’s position could reasonably be expected to take to avoid the contravention occurring (or continuing).”
Clause 24 stand part.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
Mr Wilson, it is good of you to come along this afternoon to hear the conclusion of my speech. I reassure the Committee that, having had lunch, I have been able to recollect a couple of other small points that I wanted to mention to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West. Earlier, he raised the question of the powers in clause 21, and I said that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed no concerns about those powers. In fact, I can go further and reassure him that the Committee actually thought that the original provision tabled by the Government, which provided for use of the negative resolution procedure, was not ideal, and it recommended the affirmative resolution procedure—that is in the Bill today. The amendment was made after discussion with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I hope reassures him. The Committee was not concerned about the powers.
Before lunch, we were talking about how important it is that this country has a strong and effective regulatory framework. With these clauses we are talking about the importance of conduct and the signals that we, as regulators and parliamentarians, send out about the importance of conduct and responsibility. We have achieved that with the introduction of the senior managers and certification regime across the financial services industry, together with the duty of responsibility. Opposition Members should bear in mind the wise words of Lord Turnbull in the other place, He was a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, and he said of the burden of proof in the original proposal:
“I signed up to its proposal, but I believe that the proposal now in the Bill is superior. Many philosophers have said, ‘Second thoughts are often best’… This is a time to follow that dictum. In this case, second thoughts are best. I hope that the House will reach the same conclusion as I have put forward and not support the amendment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 2015; Vol. 767, c. 2028.]
I agree with those wise words, and I therefore commend these clauses and request that they stand part of the Bill.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be here with you, Mr Wilson.
I have listened to the Minister’s patient explanation, which has not convinced me. I therefore seek a Division on amendment 33. I appreciate that, to state the obvious, were the amendment for some strange reason not to pass, my other amendments would not proceed because they are consequential upon it—it is up to the SNP to decide on the other amendments.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Harriett Baldwin
The clause makes some technical corrections to the criminal offence in section 36 of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. The offence is intended to punish, and therefore deter, reckless misconduct that causes a bank to fail. It does not form part of the senior managers and certification regime, although it was included in the same legislation and was also recommended by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards.
For the avoidance of any doubt, I want first to make it clear that the Government are not proposing to extend the offence to the rest of the financial services industry, which would not be appropriate. The offence was designed to deter reckless decision making that causes systemically important financial institutions to fail. The collapse of such institutions could do serious harm to financial stability or impose huge costs on the financial services compensation scheme to protect depositors. The offence was therefore limited to UK banks, building societies, Prudential Regulation Authority-regulated investment firms and large investment banks that happen not to be deposit takers. The offence will not apply to credit unions, and it would clearly make no sense to apply it to the firms that the Government now propose to bring into the senior managers and certification regime.
The clause simply fills some gaps in the coverage of the offence. It makes it clear that the offence could be committed if a building society or an investment bank were to fail by being put into the special insolvency and administration regimes created for them in secondary legislation made under the Banking Act 2009. That was always the intention behind the 2013 Act, and we are taking the opportunity now to make the position clear.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Sarah Newton.)
Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 6, page 6, line 12, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Commissioner to publish a report of the enquiry into, consideration and determination of a complaint made under the SBC complaints scheme.
Good morning—and welcome back, Sir David. May I say what a fine question you asked in the Chamber this morning? Your point about switching energy suppliers is important, and it could well have been the subject of an amendment to the remit of the small business commissioner.
Bill Esterson
Of course, that has nothing to do with why I said any of that.
Like the amendments we moved on Tuesday, amendment 55 would preserve anonymity for a complainant. The amendment would introduce the threat of naming and shaming large companies that rely on the unwillingness of their suppliers to come forward as a means of paying their suppliers late. The need for naming and shaming was raised by the Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), on Second Reading:
“On the complaints side, the SBC can demand and order little. For example, the commissioner will not be able to order the production of documents from a company that has been complained about. Given the lack of hard powers for the SBC, the question is how effective they will be. I think that a big part of the answer will be the SBC’s ability to name and shame.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2016; Vol. 605, c. 829-30.]
The Minister accepted that on Tuesday. The hon. Member for Huntingdon went on to ask the Minister to explain how the legislation, as it stands, will allow for naming and shaming, and I repeat that request.
The amendment, originally moved in the other place, would introduce a stark solution: that every complaint will be published. I trust that the Minister appreciates that this is a probing amendment, our intention being to continue exploring the idea of how exactly the presence of the small business commissioner will encourage good payment practice when phone calls to chief executives and signposting to small businesses do not achieve the intended result. How will it happen without publishing every unresolved complaint? When direct approaches have not worked, what will be the small business commissioner’s role in making that difference in improving late payment practice in individual and general cases?
The comments made by Lord Stoneham when he moved the amendment in the other place are worth considering:
“we are again seeking more effective powers and oomph for the Small Business Commissioner. We are assuming that if the complaints scheme is entered into, there will be a period before the initial approach is made for some sort of opportunity for conciliation. Indeed, I would have thought that most issues should be encouraged towards resolution before going into any kind of formal complaints scheme or procedure.”
He was making the argument for mediation’s being a direct part of the small business commissioner’s remit, as we discussed on Tuesday. He continued:
“To encourage that process and to provide an incentive to settle matters quickly and informally, some pressure should be applied. Once we have entered into the formal complaints scheme or procedure, a report would then be published and the respondent would be named.
The respondent may fear that they would attract unwanted publicity if matters were published in this way, but if the respondent has no concerns that they have done anything wrong and there is nothing they need to put right, they should have no anxiety about this, and that could be another way of applying pressure to get something resolved.”
Or, as Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan said rather more bluntly:
“It offers to put teeth into the legislation, and I think it is useful for us to get a greater degree of accountability—a bit of an edge…the softly-softly approach is okay, but it should be, ‘Walk quietly, but carry a big stick’.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 October 2015; Vol. 765, c. GC207-GC208.]
I think it was President Wilson in the early part of the last century who said that, but it is no less effective when quoted by Lord O’Neill. Where is the “big stick” in the small business commissioner’s role?
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I cannot comment on what happened earlier in the day. No doubt you said some wise words—but that is just me being a creep.
The hon. Member for Sefton Central is right to table the amendment. I do not want him to press it to a vote, but he is right to probe the matter; it raises important points. First, the primary function of the small business commissioner is to address the problem of late payments and, secondly, their success will depend largely on their own abilities. It will depend on their having credibility with big businesses—so that those will be in fear of not responding to a phone call, taking action or engaging; and on their having the respect of the small business community, which will know that that person is its champion.
The next question is what the commissioner can do to achieve what we all want, which is a change in the culture of late payments. Having discretion, rather than leading to a “softly, softly” approach, can be an extremely powerful tool—more powerful than an arbitrary “They will publish.” The discretion to publish is the key tool, because the commissioner needs to consider the appropriateness of publishing a report and naming a respondent, in the light of the particular facts of each case. Having discretion preserves their independence. To put things in crude terms, the commissioner can say to someone: “Look, it’s very simple. Either you sort this complaint out in favour of the small business, or I will remind you of my powers, in my annual report, to publish your name.” I think that discretion will be hugely important.
There is something else. A complaint based on a very particular circumstance may have no wider public interest application. It may be a valid complaint but it may not need to go into the public domain, because that serves no wider interest. It may be resolved immediately and not warrant the resource and time required to publish it in a full report. It can be simply and swiftly sorted out.
The commissioner’s power to choose not to publish a report is a key incentive for businesses to work constructively with the commissioner. We do not want to lose the drive for cultural change that I have mentioned. We also have evidence that a discretionary approach works. The Australian small business commissioner, of whom we have heard much, exercises his power to name respondents in exceptional circumstances. He uses influence, authority and the threat of reputational damage to resolve cases successfully.
The commissioner will, as I have said, act impartially towards both parties, and be independent of Government, but both parties must have confidence in his or her approach, and many of our stakeholders have said that the level of transparency I am outlining would be effective in changing payment practices in individual cases, and more broadly.
I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. We have considered the issue carefully and we think that discretion is the stronger way to get what we all want.
Bill Esterson
As ever, it is very important for us to be as accurate as we can in our comments. I should make a correction to what I said when I was testing the Committee on American history: as I am sure everyone knew, it was of course Teddy Roosevelt who made the comment about walking softly and carrying a big stick. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West for his prompting on that point.
I take on board the Minister’s comments about credibility, the fear of not responding, and the commissioner’s ability to ensure that a chief executive will take the phone call and that the matters will be addressed down the chain. The amendment is about situations where that does not happen. Taken as a package, I think it is in the category of areas where, as the office develops, we may need to come back and consider again how the commissioner is able to work, and whether, if things are not going well enough, such an approach is needed.
I mentioned mediation and its effectiveness in avoiding the need for punitive action, including naming and shaming, which could be quite difficult. Naming and shaming is one of those areas where it could cause problems for the ongoing business relationship between a small business and its customers. Ideally, we want not to be in the position where there have to be reports about individual cases of late payment. However, if we get to the point where this is a voluntary approach in the reports that the commissioner publishes, then I hope that the commissioner and the Minister will think again at that stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Scheme regulations
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 7, page 7, line 24, leave out paragraph (vii)
This amendment would remove from regulations the power to dismiss a complaint which the Commissioner considers has previously been considered under the complaints scheme or by another complaints-handling body, ombudsman or regulator.
The amendment would remove from regulations the power to dismiss a complaint that the commissioner considers has previously been considered under the complaints scheme or by another complaints handling body, ombudsman or regulator. It is about the nature of the complaints that the commissioner will deal with.
On Tuesday, by means of a number of groups of amendments, we discussed our concerns about narrowness of remit, given how the small business commissioner’s office is set up. We believe that, to do the job properly, the commissioner needs to have much more flexibility about the issues that they investigate. Amendment 56 would remove from regulations the power to dismiss a complaint that has previously been considered by another organisation. The logic is fairly simple. We hope that the small business commissioner will offer a markedly different function from existing regulators and ombudsmen. What would be the point of creating the office if that were not the case?
It does not seem right automatically to discount complaints just because they have been looked at by another complaints handling body. It may be that the complaint process took too long under the other body or that the ombudsman found that it fell outside their scope. The amendment would allow the small business commissioner to consider something that it had not been possible properly and fully, in the opinion of the commissioner, to consider elsewhere, even if, as far as the other body or ombudsman was concerned, it had been considered. We are concerned that, under the current Bill, some complaints could fall through the gaps.
The Minister has talked a number of times about the need for flexibility for the commissioner. That is the reason that she has given for opposing or asking us to withdraw a number of our amendments, which would have laid out the small business commissioner’s functions in greater detail and widened the remit considerably. We are now asking for that flexibility. If a complaint comes to the small business commissioner, let them decide whether they will investigate it, instead of there being a prescriptive approach that may tie the commissioner’s hands over an issue that they might like to run with. Amendment 56 would allow them to be the arbiter of whether another complaints handling body has given the matter sufficient consideration.
Anna Soubry
The scheme regulations, as outlined in clause 7, will set out details of how and when complaints should be raised with the commissioner. They may also, among other things, set out factors or circumstances in which the commissioner can refuse to consider a complaint; the circumstances can change.
The Bill does not prevent the commissioner from reconsidering a complaint that has been raised somewhere else, but it enables them to refuse a complaint when that is appropriate. In other words, it comes back to the power to trust the commissioner to exercise discretion according to the particular circumstances of a complaint. I think that is absolutely right, because it is not prescriptive. It vests power with the commissioner and it trusts the small business commissioner to do the right thing depending on the particular circumstances.
Bill Esterson
I take on board the Minister’s comments and I remind her that we are as keen for flexibility as she is. It is important to discuss these matters and to get her comments on the record. She has now made her comments and I am sure that, as the office of the commissioner develops, her words will be an important reminder of exactly what is intended and exactly how the commissioner should work. My understanding of the way in which legislation is crafted is that the Minister’s comments in Committee have legal standing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Annual report
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 9, page 8, line 42, at end insert—
“(d) outlines a summary of relevant complaints made by—
(i) small businesses against other businesses and
(ii) small businesses against government departments.
(1A) In subsection (1)(d) “relevant complaint” has the same meaning at subsections 4(3) and (4)”
This amendment would require the Small Business Commissioner’s Annual Report to outline complaints made by small businesses against other businesses and against Government departments.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 59, in clause 9, page 9, line 3, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Commissioner”
This amendment would require the Small Business Commissioner to report directly to Parliament.
Bill Esterson
Amendments 58 and 59 relate to the issue of the commissioner’s annual report. We ask for the report to include complaints made by Government Departments, which is consistent with other points we have made in earlier amendments. We also ask that the commissioner, rather than the Secretary of State, reports directly to Parliament. We have called for the remit of the small business commissioner’s work to be widened in a number of ways, but the inclusion of the public sector is one of the most important elements of our request, hence amendment 58.
The importance of including complaints made by Government Departments boils down to the expectation of what small businesses want and expect from the small business commissioner. Small businesses that face the problem of late payments do so in the public sector and in the private sector, and it is only right that the annual reports reflect where the complaints come from and who the sources of the late payments are. The issue of late payments is one of the most crippling faced by small businesses. It seems to us and to small business organisations that have commented on the provisions that it is arbitrary to narrow down and attack only one part of the problem by considering only the private sector—and the larger element of the private sector, at that.
The amendment reflects the crossover between Government Departments and big business when it comes to late payments. Government Departments sign the prompt payment code. They are expected to pay their suppliers in good time; the target is to pay within five working days and that is a good standard. However, only 18 of the Government’s 33 biggest suppliers, all of which are major businesses, are signatories of the code. That means that 15 major suppliers are not signed up to the prompt payment code. As a result, it is quite likely that smaller suppliers in the supply chain—particularly of those 15 that have not signed up to the code—are victims of late payments in a contract that, ultimately, comes from the Government. That includes the issue of the construction sector and cash retention, which we discussed on Tuesday.
The situation is complicated further still with contracts of the size we are considering. We talk about the 33 largest suppliers to the Government, but there is often a chain of a number of suppliers. Of the 18 suppliers that are signed up to the code, how many of their suppliers are signed up to that same code? There are relatively large businesses, which may also be late payers, in the middle of supply chains, and in a supply chain of three, four or five companies, the smallest firms at the end of the chain are often the ones that bear the brunt.
The amendment is important because it is not just a case of saying that the small business commissioner should be able to report on the complaints of small businesses against Government Departments. The point is that some of the biggest contracts that a small business gets in the private sector can be part of a chain that leads back to Government Departments, and we want the commissioner to be able to name and shame chronic late payers in the annual report. I know that the Minister agrees with my point about naming and shaming.
We also want the small business commissioner to offer something of a strategic approach—an overview of problems that run through major supply chains—in the annual reports. The fact is that supply chains are often a muddle of private and public sectors, and big business and Government Departments. A line of investigation might not start with a complaint against the public authority, but it might implicate the public authority as part of the chain. Will the Minister clarify whether that will be in the scope of the small business commissioner? I have raised that point with her before and I am not entirely sure that I have had a clear answer. Perhaps she will address that either now or at the end.
Bill Esterson
We want the small business commissioner to follow an investigation to wherever it leads. If it leads to the shortcomings of Government Departments’ enforcement of the prompt payment code, their slip-ups on paper-based invoices that lead them to be late payers, their dealings with a company that is a major late payer and is benefiting somewhere down the supply chain from taxpayers’ money, we want to know about it in the annual report. Covering those complaints in the small business commissioner’s annual report would say as much about how we view the small business commissioner as it would about what we want the report to include.
Amendment 58 is a statement of intent that we would give the small business commissioner a certain standing. It would send a message to more than 5 million businesses that when they have a complaint, they will have someone to communicate it to. Crucially, that person will have the authority to take the complaint all the way to Government and to Parliament, hence amendment 59.
There are two very different models on offer that provide examples to follow: the Australian small business commissioner and the American Small Business Administration. What they have in common is that they provide a vehicle for the concerns of small businesses to reach the very highest level. The Australian small business commissioner reports directly to the Australian Parliament and can submit special reports directly to Parliament whenever they feel it appropriate. What we are asking for is much simpler, because it is an annual report to Parliament. It seems that the Australians appreciate, more than this Government, the concern that reporting just will not happen if the small business commissioner is toothless. Under the provisions of the Bill, the commissioner will be toothless because there is nowhere for them to take their findings, and the reliance—or, as we discussed on Tuesday, dependence—on the Secretary of State gives rise to concerns that reporting will just not happen.
The American Small Business Administration works strategically across government and ensures the views of small businesses and entrepreneurs are better heard in policy making. It gives small businesses a voice in government. The Small Business Administration reviews congressional legislation and conducts nationwide studies on the impact of regulation on small businesses. It is able to testify on behalf of small businesses when legislation is being debated.
We have to ensure that the small business commissioner is able to include in their report those points that make a difference to policy making and to small businesses. Whether this is through a nationwide survey that challenges supply chains ranging across the public and private sector; through a trend in small business complaints the small business commissioner has spotted over the year; or through their first-hand expertise on the concerns of small businesses that the small business commissioner wants to lay before policy makers; we have to give them the authority and opportunity to present the information that small businesses need us to see. Without giving the small business commissioner that authority in their annual reports, we are in danger of giving small businesses nothing more than a sympathetic ear.
Anna Soubry
I begin by drawing the Committee’s attention to my previous comments when we debated the remit of the small business commissioner and why I urged the Committee not to agree with the hon. Gentleman’s amendments to increase their remit to include public authorities.
I advanced that argument for a number of reasons, notably because the legislation is about small business and its relationship with larger businesses and because there are many other ways that small businesses can raise a complaint against the public sector. We do not want to duplicate much of that very good work. It is also important to remember that in March last year the Government restated our long-standing commitment to pay 80% of undisputed invoices in five days, with the remainder being paid within 30 days. Central Government are now required to report on that on the infamous gov.uk website.
Perhaps even more importantly—I hope this addresses specifically the very good point the hon. Gentleman makes about whether or not the good policy of payment is being trickled all the way down through the supply chain—the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 require 90-day payment terms to be passed down what we call public sector supply chains. That is what the regulations state. We all know that they must now bear fruit so that that becomes the absolute standard practice.
I tread carefully, because I am going to mention something that may cause a small titter among members of the Committee: the mystery shopper scheme—[Interruption] Exactly. It has unfortunate title, because it does not fully explain what it does. The important thing is what it does and it does that very well. It takes up these sorts of issues in the supply chain and makes sure that the regulations are being put into practice.
I urge the Committee not to support the hon. Gentleman’s amendment on the annual report and complaints against the public sector for all the reasons that I have given before—[Interruption] Sorry, I just can’t read that. I have been helpfully passed something about the mystery shopper; somebody’s writing is worse than mine and that is quite something. It says that if the ultimate customer is a Government Department or public sector, then the mystery shopper applies at the end of the chain. I’m not sure I understand that, but I’m sure it is terribly important. We will get some clarity on that when I next rise.
Bill Esterson
While I intervene, the Minister might want to get another copy of the note. The question we were trying to get answered was what happens when the public sector is the ultimate end of the chain and something goes wrong in that chain. Will the commissioner have the opportunity to investigate all the way to the public sector and not just the private sector elements of the problems with late payment? It could be the second, third, fourth or even fifth stage of the supply chain. I hope I have given the Minister long enough to get her notes.
Anna Soubry
As ever, my excellent Parliamentary Private Secretary knows more than I do. When the public sector is at the end of the chain it matters not, because if it is a question of going business to business in the rest of the supply chain, of course the small business commissioner will be able to act on any complaint about any of the relationships between businesses in that supply chain. That is the most important. Then when government becomes involved we have the mystery shopper scheme; but in any event we have all the other places to take complaints, such as the ombudsman, as was previously outlined.
Finally, I do not think that there is a need for the commissioner to lay the annual report. The Secretary of State must lay the annual report before Parliament unaltered; the commissioner’s doing it would make no difference at all. It would not increase their independence, so the amendment is what lawyers would call otiose. It is not necessary, because I am confident—I hope others agree—that the Bill delivers as we want it to.
Bill Esterson
The more the Minister says the words “mystery” and “shopper” together, the more I think her listeners suspend belief in the effectiveness of the scheme. As I think I said on Tuesday, I am familiar with mystery shopper schemes in the private sector and they can be effective, but the idea is not inspiring confidence.
Anna Soubry
I think we agree that the title may not be the best one, but that does not matter; it is a question of whether the job gets done. The evidence is clear: the scheme works extremely well.
Bill Esterson
I hear what the Minister says. I am afraid that, to anyone listening to our deliberations, the way hon. Members have laughed several times at the description would suggest that confidence may be lacking in whether the scheme will be as effective as it needs to be. There might be work to be done there.
The point about the supply chain is that if only 18 out of 33 major suppliers are signed up to the prompt payment code, and the Government are unable to make that 33 out of 33, and if Departments do not make sure that late payment is not a problem throughout the supply chain, something will have to change. Given that we are setting up an office called the small business commissioner, and that often it is small businesses that are the victims of late payment in the relevant situations, we need the commissioner to be able to consider public sector involvement all through the chain. The Minister said, as we discussed on Tuesday, that complaints are being dealt with elsewhere in a number of ways, but it is clear that that is not happening sufficiently well at the moment, and that a lot more work is needed.
In discussion of the amendments on the annual report, the Minister said we should not restrict the small business commissioner by insisting they could not do something in that case. I think that is a fair representation of what she said. She is now saying, with reference to the present group of amendments, as she did on Tuesday on a similar set of amendments, that the commissioner cannot investigate the public sector. Following the logic of what she said about the previous group, the commissioner should really investigate the public sector.
Anna Soubry
I thought we had established that we do not want to extend the remit of the small business commissioner. We want him or her to concentrate specifically on late payment between small businesses and larger businesses. We do not want to go into the public sector because we take the view that the existing schemes that are available—the ombudsman and all the others that I have described—are beginning absolutely to tackle that job.
As a Minister, one works with all the different commissioners and people such as the Groceries Code Adjudicator and there is never anything to preclude the small business commissioner from being able to raise any matter at any time—on the contrary, I would expect him or her to have that sort of relationship with any Minister in my role. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman some satisfaction that if there were a feeling that things were not working in any other field, they would be able to raise that with the Minister. That was a bit long; I am sorry, Sir David.
Bill Esterson
I am glad that the Minister made such a long intervention. We are going to talk about the relationship with Government Departments when we discuss my next amendment. The problem is that we do not accept that there should be this restriction because of the relationship between the public sector and business and the way that the supply chains operate. The Government do not agree. We have a profound disagreement on this point. We base our evidence on what goes on elsewhere in the world—in Australia and America—with very successful systems, which very much have a wider remit that ensures the commissioner, or the Small Business Administration in the case of America, can investigate and report on the activities, operations and behaviours of the public sector in the way it deals with its suppliers, as well as the private sector.
Fundamentally, it is important to consider the private and the public sectors when thinking about how an economy operates and how contracts and payments are made. The Government are resisting this point, and we may well come back to it once the commissioner is up and running. We tested the Committee’s opinion on the inclusion of the public sector earlier and I do not feel the need to test it again. I think we know what the Committee as a whole thinks of this. With those remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Review of Commissioner’s performance
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 10, page 9, line 26, at end insert—
‘(7) The Commissioner may assist the Government, including its agencies, to develop legislation, procedures and administration that provide alternative ways in which small businesses can comply with the requirements of the legislation, procedures and administration.’
This amendment would allow the Small Business Commissioner to assist other parts of Government, including the Secretary of State to develop procedures and processes.
The Minister just started to talk about relationships with Ministers, and this amendment is about the small business commissioner working with all parts of Government—including, but not limited to, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills—to ensure that Government, their agencies, and all connected with the Government can be included in understanding what comes from the commissioner as a result of their relationship with small business when it comes to legislation and administration.
The amendment aims to help small business, and to help Government get their relationship with and the requirements of small business right as far as possible. It is drawn from a fundamental part of what the US Small Business Administration does. In addition to the signposting functions, which are very much a part of the Small Business Administration’s functions that the Government have chosen to adopt, the United States has a whole department devoted to giving small businesses a voice in government.
The US Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy advances the views of small businesses before Congress, the White House, the federal agencies, the federal courts and state policy makers. It has a three-pronged approach. First, it provides a nationwide source of small business statistics, making it the point of reference for policy makers on the impact that Government regulation and legislation are having in the small business community —on its most pressing concerns—and up-to-date frontline feedback on the challenges it faces from one year to the next.
Secondly, having a base in the federal Government gives it a permanent, independent voice with which to channel concerns to the highest level of government. Thirdly, as the watchdog for the Regulatory Flexibility Act, it is in a position to link its research and advocacy with an effective mechanism to bring small business concerns into the regulatory process. It has a finger on the pulse of small business concerns and a seat at the table for regulation and policy making. This is what we are trying to achieve with amendment 60.
By looking at the example of the US Small Business Administration, we see that the measure is entirely possible and can be used to great effect. Amendment 60 simply makes sure that when we set up the small business commissioner here, we will give them a clear mechanism to work strategically across Government to ensure the voices of small businesses and entrepreneurs are better heard in policy making.
Before last year’s general election, Labour said we would create a UK version of the US Small Business Administration, which would concentrate all business support and policy in one organisation. At the Federation of Small Businesses conference at the start of 2015, the then shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) said,
“So Britain can grow its way out of the cost of living crisis and build a balanced recovery built to last, we need to do all we can to help our small businesses grow, create new jobs and meet their aspirations. We need government to be a better servant—and customer—of our small businesses and to make sure that entrepreneurs’ voices are heard at the top table. A UK Small Business Administration is necessary to realising this ambition. Based on the best examples from around the world, a UK Small Business Administration would create a step change in the opportunities for small businesses from government procurement and improve the quality of support available, operating along a proper British Investment Bank and a network of regional banks to ensure that start-ups and established firms can access the finance they need”.
Amendment 60 joins up the complaints from small businesses that the commissioner will receive and makes sure that this is factored into the implementation and development of regulations and Government policies. We have worded this carefully. We are not talking about making sure that the small business commissioner only has a seat at the table with the Department sponsoring them—they already have that, by definition. We do not doubt that he or she will have an open line of communication with the Business Secretary and his or her team.
If we are to effect real change, the commissioner needs a seat at the table right across Government Departments. Whether they come from the Cabinet Office, the Treasury, the Department for Communities and Local Government or any other Department, policy making and regulations have a tangible impact on small businesses. Amendment 60 will make sure that the small business commissioner is a part of this process, not confined to one Department. It seeks to ensure all the benefits to small business, jobs and the wider economy that we should all have in mind as we seek to develop this legislation and create the office of the small business commissioner.
Anna Soubry
The Bill already includes an absolute duty on the commissioner to prepare and publish an annual report, which must include any recommendations on how matters he or she has encountered might be addressed. That provides the very mechanism for the commissioner to raise suggestions from his or her experience. I very much want the small business commissioner to keep their firm focus and all their attention on the issue of late payment and the relationship between bigger businesses and small businesses.
Bill Esterson
Like the Minister, I have a high regard for the Federation of Small Businesses and I have a good relationship with many of its officers. John Allan, the national chairman, lives in a constituency neighbouring mine. He is a fine man and has been a strong advocate for the organisation in his time in post, as have many other officers.
One of the interesting things about the Minister’s comment on the FSB is that the organisation wants many of the amendments that we have tabled in Committee and were tabled in the Lords. If the Government were actually listening to, working with and acting on the recommendations of the FSB, perhaps they would have accepted more of those amendments or included them in the draft legislation. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that interesting comment and come back on Report with some of the amendments proposed by the FSB and debated here over the past few days as well as in the Grand Committee and on Report in the Lords.
The Minister said that she does not want the small business commissioner sitting in meetings all day when the challenges of late payment need addressing. I completely agree. She will have noticed that I described how the US system operates: a whole department, the Office of Advocacy, is devoted to the relationship with Government, doing the kind of work that I indicated would be beneficial. That is the sort of system that would achieve what amendment 60 proposes.
Government action and legislation have a profound impact on business, on the economy, on business relationships and on businesses being paid on time. That is why it is important that the Government are lobbied and listen to the lobbying. Along with the FSB, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI, a range of excellent trade organisations and many individual businesses have an important role to play and have good relationships with Government Departments, Ministers, and Members of Parliament, whether from the Government or Opposition.
There is a lot to be said for the small business commissioner’s having a formal role and relationship with all Government Departments, given the important way in which small business operates in this country and how it contributes to a successful and thriving economy. Again, perhaps this can evolve over time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 11, 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Extension of target to provisions made by regulators
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 14, page 12, line 6, at end insert—
‘(1A) In subsection (2), after “means” insert”—
(a) all regulatory provisions made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972,
(b) regulatory provisions made by statutory instrument which are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament, and””
The amendment would require the Government’s business impact target to cover the impact of EU Regulations or regulatory provisions made my statutory instruments which are subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 62, in clause 14, page 12, line 18, at end insert—
‘(4A) In section 21 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (duty on Secretary of State to publish business impact target etc), at the end of subsection (2) insert “and must consist of—
(a) a nominal component, reflecting the total number of regulations, and
(b) a monetary component, reflecting the discounted cash flow.””
This amendment would ensure that the report includes an up-to-date tally of regulations, and the cost to business of those regulations.
Amendment 63, in clause 14, page 12, line 18, at end insert—
‘(4B) In section 21 (3)(b) of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, after “methodology”, insert “, verified by the independent body appointed under section 25”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish the methodology used for assessing the economic impact of regulatory provisions and would require the methodology to be verified by an independent body.
Amendment 64, in clause 14, page 12, line 18, at end insert—
‘(4C) In section 23 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (duty on Secretary of State to publish reports) after subsection (3)(f) insert—
“(g) a list of all the impact assessments that relate to the regulatory provisions for which a list is required under subsection (3)(f), including the names of the authorising Ministers, the names of the Senior Responsible Owners for quality assurance, and the assessments of the independent body appointed under section 25.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State’s report to include a list of all the impact assessments relating to regulatory provisions which have come into force or ceased to be in force during the reporting period, including the names of the authorising Ministers and Senior Responsible Owners for quality assurance and the assessments of an independent body.
Bill Esterson
We now move away from discussing the creation of the small business commissioner to consider some of the wider aspects of the Bill. This group of amendments looks at the impact target. I will start with amendments 62 and 64.
The Government used to publish a twice-yearly statement of regulations. It might have been a bit of a blunt instrument because the relative impact of these regulations can vary enormously. However, it was a simple mechanism to ensure that the Government were publishing a tally of new regulations that had come into force during the reporting period. Lord Stevenson of Balmacara noted in Grand Committee that publication of the statements had stopped since the general election, and he asked Baroness Neville-Rolfe to find out why. I cannot see an answer to that question anywhere in Hansard; I apologise if I have missed it. Can the Minister tell me why the biannual statements stopped?
Amendments 62 and 64 deal with two important points on regulation that are too often overlooked: honesty and accountability. Amendment 62 suggests having a warts-and-all tally of regulations in the business impact target. It specifically calls for both a nominal component to give an update on the number of regulations, and a monetary component that tots up the total cost to businesses of the regulations. Amendment 64 ensures that, when we publish the reports, there is a chain of accountability so that everybody knows who has approved a new regulation and who is responsible for it.
The reason for amendment 62 is simple. While the Government have not been providing the reports, the Regulatory Policy Committee has. The committee found that, of 13 recent assessments, 10 showed increases in the overall cost of regulation. The Minister will tell us later that the Government have reduced the cost of regulation by some astronomical amount; she will probably cite a figure of £10 billion.
Bill Esterson
The Regulatory Policy Committee seems to be pointing at something slightly different. For some reason, the 10 increases in the overall cost of regulation that the Committee found were not reflected in Government statements on regulatory savings. Why that happened is an interesting question.
It also emerged that many Government regulations—just under half—were considered to be out of scope by the Government. Therefore, when the Minister no doubt gives the figure of £10 billion in a few minutes’ time, one must wonder what the true figure might be. The regulations increased the costs to business, but they are important for Government and I agree that they should be important. However, they were not reflected in the Government’s in-scope or out-of-scope scenarios. Many regulations come from the European Union, the mention of which will cause Government Members to start to—
Bill Esterson
I could not possibly repeat what my hon. Friend just said, but their ears will prick up and they will become interested. One or two of them will no doubt want to jump up and say something about the European Union.
The Government have an interest—[Interruption.] Government Members are being very well behaved today, which is remarkable. The Government have an interest in ensuring that they are seen to be reducing the regulatory burden, but when that is not the case, the Government cannot simply stop reporting it—for just under half the regulations—or shift the goalposts to make the situation look better than it is.
The Lords had a full debate on the matter and when those points were made there really was no response to say that that was not what had happened. When the Government report, they should be up front with businesses about who is responsible for the regulations. The reality is that business is interested in the overall impact of regulations, not where they come from. Ultimately, the issue is about the overall cost, not the cost of some regulations and not others, that really affects the business environment and businesses’ ability to operate as effectively as possible.
Amendment 61 would require the Government’s business impact target to cover the impact of EU regulations or regulatory provisions made by statutory instruments subject to the affirmative procedure. The Regulatory Policy Committee reported that
“nearly half of the approximately 1,000 laws enacted during the previous parliament were outside the scope of the Government’s… One-in, Two-out rules. Nearly 70% of these were of EU origin.”
If regulations have an impact on small businesses, it is important that they are considered within the scope of the business impact target. Otherwise, businesses will not be able to trust what it is being told, which is the point that I was making a moment ago.
It seems a false distinction to rule such regulations out. The origin of the regulations is different and the route when trying to make them work better for the business community or seeking to remove them would be different, but does the perspective of small businesses differ when a regulation comes from the EU? I do not think so. As Lord Stevenson said in Grand Committee,
“I do not honestly think that businessmen and women would care whether the regulations they have to work to come from this place or across the channel. However, they have an impact on their work and therefore I think that we should fess up and try to get a measure into play in the way that we think about all regulation that impacts on business.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 October 2015; Vol. 765, c. GC229.]
I have heard the argument before that the point of the assessment is to focus on what we can control and change. That is important, but it is not a reason not to include such regulations because it gives a false impression of the cost of regulation and entirely misses the point. After all, the same EU regulations are applied differently in different EU member states. Perhaps there is an opportunity to learn from how other EU states apply regulations, if they are able to do so in a way that has a lower cost to business and a smaller impact on business than we currently find.
The Chair
Order. I apologise to the Committee for the coldness of the room. The mechanism for closing the window is either jammed or broken. Help is on the way. It will probably be closed manually, when ladders arrive, during the luncheon break.
Anna Soubry
Thank you, Sir David. Actually, as a woman of a certain age I find it makes a great change. I was so worried about the hon. Member for Wakefield that this must go on the record: she was so cold that she had the hood of her jacket up. As I am mentioning her, may I congratulate her—she is now putting her snow mittens on—on her election yesterday? We all wish her well in her new role, which I am sure she will, unfortunately, play extremely effectively.
I must take issue with the hon. Member for Sefton Central about the previous Government’s achievement, which was great, in making huge savings to the costs of businesses across the piece, by way of reducing regulation. Our policy of one in, two out, was particularly successful, and I am helpfully reminded that in 2015 the World Bank rated the United Kingdom sixth out of 189 economies as a place to do business because of the reduction in regulation. Of course, this country was the first to adopt one in, two out. We have done incredibly well and our global competitiveness has increased as we begin to deregulate and untangle the abundance of red tape that often strangled business.
It was a pleasure in the previous Government, at a very low level, to take part in some of the great work that is often done behind the scenes, led by an excellent team of civil servants to whom I pay huge tribute. There is one in particular whom I often describe as the guru of deregulation. She has the most brilliant and incisive brain for untangling red tape—looking at where we overly regulate and at how we can do things better. It is now an even greater pleasure in this role to be right at the core of that work. It is often done very quietly but the benefits to business are huge. We have set ourselves another target to achieve savings of another £10 billion in the next five years. It will be difficult and I do not try to pretend otherwise, but that is one of the things addressed in this part of the Bill.
On amendment 61, we will focus the business impact target on the things that the Government can control. Gold-plating will therefore continue to be included. The burden of the legislation and directives that come from the European Union are better tackled at source. I strongly take the view that the package delivered by President Tusk delivers reforms in economic governance, competitiveness, sovereignty, benefits and the movement of labour that are exactly along the lines that we want to see in the future of the European Union.
I want to stay in the European Union, although I want reform. A wind of change is blowing. My Prime Minister has caught that wind and he is turning it into a gale. This movement to deregulate, to reduce the regulation on business and to change the way we do things in the European Union will gather momentum and pace, and those reforms will come to full fruition. The Government will continue to report administratively on the impact of all significant European Union regulation and have that impact independently validated. That is the point: all the work we do is independently validated.
Bill Esterson
The Minister’s support for staying in a reformed European Union is no surprise; I have heard her say that before. I completely agree, but I mentioned making the most of European Union regulations and learning from what goes on in other countries so that we can benefit from them and so that they do not become onerous or a cost to business. Does she take that point on board? What more does she think she and her fellow Ministers should be doing to ensure that regulations from the European Union are not onerous and can be more beneficial? Can we learn from the way other countries apply them?
Anna Soubry
Yes, we always want to learn from what other member states do, but gold-plating was a valid criticism—particularly, I could say, under the 13 years of Labour Government, but that would be a cheap political point that I would not want to make. In all seriousness, this nation did gold-plate things. One of the great tasks that has been performed and completed in the past five years—and which continues to be addressed—is whether we continue to gold-plate. We make it clear to all Government Ministers, Departments and so on that they should not gold-plate, but it is work that we continue to do. If we can learn from other member states in the European Union as to how to ensure we do not do that, so much the better. To finish on amendment 61, affirmative statutory instruments are already captured under the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.
Amendments 62 and 63 would limit the options of future Administrations in determining their target and would give an unusual amount of power to an unelected verification body. It is the Government who should determine the nature of the target, how it is measured and by what methodology. We are consulting the Regulatory Policy Committee about the methodology for this Parliament and will publish it soon.
I respectfully suggest that amendment 64 duplicates existing administrative requirements to publish impact assessments in the name of the responsible Minister alongside related legislation. In my new role, although it feels as though I have been there for some time, I have seen that the work on deregulation—in terms of the detail into which we all go and the aspiration and targets placed upon Departments—is quite outstanding. The demand is effectively set by a desire to achieve financial targets. None of us really like targets, but, goodness me, they are a fabulous driver for all of us to look at the existing regulation and anything new coming in to ensure that business is not over-regulated, invariably at huge cost to it.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the statement on new regulation. It has been replaced by an annual report under the business impact target that will be published this June and annually thereafter. That is the better way forward. Though interesting points were raised that, as ever, were listened to, I urge hon. Members not to support the amendment on the basis of all I have said.
Bill Esterson
It is really important to say that we agree on not having unnecessary regulations; I take on board the Minister’s point about that. I gently say to her, however, that small businesses are extremely concerned about some recently proposed additional regulation, not least the introduction of quarterly filing or additional reporting of tax information and the feared potential implications for extra bureaucracy. We have discussed that issue elsewhere. I do not know whether you would welcome a discussion on that now, Sir David, but such proposals cause concern. The Minister needs to be aware that there is a sense the Government need to think a few things through more carefully.
The point that the Regulatory Policy Committee was making was that by not including just under half of regulations, the Government are not counting them and are not showing that the gold-plating the Minister speaks of is not still happening. It leaves the sense that the Government are embarrassed by the fact that they have not done more to remove what she described as gold-plating or to learn from how some of our friends in the European Union have managed to apply EU regulations in a more cost-effective way, or done enough to reduce the cost of regulation from the European Union. That is why we agree with the Regulatory Policy Committee that such things should be within scope.
Mary Creagh
I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 15, page 13, line 8, after “in”, insert
“section 21 (duty to have regard to the regulatory principles) and”
This amendment would make it clear that the reporting requirements include reporting on the duty under section 21 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 to have regard to a defined set of regulatory principles.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 79, in clause 15, page 13, line 10, after “which”, insert “section 21 and”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 80, in clause 15, page 13, line 14, after “businesses”, insert
“and such other persons as the regulator considers appropriate”
In conjunction with amendment 78, this amendment would require each relevant regulator to report not only on the views of businesses (and ‘other regulated persons’), but also on the views of such other persons as the relevant regulator considers appropriate.
Amendment 81, in clause 15, page 13, line 16, at end insert—
“(iii) of the effect of the duties under sections 21 and 22 on the proper exercise of its relevant functions;”
This amendment would require each relevant regulator to report on the effect of the performance of the duties on the proper exercise of the regulatory functions to which they apply.
Amendment 82, in clause 15, page 13, line 18, after “in”, insert “section 21 and”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 85, in clause 15, page 13, line 41, after “in”, insert “section 21 and”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 86, in clause 15, page 14, line 28, at end insert—
““businesses” includes businesses and other regulated persons;”
Amendment 87, in clause 15, page 14, line 30, after “by”, insert
“section 21 to have regard to the principles in subsection (2) of that section and”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 83, in clause 15, page 13, line 31, at end insert—
“(d) the persons from whom information should be obtained for the purposes of a performance report.
This amendment would make provision for guidance to be issued on who should be asked for information for the purposes of preparing a performance report.
Amendment 84, in clause 15, page 13, line 31, at end insert—
“(6A) Before making guidance under subsection (5), the Minister must consult—
(a) persons carrying on businesses; and
(b) such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate.”
This amendment would require the relevant Minister of the Crown to consult businesses and such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate before making guidance relating to the performance reports.
Amendment 88, in clause 16, page 15, line 13, after “businesses”, insert
“and such other persons as the regulator considers appropriate”
See explanatory statement to amendment 80.
Amendment 89, in clause 16, page 15, line 15, at end insert—
“(iii) of the effect of the duties under section 21 and 22 on the proper exercise of its relevant functions;”
See explanatory statement under amendment 81.
Amendment 90, in clause 16, page 15, line 30, at end insert—
“(d) the persons from whom information should be obtained for the purposes of a performance report.”
See explanatory statement to amendment 83.
Amendment 91, in clause 16, page 15, line 30, at end insert—
“(5A) Before making Guidance under subsection (4), the Minister must consult—
(a) persons carrying on businesses; and
(b) such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate.”
See explanatory statement to amendment 84.
Amendment 92, in clause 16, page 15, line 42, after “businesses”, insert
“and such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate”
See explanatory statement to amendment 80.
Amendment 93, in clause 16, page 16, line 9, at end insert—
“(11A) In this section—
“businesses” includes businesses and other regulated persons.”
Mary Creagh
I apologise to the Committee, but I cannot feel my face anymore. It is quite cold in here. I appeal to the Chair that if the coldness carries on after lunch, perhaps we can all have a round of hot coffees from the Terrace cafeteria. I beg to move!
I thank the right hon. Member for Broxtowe for her congratulations, and I thank hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House. Whether or not they supported me for Chair, they have got me. I want to begin by talking about the Environmental Audit Committee and its environmental scorecard on the Government. In 2014, the Committee asserted that environmental regulations represent
“the essential underpinning of environmental protection.”
They also, of course, represent the essential underpinning of consumer protection and of health and safety for workers and the general public. Statutory regulators play an important role in the effective implementation and enforcement of environmental regulations.
We have had a drive to reduce the burden of regulation on business. We have seen that with the changes made by the Small Business, Enterprise, and Employment Act 2015, section 108 of the Deregulation Act 2015 and section 22 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. My party is pro-business; we see it as essential to our society. We want to see industry growing. We are pro-growth. We are also pro-good regulation. In my time as shadow Environment Secretary, I lost count of the number of times when businesses would come in and complain about other businesses that were able to undercut them on price because of their ability to ignore the regulations.
People want to do the right thing in this country. We are lucky enough to have businesses that are so law- abiding and wish to do well on the basis of good business, good growth and green growth. One thing in the clauses is the Government’s failure perhaps to understand the role of regulation in promoting green growth, and I will give some examples of that towards the end of my remarks.
Good regulation protects the citizen from the powerful, whether those interests are of the commercial sector, the state or other large bodies. Good regulation protects patients, the old, those with disabilities, our built environment, our natural environment and many other areas of our lives. I tabled the amendments, which are probing, because I want the Minister to say what protections will be outlined if the measures go through. I have particular concerns about the proposal in clause 17 on Ofwat and the Office of the Rail Regulator. The duty of a regulator is to protect the public interest and there could be some very difficult decisions for those regulators.
I do not believe that there is evidence to suggest that the UK is over-regulated or that there are significant unnecessary costs associated with existing regulations, despite what the Minister said about so-called gold-plating. The costs associated with environmental regulations account for less than 2% of business sector turnover on average. If we focus solely on the costs of regulation to business, we ignore the wider socioeconomic and environmental benefits that regulations are intended to provide. Evidence suggests that the benefits of environmental regulations—only some of which can be quantified—cover the costs three times over.
I would like to give some examples of the costs and benefits. The Minister said earlier that they could be obscure and that we are not sure what they are, but regulators operate in the framework of UK law and European Union law. All the transposition of EU directives is subject to Whitehall cost benefit decisions. I have asked a variety of parliamentary questions on certain EU frameworks and I want to give the Committee some examples.
Back in 1995, it is generally accepted that the UK was seen as the “dirty man of Europe”—a slightly sexist phrase, but one that I am happy to use for the purposes of this discussion. Some 83% of household waste went to landfill and just 7% was recycled or composted. Younger members of the Committee may find it hard to remember those bad old dirty days. Basically, everything went into a bin in the kitchen. By 2014, thanks to a series of EU directives, which were transposed without gold-plating by the previous Labour Government in a very flexible way that allowed local authorities to make the right decisions about what was right in their communities and where they wanted to invest, the UK’s recycling rate had reached 45%. During that time, as our understanding of the finite nature of resources developed—whether they were wood, plastic or paper—and businesses understood that in order to have a sustainable and secure supply chain of raw materials, we could not keep on relying on raw products; we had to develop and grow our recycling industry and base. Hundreds, if not thousands, of new businesses were created in the recycling industry.
That is an example of good regulation creating green growth, green businesses and green jobs. The UK currently recycles 90% of construction materials, well ahead of other countries. We are seen as world leaders, for example, in civil engineering with the Crossrail and Olympics projects, both landmark Labour Government achievements, taking out the spoil and taking it away—by barge in the case of the Olympics, at a nice steady 3 miles an hour —and using it to create new nature reserves in Essex.
I also want to talk about the EU’s water framework directives. Again, younger members of the Committee may find it hard to believe that swimming in Blackpool as a child some 30 or 35 years ago, I emerged covered in oil. When people talk about the good old days, they forget just how good they were. Some 99% of British beaches now comply with EU minimum standards on cleanliness. What does that mean? We cannot really quantify the benefits to our seaside towns, but obviously cleaner beaches mean more tourists and stronger local economies.
In 2014, the Environment Agency, in response to a parliamentary question that I submitted, estimated that the net benefit in England and Wales of implementing the EU water framework directive will be £9 billion by 2027—that is £9 billion of benefit to the UK economy for transposition of that directive.
On air quality, we can similarly see that the UK’s nitrogen oxide—NOx—emissions have fallen by more than two-thirds, reducing the risk of respiratory disease. Over the same period, sulphur dioxide emissions in the UK dropped by 95%. Sulphur dioxide is what gives us acid rain, and when it goes into rivers and particularly into copper piping, it leaches away the copper from the pipes. This was particularly a Scandinavian problem. Perhaps they had more copper pipes or more blond people, but when blond people washed their hair, it turned green because of the acid rain. Again, that is another example of the good old days when industry was able to pollute the atmosphere, and there were unintended costs and consequences not only in terms of environmental degradation, but for blond people suffering green hair. That is probably not something we can quantify, but it must have been quite embarrassing for a child at school. However, those consequences have now been taken out.
We have another five minutes, so I will carry on. My examples illustrate some of the many benefits that regulation brings in terms of green growth and environmental benefits. Clauses 15 and 16 introduce reporting requirements on regulators in respect of their duties under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 to have regard to the code of practice and to the desirability of promoting economic growth. So regulators will have to produce an annual performance report setting out the effect that the duties have had, making explicit reference to the views of any affected businesses. My amendments would require widening that out from businesses so that the whole voice of civil society is heard in that report.
The duties risk unintended consequences. They have an overriding effect on the exercise of regulatory functions, and that could incentivise regulators to give greater emphasis to narrowly defined economic considerations and potentially compromise the protection of the environment —and the citizen, the disabled, the worker and the consumer. It could also compromise the responsibility of regulators to act always in the public interest. In both cases, the exercise of regulatory functions in accordance with their original purpose is not emphasised as a key consideration for regulators. I think that that is problematic.
In their response to the consultation on the growth duty, the Government stated that the duty would not
“compromise the independence of regulators or undermine the importance of the essential protections that they are there to deliver”.
However, the Joint Committee on the draft Deregulation Bill concluded that additional safeguards were required to ensure that the duty would not
“take precedence over regulation and that the overriding and principal objective of regulators remains the protection of the public interest.”
A proposal to amend the relevant clauses to make it clear that the duty would apply only in so far as it was consistent with the proper exercise of the regulatory functions was narrowly defeated in the House of Lords in February 2015. As currently drafted, the proposed reporting requirements are disproportionately focused on the views of businesses as to the effect of the performance of the duties. This is in spite of the risk that they may have an overriding effect on the regulatory functions to which they apply, with unintended consequences for the protection of the environment and the wider public interest.
Secondly, the stated aim of the new reporting requirements is
“to ensure regulators are more transparent about the action they have taken”,
and to
“allow Government, business and other interested stakeholders to hold regulators to account on how they have performed”
in respect of the duties. As I have said, I have concerns about this.
The amendments that I have tabled would make four changes. First, they would require each relevant regulator to report on the effect of performance of the duty under section 21 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, as well as on the performance of the duties under section 22 of the LRRA and section 108 of the Deregulation Act 2015.
Secondly, in respect of the duties, the amendments would require each relevant regulator to report not only on the views of businesses and other regulated persons, but on the views of such other persons as the relevant regulator considers appropriate. Thirdly, they would require each relevant regulator to report on the effect of the performance of the duties and on the proper exercise of the regulatory functions to which they apply. Finally, they would require the relevant Minister of the Crown to consult businesses and such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate before making guidance relating to the performance reports, and such reports to be made public.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Stephen Barclay.)
Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 79, in clause 15, page 13, line 10, after “which”, insert “section 21 and”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 80, in clause 15, page 13, line 14, after “businesses”, insert
“and such other persons as the regulator considers appropriate”
In conjunction with amendment 78, this amendment would require each relevant regulator to report not only on the views of businesses (and ‘other regulated persons’), but also on the views of such other persons as the relevant regulator considers appropriate.
Amendment 81, in clause 15, page 13, line 16, at end insert—
(iii) of the effect of the duties under sections 21 and 22 on the proper exercise of its relevant functions;”
This amendment would require each relevant regulator to report on the effect of the performance of the duties on the proper exercise of the regulatory functions to which they apply.
Amendment 82, in clause 15, page 13, line 18, after “in”, insert “section 21 and”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 85, in clause 15, page 13, line 41, after “in”, insert “section 21 and”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 86, in clause 15, page 14, line 28, at end insert—
““businesses” includes businesses and other regulated persons;”
Amendment 87, in clause 15, page 14, line 30, after “by”, insert
“section 21 to have regard to the principles in subsection (2) of that section and”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 83, in clause 15, page 13, line 31, at end insert—
“(d) the persons from whom information should be obtained for the purposes of a performance report.
This amendment would make provision for guidance to be issued on who should be asked for information for the purposes of preparing a performance report.
Amendment 84, in clause 15, page 13, line 31, at end insert—
‘(6A) Before making guidance under subsection (5), the Minister must consult—
(a) persons carrying on businesses; and
(b) such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate.”
This amendment would require the relevant Minister of the Crown to consult businesses and such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate before making guidance relating to the performance reports.
Amendment 88, in clause 16, page 15, line 13, after “businesses”, insert
“and such other persons as the regulator considers appropriate”
See explanatory statement to amendment 80.
Amendment 89, in clause 16, page 15, line 15, at end insert—
(iii) of the effect of the duties under section 21 and 22 on the proper exercise of its relevant functions;”
See explanatory statement under amendment 81.
Amendment 90, in clause 16, page 15, line 30, at end insert—
“(d) the persons from whom information should be obtained for the purposes of a performance report.”
See explanatory statement to amendment 83.
Amendment 91, in clause 16, page 15, line 30, at end insert—
‘(5A) Before making Guidance under subsection (4), the Minister must consult—
(a) persons carrying on businesses; and
(b) such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate.”
See explanatory statement to amendment 84.
Amendment 92, in clause 16, page 15, line 42, after “businesses”, insert
“and such other persons as the Minister considers appropriate”
See explanatory statement to amendment 80.
Amendment 93, in clause 16, page 16, line 9, at end insert—
‘(11A) In this section—
“businesses” includes businesses and other regulated persons.”
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Congratulations to the Doorkeepers and engineers on shutting our window; I am sure we will all be peeling off our outer layers in due course.
I want to continue my remarks on the amendments to these regulatory clauses and the benefits of good regulation in creating green jobs and growth. In fact, in case we needed any further examples of that, there is a Waste and Resources Action Programme exhibition outside this very Committee Room, which has the strapline, “Less Waste More Jobs”. That beautifully illustrates what I was saying before lunch.
I want to take a little bit of time to look at the potential impact of the clauses on both the natural environment and the Office of Rail and Road. Let me begin with Natural England. Its statutory purpose is to
“ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.”
Its statutory purpose is to protect the natural environment, while the contribution to sustainable development, which includes economic considerations, is an outcome arising from that protection.
The clearest manifestation yet of the potential of the growth duty to have an overriding or undermining influence on the proper exercise of Natural England’s regulatory functions is its recent adoption of a new outcomes approach to the protection and management of our most important wildlife sites and precious places. That new approach was first introduced in a letter from Natural England’s chief executive, James Cross, to a number of key stakeholders in October 2015, with an amended version subsequently published online.
The stated aim is for Natural England to move
“away from being seen as regulators and more towards enablers”
through
“closer working with business to help them achieve their goals while also helping the environment”.
That will apparently involve
“radically reducing the need for regulation”,
and helping businesses to
“achieve their aims in a way that benefits the environment, but takes account of their circumstances”
by seeking
“the best outcomes for everybody, at the right pace”.
While it is right to seek to minimise conflict and to achieve win-win outcomes via the agreement of “common and shared objectives” when possible, there will often be situations where the objectives of businesses will conflict with the proper exercise of Natural England’s regulatory functions and its statutory purpose.
I cite that example in relation to the natural environment, but there are, of course, potential issues around the built environment because local authorities are also listed in clauses 15 and 16. As a former local councillor for seven years, I know that in these straitened times, councils will often err on the side of caution and will be fearful, particularly when making planning decisions. We can see a clear moment when officers will be advising on granting planning permission for something so that the growth duty or reporting requirements that will be placed on them are not subsequently challenged by businesses.
The final area I wish to talk about is the protection of the public interest in its most naked form: the health and safety of workers and the travelling public. Clause 17 applies this reporting duty to the Office of Rail and Road, Ofcom, Ofwat and Ofgem, which is the first time that has happened. In my time as shadow Secretary of State for Transport, I had a great deal to do with the ORR—the Rail Regulator, as it was then. Its statutory duty is to protect the health and safety of workers and the travelling public, to manage demand and supply for rail paths between freight operators and passenger operators and to protect the needs of disabled travellers and ensure they have access to the railway.
With this new duty, I can see clearly that the demands of growth could lead to conflicts of interest. For example, passenger rail travel has doubled over the past 20 years, and there is enormous pressure on those rail slots. It is the difficult duty of the rail regulator to decide which towns and cities get new train services and when the track operators will have access to freight paths to undertake the upkeep and engineering works that keep the railways going. Those decisions are made versus the interests of the commercial operators who run those passenger services. It is in the interests of the rail regulator to ensure that those paths are not too close together and do not run too quickly so as to maintain a safe distance between trains. It must also ensure that there is a requisite number of safety operatives to oversee workers carrying out minor engineering works on the track to avoid tragedies, which sadly occur far too often.
I am concerned that extending the duty to report performance to the Office of Rail and Road, in particular, could end up putting pressure on the regulator to make decisions in the interests of growth that are inimical to the public interest, the protection of public safety, the protection of the health and safety of the workers on the railway, and of course the protection of disabled travellers, whose additional needs in terms of boarding and getting off trains may hold up the smooth operation of the service for a couple of minutes. I have heard anecdotal evidence from my constituents in Wakefield of people being told, “You are holding up the train. We are going to miss our slot. You are going to make us late, and we will lose money as result.” Those pressures already exist, and adding a financial and growth pressure to the regulator could lead to perverse outcomes.
A similar argument could be made about Ofwat, which is responsible for making sure that water companies clean up the beaches, protect the rivers and maintain the reservoirs. The water companies might make more money if they invested less in the asset base but that would not necessarily be good if a reservoir failed and took out a town or village below it. When regulations fail, the consequences in terms of protection of the public are huge. When the Minister replies, I hope that she addresses in particular the issue of road and rail regulation.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Welcome back, Ms Buck. This is the first time that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield has spoken in the Committee since her success yesterday and I add my congratulations on her appointment as the new Chair of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit.
As my hon. Friend has said, the Labour party is pro-business, but we are not pro-business as usual and it is important that we challenge unacceptable business practice and exploitative practice. We support good regulation but at the same time we must ensure that unhelpful or damaging regulations are addressed. My hon. Friend cited excellent examples of good regulations that show how such reporting should be done. She also explained that we must take a longer-term view when we consider the environment or other aspects of life. The short-term, balance-sheet effects of regulation are not enough. Whether a regulation, an action or a change in the rules has an effect on a business or an economy in a matter of weeks, months or a year or so is very different from its longer-term impact, whether on the economy or, indeed, the environment. We should be trying to achieve the level playing field that has been a central theme of our deliberations on the Bill so far, and that level playing field should apply to business, consumers and the wider public. The costs of regulation to business can be apparently significant, but savings can be made elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield has given many examples of exactly that, but I will give a few others as well.
When the minimum wage legislation came in during the early part of the Labour Government, there was criticism that the regulations would produce a big cost to business and to the economy; that they would cost jobs. That turned out to be scaremongering and untrue. There was in fact a benefit, not just to the workers who saw big increases in pay and protection of their terms and conditions, but to the wider economy. People were in a position to spend more money in the economy, which had benefits for business and the wider economy. There was also a benefit in the protections that were given to those businesses that had always been good employers and paid decent wages.
The same, of course, is true today when we debate the challenge of the exploitative use of zero-hours contracts. Sports Direct is an employer that is often cited. There is grave concern at the way zero-hours contracts are used in that business for people whose only or main employment is with that business. That does not just make life very difficult and precarious for the individual; the competitors of Sports Direct or similar businesses where the zero-hours culture is a concern face pressures that are unacceptable, unfair and damaging both to business and to the wider economy.
There are many examples of how regulation can be a force for good. It can be a way of improving the wider environment and economy. It can help business, even though at first glance it may appear not to do so. As we seek to create a fairer society and a fairer and more successful economy, these matters are very important and we rightly have the opportunity to debate them. My hon. Friend was right to table the amendments. They do the job of highlighting the concern and the challenge. She has highlighted the long-term environmental and economic benefits of ensuring that we measure and evaluate regulation—the immediate impact and apparent negative effects, but also the longer-term, beneficial effects. In many cases, what may appear to have a financial cost in the short term has a much greater financial and environmental benefit in the long term. I am therefore pleased that my hon. Friend has tabled the amendments and I am happy to support them.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
We must remember that clause 15 is specifically for this purpose—to require regulators subject to the regulators’ code to report annually on the effect that the code has had and to obtain the views of business on that effect. That is what the clause is all about. Our approach does not preclude consideration of broader public interests when regulators report. As I have said, the key purpose is to address the impact on business, but that does not preclude all the other matters that the hon. Member for Wakefield has raised.
Regarding Ofgem, Ofcom, the rail regulator and Ofwat, clause 17 provides a way forward to include them in the regulators’ code. That clause will remove the exemption, but not of itself bring them into scope; that can be done only following consultation and through secondary legislation. Those are important points to make when looking at the aim of the clause.
Anna Soubry
I am so sorry. Then I will not address those, but I will thank the hon. Lady for her probing amendments. She makes some important points, but I just do not agree that we need to include the amendments. I thank her for the debate that we have had and I am delighted to note—Hansard needs to record this—that she has taken her ski jacket off, hopefully because she has warmed up.
Mary Creagh
The Minister said that there was nothing to prevent regulators from consulting with other bodies and people of interest, but that is to misunderstand the behavioural nature of large organisations that are set out in the statutory code, which tend to do what they are prescribed to do in statute. The clauses introduce a statutory requirement to consult with business and to report annually on the impact of businesses. By giving the regulator a duty to consult solely with the private interests of businesses while not consulting with the public interests that they are there to protect—of consumers, citizens, stakeholders and civil society organisations—she is putting the private interests above the public interests that the regulator exists to protect. I have made my point. She said that this would be done through secondary legislation. The House will have a chance to discuss the matter in the future and, no doubt, the debate will continue to rumble along. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 15, page 13, line 16, at end insert—
“(iii) of the measures adopted by the relevant regulator to make regulations which have an impact on small businesses more comprehensible, and
(ii) of the measures taken to promote awareness of regulations which affect small businesses;”
This amendment would create a new obligation on Regulators to provide an assessment on how they are simplifying their regulations and ensuring that they report on their efforts to extend awareness of regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 66, in clause 15, page 13, line 16, at end insert—
“(v) an assessment of how the relevant regulator’s regulatory provisions contribute to and improve productivity;”
This amendment would create a new obligation on Regulators to provide an assessment on how their provisions improve productivity.
Amendment 67, in clause 15, page 14, line 6, at end insert—
“(10A) A relevant regulator must give to the Small Business Commissioner any information that the Commissioner may from time to time request which relates to regulatory provisions and their impact on small businesses.”
This amendment would impose a regulatory duty on regulators to provide information on request to the Commissioner, to aid the communication of key issues around productivity to SMEs and regulators.
New clause 19—Report on money laundering regulations—
(1) The Small Business Commissioner shall prepare and publish a report assessing a regulator’s performance and effectiveness at ensuring regulations relating to money laundering are proportionate, user friendly, widely promoted and easily adapted by small businesses.
(2) The report provided for by subsection (1) must include an assessment of the role of the Financial Conduct Authority and its activities to encourage awareness of the impact of money laundering regulations on small businesses.
(3) In this section a regulator is a person with regulatory functions to which section 108 of the Deregulation Act 2015 applies.
This new Clause would require the Small Business Commissioner to publish a report assessing a regulator’s performance and effectiveness at ensuring money laundering regulations are proportionate, user friendly, widely promoted and easily adapted by small businesses. This report must include assessment of the Financial Conduct Authority’s success in its role in encouraging awareness of the impact of money laundering regulations on small businesses.
Bill Esterson
We are all in a hurry to conclude, I am sure. Amendments 65 and 67 deal with the simplicity and accessibility of regulations, specifically placing a duty on regulators to simplify their regulations and ensure that they report on their efforts to extend awareness of them to small businesses. This is a task to be shared by the regulators and the small business commissioner. Regulations get a bad press. The perception of red tape from faceless bureaucrats is pervasive and that is the fault of Governments, of all kinds; they failed to communicate the reasons for regulations, what they did and how they supported businesses.
The Bill is a prime opportunity to take a significant step towards improving the situation, to place a duty on regulators to simplify and explain, and to share this with the small business commissioner so that the commissioner in turn can use their position to raise awareness and understanding among the small business community. The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice said on money laundering in response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman):
“The Government is committed to ensuring that the UK has a robust anti-money laundering regime.”
I am not entirely sure that the rhetoric matches the reality of the situation, but new clause 19 seeks to ensure that the anti-money laundering regime is at least comprehensible and transparent to small businesses. It applies the same principles of simplicity and effective communication that we are trying to achieve for small businesses through amendments 65 and 67 to regulations on money laundering. On the publication of its report, “Don’t Look, Won’t Find” in 2015, Transparency International’s senior advocacy manager, Rachel Davies, said that current anti-money laundering rules represented a “shambolic system”. [Interruption.] I am getting some agreement. As well as coming under fire in the report for lobbying on behalf of the same firms that they regulate, the majority of the 22 regulators publish no information about the fines that they issue. The Government’s first national risk assessment of money laundering found that banks and other financial institutions were at “high risk” of exposure to corrupt funds.
Now is not the time to get into a wider debate about money laundering, Ms Buck.
Bill Esterson
I am glad I got that right. However, it is patently clear that the UK must face up to a serious problem, which includes the way in which anti-money laundering rules are regulated. New clause 19 seeks to ensure that small businesses are supported as much as possible in complying with anti-money laundering rules. For the vast majority of small businesses, anti-money laundering rules are another bewildering set of regulations. While the UK is facing up to these problems, the least we can do in this legislation is to make it as straightforward as possible for small businesses to understand and comply with those regulations.
Let me turn to amendment 66. When we discussed amendment 62, we called for a nominal and monetary tally of regulations to be included in the Government’s business impact target. I acknowledged at the time that, although important for the sake of transparency about the impact of regulations, focusing solely on umbrella financial costs to small businesses was something of a blunt instrument. Amendment 66 therefore goes a step further. Our intention is to address the challenge that policy makers face in assessing the broader impact of regulations on the economy and, indeed, society more broadly.
The burden and benefits of regulation are rarely distributed equitably. The point is that simply talking in terms of the overall financial burden on businesses and couching one-in, two-out or other savings targets in those terms overlooks the different circumstances of the more than 5 million small businesses in the UK. What benefits one may burden another. A regulation that plays to a small business in Manchester or London might make life harder for a rural start-up, or it might have a disproportionate impact on a small business that exports to the EU, and so on.
Current assessments disproportionately measure the direct impacts of new policies. Indirect impacts are harder to quantify, but that does not mean that we should pretend they do not exist. Longer-term impacts are even harder to measure, because the impacts spiral out from the business itself to include the knock-on impact on the wider economy, but that is exactly why it is important to factor them in. Amendment 66 adds that magic ingredient, productivity, into the mix for consideration during assessment. Indeed, much recent debate in the Treasury and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills circles has been about how to improve the UK’s productivity. When we consider productivity and not just cost, we radically change the nature of impact assessments. Instead of monitoring what goes in—that is, the immediate financial impact on small companies—we monitor what comes out: the impact of the regulation on how businesses operate, how they grow and whether they can take on more staff, and, ultimately, the impact on GDP.
Adding productivity takes the blunt instrument of the assessments as they stand and adds a far more nuanced approach. It is an approach that more accurately reflects the complexities of the small business landscape and an approach that ends the strange idea that regulations can somehow be considered in isolation—that they can exist in a vacuum outside the wider economy.
Anna Soubry
The regulators code requires regulators to take account of the needs of small businesses and to tailor their regulatory approach accordingly. The Bill’s new reporting requirement requires regulators to be transparent about the effect that these considerations have had on those they regulate, including small businesses. This will be even more explicit when we develop reporting guidance for regulators. The growth duty will require regulators to consider economic growth fully when regulating, and productivity is part of that.
Bill Esterson
I certainly take the Minister’s assurances on money laundering; perhaps this is something that we will revisit on Report in more detail, but certainly over time we will do so. I agree that it is a far from straightforward matter to resolve.
I will just give another example of the effect of a new regulation when it is brought in and requires an assessment. Of course, that is the new schedule to the Bill on Sunday trading. Sunday trading will have an impact on businesses large and small. Some large businesses want it; some are less keen on it. Many, if not most, small independent retailers particularly benefit from having some kind of competitive advantage one day a week, and they are extremely worried about the negative impact of a change in the regulation of Sunday trading, as are workers who will have to work more on Sundays; as are families, who will be affected; and as are faith groups and others, who see the special nature of Sunday being affected.
It is a good example of some of the much wider impacts of a change in regulation, which go way beyond the immediate financial impact on businesses. Clearly, some larger firms plan to gain by cornering yet more of a share of the retail market by trading longer on Sundays, but I cannot see the argument for the idea that there is more to spend just because it is spent on a different day. All that will happen is that less money will be spent at the smaller independent retailers if the larger ones can benefit. That is therefore a good example of the need to consider the wider consequences and shows that the amendments have particular resonance, given the Minister’s proposals for later in our deliberations.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. He has just alluded to the point that I was going to make. He will probably want to discuss that when we reach clause stand part, because we will debate those very points, doubtless at some length, as we have made extra time available for that in Committee. Those items will be tackled, and I will make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that there is more to this than he just outlined.
Bill Esterson
I was hoping for something more from the Minister, but we will not have more time in Committee.
Bill Esterson
We have been given more time on Report, unless the Minister is giving us another day in Committee, and he tables such a proposal when we come back next Monday week. That would be unusual because we have to finish, according to what has been passed in Parliament, two weeks today at five o’clock.
The Chair
Order. I call the Minister, but may I urge that the debate returns to the subject of the amendment?
Brandon Lewis
Absolutely. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. To allow the hon. Gentleman to return to the key point, I repeat that the subject will be debated in Committee, and the timeline has been agreed through the usual channels to ensure that there is good time to discuss the matter in Committee as well as on Report.
Bill Esterson
Indeed. Honesty from the Minister—I like that.
I would have more sympathy with the Minister for Housing and Planning if the proposals had been made a little earlier than the evening before the Committee started, but there we are.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Despite the attitude of Conservative Members, mumbling, “Get on with it”, my hon. Friend is making an important point. There has not been sufficient time to consider the significant changes and their ramifications, which my hon. Friend is setting out. He rightly says that they have wide-ranging implications that need proper consideration.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank her for reiterating the point.
Amendment 65 seeks to ensure that there is an assessment of whether there is a simplification. Several amendments have emphasised the need to consider properly and report the impact of changes in regulations. The strength of feeling, particularly about Sunday trading and changing the rules in the way in which the Government propose in the new schedule, shows the need to take great care. The change is considerable and it will have a profound effect throughout the country, and between the regions and the nations of the United Kingdom. It is regrettable that the proposal was not introduced in the Lords, as the measure is a Lords Bill, and earlier so that people were aware of it before Second Reading, and that we did not have longer to look at the new schedule than last Monday, on the evening before it was tabled.
Catherine McKinnell
Does my hon. Friend have a proper understanding of why the amendments came so late in the day? Have the Government explained the lateness of their addition to the Bill?
Bill Esterson
I am as much in the dark as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North on this matter, as I am on so much that the Government do. Perhaps the reasons will emerge when we debate—
Bill Esterson
The Minister is in fine form today—when we get to that point, eventually, in two weeks’ time. That question can sit and await answer from the relevant Minister when we deal with the new schedule. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 16 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Extending the primary authority scheme under RESA 2008
Anna Soubry
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 19, page 17, line 40, leave out “Welsh ministerial” and insert “devolved Welsh”.
This amendment, amendments 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 and subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause inserted by amendment NC2 replace references in the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, and in the amendments made by the Bill to that Act, to a Welsh ministerial matter with references to a devolved Welsh matter. Subsection (4) of the new clause inserted by amendment NC2 defines a “devolved Welsh matter” so that, in addition to Welsh ministerial matters, it also covers matters within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 2 to 18.
Government new clause 1—Power of Welsh Ministers to apply regulators’ principles and code of practice.
Government new clause 2—Devolved Welsh matters.
Government amendments 23, 24 and 26 to 28.
Anna Soubry
I do not anticipate that the proposals will be in any way controversial. In any event, these are important amendments because they ensure that the Bill accurately reflects the devolution position relating to Wales. That is why we are putting them in the Bill. References to the Welsh devolved competence within the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 are currently technically inaccurate, referring to Welsh ministerial competence only. Amendments 1 to 9 and new clause 2 rectify that by adding a reference to the competence of the National Assembly for Wales. New clause 1 is similar: it ensures that the power to make orders relating to the regulators’ code is divided between Welsh Ministers and the Minister of the Crown along the lines of devolved competence. Amendments 10 to 18 extend the new enabling powers on business rates appeals to Welsh Ministers.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Minister is explaining that from the Government’s point of view, these are technical amendments. Will she confirm that the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government are satisfied that the amendments are both necessary and appropriate?
Anna Soubry
Yes. They have been tabled at the request of the Welsh Government and therefore, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] He is putting his thumb up, and rightly so. They are technical, but they have been done at the request of the Welsh Government and I am sure that they are absolutely right to make that request, which is why we hope this is uncontentious.
Bill Esterson
The assurance the Minister gave about the Welsh Government’s request was certainly what we needed. It is a shame that Ministers do not accept requests from us in here when we try to amend things, but we live in hope.
Anna Soubry
I do not have anything to say to that. It would be a first if we all agreed on everything—actually, there are times when we agree, and that is wonderful. It would seem that this is such an occasion.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Bill Esterson
The clause will extend the primary authority scheme, which was introduced by the Labour Government in 2009. It provides greater regulatory consistency and certainty to businesses that operate in local authority areas by creating a statutory partnership between multi-site businesses and a primary authority. The primary authority acts as a co-ordinator of other local authority enforcement activity in relation to that business. The initial roll-out of the primary authority scheme saw a good uptake and support from business, professional bodies and local authorities. It is a splendid example of regulation working well in practice and benefiting business, the wider community and the wider economy, thanks to the previous Labour Government—we can all agree with that.
The primary authority scheme improves levels of compliance with regulations at a local level by providing small business with information about regulations and reducing the financial burden of compliance with them. It is an excellent model; it extends a friendly hand to businesses and regulators. It was created in response to problems caused by inconsistencies in regulatory interpretation between different local authorities, which led to a real challenge for businesses operating across a number of local authorities’ areas. The primary authority scheme overcame that challenge and confusion and gave businesses greater confidence to expand beyond the boundaries of their local authority.
When the primary authority scheme was created, the OECD said that it was a “potentially far-reaching innovation”. It is regulation done well. It finds a balance between business and regulators, works with businesses to ensure compliance is as easy and affordable as possible, and offers councils the flexibility to account for local circumstances where there are discrepancies between their use of regulations and that of neighbouring councils.
We broadly agree with the extension of the primary authority scheme set out in clause 19, but I do not want the Minister to think that she enjoys our unqualified support. A helping hand to small businesses in the spirit of pragmatism and flexibility is good, but let us not take it out of context. In fact, we must bear in mind the context throughout our debates, particularly when we discuss the small business commissioner. The entire Bill is an example of the Government giving with one hand and taking away more with the other. The primary authority scheme will help small businesses to access affordable regulatory compliance, but on every other front they face an onslaught and a whittling away of the Government support they need to get started and contribute to the local economy.
Let me give some examples. The Government axed the Business Growth Service, the Manufacturing Advisory Service and the growth accelerator programme. The growth accelerator programme alone assisted more than 18,000 businesses. A great deal of the £100 million in finance that it helped small and medium-sized enterprises to raise went into helping local businesses in their very earliest stages. The Government converted Innovate UK grants into loans and took up to 58% of the budgets from the very local authorities that the clause tries to help businesses work with—the 58% is from Liverpool, my neighbouring authority.
The Government give a fair impression of wanting to make life easier for businesses with the extension of the primary authorities scheme, but although we support the scheme we are acutely aware that it pales into insignificance in the face of the sheer scale of the withdrawal of support for small businesses in recent years. If the Government wanted to help businesses, they would not have completely shut down the long-term dividends to the economy of many of the discontinued schemes that were already beginning to deliver, including the ability of local authorities to help through economic development, which is disappearing due to the scale of cuts. The change has been made for the sake of scraping together the short-term cuts that the Chancellor wants to achieve his political aims, which has not helped local businesses or local economies.
Anna Soubry
Of course, as has been identified by the hon. Gentleman, the clause extends and improves the hugely successful primary authority scheme. I pay tribute to the last Labour Government for creating the scheme. Some will say that it is one of the few things that they actually did that was of any benefit to anybody, but that would be cheap.
Anna Soubry
It was a very good idea. I pay particular tribute to those local authorities that are primary authorities. In my experience, they do an outstanding job. Early access to regulatory advice helps businesses to get things right first time. Enforcing authorities can also better target their resources. The clause gives national regulators a role in supporting the provision of advice to businesses. I will say no more than that, because if I did, I would be wasting the time that we hope to devote to Sunday trading.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 20
Public sector apprenticeship targets
Kevin Brennan
I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 20, page 35, line 29, at end insert—
‘(2A) An apprenticeship target shall specify what proportion of the number referred to in subsection (2) is to be applied for apprenticeships for people—
(a) who have been looked after children, and
(b) people with disabilities.’
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 73, in clause 20, page 36, line 16, at end insert—
‘A9A The Secretary of State’s duty to promote participation of people with disabilities in apprenticeships
(1) The Secretary of State shall encourage employers to take positive action to promote disabled persons to take up approved apprenticeships by using the provisions at sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010.
(2) The Secretary of State shall review and revise periodically apprenticeship standards (such as Trailblazer Standards) prepared under Schedule 1 of the Deregulation Act 2015 to remove any unnecessary barriers which have or would impede disabled individuals from reasonably successfully completing their apprenticeships.’
Kevin Brennan
My apologies to the Committee for my voice and any coughing or spluttering as I am suffering from a heavy cold, and it sounds like other colleagues on the Committee are, too. We now move on to part 4 of the Bill, but may I first say what an intense and extraordinary pleasure is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck, in your first appearance on the Panel of Chairmen—or chairpersons? How fortunate we are to have you in the Chair.
Like the Minister, this topic does not normally fall within my current list of responsibilities, but having been the Minister for apprenticeships under the previous Labour Government between 2009-10 and having presided at that time over a large expansion in the number of apprenticeships started and completed, I hope that I can be a passable, if imperfect, substitute for my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), who leads on such matters in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Opposition team.
We support the expansion in quality apprenticeships, which was begun under the Labour Government at a time when apprenticeships had reached a low ebb following the rapid de-industrialisation of the economy in the 1980s and 1990s. We welcome the fact that the coalition Government wanted and this Government want to continue that trend, which is why these measures are in the Bill. Of course, such matters are largely devolved and the clauses and amendments that we are discussing relate principally to England, but they play into similar policy directions being pursued by the devolved Administrations, as we will discuss when considering later amendments.
This first group of amendments to the clause is intended to tease out further the Government’s thinking on apprenticeship targets for public bodies, particularly in relation to disabled people and people who have been looked-after children. As colleagues will know, looked-after children do less well at GCSE than their counterparts. They often miss out on parts of their education for a variety of reasons, which might include chaotic family circumstances or a history of abuse within the family. Barnardo’s has said:
“These young people often leave school with few or no qualifications and need alternative options outside of the school environment if they are to achieve their potential. Some need provision that allows them to catch up on what they have missed. These young people also often want the option of practical-based learning that clearly links to a real job.”
That is the issue we are discussing today in relation to apprenticeships.
Amendment 70 would ensure that looked-after children are fully included in the monitoring and take-up of apprenticeships in public bodies. That is particularly relevant for local authorities, although it affects other public bodies too. I praise local authorities for a lot of the work that they have done in that area. I saw some of their excellent work when I was Minister with responsibility for children in 2007-08 under the Labour Government. People who have been looked after by local authorities can often be forgotten when they get a bit older.
Local authorities have a particular responsibility, because when children are taken into care, the local authority becomes the corporate parent. What would any parent who ran a family business, large or small, as an employer want to do in relation to their own children? They would want to ensure that if their children wanted, they could have a role in the family business. I have always felt that because local authorities are the corporate parents, they have a responsibility to consider the employment prospects of children who have had a terrible start in life. In particular in relation to training, apprenticeships and other such opportunities that local authorities can offer, persons who have been looked after should be given primary consideration.
It is right that an apprenticeship target should incorporate what proportion of apprenticeships we should expect to be made up of people who have been looked after. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says about how the Government intend to deal with that issue in relation to their policy on apprenticeships and the amendments that we have tabled to try to draw the Government’s attention to it.
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, and I think his points are meeting with agreement across the Committee. Any parent who ran a family business would like to give a child an opportunity to join it, but if the child wanted other opportunities, any parent would also go to any length to use their contacts and the people they know to try to find those opportunities. The corporate parent—the local authority—therefore has a responsibility not only to use its own means to give opportunities to the children it takes care of, but to use all means available to find other opportunities for them.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is right. The responsibility extends beyond the immediate employment offerings that might be available within a local authority, but given that it is a significant employer, it is a point worth making. Those broader responsibilities, beyond the age of 18 and up to the age of 25, have been extended in recent years for looked-after children as they become adults. It is an appropriate issue to raise when we are talking about apprenticeships, and as I have said, I look forward to the Minister’s response on the targets in this clause that we are discussing specifically.
Catherine McKinnell
I reiterate my full support for my hon. Friend’s suggestion that the least the Government can do at this stage is to monitor the situation, because the corporate parent could and should do so much more for looked-after children.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend emphasises that point with great effect.
People with disabilities feature in both amendments in this group. Too few disabled people or those with learning difficulties become apprentices. In all further education and skills providers in 2013-14, more than 16% of learners disclosed a learning difficulty or disability compared with only 8% of apprentices. In an Ofsted survey, only one provider demonstrated that it had supported an apprentice with dyslexia to pass their functional skills test.
The figures indicate that the proportion of apprentices who have learning difficulties or a disability has actually decreased in recent years, falling from 11% in 2010-11 to 8% in 2012-13. The success rate of all apprentices completing their framework rose from 55% in 2005-06 to 73% in 2011-12. In the same period, the success rate for those with disabilities doing apprenticeships rose from 49.5% to 69.9%. In other words, the differential between the success rate of all apprentices and apprentices with a disability is not very great.
The increase in the completion rate has been broadly similar during that period—it is now up to 75%—and if anything slightly better for disabled people. We all welcome the progress that has been made and the successful completion rates of apprenticeships, which used to be a big problem many years ago. That is all good, but why is the proportion of disabled apprentices falling when there is clear evidence that they can succeed when given the opportunity?
In addition, the environment for people with disabilities to get advice on work, apprenticeships and training has been under pressure. Jobcentre Plus’s disability employment service has a ratio of one adviser providing support to 600 disabled people. That is a key cause for concern and was highlighted in the Work and Pensions Committee’s inquiry in December 2014. In answer to a written parliamentary question in October 2015, the Minister for Employment, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), revealed that the number of jobcentres employing at least one full-time equivalent disability employment adviser had fallen from 226 in 2011-12 to just 90 by 2015-16. That is a real concern.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Obviously, employment and support allowance is there to recognise people who have disabilities and other health conditions but who may, with the right support, be able to find work. I know, having been the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, that whether it is the old incapacity benefit or employment and support allowance, the longer someone is on that allowance, the more the likelihood of them coming off it is reduced. Is it not important that we enable young people with disabilities to get training as soon as possible, so that despite what they have to deal with, they can contribute and give huge value to many employers in this country?
Kevin Brennan
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is crucial that that happens. Like her and, I am sure, other colleagues, I have seen wonderful examples of where the right sort of adjustments are made and taken into account for people with disabilities and learning difficulties, and those people go on to be highly successful in their jobs and careers. They just need extra support and attention to do that.
There is real concern among disabled people that their position is getting worse, not better, at the moment. That is not only a concern for Opposition Members. The Minister was present recently during Business, Innovation and Skills questions in the House when her colleague the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) raised the issue of barriers to apprenticeships for disabled people. While quite rightly praising the Government’s commitment to apprenticeships, he said to the apprenticeships Minister that
“disabled people still face significant barriers. The Alliance for Inclusive Education has raised specific concerns about the requirements for maths and English. Will my hon. Friend the Minister review those concerns and write to the alliance and me to assure us that he is taking all steps to ensure that disabled people can take advantage of apprenticeship opportunities?”
In his reply, the Minister for Skills said:
“This is such an important issue that I hope that I can go one better and invite my hon. Friend to come and meet me, along with the people who have such concerns. I have had other such meetings, not least with my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), on similar issues. It is very important that we get this right.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2016; Vol. 605, c. 777-78 .]
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I, too, spoke with the Minister for Skills yesterday, and he very much reiterated that point. It is very much not the objective to try and put barriers in the way; indeed, there is positive work under way with employers as well, through programmes such as Disability Confident, because often it is not only the schemes that require the investment but the employers too, to get them to take the risk. I have been very much involved in that work through my campaigning with cancer patients, who often end up with a disability owing to the fact that they had the illness in the first place. This issue is therefore important not only to those on the Labour Benches but to those on the Conservative Benches.
Kevin Brennan
May I praise the hon. Lady for the work that she has done in that regard? It is extremely important that we get this right—she is quite right—and that is why I pose the question in tabling these amendments: why are the rates going down at the moment? That is what the figures are showing. We need to look at that carefully. This bit of the Bill is about targets for apprenticeships, but there is nothing envisaged to ensure that disabled people and those who have been looked after are specifically referred to in the targets. That is what I am trying to tease out.
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, but it is also important to look at both national and regional statistics, to ensure there are no regional disparities. I know that, generally, the apprenticeship start figures are suffering quite significantly in my constituency compared with the national average, yet I do not have the statistics for disabled people, and I worry that that would be more marked because of the barriers that are currently in place. We should be careful not to take a blanket approach—we should look at geographical differentials as well.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we have a target and the statistics, we can do a deep-dive down into them to see whether there are any regional or local anomalies and try to get to the root cause of them. Earlier I was talking about looked-after children and people who have been looked after. We all know that in the past there have been deep disparities between the performance in different parts of the country on looked-after children. Often, that very much depended on the leadership given at a local level, often by elected members, who took a particular interest in the children under their care.
In 2012 there was a comprehensive review—the Little and Holland review—entitled “Creating an inclusive Apprenticeship Offer”. It was a report commissioned by the apprenticeships unit, which works across the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The aim was to give an informed and up-to-date description and analysis of the issues related to the inclusion of people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities in the apprenticeship programme. The report made 20 recommendations, including clarifying funding to support apprentices with a learning difficulty and/or disability; raising the awareness of providers and employers of funding sources, such as Access to Work and Access to Learning; the promotion of on-the-job support through job coaching and mentoring; the review and better monitoring of the self-declaration process, so that under-representation by specific groups can be addressed; and the removal of barriers to access and completion in the form of qualification requirements. The Government seem to have been slow in implementing those recommendations. What assurances can the Minister give us in relation to those 20 recommendations that were made by the Government’s own apprenticeships unit in its 2012 report?
The Government already have targets to increase the proportion of black, Asian and minority ethnic apprentices by 20%. The concept of targets in relation to under-represented groups is not novel. The Government are also aware of, and perhaps understand, the perennial problem of gender gaps in the number of boys and girls, or men and women, taking up apprenticeships, but also in the types of apprenticeships in different sectors that are taken up by men and women. So it makes sense to expect the Government to do the same for people with disabilities and for care leavers.
I hope the Minister will give us a clear indication of the Government’s thinking in this area so that we can make a judgment on how seriously they intend to ensure that apprenticeships will be accessible to and taken up by disabled people and those who have been looked-after children.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I realise this is EVEL, so I will keep my comments brief. Generally, I support the principles of amendments 70 and 73.
Kevin Brennan
This is a Union Parliament and the hon. Gentleman is entitled to have his say on any matter before us, whether it is England-only or not, or indeed an international matter. I encourage him to say as much as he wants.
Alan Brown
I welcome that intervention, if the Committee agrees that I should talk much longer, but, given the time I will keep my comments brief.
I support the principles of amendments 70 and 73. As well as being equality-based, they tie in with the UK Government’s objective to reduce the welfare bill, so it is important to set targets and engage with the groups that have been mentioned. The Scottish Government have published a modern apprenticeships equalities action plan, which sets targets for black and minority ethnic people and gender balance, as well as for care leavers and people with disabilities. That ties in with the comments made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West. I urge the UK Government to make progress on wider equality.
On the levy and the fund to expand the apprenticeship scheme, we are still awaiting clarification on how the Scottish Government’s share and allocation of the apprenticeship levy will be calculated. For us, that is important going forward so that we can plan how we will support and supplement our existing apprenticeships scheme. I hope the Minister will address that.
Anna Soubry
I will deal with the apprenticeship levy when we get to the relevant part of the Bill.
The debate has been very good. The hon. Member for Cardiff West made very good points, and there have been interventions from the hon. Lady—the right hon. Lady; I have to be careful—the Member for Don Valley and from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds. Important points have been made, and I will take away all that has been said.
It is right that there should be no barriers for anybody with any disability, whether they are somebody who has had the great misfortune to suffer from a cancer that has rendered them in some way disabled, someone with a physical disability, or somebody who has special needs. There should be no barriers for anybody, whatever their background might be, especially those who have not had the kindest and easiest of starts in their lives. We are all agreed about that.
Kevin Brennan
I thank the Minister for her response and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for his contribution. My concern is that although we have these debates from time to time and there is rightly a degree of cross-party agreement, my experience, and I think that of many hon. Members, is that it is not enough to hope that things will happen just by having these debates. We have to ensure that there is enough grit in the system to make this issue a priority and make sure that action is taken.
I accept the Minister’s pledge that she will take the debate away to cogitate and reflect on what has been said, and perhaps to look into it in a bit more depth. I understand completely that Governments are reluctant to have too many targets, because we do not want to lose the focus on the essence of a policy, but dealing with disabled people and looked-after children, and ensuring that they have the opportunity to play a full part in society, are some of the wicked areas of politics. They deserve extra attention and extra effort by Opposition spokespersons, Ministers and—dare I say it?—civil servants to look into whether some sort of harder target would be of genuine public policy benefit in trying to make a difference.
Catherine McKinnell
I, too, warmly receive the Minister’s assurance that she will look into the matter. She set out a whole range of very positive developments and activities that the Government are focused on to improve outcomes. I would have thought it would be in the Government’s interest to monitor some of the figures, particularly under clause 70, to show the benefits and trends of the changes and to enable them to assess whether those changes are working or others might be necessary.
Kevin Brennan
As the Minister says from a sedentary position, my hon. Friend makes a good point, and one that I think the Committee would agree with. We need to think about why, apparently—perhaps this is not right, and the Minister will tell us differently—there is a trend that seems to show a decline in the percentage of apprenticeships being taken up by, for example, disabled people. Perhaps that is a statistical blip, but we need to dig a bit deeper to find out what is going on. Is it the case that in the appropriate desire to make sure apprenticeships are of a high standard and quality, which we all support, there may be insufficient reasonable adjustments, as required by the Equality Act 2010, to make them accessible to disabled people? Let us take a good look at that.
I welcome very much the fact that Ministers have agreed to meet the Alliance for Inclusive Education, or Allfie as the Minister rightly said it is known as. I welcome the fact that it will be able to put its perspective directly in front of Ministers. The 20 recommendations she and I referred to were not Allfie’s but those of a Government body. She did not elucidate in great detail on what was happening about the recommendations and I wonder whether, following the Committee stage, she will write to its members about the Government’s progress in implementing those 20 recommendations. I am happy to give way if she is willing to indicate that she might do that.
Anna Soubry
The meeting has not taken place, so I cannot give a promise to the Committee. It may well be that for whatever reason the meeting does not have conclusions or things that come out of it that will accord with our timetable, but if there is any update, we are more than happy to share.
Kevin Brennan
I am not asking the Minister to report on a particular meeting that has not taken place. I am asking her to clarify something for members of the Committee. I completely understand why she might not have the answers at her fingertips, but what progress has been made since 2012 on the 20 recommendations of the Little and Holland review, “Creating an inclusive Apprenticeship Offer”, which was commissioned by the Government’s apprenticeships unit?
I would have hoped that it would be straightforward for the Minister to agree to write to members of the Committee if she is unable to give us the information during our proceedings today. Progress on those recommendations is pertinent to this group of amendments, and it should be easily within her ability to agree to write to members of the Committee to tell us about that. Can she give us an assurance on that? I am not asking her to write about a meeting that has not already happened; I simply ask for her to write to the Committee telling us what progress has been made on the report by the apprenticeships unit. She is not indicating that she wants me to give way, although she is within her rights to come back again.
Kevin Brennan
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that. In my experience, it is always important to ensure that everything is on record. It does not usually require pulling teeth to make that happen, but I am extremely grateful to her for agreeing to provide that update. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Kevin Brennan
I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 20, page 36, line 25, after “of”, insert “full-time equivalent”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 72, in clause 20, page 36, line 31, after “of”, insert “full-time equivalent”.
Kevin Brennan
These are probing amendments to get on record the Minister’s position on counting public sector employees by full-time equivalent, rather than just by headcount. Measuring by full-time equivalent would ensure that any mandatory target for a public sector body set by the Secretary of State reflected the actual size of the workforce.
A simple staff headcount in local authorities inevitably includes a huge number of part-time roles—up to 60% in many cases. That should be reflected in local authorities’ reports to the Secretary of State when fulfilling the requirements set out in new section A9(4) before the Secretary of State sets an apprenticeship target. If that is not done, the target that is set may be too high and may not represent the actual workforce. It could also mean that there will not be adequate numbers of staff to support the apprenticeships and apprentices effectively. In other words, if council A has 2,000 employees, half of whom are part-time, it would not be fair to give it the same target as council B, which has 2,000 employees, all of whom are full-time.
In addition, will the Minister clarify whether local authorities should be allowed to include apprenticeships generated in their supply chains? Local authorities have been raising issues in relation to the targets with Members and Ministers. Councils believe that being allowed to include those apprenticeships would make the target still ambitious, but more realistic. What is the Government’s position on that?
Will the Minister clarify whether the local authority target will be based on the number of people working in schools, or whether schools will be responsible for and monitored on their own target? Further to that, will there be a distinction between maintained schools and academy schools, which are public sector entities in that they are taxpayer-funded, but have a different status, particularly in England?
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister can give the Committee a cast-iron assurance, on the record, that the Government will not seek to meet their apprenticeship targets by ignoring any distinction between headcount and full-time equivalents. I look forward to receiving that assurance.
Anna Soubry
The clause provides for information about employees, as we know, and there will flexibility in how it is implemented. We have used headcount numbers for illustrative purposes in the consultation document, as that information is already publicly available for the majority of public bodies, but we have asked in the consultation whether full-time equivalents should be used instead of headcount. We will publish the results of the consultation in the Government response, and we will set the matter out in regulations to be debated in both Houses later in the year. To add to the clause now would be to pre-empt the results of the consultation, which may be used as the headcount, but in any case there is provision in the Bill to require further information if it is needed.
On supply chains, I am told that the answer is no. It would mean that the public sector could pass on the targets to the private sector. We do not think that would be the right thing to do, as it would defeat the whole purpose of the process, which is for the public sector to provide apprenticeships. We are concerned that such a change would just shift the duty and the responsibilities away from the public sector, where we are seeking to place them.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a question about schools. I do not have an answer for him, so I apologise for that, but of course I will get an answer and provide it to him.
I hope that response satisfies the hon. Gentleman, other than the fact that I cannot give an actual answer to his question about schools, but I will provide it.
Kevin Brennan
I wonder whether some inspiration might arrive by the time I finish my remarks; I am just cogitating on that for a moment.
I take the Minister’s point about the consultation. Personally, I would have thought that it would be a missive from the department of the bleeding obvious that the full-time equivalent should be used rather than the headcount, because, as I pointed out in the example I gave, it would be utterly meaningless to set a target based on headcount if there was a massive difference between two identically sized councils given the number of part-time and full-time employees. I hope that I am right in saying that, and that this will become a diktat issued by the department of the bleeding obvious when the consultation is concluded.
Anna Soubry
As if by magic, the answer to the question on schools is that it is in the consultation document, too. So it is out to consultation.
Kevin Brennan
We look forward to hearing the result of the consultation, and I presume that that will also potentially be subject to further consideration by both Houses in the form of a statutory instrument at a later date.
Kevin Brennan
I sense that that is the feeling, judging from the nod by the Minister.
I accept the Minister’s point about supply chains; it would be quite wrong if local authorities were somehow able to transfer their responsibility to meet their apprenticeship targets to the private sector. The valid point might be that local authorities could have a significant part to play in promoting apprenticeships in the private sector, via their supply chains and particularly via their procurement policies. Of course, local authorities these days procure a great deal of services, often from the private sector, and this is an opportunity that should not be missed.
I will not press that point further at this stage, but I hope that the Minister will consider my observation about the provision of apprenticeships in local authorities’ supply chains. It would be a positive move that could encourage the creation of apprenticeships in the private sector and encourage local authorities to use procurement and their use of private sector contracts to help to create more apprenticeships.
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I advise the Government to give proper consideration to the potential unintended consequences of placing upon local authorities a target that is perhaps difficult to meet. It might encourage local authorities to keep services in-house when they could find better cost value in outsourcing. I do not think the Government would want to encourage that, so they should probably bear that in mind when they draw up the regulations and as part of the consultation.
Kevin Brennan
It is extremely helpful that my hon. Friend has put that point on the record. Given the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Anna Soubry
I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 20, page 36, line 25, after ‘employment’ insert ‘in England’.
This amendment ensures that the information published by a public body for which an apprenticeship target is set includes information about the number of persons who are employed by the body in England at the beginning of the reporting period.
Anna Soubry
These are minor and clarifying amendments in keeping with the policy intent. The apprenticeship targets for public sector bodies apply in relation to their workforce in England only. The amendments clarify that when prescribed public bodies provide information about their workforce, they should do so in relation to their employees in England.
Amendment 68 agreed to.
Amendment made: 69, in clause 20, page 36, line 31, after ‘employees’ insert ‘employed in England’.—(Anna Soubry.)
This amendment ensures that the information published by a public body for which an apprenticeship target is set includes information about the number of persons who are employed by the body in England at the end of the reporting period.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Brennan
Opposition Members are proud of the work that was begun and done by the previous Labour Government, who, as I mentioned earlier, rescued apprenticeships from the scrapheap and revitalised the apprenticeship programme, boosting apprenticeship starts from 65,000 in academic year 1996-97 to 279,700 in 2009-10. It was a revolution, and we are pleased that it has been carried on by subsequent Governments. It was that Labour Government who set up the dedicated National Apprenticeship Service to promote and expand the apprenticeship scheme, and who launched the first National Apprenticeship Week in 2008 and introduced the right for a qualified person to an apprenticeship, which was unfortunately removed by the coalition Government.
Of course, as the shadow Secretary of State said on Second Reading, there is little explanation from the Government as to how local government and other public bodies, which have been subject to deep budget cuts, will easily be able to expand the number of high-quality apprenticeships that they can offer at a time when they are having to reduce their staffing because of central Government policy. Even the Prime Minister’s mother would understand that point.
Kevin Brennan
As my right hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, his auntie would quite certainly understand, too.
The Government have had to set up the slush fund that we heard about this week to placate their own MPs, who are complaining about cuts to local government funding in their areas. The Government have set a target of 3 million apprenticeships by 2020. We want apprenticeships to continue to expand, but what we do not want—and I do not think the Government want this either—is for this to degenerate into a “never mind the quality, feel the width” philosophy. The quality of apprenticeships is of paramount importance, so I hope the Minister will give us her assurance that the Government will be vigilant on quality as numbers expand, and that she will explain how public bodies, including local authorities, are to meet the target when they are subject to such brutal financial pressures from central Government.
Anna Soubry
I will not respond to everything that has been said. Our local authorities are more than able to fulfil their target. On Second Reading I gave the example of my own borough council, which has gone from having three or four apprenticeships a year to an absolute target of well over 20 a year. As the council is often keen to remind me—I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning here from the Department for Communities and Local Government—it does not have one of the best settlements among local authorities. Notwithstanding that, it has been able to more than exceed any target in its determination to provide apprenticeships.
We were concerned that low-quality courses that did not meet the requirements of a statutory apprenticeship would dilute the apprenticeship brand. We are fully aware of that, which is why we are so keen to create an offence for a person in the course of a business to provide or offer a course or training as an apprenticeship if it is not a statutory apprenticeship. That is how seriously we take the matter, and it is one way in which we are determined to ensure that apprenticeships are all the things that people would expect them to be.
Of course, we know that one of the most important groups of people when it comes to apprenticeships is parents. As parents, we care deeply about what our children choose to do, and I will be brutally honest with the Committee that there was a real problem under the last Labour Government, when there was a rush to go into higher education and university. If someone’s child did not go to university, they were seen in some way as a failure. That was palpable nonsense, and I say that as the mother of one daughter who went to university and another who did not. It is fantastic, brilliant and wonderful to go to university—it is a fabulous time of one’s life—but if someone does not go to university, they should not be regarded in some way as a second-class citizen.
I always use the example—my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North is here, and she will know what I am about to say—that if a youngster in my constituency gets an apprenticeship at Rolls-Royce, although it does not lie within my constituency, it is seen as being as good as any university course at the finest of our excellent and outstanding universities. They are remarkable opportunities for young people and, as we know, some of those apprenticeship courses have a duration of some seven years.
Caroline Flint
The Minister makes an interesting point about universities. I was the first in my family to go to university; my brother and sister both left school at 16 and went to work. Does she agree that it was perhaps a mistake under a Tory Government to get rid of polytechnics? Through polytechnics, there was much greater scope to raise the level of vocational education and of professions across all sorts of areas—people had a clear idea of what they were going into. In some ways, the merging of polytechnics and universities was to the detriment of vocational education.
Anna Soubry
That is very interesting, but I will not spend too long on it. The right hon. Lady and I are as one. We have a common background, because both my brothers left school at 16 and went into the world of work, and neither of my parents went to university, either. I was the only one who went to university, so I can say this, because it was a Conservative Government who got rid of polytechnics and a Labour Government who did not do anything about it. We are equal. I agree with her that there is a good argument that it was a mistake to get rid of the polytechnics. I always think of Trent Polytechnic in Nottingham, which was an outstanding polytechnic which offered exceptional courses with a vocational twist. Having said all that, I will look at Derby University, Lincoln University, Nottingham Trent University and Nottingham University—[Interruption.] Yes, I know I am straying off the point, Ms Buck.
All those universities are excellent, and we need to understand that almost any opportunity we can offer our children is wonderful, but we should not discriminate against those youngsters who do not go to university, which has happened, and I am delighted that we are addressing that imbalance.
We have made an absolute commitment to deliver 3 million apprentices. I am helpfully reminded by my excellent Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby that information in a House of Commons Library note shows that there were fewer than 300,000 apprenticeships at the end of 2010 but that—here’s a thing—in 2011-12, there were well over 0.5 million apprenticeships.
Kevin Brennan
I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 21, page 38, line 40, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State will ensure that regular reports on enforcement action or proceedings for offences taken by local weights and measures authorities are delivered to the Board of the Institute for Apprenticeships.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 75, in clause 21, page 39, line 11, at end insert—
“(11) The Secretary of State will ensure there is suitable and regular liaison with the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the implications across the UK arising from the definition of statutory apprenticeships in Clause 21 on—
(a) the development of the Institute for Apprenticeships, and
(b) other measures on apprenticeships in this Act which have UK wide implications.”
New clause 20—Institute for Apprenticeships—
(1) The Secretary of State will establish an Institute for Apprenticeships which shall put in place transparent mechanisms for the approval of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans, and maintain clear quality criteria.
(2) The Institute will use data on the take-up of apprenticeships by employers and the wage returns to apprentices to review the effectiveness and quality of standards over time.
(3) The Institute shall submit their standards and assessment plans for approval to the Secretary of State.
(4) The Board of the Institute shall be broadly based, to take into account the experience and contribution of all interested parties, which will include—
(a) employers,
(b) further education providers and colleges,
(c) universities,
(d) relevant trade unions, and
(e) local authorities.
(5) The Board of the Institute shall have due regard to the equality implications of their role and functions, and in particular, that in the frameworks and regulations they approve, the need to encourage and expand opportunities for apprenticeships for BAME, people with disabilities and care leavers shall be prioritised.
(6) The Board of the Institute shall prepare a report to Parliament twelve months after the Institute comes fully into operation on the Institute’s activities and progress and thereafter annually, which will include—
(a) responses to any conclusions and recommendations of the select committee with oversight of the Government Department responsible for apprenticeships,
(b) an assessment of the adequacy of its funding and resources from Government,
(c) a report on the progress made in accrediting apprenticeship frameworks, and
(d) a report on the progress made in increasing the opportunities for disadvantaged groups to access apprenticeships under the frameworks.
Kevin Brennan
Of course, the expansion that the Minister referred to in the stand part debate on the previous clause was achieved by converting Train to Gain trainees over the age of 25 into apprenticeships. That was a very clever statistical sleight of hand. I congratulate the Government and the Minister’s PPS on giving us those statistics, although I had to ruthlessly deconstruct them for the Committee’s benefit.
Following Second Reading of the Bill in the Commons, the Minister wrote to my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills outlining a number of amendments that the Government intended to table for debate in Committee. Many of these late additions to the Bill—which, after all, is more than halfway through its parliamentary journey—refer to other parts of the Bill. Earlier, we heard about the new clause on Sunday trading that the Minister tabled, and which we will debate later.
The Minister signalled in her letter to my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State her intention to amend the Bill to establish a new independent body, the institute for apprenticeships. We support that concept and proposal but, despite the Bill having gone all the way through the House of Lords and despite the fact that the Minister wrote to the shadow Secretary of State on 2 February—some nine days ago—I understand that the Government have not been able to find the time to draft the amendment that we were promised in her letter in time for our discussions on this part of the Bill.
Ms Buck, you will be aware, having served as a Minister and as a shadow Minister, of the difference in the level of resources available in government and in opposition even before the Chancellor announced his intention to cut further the money available to Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to do their vital work in holding the Government to account, which is why we had the urgent question in the Chamber this morning. There is simply no comparison to be made—as we both know, Ms Buck, as former Ministers and shadow Ministers—between the support available to Ministers in the Government and the meagre rations that the Opposition have to exist on. Ms Buck, as an avid music fan, you will appreciate the aptness of the line from the song “Sit Down” by James:
“If I hadn’t seen such riches I could live with being poor”.
Given that the Minister has not been able to get her amendment in on time for this part of the Bill, despite having the Rolls-Royce service of the civil service available to her, we have tabled new clause 20, which sets out a statutory framework for the new institute for apprenticeships. We welcome the Government’s recognition of the need for a more substantial body to oversee apprenticeships. We have taken the initiative to move forward with the institute proposal, which was in the “English Apprenticeships: Our 2020 Vision” report.
We tabled new clause 20 to establish the institute for apprenticeships and spell out how it could operate. The first three subsections of the new clause set out the institute’s role. Subsection (4) relates to the composition of the institute’s board. It cannot be emphasised enough how essential it is for the board to have wide-ranging representation, including all key components of apprenticeship creation and delivery. That is not only a matter of dry process. If the institute is to have people’s confidence, it will need to command that confidence, so it must have a broad-based make-up.
The Apprenticeship Delivery Board announced by the Prime Minister in January, which is tasked with advising the Government on how they can achieve their target of 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020, is made up of members who are all able people, I am sure, but who are drawn from a relatively narrow section of business—with, incidentally, only one woman among their number. There has been no role thus far for others such as further education providers, universities, trade unions, local authorities or, for that matter, any British manufacturers in the Apprenticeship Delivery Board as far as I can see.
It is therefore crucial that the remit and board of the institute for apprenticeships are broadly based. The board must have at its heart employers, and especially small businesses. It also requires input from a broader-based background of further education providers, colleges, universities—especially given the crucial role of higher skills and degree apprenticeships—and relevant trade unions, which have key experience to offer in this area.
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend makes a good point; I have been listening with interest. This is surely evidence, if evidence were required, of the cocktail and canapé circuit we were talking about on Tuesday. Does he agree that if we are to ensure apprenticeships are the stepping-stone to further and higher-level educational qualifications, it is imperative that advanced engineering, advanced manufacturing and, in particular, transport and construction providers are part of that board? If we fail to do that, we will not enable people who are going into those careers to progress to the highest levels and we will be reliant, as we have been in many transport and civil projects, on bringing people in from other countries.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. I am personally more of a beer and meat pie circuit man.
The people who make up the Apprenticeship Delivery Board all seem highly eminent; I am not disputing that at all. We have the chief executive of Channel 4, the head of apprenticeships at Barclays Bank, someone from the City of London, the chairman of Sun Mark Limited and people from the Compass Group, Fujitsu and Wates Construction. I am sure they are all perfectly eminent people, and as I said, one of them is a woman, but there should be a broader base to the group if we are talking about apprenticeships, particularly from manufacturing and trade unions. If we are going to make real progress, we need a partnership approach to the provision of apprenticeships. That means all of the people who are charged with trying to get apprenticeships up and running and delivering them should have some involvement. That is the broader point I am making.
Mary Creagh
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative we have someone to represent the FE and college sector, perhaps from the Association of Colleges, the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education or the open college network? A variety of training providers offer ongoing lifelong education, often in partnership with trade unions, to ensure that people who perhaps missed out on apprenticeships at the start of their life have access to ongoing adult education. It is important that older learners are not excluded from the career progression that an apprenticeship provides.
Kevin Brennan
Yes, I do think that, but I am not sure the Government do. That is why we have phrased new clause 20 on the institute for apprenticeships as we have. I will be interested to hear the Government’s view on the issue that my hon. Friend laid out.
Catherine McKinnell
To reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, it is very important that there is a partnership model between the FE sector and the employers who will be employing the apprentices, particularly because of the levy that the Government are talking about imposing and how that will work practically. From talking both to employers and the FE sector, I understand that there is a lot of uncertainty about how the proposal will work, but that they will have to work in partnership, so it would make sense to have a partnership at every level of that relationship.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is right to point out that uncertainty. Nevertheless, everybody wants to try and make it work, if this is going to be the approach towards the funding of apprenticeships in future. I am sure that will only happen if the kind of partnership that she has outlined forms part of the Government’s thinking, which is, again, why we are pursuing this issue in Committee. The reason for concern is that in seeking to defend their decision on the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, Ministers have started to reveal how they envisage the institute for apprenticeships working, even though they have not yet tabled amendments to the Bill on that—I understand that they may do on Report—and in doing so, they have started to reveal how relatively narrow a base they envisage there being in drawing up the board.
On 4 February 2016, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) asked the Minister for Skills, who has responsibility for apprenticeships
“for what reasons the responsibilities planned for the proposed Institute for Apprenticeships could not have been undertaken by the existing UK Commission for Employment and Skills.”
The Minister answered on 9 February:
“The role of the Institute for Apprenticeships…will be very different to the current role and remit of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills...The IFA must be able to make decisions independently of Ministers and hold direct operational responsibility rather than act in an advisory capacity. This will require different governance arrangements, with a small Board led primarily by employers and business leaders to steer the processes and decisions that are made. The IFA will assume functions that Government has so far undertaken in relation to apprenticeship standards and assessment plans and will operate in the context of achieving three million starts by 2020.”
Whether we are going to see anything more than the very narrow base we have seen in relation to the Apprenticeship Delivery Board, which I referred to earlier, depends on how the word “primarily” in that answer is interpreted. If the institute for apprenticeships board is drawn from a narrow pool without regard to those who provide apprenticeships and who represent the workforce, it is less likely to succeed. It does not have to be unwieldy or bureaucratic—that is not what is needed—but it must be sufficiently broadly based in order for it to work effectively.
New clause 20(5) refers to equality provisions and the institute. We have debated that area to some extent on earlier amendments. The Government have to find a way to prioritise disadvantaged groups and their access to apprenticeships. Black, Asian and minority ethnic and disabled groups have recently been disproportionately affected by policies such as the withdrawal of maintenance grant funding, which the Government’s own impact assessment stated would put those groups at a disadvantage. The Government have also conceded that disabled people would be disproportionately affected by the decision not to protect in real terms the value of disabled students’ allowances. However, Government have at the same time committed to increasing the proportion of BAME apprentices by 2015 and to reducing barriers, and they should be looking to do that for other under-represented groups, which is why we have included that in new clause 20. We also need assurances that the appropriate resources and capacity are going to be available to the new institute for apprenticeships, hence the provisions in subsection (6)(b).
Mary Creagh
I am very surprised to hear that. I remember that during the horse meat scandal one of the big problems was that there were not enough trading standards authority officers to go round and do the job, with an enormous amount of testing and enforcement activity in terms of human health and environmental health, and food testing and technology. That was in 2012, or 2013, and I would be surprised if the number of those trading standards officers had risen since the horse meat scandal. This measure that we are discussing is an example of the Government putting an extra burden on local authorities at a time when their budgets have been cut across the piece over the past five years by about 30%.
Kevin Brennan
I hate to refer back once again to the days when my hon. Friend and I were radiant with lawful power, but as a former Consumer Minister I was in charge of the trading standards at one point; it was one of the many different responsibilities that one has as a Minister, from time to time. I can confirm that what my hon. Friend said is right and that trading standards officers are already severely stretched.
It is a serious and valid point to ask the Minister how she can ensure that those officers will have the adequate resources to carry out these additional tasks that we are discussing, when they are already struggling greatly to deal with all the additional responsibilities they have, and the challenges of the new forms of consumer—
Kevin Brennan
Fraud that is going on—exactly—and we now know that such fraud is going to form a huge part of the crime statistics in the future. It is causing great problems and is very difficult to investigate. So it is imperative that the requirements of trading standards in this area are achievable, effective and proportionate, as our colleagues in the other place said during the passage of the Bill in the Lords.
The new institute for apprenticeships must play a part in ensuring that capacity is available to enforce new accreditation. However good a job trading standards officers do, and many local ones provide an excellent service, all local authorities in England, in the shape of trading standards or public protection standards, have had their ability to supervise and enforce weakened by the Government cuts. That is why we need to keep a close eye on how effective this mechanism proves to be, and why we have tabled this particular amendment.
Mary Creagh
The penny is dropping in all sorts of places. Basically, is the idea that people who currently go round checking bakeries and doing health and safety checks, and monitoring safe working practices in warehouses and checking when there are falls from height and those sorts of issues, are now being expected to regulate the quality of apprenticeships? I can see that these are people who are already going into employers’ areas, but they are looking for very different things compared with an Ofsted-like person or a skills person, who would look at evidence of learning progress, qualifications acquired and progress towards learning targets, rather than safe working.
Obviously, we want safe working for these apprentices—there is no doubt in my mind about that—but I am not sure that trading standards is the best regulatory authority to ensure the quality of workplace-based learning.
Kevin Brennan
My understanding is that the Government intend that trading standards will enforce the new frameworks for apprenticeships, and perhaps the Minister in her response can outline how exactly that will work.
Catherine McKinnell
I have a query. The way in which the Bill has been presented has prevented a huge amount of scrutiny from taking place prior to this Committee starting. Is it correct that the trading standards inspections would take place only in training providers and not where apprenticeships are supplied in-house by employers? I would be grateful for some clarification either from my hon. Friend or the Minister on that point.
Kevin Brennan
I think that is for the Minister to clarify, but it is an extremely valid point.
Turning to amendment 75, as I alluded to earlier we need to ensure that the changed apprenticeship landscape is simple to understand and clear to cross-border employers and providers, particularly as there is the potential for confusion in relation to the devolved Administrations’ apprenticeship policies. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be affected by the changes in clause 21, but they will not be able to have their say. That is clearly pertinent to the apprenticeship levy, which plays into the Bill.
The comments of the devolved Ministers in The Times Educational Supplement on 4 February have resonances for the Committee. With the Committee’s indulgence, I will quote some of those comments. Julie James, the Welsh Deputy Minister for Skills and Technology said:
“We have been very clear from the outset that the Welsh government has serious concerns about the apprenticeship levy and the impact it will have on the apprenticeship system here in Wales…I welcome the opportunity to discuss our shared concerns with the UK’s other skills ministers.”
Roseanna Cunningham, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training, said:
“It encroaches on our devolved responsibilities and is causing concern for employers. The UK government has no control over how our administrations provide apprenticeships and to imply otherwise by collecting what amounts to an employment tax is misleading for any employer with operations outside England.”
Stephen Farry, the Minister for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland, said:
“Along with my ministerial colleagues from Scotland and Wales, I am concerned that the imposition of the apprenticeship levy could have unintended consequences for the devolved administrations.”
That underlines why we believe that there needs to be a regular process, so that the devolved nations of the United Kingdom can feel that the Government discuss things with them, rather than do things that impact upon them without considering the consequences in advance or taking reasonable steps to consult. I would very much welcome the Minister’s response on that point. That is the purpose of amendment 75.
Anna Soubry
The necessary clauses on the institute for apprenticeships were tabled this afternoon. Given that we are about to go into recess, Her Majesty’s Opposition will have plenty of time to consider the new clauses, but I am very hopeful that there will be an outbreak of agreement, especially given that both sides agree that it is a good thing to do. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to go into all the detail, because we are not at that stage yet. Once the Opposition have had the opportunity to look at the institute for apprenticeships, I am sure that they will welcome that wholly independent body, which will not be overly prescribed by this place so that it turns into a talking shop. It has to be an institute that delivers.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Ms Buck. Given that the Government tabled the amendments this afternoon, should we not finish debating clause stand part? The amendments will become unstarred by the time the Committee returns after recess, which would enable us to debate them in Committee, rather than on Report.
The Chair
I understand that if they are tabled today, they will be unstarred by the time we come back after recess.
Anna Soubry
Excellent. The institute for apprenticeships will be independent. It will scrutinise and then approve or reject standards and assessment plans. It will carry out quality assurance of assessments, and is expected to carry out functions in relation to funding cap allocations.
Mary Creagh
I do not know whether the Minister had a hand in the appointments to the apprenticeship board, but will she explain why blue ribboned providers such as Jaguar Land Rover, Airbus and British Aerospace—high-prestige apprenticeship providers that have been doing this for decades—were not invited to be part of the board? I wonder why that is. Why is not the national health service on it? Is it only for private sector providers? The NHS is a very large employer with an ageing workforce, so it would certainly want to bring people in on health and social care apprenticeships. I wonder why it is excluded as well.
Anna Soubry
The institute will be funded from the apprenticeship levy. It is going to be small, lean and mean, and it is going to do the job. It will have people on it who are best placed to ensure that it carries out quality assurance of assessments and that the standards that are necessary in apprenticeships are absolutely there.
Anna Soubry
No, not yet. Sorry. We were making good progress. There are a lot of things that we agree on, but I am afraid that the Opposition are really showing their true face here. It is the old, state-heavy way of doing things. If they want to do something, they have to prescribe everything in a long, long list, and there has got to be this body and that body—[Interruption.] Hang on. What matters is that we have a rigorous, independent group of people who can get on and do the task that is required. The institute will have enough of a budget to ensure it can do that. The other thing that is important for us all to understand is that, because it applies only to England, the devolved Administrations have been fully involved in setting up the institute. That was the right thing to do. We have done all these things in full consultation with and with the agreement of the devolved Administrations.
Mary Creagh
I just want to clarify something. I was not suggesting that those employers should be set out on in the Bill or any such thing. I was merely asking why there are some notable omissions—including engineers from British Gas, electrical apprentices and apprentices in the transport industry—in the selection of the individuals on the board. Some people have been doing this for years, and some of the people on the board are newer to the apprenticeship world. I think a mix of old and new might have been more useful. I just want to ask about the qualification level. Will it be measured against other international standards for apprenticeships?
Anna Soubry
I simply cannot answer some of those questions—I am not going to pretend that I can—but I know what we seek to achieve. We will create the institute—a sufficient amount of money for it will come out of the apprenticeship levy—and it will be absolutely independent. Why on earth would we not want the very best on it? That is what we are absolutely determined to have, and that is what we absolutely will have. But it must not be a talking shop in any way, shape or form. It has got to involve the people who best know about this and have the abilities, qualities and the desire to be involved in it. We must ensure that we have the quality of apprenticeships that we demand as a modern, efficient country, and that is exactly what it will provide. I must say that I do not think it is as controversial as some might think, because the devolved Administrations have certainly been fully involved. Regarding Amendment 74, clause 21 places a requirement on the local weights and measures authority, which is not a difficulty. On amendment 75, clauses 20 and 21 apply to England only, and the devolved Administrations have been fully involved. That is all I have to say.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Ms Buck. Before I respond, can you clarify whether, following the news that the Government have today tabled new clauses, a new schedule and an amendment relating to proposals for an institute for apprenticeships and should we complete the clause 21 stand part debate today, there will be an opportunity to discuss and scrutinise the Government’s proposals before the proceedings on the Bill are complete?
The Chair
My advice and understanding is that there will be an opportunity to have a debate on the Government proposals relating to the institute.
Kevin Brennan
Thank you, Ms Buck.
Looking at my hon. Friends’ faces, I do not think that Opposition Members have been particularly impressed by the Minister’s outlining of the Government’s policy, but we eagerly await discussion of the changes tabled today, which the Government were unable to bring to us beforehand. Subject to appropriate progress on the Bill, we will have such an opportunity before the completion of the Bill Committee, which will end at 5 pm on the final day of our proceedings after the recess. Looking again my hon. Friends’ faces, I think they would welcome such an opportunity. We will try to assist the Government in the creation of a little bit of extra time during the rest of our proceedings to have at least a proper kick of the tyre of the proposal for an institute of apprenticeships. It seems not quite as comprehensive as our proposal.
Anna Soubry
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are in broad agreement? We both want this institute to be created, but the essential difference is that ours will be truly independent. Other than that, I really do not think that there is any difference between the proposals for something that we all want.
Kevin Brennan
I would not agree that our proposal does not seek a truly independent institute. Independence is a point of agreement, so I am surprised that the Minister is not accepting new clause 20 today. However, I accept that, generally speaking, the Opposition have their say and then the Government have their way if they can produce a majority. As Disraeli once said:
“A majority is always the best repartee.”
The Minister unfortunately does not have to prove her argument because of the nature of the Government having a majority. However, when dealing with such legislation, it is important that the Government are able to explain their proposals and are able to bring them forward so that we can properly scrutinise them, which is our job, and have the Government prove their case. We will want to have a proper look at the Government’s proposals when they are down in writing.
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend is a poet and does not know it—[Interruption.] It is late in the day. May I, through him, encourage the Minister to consider some of the Government’s big investments, such as High Speed 2 and the new rail college, which will be located in and around Doncaster near the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley? I think there might be another skills site in Birmingham, so how will that feed in? Hundreds of apprenticeships will be created in those two centres of excellence over the next few years. I am keen that the Committee considers how both Government and private investment can be maximised so that we get the best possible bang for our buck from the new institute.
Kevin Brennan
I hope that we will get that opportunity.
The Minister asked me whether I will give way, so I am happy to do so if she still wants to intervene.
Kevin Brennan
In which case, given that we are going to return to the subject, I will not press new clause 20.
I am unsure whether we have had a satisfactory response to all the amendments that we tabled in this group, but, for the sake of making progress, I will not pursue the Minister further at this point. If there are any outstanding questions regarding amendments 74 and 75 relating to trading standards, about which hon. Members were genuinely concerned, and the devolved issues, will the Minister agree to write to the Committee with further responses in order to save time at this point in our proceedings? I am looking to her for any indication. That might save us having to ask more questions at this stage and get her back on her feet to respond.
Anna Soubry
I thought I had answered everything in relation to amendments 74 and 75. If I have not, I am quite happy to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Kevin Brennan
I will check the record and if I have not heard her properly, I will say so. If I feel that there are any concerns, perhaps the Minister will, as she has agreed, respond to them. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Stephen Barclay.)
Westminster Hall
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Persecution of Religious Minorities: Pakistan
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims and other religious minorities in Pakistan.
The cornerstone of the Ahmadiyya Muslim faith is its belief in peace and religious tolerance for everyone. Its motto is:
“Love for all, hatred for none.”
However, as we speak, that very same peaceful community continues to be persecuted on a daily basis in Pakistan and elsewhere. It is the only religious community to be targeted by the state on the grounds of faith. In Pakistan, Ahmadis cannot call themselves Muslims and are prohibited by law from voting as Muslims. That state-sponsored persecution has been enshrined in the country’s constitution since 1974. On top of that, Ahmadis are openly declared as “deserving to be killed”, with neither the state nor civic society willing to stand up for them against extremists. Perpetrators are given free rein to attack Ahmadis, safe in the knowledge that they will not be prosecuted for their actions.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. I take this opportunity to praise Mohammed Salim and other members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association who do so much for our community in Warwick and Leamington.
Does the hon. Lady agree that if Pakistan expects to grow its economy exponentially, it needs to address these serious humanitarian concerns and, in particular, the Pakistani Government’s failure to legally recognise the Ahmadiyya Muslim community?
Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)
That intervention went on a bit long. Let’s get them a bit shorter.
Siobhain McDonagh
I completely agree with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White). It is a thriving, well-educated community that has much to give Pakistan, and it will do so if given the freedom and opportunity.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Although the debate is rightly focusing on the persecution of the Ahmadis in Pakistan, will my hon. Friend find a way to raise with the Minister the concerns that the Ahmadiyya community has about the way it is treated in Bulgaria and Indonesia, where similar problems exist, albeit not on the same scale as in Pakistan?
Siobhain McDonagh
I agree with my hon. Friend. I will talk about Indonesia, but not about Bulgaria. It is surprising that that country should have an issue of this sort.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way for a third time. I am pleased to hear that she will come on to the subject of Indonesia, particularly given what has happened in Bangka in recent days. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Ahmadiyya Muslim community for its work in relation to the floods. Ahmadis have gone up in large numbers to support the communities affected.
Siobhain McDonagh
The community activities of the Ahmadiyya community in the UK are extensive, and I am sure that every Member here will have a different example of something that it has done for their own and other communities.
In the past few years, hundreds of Ahmadis have been murdered on the grounds of their faith. Eleven were murdered in 2014 alone. This year, a vigilante mob targeted an Ahmadi family in Gujranwala, setting their home alight and killing three family members: a grandmother and her two little grandchildren. No arrests have been made, and Pakistani news channels refused to air bulletins about the incident. It is quite shocking to think that the persecution the community faces is enshrined in Pakistani law.
It is a criminal offence for an Ahmadi to call themselves Muslim, refer to their faith as Islam, call their place of worship a mosque, or say the Islamic greeting, “Peace be upon you”. That is punishable by imprisonment, a fine or even death. Those laws are a clear denial of basic human rights for Ahmadi Muslims freely to profess and practise their faith without state interference or persecution. The laws specifically against Ahmadiyya Muslims also undermine the constitutional right of Pakistani citizens to practice freedom of religion. The state’s laws have emboldened other states and extremists to harass, attack and kill Ahmadis. The persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims operates in many complex ways, as does the persecution of other religious minorities, which I hope we will explore in this debate.
Ahmadis are denied the right to vote—they are disfranchised unless they declare themselves non-Muslims. They remain the only disfranchised group in Pakistan. Indeed, the Electoral Commission of Pakistan has further institutionalised the disenfranchisement. It has decided that Ahmadis can be permitted to vote only under a separate register, and by self-identifying as a non-Muslim minority and therefore by denying their faith. While Ahmadis are registered on a separate electoral register, all other communities—whether Muslim, Sikh, Hindu or Christian—are listed on a unified joint register. The requirement of Ahmadis to deny their faith in order to vote has caused their disfranchisement from Pakistani politics for more than 30 years. Worse still, the separate Ahmadiyya electoral register is publicly available, making it much easier for extremists to target Ahmadis.
Ahmadis are also denied the basic right to a fair trial. The vast majority of the terrible offences committed against Ahmadis go unpunished. It is crucial to note that no prosecutions have been brought for any of the killings of Ahmadiyya Muslims. On top of that, Ahmadis are increasingly being charged and tried for terrorism offences. Take the elderly Ahmadi optician from Rabwah, Mr Abdul Shakoor. Mr Shakoor has been tried and convicted, and imprisoned for five years, under Pakistan’s anti-terrorism act, on false charges alleging the sale of an Ahmadiyya commentary on the Holy Koran. Pakistan’s anti-terrorism legislation was introduced to curb the rise of extreme sectarian violence in the country. It is extremely distressing to learn that that same legislation has been used to convict a 70-year-old member of one of Pakistan’s most peaceful religious communities.
Another example is Mr Tahir Mehdi Imtiaz, who is an editor of an Ahmadiyya monthly publication. Mr Imtiaz was arrested by police in March 2015 on false charges. This time, it was under Pakistan’s infamous blasphemy laws. Although the prosecution was unable to provide evidence that Mr Imtiaz had included blasphemous materials in his publications, judges in the Supreme Court of Pakistan rejected his pleas for bail prior to trial. That was because the judiciary still fear being viewed as being lenient on Ahmadis—anti-Ahmadi sentiment pervades society. To this day, almost a year since his arrest, Mr Imtiaz is still incarcerated with no prospect of bail or a trial date in sight.
Both those Ahmadi men have been arrested and imprisoned on false grounds as a result of the discrimination that is entrenched in Pakistan’s justice system. I am sure that Members will join me in hoping that the UK Government will call on the Pakistani Government to release Mr Imtiaz and Mr Shakoor immediately. Will the Minister outline what the FCO is doing on those two cases?
Mr Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the immediate responsibilities of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but given that the aid budget to Pakistan from the Department for International Development is heavy, and that DFID has many opportunities for influence too, does she not agree that there needs to be a co-ordinated, cross-Government démarche to the various levels of the Pakistani Government, both at state and federal level?
Siobhain McDonagh
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I was having just that discussion the other day with the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who expressed his concern that aid is being given to Pakistan but the issues of the Ahmadiyya community are not being resolved.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I am listening with interest to the point she is making. The coalition Government set up an advisory group on freedom of religion and belief in the Foreign Office, which was a welcome initiative. Does she share my disappointment that that group has not been re-established since the general election, and that it seems it is no longer a priority?
Siobhain McDonagh
I am sure my right hon. Friend had a great input into that initiative. Perhaps the Minister will address the issue of re-forming that group under this Government in his speech.
The Ahmadiyya community is also denied the right to religious freedom and expression in Pakistan. On orders from the united religious clerics board, all works by that religious group are now banned in the region of Punjab. That includes books, CDs, periodicals and newspapers, and it means that hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Ahmadi Muslims in Punjab face police searches, criminal charges and up to five years in prison. Those texts are all religious, and their censorship is totally unjustified.
In contrast, the “Tohfa Qadianiat”, written by an anti-Ahmadi cleric, instructs readers not to leave a single Ahmadi alive on earth. That publication is freely available; it seems censorship does not apply to vehemently anti-Ahmadi texts. Sadly, Ahmadis are also the target of several religious extremist groups, the foremost of which is the Khatme Nabuwwat, whose sole purpose is to eradicate Ahmadi Muslims. Last year, it declared that
“it is Jihad to shoot Ahmadis in the open”.
I am sure hon. Members will share my shock that this organisation is a registered charity in the UK, despite the fact that its Pakistan counterpart has clear links with violence. I hope that the Minister will address that issue later this afternoon.
In addition, preachers of anti-Ahmadi hate are spreading their repellent messages within our own UK borders via satellite TV and the internet. Ofcom has already fined several TV channels, including the Ummah Channel, Takbeer TV and DM Digital, for broadcasting anti-Ahmadi hatred. Such an overspill of anti-Ahmadi sentiments is extremely concerning, because it is very difficult to police the incitement of hatred and violence against Ahmadis online and across borders. The situation needs continuous monitoring here, and the UK Government need to be mindful of anti-Ahmadi hatred pervading their own borders. We do not want vile anti-Ahmadi messages to spread within the UK.
Siobhain McDonagh
That is a very good suggestion. The situation here needs continuous monitoring, and the UK Government need to be mindful of anti-Ahmadi hatred pervading our borders.
Many Ahmadi Muslim mosques across Pakistan have been sealed, and minarets have been demolished by police under pressure from extremists. Indeed, in May last year, the district court in Chakwal ordered the minarets and arch of the local Ahmadi mosque to be destroyed. Ahmadis are even denied dignity in death. Their graves are frequently vandalised, with any reference to Islam removed.
Anti-Ahmadi sentiment also pervades Pakistan’s civic society. The Pakistani Urdu press continues to publish fabricated stories that incite violence towards Ahmadis. This propagates the idea that Ahmadis are the root cause of problems in Pakistan. In 2014 alone, at least 2,000 such reports were published. I do not need to remind hon. Members how such publications and stories entrench and normalise discrimination. Meanwhile, Ahmadi students face systematic discrimination in schools and educational institutions. This discrimination even extends to the literature that students use. For instance, one Sindh textbook teaches children that Ahmadi Muslims are evil and suggests that anyone who is or becomes Ahmadi is worthy of being killed. The effect of these examples means that anti-Ahmadi discrimination is entrenched beyond generations.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and I congratulate her on securing the debate today. She mentions textbooks. The Department for International Development places great emphasis on educating children in Pakistan. Perhaps the influence of the UK Government could be brought to bear on the aid that is given specifically to education?
Siobhain McDonagh
That is certainly something that DFID should look at. I am aware of grants being threatened because textbooks that contain difficult and discriminatory messages are used.
The situation in Pakistan overspills its borders and has resulted in many Ahmadis fleeing to seek refuge. Many have fled to countries such as Thailand, where they live in extremely difficult conditions to escape the persecution that they face in Pakistan. However, the community is being let down in Thailand, too. Just last month, the Thai Government arrested and arbitrarily detained more than 45 Ahmadis and are now seeking to deport them back to Pakistan, where they will inevitably face persecution and even violence. This group includes women and very young children, some of whom have been recognised as refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. They are being detained in terrible conditions. This is despite the fact that Thailand has responsibilities under UN conventions. But it seems that the Thai Government have forgotten the extreme dangers that Ahmadis face if they are returned to Pakistan, a country they have fled in fear of their lives. I look forward to the Minister addressing this point and outlining what the UK Government are doing to urge Thai authorities to permit Ahmadi refugees to stay until the UNHCR completes its due process.
Within our own borders, the situation is similarly bleak. Despite overwhelming evidence demonstrating the persecution and targeted violence faced by this community in Pakistan, the UK is currently in the process of deporting Ahmadi asylum seekers. This contravenes the UK’s own guidance issued just last year. I am sure hon. Members will join me in being absolutely appalled by the Home Office seemingly accepting the terrible risks faced by Ahmadis who openly practise their faith in Pakistan. I hope that the Minister will agree that this position urgently needs to change.
At the same time as the Ahmadi community flees persecution in Pakistan, it faces more and more persecution in other nations, as the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) mentioned, in places such as Bangka, Indonesia. Just last Friday, Ahmadis in this region were forcibly evicted from their homes by the police and military authorities as a result of extremists putting pressure on local authorities. Ahmadis were given an ultimatum to either renounce their faith or be forced to leave, and the objections made by the Indonesian Home Minister against the evictions were ignored. Ahmadi families were evicted while mobs who were delighted to see them go cheered. Not only is this example distressing in itself but it is likely to trigger other such forced evictions, increasingly making Indonesian Ahmadis refugees in their own countries.
So what can be done about the terrible persecution faced by this peaceful community? In Pakistan, the situation sadly remains bleak. Despite the many ongoing human rights abuses, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif stated last month,
“I am the Prime Minister of all of you...And it is my duty to help everyone. If anyone is a victim of brutality, no matter what religion or what sect he belongs to, my duty is to help him.”
Meanwhile, article 20 of Pakistan’s constitution guarantees freedom of religion. The country is also a signatory to the UN charter of human rights, which makes it obligatory for the Government to safeguard the fundamental rights of all without any discrimination, whether it is based on religion, faith or belief, but it is clear that Pakistan is systematically failing to uphold the human rights of all its citizens.
The ongoing persecution of Ahmadi citizens undermines Pakistan’s progress and its development, and stores up huge problems for the future stability of the country. Furthermore, the state’s policies allow extremism to flourish, which threatens the security of Pakistan itself, the UK, and of course the rest of the world. What is also clear is that the international community has a moral responsibility to act and apply pressure on Pakistan to abide by international conventions and treaties in order to uphold the human rights of all.
I hope that this debate will inspire the Minister to reflect on the UK’s stance on those issues. The Government must raise the issues of corruption and anti-Ahmadi laws, which allow extremists to target and murder Ahmadis. They should put pressure on Pakistan to rid itself of its discriminatory anti-Ahmadi laws, and encourage the Pakistani Government to grant the peaceful Ahmadi community the right to worship, the right to justice and a fair trial, and the right to practise their religion without fear of persecution, discrimination or violence.
Mr Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend is rightly focusing on the difficulties relating to the Ahmadis’ human rights in Pakistan, but many other religious minorities in Pakistan are under the same pressure. Christians, Hindus and other Islamic groups also face persecution, which is clearly tolerated at the federal state level, where the Pakistani authorities also need to take action.
Siobhain McDonagh
I completely agree, and I hope that other hon. Members will talk about the problems that other religious groups in Pakistan face.
The Government should be vocal in addressing the situation of the Ahmadi communities in Thailand and Indonesia. They should think about how to guarantee that UK taxpayers’ money will not be used to promote intolerance and extremism in Pakistan. Finally, they should look closely at the UK’s borders and the unfairness of our asylum processes, which are failing Ahmadi asylum seekers who have fled violence and persecution and forcing them back to Pakistan.
Ahmadi Muslims are peaceful and peace-loving, and they give so much to their communities. I am proud that the Borough of Merton is the UK and worldwide headquarters of the Ahmadi Muslim community, which makes an incredible contribution to the richness and diversity of our area. The Baitul Futuh mosque in Morden is the largest mosque in western Europe. The community’s impact on this country is inestimable. It has raised more than £2 million for British charities and makes regular collections for the Royal British Legion’s poppy appeal. It uses its mosques as blood donation centres and has raised 1,000 units of blood in the past year. It feeds 30,000 homeless people each year and has distributed the peaceful teachings of Islam to 5 million UK homes.
Hon. Members should be proud to represent constituencies with an Ahmadi population. We in this House have a responsibility to do all we can do to give the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims the international visibility it deserves. I hope this debate will inspire the Minister to take meaningful action to ensure that the UK plays its part in promoting freedom of religion in Pakistan and across the world.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who made an excellent speech.
The Ahmadis have suffered greatly and have been subject to numerous attacks, even during Friday prayers. The vicious brutality of those attacks is magnified by the Ahmadis’ belief in love for all and hatred for none. How can we ensure that Pakistan’s beleaguered minorities receive the help they desperately need? One way is for Members to read and send to those in authority the report that the all-party group on international religious freedom or belief will publish shortly.
Just a few weeks ago, the APPG took evidence in a number of hearings that revealed the systematic and widespread persecution of religious minorities in Pakistan. It heard harrowing personal accounts from Christians, Ahmadis and others who have watched loved ones murdered in a culture of impunity. It heard the story of Pakistan’s last remaining Jew and was moved by the bravery and courage of so many in the minority communities. Lord Alton of Liverpool, who chaired those hearings, said:
“We hope that the Report which will emerge from this evidence will force our policy makers, along with those of other Governments, to reassess the way in which we engage with Pakistan.”
The report, which will collate the evidence gathered in those hearings, will be launched in Parliament shortly and sent to the relevant Government bodies, parliamentarians and members of the International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief, which now operates in nearly 60 countries. Recommendations will be sent to the Home Office officials in charge of setting country guidance—I am glad to say that they attended the hearings—and those who look at options for asylum seekers. We hope the report will bring about tangible change in the UNHCR and to the Home Office’s approach to the minorities that face persecution in Pakistan and seek asylum. The report will show that, in today’s Pakistan, minorities—including Ahmadis, Sikhs, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims from the Shi’a tradition—face relentless violence, profound discrimination and, in some cases, outright persecution.
Hon. Members may be interested, and I hope touched, to know that the brother of Shahbaz Bhatti—Pakistan’s outstanding Minister for minorities, who was murdered four years ago—spoke in this very room on this subject, only a few weeks ago. Dr Paul Bhatti, a medical doctor, said,
“Since almost the last two decades Pakistan has been facing a series of challenges with religious discrimination and persecution, sectarian violence, economic crisis, political instability and terrorism. Despite anti-terrorism reforms, promotion of religious freedom, support of the international community, and precious sacrifices that have been made”—
not least by his brother, who spent 28 years of his life promoting interfaith community relations—
“we still face the cruel and harsh realities of violence against the weak and voiceless people of our community…We want this Pakistan, without any discrimination among people of diverse faiths, where weak and oppressed feel safe and respected: as the father of our nation Muhammad Ali Jinnah said, we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state. This is the path we are following indicated by Shahbaz to see our beloved country where there’s no discrimination between Majority and religious minorities (Shiites, Sufi Muslims, Isma’ili, Ahmadis, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Baha’i). Each of us is on a road, a religious path to a spiritual destination, a place of consequences and accountability for our choices and actions.”
He is committed, as are many in this place and across the world, to ensuring that Pakistan enjoys peace and stability. He stated in this room:
“I am convinced that religious freedom and education together can be the solution in the actualization of world peace.”
Dr Bhatti’s brother, a Minister in the Pakistani Government, was gunned down. In the hearings that were held a few weeks ago in this place, Members of Parliament heard of the burning alive of a Christian couple in an industrial kiln by a mob in Pakistan. The mob allegedly broke their legs. Rumours had circulated that they had burned verses from the Koran. An NBC News report states:
“Their legs were also broken so they couldn’t run away. ‘They picked them up by their arms and legs and held them over the brick furnace until their clothes caught fire… And then they threw them inside the furnace.’ Bibi, a mother…was four months pregnant”.
Their children were forced to watch. If almost five years after the death of Shahbaz Bhatti the perpetrators have still not been brought to justice, what chance is there that the killers of those two loving parents will be brought to justice? It is right that we cry out in this place today on their behalf and on the behalf of so many others who have suffered.
I turn now to the particular suffering of women of minority faith groups. Much of the rest of my speech will dwell on this topic, because it is important that we, as a Parliament, take note of the issue when the Government proclaim as a priority the promotion of the welfare and wellbeing of women and girls across the globe. It is a genuine priority of the Secretary of State for International Development, and I pay tribute to her personal work in leading the charge to increase support for women and girls in so many countries around the world. Following this debate, I hope that the UK Government and those responsible for disseminating aid in Pakistan will pay particular attention to the plight of women and girls in religious minorities, because they are doubly at risk of discrimination, regardless of the faith they adhere to. They risk systematic abduction, extortion, hijacking, being held for ransom, trafficking, rape, forced marriage, forced conversions, and allegations of blasphemy.
Women and girls face discrimination and marginalisation as it is, but they are subject to further targeting if they are from a minority group. Women are treated as second class, but if they come from a minority group, they are third class citizens. For example, Hindu girls in Sindh and Christian girls in Punjab are abducted, raped, or forced to convert to Islam in the face of extreme pressure, including threats to them and their families. The majority of Christian women in Pakistan are illiterate and hold menial jobs, working in factories or as domestic servants, and face a constant risk of sexual harassment, physical abuse, forced conversion or even death. The Asian Human Rights Commission stated in its report of December 2012 that
“on average some 700 Christian and 300 Hindu girls are forcibly converted to Islam each year…notably in Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh provinces.”
It is interesting that an independent survey in Pakistan cited religious extremism as the greatest threat to the country. District minority committees have failed to review matters, such as personal laws and rules, for minority women’s rights.
While the police are at times complicit in fulfilling the wishes of the local elite, who may be in collusion with extremists, organisations that submitted evidence to the report stated that police in all provinces are gender-blind in cases of forced conversion and marriage. They can often effectively be complicit in such activities, nullifying women’s previous non-Islamic marriages and recognising their forced marriages instead. In cases of sexual assault, rape, and sexual violence, they do not conduct proper investigations and minority women can be re-victimised because police take bribes and do not adequately protect minority women. All of that has been reported to us.
Christian Solidarity Worldwide reports that Christians do not feel safe going to police stations when they have problems relating to unjust blasphemy charges. In October 2015, three Muslim men broke into a deaf Christian woman’s home in Kasur in Pakistan, taking her turns to rape her while the men of the family were at work. Despite such a crime, the lawyer who is defending the woman admits the difficulty of getting the case to court to punish the perpetrators.
The implementation of the Hudood ordinances, laws enacted in 1979 as part of the Islamisation process, has had seriously damaging consequences for all sections of Pakistani society, but women in religious minorities have been particularly targeted and victimised as a result. Notwithstanding the state’s commitment to the non-imposition of an exclusively Islamic code on non-Muslims, the ordinances for the most part control the activities of non-Muslims. Religious minorities remain liable to suffer punishments as gross as physical amputations and whipping for various offences such as theft, and whipping or even death for accusations of adultery.
Christian women, like other minorities, face persecution and discrimination simply because of their faith. The real and present dangers faced by women of non-Muslim faith are much direct and substantial. Hindu women also face difficulties, with key concerns being conversion to Islam, sexual abuse and forced marriage. Problems have increased in recent years, and the volunteer group REAL found that between 20 and 25 Hindu girls were forcibly converted every month. The greatest victims are the Dalits who are kidnapped or lured into conversion, sexually exploited and then abandoned. There is no legal mechanism for the Government to register the marriages of Hindus and Sikhs, causing women difficulties with inheritances, accessing health services, voting, obtaining a passport, and buying or selling property. It is even reported that Sikh families will marry off their daughters at extremely young ages simply to avoid them being abducted, raped or forced to convert.
Considering the risks women and girls from religious minorities face in Pakistan, we must ask what is being done to support them. As I said, they are not just second-class; they are third-class citizens. Taking into account the fact that Pakistan is one of the largest recipients of our bilateral aid, receiving some £1.17 billion in support from the UK between 2011 and 2015, and while recognising that the Secretary of State has given clear priority to support for women and girls across all countries to which the UK provides aid, we must ask whether our aid is being adequately used to support the women and girls who are being persecuted due to their faith. I urge Ministers to review how our aid is distributed in Pakistan to ensure that it does not facilitate further persecution of minority women, and in fact helps to foster an environment of respect, plurality and freedom for women and men of all religious denominations.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I offer my sincere appreciation to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for securing this important debate. In welcoming the debate, I must also highlight the welcome that I received from the Ahmadi community; I felt truly humbled at their hospitable and genial reception. In stark contrast, the treatment of Ahmadi Muslims in some other countries is reprehensible.
In Pakistan, the Ahmadi population are not simply treated with disdain; they are systematically subjected to discrimination that is deeply ingrained in Pakistan’s laws and culture. When a Pakistani Muslim applies for a passport or other identification, they are asked to sign an oath denouncing the Ahmadi faith. In 2010 Mohammed Hanif, a BBC journalist, reported on that injustice:
“Like millions of other Pakistanis, I have signed this oath several times without giving much thought to exactly what Mr Ahmad stands for…I want my passport, and if I have to sign up to a fatwa to get it, so be it.”
The policy also leads to the disfranchisement of the Ahmadi population. There is an entirely separate electoral register for Ahmadis, and if they wish to vote they must deny their beliefs. Our own history has taught us that the principle of universal adult suffrage is an ideal to be upheld. In Pakistan Ahmadis are subjugated and treated unequally, just as women were in the UK in the past century. We must take care not to impose our values on others, but we cannot stand idly by and watch others denied their right to vote, as set out in article 21 of the universal declaration of human rights.
Although Pakistan has made strides towards ensuring parity of esteem for other religions and denominations, the Ahmadis continue to be singled out and marginalised. They are also endangered by such policies. The separate electoral register not only stigmatises but identifies them. Many Ahmadis have been murdered for their beliefs, so government policies that jeopardise their security are tantamount to the authorities being complicit in those barbarous acts.
To put the situation into perspective, about 250 Ahmadis have been murdered since 1984, yet not a single perpetrator has been prosecuted. What are we doing to address that situation with the Pakistani authorities? What, too, are we doing to address the other persecutions to which Ahmadis are subjected? In Pakistan, Ahmadi Muslims can spend up to three years in prison simply for calling their place of worship a mosque. If their alleged offence is considered blasphemy, they can even face the death penalty.
The law is truly designed to suppress beliefs and to designate Ahmadis as non-Muslims. That flies in the face of Pakistan’s obligations as a signatory state of the international covenant on civil and political rights. It committed to freedom of religion for all, but places incomprehensible restrictions on Ahmadis. An example of such repression is that of the publisher of the Ahmadiyya Ansarullah magazine, who was arrested on the false allegation of producing blasphemous material. Tahir was refused bail and has now been imprisoned without charge for the past 10 months.
The shock that we might feel about such cases could be attributed to cultural difference, but it is important to point out that such laws appear to contravene even the constitution of Pakistan, which includes an article that affords the “Freedom to profess religion and to manage religious institutions” to citizens. Yet that freedom continues to be denied. There have been reports of graves being desecrated and burial rights being denied. There have been horrendous massacres at two mosques in Lahore leaving 86 dead. There are reports of arson and other attacks by people riled up by extremist rallies. Ahmadis are denied the right to peaceful assembly, but such hate rallies unfortunately do not seem to be subject to the same restrictions.
We cannot stand by and allow that to go on. As the Minister knows, I am a fierce advocate of global human rights, and I wish to see a firm stance taken by the UK Government. The Ahmadi community in the UK makes an enormous contribution to our society. We owe it not only to them but to ourselves to make an effort to right those wrongs.
In summary, will the Minister inform us in his response whether the UK Government have raised the issue of the voting rights of Ahmadi Muslims with the Pakistani authorities? If not, will he undertake to do so and to promote the principles of universal suffrage against discriminatory policies? Will he call on Pakistan to uphold its obligations as a signatory state of the international covenant on civil and political rights, in particular that on freedom of religion for all?
Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the extent of the persecution in Pakistan? How have the UK Government pushed the Pakistani authorities on the matter of religious persecution? How will the Government use their influence to push the Pakistani authorities further? Will the Government call for an end to the destruction of Ahmadi minarets? Furthermore, will the UK Government push the Pakistani Government to provide protection once and for all to the Ahmadi community, whose banner reads:
“Love for all, hatred for none”?
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing the debate. It a pleasure to serve as vice-chair of the all-party group for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community under her chairmanship. It is good that we have been able to raise these issues in the Chamber today.
My constituency abuts Mitcham and Morden, and our shared border is close to the Baitul Futuh mosque, which it has been a pleasure and privilege to visit on a number of occasions. Some of the people I have met are in the Public Gallery today. Everyone there spoke with composure and in a measured way, despite the extreme circumstances of their fellow believers in Pakistan and, as we have heard, around the world. They have suffered and seen adversity closer to home as well. It was terrible to see the recent fire at the Baitul Futuh mosque, but the Ahmadis bounced back fantastically well as a community. They only look forward. My next visit to the mosque was shortly after the Paris atrocities, and it was wonderful and a real privilege to stand shoulder to shoulder with them to demonstrate exactly what they mean by “Love for all, hatred for none”.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is outlining the role of the Ahmadi community here in the UK. Will he join me in condemning those who have been trying to bring persecution of and discrimination against the Ahmadis to the UK? There have been boycotts of some of their shops and harassment of Ahmadis. Should we in this Parliament make it clear that such activity has no place in this country?
Paul Scully
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Hatred and persecution certainly have no place here in the UK. That is why we need to lead from the front and make that case to the Government and other organisations in Pakistan, as well as around the world. The point is well made.
Mr Gareth Thomas
In a spirit of north and south London solidarity, does the hon. Gentleman agree that another thing that the Foreign Office could do is to raise with Bulgaria the discrimination that takes place against Ahmadis there? Bulgaria is a key European Union ally and one with which we ought to have good contacts, so we could discuss the issue repeatedly until progress happens and the discrimination ends.
Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)
We are getting rather long interventions, which we should not be.
Paul Scully
Bulgaria is an important issue, which has also been raised with me and, I am sure, with the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden when we have visited the mosque in Morden. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for drawing it to our attention, because it is important to put on record our concern about persecution around the world, especially when it is somewhere quite so close to home.
In addition to visiting the mosque and meeting members of the Ahmadiyya community, I am looking forward to the Jalsa Salana in Alton, which is coming up, as is the peace symposium organised by the UK community. I can join them and say, “Salaam alaikum”, to show respect and knowing that people will be able to respond in kind, freely, because what the UK does particularly well is religious tolerance. We always need to work at it and to ensure that we tackle intolerance wherever it arises in this country, but, on the whole, if we compare ourselves to many other countries, we lead the way. That is to be welcomed.
In Pakistan, as we have heard from hon. Members, the blasphemy laws are poorly designed, being very general and wide. That leads to a broad interpretation, which is used to persecute and oppress the Ahmadiyya community. How can it be that in the 21st century we hear examples of people who want to wipe out the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan?
We have heard about how members of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan are unable to vote. They have to declare themselves as non-Muslims and the founder of their religion, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, as an apostate and a liar. How can we stand by and let that happen? We have heard numerous terrible examples of violence and arrests as recently as November 2015, when a factory and several homes were burnt down, and January this year, when a man was killed in Rabwah. That is the centre of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan, so there is no hiding place when there is such wide acceptance of oppression and persecution.
As we have heard, Pakistan is a signatory to the international covenant on civil and political rights, which it ratified in 2010. Two weeks ago, with a number of colleagues, I spent a week in Strasbourg at the Council of Europe, where we talked about human rights closer to home. If discussions about agreements are ever to mean something and it is not to be just a talking shop, it is important that we take a lead and ensure that people who ratify documents adhere to them in everything they do.
We cannot stand by in the 21st century and allow a situation where a simplistic, oppressive set of laws, and the interpretation of those laws, is allowed to affect a community in such a way. I ask the Minister and the Government what the UK can do, alongside the signatories of the ICCPR, to push further on that. What can we do with UK aid to further transparency, and what can we do to use aid for education as leverage to ensure that religion is taught as widely as possible and that we do not have the current situation of textbooks skewed against the Ahmadiyya community, which was mentioned earlier? What can we do to urge Pakistan to restore the right to vote and to repeal blasphemy laws? Finally, can we urge Pakistan to prosecute incitement and hate speech against Ahmadis and religious minorities?
This evening I am travelling to Burma, where I will meet a couple of Rohingya activists. As with any aspect of religion, the Muslim world is complex. When different denominations, sects and groups disagree on fundamental matters such as who was the last prophet and who is the true leader of their faith, it will always be complicated, but that is not to say that we cannot demand and push for greater tolerance so that we can live alongside each other, wherever we are in the world.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak on this issue, and I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for bringing it to Westminster Hall. She has given us an opportunity to participate in a debate on a matter that is close to our hearts and that we wish to express our opinions on. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, and of the APPG on Pakistan minorities. Both groups were started last year and, as an indication of the need for them, the APPG on international freedom of religion or belief has almost 70 members and the APPG on Pakistan minorities has about 20 to 25 members. That indicates the importance of the debate.
We have heard many representations recently. The APPG on international freedom of religion or belief held an inquiry on Pakistan, which illustrated clearly the discrimination against some of the people who are here in the Public Gallery and others whom we represent. The level of discrimination against religious organisations and individuals in Pakistan, such as Ahmadis, Christians, Shi’as, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and Jews, is immense. That was clear to me and to everyone involved in the inquiry. We hope that the final statement on that inquiry will be made by the end of February or the beginning of March.
The state of religious freedom in Pakistan has clearly become completely inconsistent with Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s founding vision to make Pakistan a home for all religions and all religious minorities. It is probably pertinent and helpful to hear a few words from his address to the Constituent Assembly in August 1947, when he said:
“You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in the state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed”.
What a difference between his speech in August 1947 and the realities of February 2016. The wording of the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden asks us to consider the Ahmadiyyas, and other Members have illustrated the issues for them well.
The clear discrimination against the Ahmadiyyas and Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have fostered a climate of religiously motivated violence and persecution focused on those people, who we know well and who the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) referred to as a gentle people, which they are. They reach out to all religions, as we from all religions should all be doing.
Attacks have taken place on the Ahmadiyyas in recent times. On 27 July 2014 a mob of more than 100 people attacked them, setting fire to their homes, and as a result a woman and her two granddaughters died of smoke inhalation and another women suffered a miscarriage. Police said that they had the names of 420 people, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden said, and that charges would be brought against them. Twenty were named, but since then nothing has happened. Therefore people can understand the frustration we feel on behalf of those in Pakistan. The Minister will know that I believe that sometimes we have to be the voice of the voiceless, who need us to speak on their behalf.
From my encounters of what Christians and other minorities experience in Pakistan, we know that the freedoms that Muhammad Ali Jinnah spoke of are not the reality today. There are many cases of church bombings, mob attacks on Christian communities and rape against women and girls, which the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) illustrated clearly. Can we begin to imagine the horror for those people? There have even been attempts at forced conversion and marriage at ages as early as 12 to 14, when it is impossible to take it in.
I am privileged to be the Member for Strangford, where we have good relationships between those of all religious views. We always have had that, even through the worst times of the troubles. We have a mosque in Newtownards, and whenever there has been a focus on the people there in in my constituency, I have made it my business to go and speak to them to reassure them. I met them on a Friday when they were having their service to ensure that they knew their Member of Parliament was going to speak for them, as he should do.
In Pakistan, regardless of which minority faith an individual belongs to, all are subject to similar practices of discrimination or persecution. That is a fact in Pakistan today. The much maligned blasphemy laws have been used as a vehicle for egregious violations of religious freedom against all minorities. The United States commission on international religious freedom says of those laws:
“They inappropriately position governments as arbiters of truth or religious rightness, empowering officials to enforce particular views”.
The Government in Pakistan clearly use that for their own ends. The laws also embolden extremists to commit violent acts against perceived blasphemers. We have seen illustrations in films of people in high positions in some religions violently and aggressively speaking out against other religions. That cannot be allowed to continue. False accusations of blasphemy have served as a pretext to incite violence and permit lynch mobs.
The Shi’a community has experienced a number of attacks as well, one of which left 20 people dead and dozens injured on 13 February 2015. Its mosques have been attacked by militant groups, with a disregard for human life that is of serious concern. More recently, the killing of some 40 Shi’a Muslims in Karachi in May 2015 marked a new low in sectarian violence that has left Pakistan’s religious minorities fearing for their lives. There have been many other attacks on churches and mosques across Pakistan, one of which left 60 people dead. The Pakistani authorities must bring to justice the perpetrators of violence committed in the name of religion in those and many previous attacks through fair trials and without recourse to the death penalty—in other words, they must make the perpetrators accountable under the law, which they unfortunately have not been up to now.
The British Pakistani Christian Association estimates that about 50% of blasphemy charges are against religious minorities. Given the population size, that means minorities are 10 times more likely to be targeted with blasphemy charges. That is the reality. Pakistan’s National Commission for Justice and Peace estimates that out of 1,060 blasphemy cases over the past 25 years, 450 have been against Muslims, 457 against Ahmadis, 132 against Christians and 21 against Hindus. That clearly illustrates the focus of persecution against religious minorities in Pakistan through blasphemy laws.
Although Pakistan is yet to execute anyone charged with blasphemy, mob violence often ensues against the accused. Their families, local communities and lawyers are also targeted. All too often, the blasphemy laws have been used as an instrument for revenge in personal vendettas, property disputes, political rivalries, marital disputes and religious differences. Religion is often used in personal vendettas—“We’ll get them because it suits our circumstances.” It is used for people’s own ends; how can we ever let that happen?
As the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan highlights, other state bodies such as the police are fearful, prejudiced and often—I say this with real respect—incompetent in cases of blasphemy. The police fail to investigate cases properly or follow correct procedures. Incidents have occurred where those accused of blasphemy have been killed by the police or prison guards. Where can we be safe if we are not safe from our attackers in prison, and if we are not safe from the police? That is the reality of life in Pakistan today. That is why this Westminster Hall debate is so important, and why we are so grateful to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden for securing it and giving us the chance to speak on this issue.
I would like to make some comments about the persecution of Christians in Pakistan. The hon. Member for Congleton outlined some examples, and I would like to add to them. There was the case of the Christian road sweeper from Lahore who was sentenced to death by hanging after accusations of blasphemy following an argument among friends. He has not been hanged but has been fined 200,000 rupees. There was the case of the woman sentenced to death on 8 November 2010 under section 295C of Pakistan’s penal code for allegedly insulting the Prophet Mohammed during an argument with a Muslim lady. A price was put on her head.
There was the case of attacks on churches in Lahore that left 14 people killed and another 70 injured. There was the attack on a church in Peshawar, where some 80 people were killed. All those things are added to our other concerns, such as the fact that young Christian and Hindu girls are forced into marriage at the earliest age. There was also the case of the late Punjab governor, Salmaan Taseer, who was killed by his own official police guard for criticising blasphemy laws. The killer was revered by thousands around Pakistan. What is wrong when that can happen?
With the rise of mobile communication technology, individuals’ photographs can be easily obtained and shared with affiliate extremist groups where perceived blasphemers are suspected to have fled, so there is often no safe haven whatever within Pakistan. Pakistan’s continuing refusal to reform or repeal the blasphemy laws creates an environment of persistent vulnerability for minority communities, placing all members of such communities in real risk.
One of the most brutal spates of violence, to which the hon. Member for Congleton referred, was against a Pakistani couple on 14 November 2014. Shama Bibi and Shahzad Masih were lynched and burned to death in a brick kiln by a crowd of some 1,200, who were incited to violence by a false rumour—and it was false—that they had committed blasphemy by burning pages of the Koran. Although there were some arrests, most of the mob got away, and there is a strong suspicion that those who were arrested and charged will be acquitted free of charge, as is usually the case. The couple’s children were left orphans and watched the butchery and horror of what happened to their parents.
That is the reality for Christians and other minorities in Pakistan. Discrimination and persecution are at times facilitated by the inaction of police and are sometimes even instigated by them. There is discrimination in education, in employment, in health, in politics and at every level of society. As a Christian, I find it particularly worrying that Pakistan is currently ranked sixth on Open Doors’ world watch list of the worst persecutors of Christians. Its score of 79 out of 100 gives it a classification of “extreme persecution”. That is not a score we would want to have.
The USCIRF has consistently deemed Pakistan a country of particular concern, which again underlines this issue. According to Aid to the Church in Need, Christians in Pakistan find themselves at the centre of a “crisis”, suffering
“some of the bloodiest persecution in the country’s history”
and facing ever more calls to abandon their faith, discrimination at work and at home and attacks on their livelihood. In practice, without the right to freely express their religion in words or actions, some Christians feel the Government are failing to provide Christians with the right to be Pakistani.
I conclude by asking the Minister three questions. What support are the UK Government providing Pakistani authorities to ensure the protection of religious minorities across Pakistan? Will the UK Government put pressure on the Pakistani authorities to reform the blasphemy laws as a matter of urgency, to provide effective safeguards against their abuse, and to investigate and prosecute for attacks on religious minorities in a thorough and transparent manner?
We in this House are charged with being the voice for the voiceless. We must speak out for those who have no voice and cannot speak for themselves. Today, this House has done that, and we look forward to the Minister’s response.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
As we have heard, Ahmadis are peace-loving Muslims and yet, like other peace-loving people in our own history of Christianity and even today, they are persecuted in many parts of the world—especially in Pakistan—for no other reason than their beliefs.
Almost 40 years ago, the constitution of Pakistan was amended to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims—to denounce them, effectively, as heretics not allowed to refer to their places of worship as mosques or quote publicly from the Koran. In this country, we rightly celebrate the courage of a young woman from Pakistan, Malala Yousafzai, for standing up to gunmen determined to persecute her and other young women for seeking an education. However, in the town of Rabwah, to which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) referred, young Ahmadi women are forced to suffer in silence as they are often denied opportunities to pursue their studies and even prevented from living in local dormitories.
Unsurprisingly, as we have heard, in the face of that persecution many Ahmadis choose to flee to other countries. Many of them have settled in Thailand, where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said, a large number have found themselves subject to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. In Indonesia, a similar pattern of persecution is developing against a community that has lived there peacefully since 1925. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) pointed out, even in Bulgaria, which is a member of the EU and the Council of Europe, and is therefore required to respect religious freedom and human rights, we see Ahmadis being prevented from registering as a religious organisation.
If anyone wants to know more about the positive contribution of the Ahmadiyya faith, I recommend that they look at the international charitable trust, Humanity First, which works across the globe alongside bodies such as the Red Cross, Oxfam and Save the Children, offering disaster relief, emergency medical services, water for life projects in west Africa and orphan care in places such as Indonesia and Burkina Faso. While some Governments tolerate terrorists and persecute Ahmadis, the Ahmadiyya community offers love and help to people across the globe.
I have seen the effort and dedication of this community in this country. In Birmingham several years ago, my good friend, Dr Mubashar Saleem, took me to an old, derelict school building in Tilton road. The Ahmadis lovingly restored it and converted it into the Darul Barakaat mosque, a place where all faiths are welcome and members of the local community are regularly invited to events. From there they organise charity fundraising events such as Ride4Peace, joint faith seminars and sessions for people to donate blood, as well as pursuing their religious worship.
However, even in Birmingham, the standing advisory council on religious education permits Ahmadis to participate in the council, providing that they do not refer to themselves as Muslims lest they offend other Muslim groups, thus perpetuating the religious intolerance that forms the basis of the persecution that we have been hearing about in Pakistan. We need to do more to respect the rights of this religious minority and make it clear that both in this country and in our relations with countries abroad, and especially in Pakistan, we are going to stand up to those who persecute this group.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this debate, the importance of which is demonstrated by the number of people here to take part on both sides of the Chamber.
As hon. Friends from across the House have said, the Ahmadis are a faith group that makes a huge contribution in this country and internationally. I am very blessed to have an Ahmadi community in Scunthorpe. Although it is relatively small, it has been involved in a lot of good work on various things in the community, to the benefit of everybody. I take the opportunity to thank them for that today. I also had the privilege and pleasure of joining the Jalsa Salana in 2014. Everybody could see and feel the way in which the Ahmadiyya people live, with the “Love for all, hatred for none” belief that is central to their way of life.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) just pointed out, the international work done through Humanity First is an example of the way in which Ahmadis are not only working locally and nationally, but internationally on behalf of all of us. They should be commended for that, and the fact that they suffer in the way they do, in Pakistan in particular, is to be condemned.
Mr Muzaffar Ahmad, from the local Ahmadiyya community in my constituency, said to me recently that the
“persecution of any religious group should be taken seriously and dealt with. If this is not addressed at the source it can proliferate and reach our country as well.”
He went on to say that, sadly, there have been examples of discrimination closer to home. In a democratic, tolerant society such as the United Kingdom, we address those examples of discrimination and worse, and deal with them effectively in our own way. Sadly however, in Pakistan, the Ahmadi Muslim community is the only religious community to be targeted by the Pakistan state on grounds of faith. Ahmadis have been denied basic rights—the rights to life, to vote, to freedom of faith and to dignity after death.
On paper, the constitution of Pakistan does not permit discrimination for school admissions on the sole basis of religion, and as many colleagues have indicated, the Pakistani Government has signed the international covenant on civil and political rights, which—as hon. Members know—guarantees a variety of religious freedoms. However, I want to focus particularly on access to education.
To attend school in Pakistan, students must disclose their faith when applying to schools. That is a hindrance to the ability of Ahmadi Muslims to gain access to education. As I hope everyone in this Chamber and beyond knows, education can absolutely transform young people’s lives, and to be given a lesser education based on religion is nothing less than appalling.
As the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) pointed out, women and girls have been particularly discriminated against by the Pakistan state. They are particularly affected by discrimination because the style of their hijab is distinctive, which prevents them from participating fully in educational and professional settings, potentially furthering gender inequality in Pakistan.
Furthermore, Ahmadi children can be bullied in schools because of their faith. There is evidence that schools with a large number of Ahmadi students are generally assigned teachers who are less effective. All those things affect the quality of education received by Ahmadi students.
I will give a couple of examples to illustrate that discrimination in action. The case of the students in District Layyah serves as a worrisome reminder of how unfounded allegations can result in children being arrested and held in jail for months with no regard for their right to education or welfare. On 28 January 2009, in Kot Sultan, four children and one adult were accused of blasphemy and arrested under section 295-C of Pakistan’s penal code which carries the death penalty. The police arrested the accused without establishing a credible prima facie case, charging them without evidence and before conducting any investigation. The children were accused of graffiti which defiled the name of the Prophet Mohammed on the toilet walls of a local non-Ahmadi mosque.
The inspector of the case admitted that
“the police do not know of any substantial evidence that links the four students with the crime”
and there was no evidence that anything had even been written in the first place. The accused children were later moved to the DG Khan prison, which is located a long distance from their home town, making visiting difficult for relatives.
Despite the arrests, many speeches and protests were made to boycott the Ahmadis. Looting and threats of violence took place, to the extent that Ahmadi Muslims feared for their lives and were forced to move their families out of the area. All that took place despite the fact that the two men who were the prime movers in the accusation did not bring forward anything of any quality. The children remained unlawfully detained for six months before finally being granted bail. This is just one example of the sort of thing that has been and is going on, and that we should condemn.
The second example is the removal of Ahmadi Muslim public figures from educational syllabuses. Obviously, the people who are included in syllabuses become role models for achievement and so on. No educational syllabuses include major Ahmadi Muslim public figures who shaped the history of the country. Ahmadi Muslims contributed to the establishment of Pakistan in 1947 and, prior to the anti-Ahmadi laws, served the country with distinction in every sphere of life. A number of such leading figures are also known internationally for their distinctive service and contribution, including two prominent Pakistani Ahmadi Muslims. Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan was instrumental in deciding the Pakistani boundary before partition. He was also Pakistan’s first Foreign Minister, representative at the UN and President of the International Court of Justice at The Hague—a significant figure. Another prominent and yet easily erased figure in history is Professor Abdus Salam, a ground-breaking scientist, famous for his work in the field of physics, who was awarded the first Nobel prize in Pakistani history. People of all faiths in Pakistan can be proud of them and they should be included in the literature, syllabuses and curriculum followed in that country.
I could detail many more examples of discrimination and prevention of access to education, but I will not because I want to be brief. It is important to use our leadership role to encourage Pakistan and ensure that it allows fair access for people of all faiths to education in their country. To be denied that is to be denied a central human right.
Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), have pointed out the importance of the Department for International Development’s budget and the significant amount that goes to Pakistan. We should ensure that it does not go without a commitment by that state to tackle these deep-seated issues, to allow all young people, wherever they are from, to have proper access to education and to ensure that the Ahmadis are no longer restricted in that access as they are currently.
Will the Minister indicate what steps the Government are taking to ensure that aid is not being misused by the Pakistani Government to promote religious intolerance and discrimination, and how the aid is being used as encouragement and a lever to ensure that the sort of practices that have too often come to our attention cease and that proper access is given? Will he also say what steps the Government are taking to ensure universities in the United Kingdom do not become partners with universities in Pakistan that promote religious hatred and discrimination in their educational material and their recruitment and admissions procedures?
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I reiterate what my colleagues have said in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing the debate.
[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]
Let me start with the words of Muhammed Ali Jinnah, the founding father of the nation, in his first presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on 11 August 1947:
“You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed”.
He then spoke about the history of religious sectarianism, relating it to Catholicism and what had gone on in England. He said:
“Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State.”
I want to ask the people in this Chamber, the nation and the people of Pakistan a question: 68 years have passed since Pakistan’s independence and since Muhammad Ali Jinnah made that speech, but where have those freedoms for all the people of Pakistan gone? Where did we start, and where we have we gone? A nation consisting of 191 million people, according to the latest UN estimate, is seeing huge human rights violations and abhorrent discrimination targeting 4% of its minority community.
I have spoken in the House against the rise of Islamophobia in Europe and the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, I stand here today as someone from a minority community, as a proud Member of Parliament and as a Muslim. I can easily go to my mosque, and in fact to any mosque belonging to any sectarian denomination, with no threat to my life or religious freedom. I am deeply saddened that while I, a member of a minority community, have all these freedoms, minorities in Pakistan, such as Ahmadis, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and others, do not have the religious freedom that Muhammad Ali Jinnah once advocated, but instead face religious persecution.
That religious persecution has led over the years to thousands of vile crimes being committed against minority communities. According to a report by the United States commission on international religious freedom, between January and June 2013—just six months—there were 108 attacks on minorities, leading to 82 deaths. Of those killed, 22 were Ahmadis, 11 were Christians, two were Hindus, one was a Sikh and 16 were from other minority groups. It must be made clear that the fight against the war on terror in Pakistan, the rise in extremism and the questionable implications of outside actors funding that extremism through the teaching systems in some madrassahs have intensified the persecution against minority communities.
The Shi’a community is a Muslim minority community recognised by the Pakistan state, yet sectarianism and extremism have led to heinous crimes being committed against it. The south Asian terrorism portal found that between 2002 and 2013, 2,086 Shia’s were killed. What is more worrying is the fact that in 2002 and 2003, six and two Shia’s respectively were killed in sectarian hate crimes, whereas 399 Shia’s were killed in 2012 and 410 in 2013.
The rising level of hate is clear, but one of the biggest concerns is that the rising level of extremism is leading to further extremist groups declaring the Shi’a community as non-Muslim and heretics—they are recognised by the state as Muslims—thus validating them for “wajibul kattal”: deserving to be killed. If that is the level of persecution of a community recognised by the state, one can only imagine the fear and terror that other minority communities in Pakistan are living in today.
This week, there have been many events throughout Parliament and across the country involving my Pakistani brothers and sisters, following an official holiday in Pakistan in solidarity with the Kashmiris. I have spoken at many of those events, and I reiterate that if we are to stand against persecution and for the freedom of the Kashmiris, we must also stand against the persecution of any minority. Everyone who is on the side of justice, whether they are religious or of no religion, and of whatever colour, gender, race, caste or creed, must speak against persecution.
The state of Pakistan has faced challenges, especially in tackling terrorism and extremism, which the armed forces and the people of Pakistan have sacrificed thousands of lives in fighting. Nevertheless, we must all stand together against all forms of hate and persecution. I would welcome and encourage Pakistan holding a religious minority conference with hundreds of world scholars, similar to the one that took place in Marrakech a few weeks ago.
Finally, as a member of a minority community who is benefiting from all the religious freedoms in my homeland, I cannot stand by and watch minorities have their freedoms discriminated against in my motherland. Pakistan is an Islamic state, so for the second time in this Chamber I will use my religion and quote verse or ayah 256 of Surat Al-Baqarah of the Koran:
“There is no compulsion in religion”.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady, and to welcome you to the Chair, with Mr Turner having departed.
It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for securing it. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), who spoke passionately and knowledgeably about this issue.
I am delighted to have an Ahmadiyya community in my constituency at the Baitur Rahman mosque in Yorkhill. The community there are a model in the work that they do in reaching out to the wider community. They do regular community clean-ups, and they hold events to raise funds for Yorkhill Children’s Charity. Indeed, one of my first invitations as an MP was to start, and run in, the 5 km race that they held in Kelvingrove park. It was an absolute pleasure to run alongside them and to help at that event. They also hold dinners to celebrate and to invite in their neighbours, of all faiths and none, for discussions and to talk about peace. They even once provided pakora for my campaign team when we had set up our stall nearby, so they definitely have a place in my heart. They could not be more welcoming. I was also pleased and honoured to be asked to visit their Jalsa Salana event at Alton over the summer, at which I found out a good deal more about the Ahmadiyya community around the world and the humanitarian and education work in which they are involved. That very impressive event reflected the way they reach out to other faiths and bring other people in to find out more about what they do.
What I have also found out about, on that visit and in my continued dealings with the Ahmadiyya community, is the severe persecution that it faces. Despite adhering to many of the core tenets of the Islamic faith, including the five pillars of Islam and the six articles of belief, Ahmadiyya Muslims have been subject to persecution across the globe. I am particularly disturbed by the scale of that in Pakistan, a country with which the UK and Scotland have many close links. In Pakistan, as has been said, Ahmadiyya Muslims are not recognised as Muslims by the country’s constitution and are therefore denied their fundamental rights, such as the right to vote and freedom of religion. They have been persecuted, but the state has also enabled that persecution by not protecting Ahmadi Muslims under the law, in clear violation of international human rights obligations.
I want to discuss access to justice in particular. In Pakistan, since 1974, Ahmadi Muslims have not been recognised by the constitution, and since 1984 the penal code has made it a crime for Ahmadis to self-identify as Muslims. That means in practice that should an Ahmadi Muslim face a religiously motivated attack, they would be incriminating themselves even by reporting it. Specifically, section 298-C of the Pakistan penal code states that any
“person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by any other name), who directly or indirectly, poses…as a Muslim”
can face up to three years’ imprisonment and a fine. For most such offences, bail is granted only at the discretion of the court, and they can be pursued by the police without the need for an arrest warrant.
In its November 2015 report, entitled “On Trial: The Implementation of Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws”, the International Commission of Jurists challenged the vague and unfair nature of those laws, picking up on the impact that they have on various religious communities, including the Ahmadiyya community. I will quote directly from the report:
“The vague wording of section 295-C has particularly affected members of the Ahmadiyya community. In some cases, judges have interpreted the expression of religious beliefs by Ahmadis, as understood by the court, as a form of blasphemy.”
The report mentions several cases, but most disturbingly of all it states:
“Justice (r) Mian Nazir Akhtar, who is reported to have made public statements calling for the killing of ‘blasphemers’, was a member of the Bench.”
He was dispensing justice while having those beliefs, and having encouraged people to kill those found to be “blaspheming”. Those views are absolutely appalling and should have no place in any justice system in the world.
According to a campaign website that the Ahmadiyya community have set up, stopthepersecution.org, Ahmadi Muslims have been attacked and buildings and monuments have been desecrated and destroyed since the criminalisation of the faith in 1984. That includes several hundred people being killed or assaulted, 65 Ahmadi Muslims being denied burial in a Muslim cemetery, 83 mosques being destroyed, sealed or forcibly occupied, the banning of the construction of 52 mosques and, distressingly, 39 Ahmadi bodies being exhumed after burial. Such incidents go largely unpunished in Pakistan’s legal system. It is clear that those who perpetrate such acts can do so with the tacit agreement of the state.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned the family whose home was burnt down while they were inside it and the lady, Mubashara Jarra, who survived the attack but lost the baby she was carrying and her two nieces, and whose mother died of smoke inhalation. The incident that triggered that is claimed to have been a blasphemous Facebook post by an Ahmadi youth. It seems absolutely incredible that someone making a comment on social media could result in the burning down of people’s homes and the attacking of a community, but that is just a picture of the discrimination that this community faces in Pakistan. It is said that during the attack the police did very little to intervene, and there has not been much justice since then, either. It is a desperately worrying situation.
Several hon. Members mentioned Mr Tahir Mehdi Imtiaz, who has been detained for almost a year without charge for allegedly publishing blasphemous material. Again, that is a violation of article 9 of the universal declaration of human rights, which sets out that there should not be arbitrary detention or arrest without charge. My understanding from what I have read is that he has not yet been bailed or a trial date set.
The anti-blasphemy laws in Pakistan allow for wide-ranging complaints against persons, and it is reported that they are often used against the Ahmadiyya community as well as other religious minorities in the country. The UK Government, I hope, would agree with me that that is unacceptable. I would like them to use the influence that we have from our long-standing relationship with Pakistan in many different ways to challenge the Government of Pakistan to change their position and scrap that unfair, unjust and discriminatory law. Pakistan ostensibly supports the universal declaration of human rights, so it must remove the anti-Ahmadi laws from its constitution.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. May I take this opportunity to welcome the members of the Ahmadiyya community who are here for the debate? You are most welcome. I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for securing the debate. I declare an interest, along with my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as a member of the APPG on international freedom of religion or belief.
I was going to start with a quote from Muhammad Ali Jinnah, but as usual the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) has stolen my thunder before I have even begun. I will make reference to her speech later in my remarks.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden talked about a number of specific cases that are of great interest in relation to human rights issues in Pakistan—voting, the blasphemy laws and the right to religious freedom—and called on the UK Government to seek the immediate release of Mr Imtiaz and Mr Shakoor. We are hoping to hear from the Minister in that respect.
An excellent point was made in relation to the use of the DFID budget in Pakistan. I was in Pakistan just last year and attended a number of meetings with Ministers there. I can assure all those here today and beyond that issues to do with the persecution of people of minority faith and minority religions and communities were brought up at every single meeting. It is important—I look forward to hearing from the Minister about this—to ensure that the DFID budget can be used to greater effect in that respect. The hon. Lady mentioned Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s remarks about being the Prime Minister for all of Pakistan. Again, I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how those words can be brought more to bear in a practical sense.
We then heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who spoke about the brother of the Minister for minorities in Pakistan¸ who was here recently and spoke about his brother and also quoted Muhammad Ali Jinnah—a much quoted person. The hon. Lady also spoke of the plight of minority women. As always, women are disproportionately affected by such issues.
We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), who thanked the Ahmadi community, with which she has been engaging in her constituency. She, too, spoke about issues to do with the electoral register that are resulting in the disfranchisement of people, which we should be working hard to guard against.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) made a number of excellent points. I pay tribute to his pronunciation of “As-salaam alaikum”, which was one of the best that I have heard. He spoke of the wide interpretation of blasphemy laws, which always contributes to persecution. He also referred to being a member of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, which I enjoy with him. It is an important forum for raising issues of human rights. I speak on behalf of the whole delegation in assuring all those here and beyond that we will ensure that human rights are central to all that we do.
We heard from the hon. Member for Strangford, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. I have spoken in a number of the same debates as him. He is a passionate advocate of religious freedom and spoke of the importance of all of us reaching out to all religions. An important term he used was “the voice of the voiceless”.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) spoke of the persecution of the Ahmadiyya community beyond Pakistan in Indonesia and Bulgaria, about which we look forward to hearing from the Minister. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) referred to women and young girls facing discrimination due to the style of hijab they wear, which distinguishes them and leaves them open to further opportunities for persecution.
The hon. Member for Bradford West quoted Muhammad Ali Jinnah. There is one more quote about women that is important as we speak of the father of the nation of Pakistan. He said that
“no nation can ever be worthy of its existence that cannot take its women along with the men. No struggle can ever succeed without women participating side by side with men. There are two powers in the world; one is the sword and the other is the pen. There is a great competition and rivalry between the two. There is a third power stronger than both, that of the women.”
I implore the Government of Pakistan to remember the words of the founding father of the nation and to put them into practice in relation to women and minority communities across Pakistan. The hon. Member for Bradford West said that if we believe in justice, we must speak for all who face injustice. That is an excellent point, to which I would add that no one equality is more important or more virtuous than another, and that should be at the forefront of our thinking.
Finally we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who is engaging very actively with members of the Ahmadiyya community by running races and the like, which is very impressive indeed. It is a demonstration that when we engage with our minority communities, we get back so much more than we give, and we must continue to do so.
A number of questions on the promotion of religious tolerance have been asked of the Department for International Development. An answer from the Minister of State, Department for International Development, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne), is welcome because it states:
“DFID supports the rights of all groups to follow their religious faith and to live safe lives”,
and that wherever possible our programmes in Pakistan seek to ensure that that is the case.
I welcome the fact that the head of DFID Pakistan raised the issue in October as part of the bilateral assistance talks. I am keen that that type of engagement continues, because it is necessary. Will the Minister let us know what level and proportion of the UK’s development funding in Pakistan is invested in such projects?
I asked a parliamentary question about the make-up of the community engagement forum, which was set up a little while ago in relation to community cohesion across these islands. The Home Office confirmed that members of the Ahmadiyya community—Fareed Ahmad, from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association and Farooq Aftab, the general secretary of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association—were represented on the Prime Minister’s community engagement forum. Those are welcome appointments.
The debate pack produced by the House of Commons Library is extensive and details a number of parliamentary questions and answers on similar topics to those raised in today’s debate. However, none of those answers contain any evidence that the pressure brought to bear by the UK Government in Pakistan on issues relating to the persecution of religious minorities has had any positive effect. I hope that the Minister will offer some words of encouragement to those of us who have participated in the debate and, indeed, to members of the Ahmadiyya community who are listening.
The Scottish National party is opposed to religious persecution. Religious freedoms are a fundamental human right, and we are disappointed that the Pakistan Government continue to condone and conduct religiously motivated attacks. We call upon the Foreign Secretary to press the Government of Pakistan to take action against all religious persecution. Pakistan should—this point was raised when we there with the British Council—reform its blasphemy laws, which are incompatible with the international covenant on civil and political rights, which it has signed. We also call on the Foreign Secretary to take further steps to stop the death penalty in Pakistan.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. It does not seem very long ago that I was sitting on your side of the Table. It was also a pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of Mr Turner, who has now left. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for introducing this important debate. Religious intolerance and persecution should have no place anywhere in the world today, but unfortunately, as we have heard so clearly this afternoon, it does. It is a matter of huge regret that countries, especially Pakistan, continue to persecute minorities—not just the Ahmadiyya Muslims but other minorities as well.
As well as the powerful opening speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce)—I hope I can call her my hon. Friend—with whom I served recently on the International Development Committee. She always stands up for the rights of Christians and minorities in other countries of the world, and draws our attention to the plight of women and girls, who so often suffer when minorities are persecuted.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) made a powerful and well-researched speech. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) is clearly an expert and has a great interest in matters of persecution and religious freedom. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is a champion for the rights not only of Christians here and in other countries in which they are a minority but of other minority religious communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) always speaks so well on any issue related to home affairs, especially discrimination. My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and I have worked closely on many issues to do with the persecution of minorities—not only religious ones. Indeed, we have travelled to India together to see the plight of the Tibetan Buddhist community there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah)—my near neighbour, as I am an MP for Leeds—spoke powerfully from personal knowledge and understanding about the persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims and the state of Pakistan today. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) spoke about the communities that she is proud to represent and which suffer the kind of persecution that we have heard so much about. Finally, the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) made a very good summing-up speech.
There were some relevant interventions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) and the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), all of whom are no longer in their place.
In Pakistan, religious freedom is consistently trampled upon by state laws, and sectarian violence arises from that. There have been calls by United States Government agencies, such as the United States Commission on International Freedom, to designate Pakistan a country of concern, with the possibility of the USA removing its aid to Pakistan. In the UK, the Home Office and civil society groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented persistent and increasing sectarian violence against religious minorities in Pakistan. The Washington Post in April 2013 stated:
“Pakistan tops worst list for religious freedom”.
Ahmadiyya Muslims are particularly targeted for persecution; laws restricting the practice of their religion are used often to threaten and harass them. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden stated that it is shocking that the persecution of the Ahmadiyya community is enshrined in law. It certainly is shocking to all of us who are democrats and believe in religious freedom.
Approximately 95% of the population of Pakistan are Muslim—70% Sunni and 25% Shi’a—with Christians making about 1.5%, Hindus about 2% and, according to some statistics, Ahmadis approximately 0.2%. However, the exact number of Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan is disputed. It is estimated to be between 600,000 and 2 million. We have heard this afternoon that Pakistan has repressive blasphemy laws and has enshrined in law and the constitution amendments that specifically target the Ahmadis; but the Pakistani Government have failed to take up their Supreme Court’s recommendations in 2014 in relation to violence against religious minorities, and the proposal to form a special police force to monitor sectarian violence. The Pakistani Government have also failed to amend or repeal blasphemy law provisions that give the pretext for violence. Militant groups continue to attack religious minorities. Human Rights Watch stated in 2015 that
“the failure to prosecute or imprison suspects of religious violence is in part due to the sympathy for some groups within the security forces”.
We have heard that Hindu women are victims of forced conversions and forced marriages because Pakistani law does not recognize Hindu marriages. The main justification for state action against religious minorities and the vigilante justification for sectarian violence are those blasphemy laws enshrined in Pakistani law. Blasphemy is considered by the state, and by many Pakistanis, as the defiling of the Prophet Mohammed and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe said, section 295-C of the penal code of Pakistan states:
“Use of derogatory remarks etc. in respect of the Holy Prophet: Whether by words, either spoken or written by visible representations, or by imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) shall be punishable with death, imprisonment for life, and shall be liable to fine”.
In 1986, the blasphemy laws were reformulated and capital punishment was prescribed as the maximum punishment. However, no one, thank goodness, has yet been executed for blasphemy.
Blasphemy allegations are often false, as we have heard, and are often used to promote violence against religious minorities. In 2015 the Home Office said:
“There is clear evidence that the legislation is used by non-state actors to threaten and harass Ahmadis”.
Victims of attacks by non-state actors are unable to seek effective state protection from authorities. The Pakistani Government have consistently failed to repeal the blasphemy laws that provide a pretext for violence against religious minorities. In 2014 there were a record 1,400 cases of people being arrested for blasphemy in Pakistan. In 2015 17 people were convicted of blasphemy, and they are now on death row; 19 others are serving life sentences.
Blasphemy laws have nothing to do with blasphemy and are often used to settle petty disputes and personal vendettas. Accusations of blasphemy are usually the only pretence needed for vigilante groups to attack religious minorities in Pakistan. Saima Baig, a Karachi-based environmentalist, wrote in the Huffington Post recently on a case that we have already heard about in the debate:
“A man named Abdus Salam, who was an Ahmadi, won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1979. The anti-Ahmadi sentiment is so inherent that Pakistan even refuses to acknowledge its only other Nobel Laureate”.
The other one is Malala Yusufsai, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned.
“His persecution led to him leaving the country. And we rewarded him by desecrating his grave”.
In a separate article on religious persecution in Pakistan Saima Baig said:
“The State of Pakistan must really think about whether it wants to join the rest of the world in the current century and promulgate and implement laws that provide security and safety to its citizens. This is the responsibility of the State and it must not be allowed to shirk it in the name of religion. Pakistan must do away with instituting 7th century laws that have no basis in today’s society. It is not hard to do so.”
Deutsche Welle reported on an attack in November last year:
“On Saturday, November 21, an angry mob in the eastern Punjab province set ablaze a factory owned by the Ahmadis, after one of its employees was accused of desecrating the Koran.
‘The incident took place after we arrested the head of security at the factory, Qamar Ahmed Tahir, for complaints that he ordered the burning of Korans,’ Adnan Malik, a senior police official in the Jhelum city, told the media.
‘We registered a blasphemy case against Tahir, who is Ahmadi by faith, and arrested him after confiscating the burnt material, which also included copies of the Koran,’ Malik said.
According to local media, after the arrests hundreds of people descended on the factory, setting it on fire.
A spokesman for the local Ahmadi community said three of their members were detained by the police on blasphemy charges.
A day later on Sunday, Muslim protesters attacked and occupied an Ahmadi mosque in a town near Jehlum, as an act of ‘revenge’ for the factory incident.
‘A mob attacked our mosque in Kala Gujran, an area in Jehlum, took out its furniture and set it on fire. Then, they washed the mosque and later offered evening prayers in the mosque,’ Amir Mehmood, a member of the Ahmadi community, said.
Rights activists say that a cleric of a Muslim mosque in the area had urged the people to ‘punish’ the ‘blasphemers.’ They also accuse the local administration and the police of not preventing both attacks on the minority group.”
Labour believes, as I am sure do Members throughout the House, in freedom of religion, not just in the United Kingdom but throughout the world—the freedom to worship without fear or persecution. There is not a Member in this Chamber or the House who would oppose that.
I want in closing to pay tribute to Muhammad Nayyer, the secretary for external affairs of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association of Leeds. He recently came to the Sinai Synagogue in Roundhay in my constituency to speak to the Leeds Jewish community about his and his community’s experience in Pakistan. After his speech I was privileged to be presented with a copy of the holy Koran by Mr Nayyer. It was the first time he had been to a synagogue, and he remarked how similar it was in many ways to his own mosque.
My final words are a quotation—
“but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God’s anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!”
Martin Luther said that in 1543. He was writing about the Jews; but it could have been said about the Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship today, Mr Brady. I confess I have a terrible cold, so my speech will, I think, read better than it will sound. I apologise and hope that hon. Members will bear with me.
I think that this has been a phenomenal debate, and a very important one. I pay tribute to the incredible contributions that have been made, with passion, expertise and the determination to raise an important issue. Many questions have been raised, and I will do my best to respond to a number of themes that have come up. However, as I have pledged and, I hope, done in the past, I will write to hon. Members with more details if I do not have the opportunity to cover everything to the extent they expect.
I will begin as other hon. Members have done, by congratulating the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this worthwhile debate. The standard of that debate reflects what the Labour party spokesman, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) pointed out—the House’s close interest in human rights issues not just in this country but throughout the world. He is right; and this country has a proud reputation for defending the rights of minorities such as the Yazidis of Iraq and Syria; the Baha’i of Iran; and the Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims of Burma. We have stood up for individuals such as Meriam Ibrahim in Sudan. She was raised as a Muslim but chose to follow and marry into the Christian faith, and for that choice she was punished, charged with apostasy and adultery, and imprisoned with her young son while heavily pregnant.
Today, with intolerance very much on the rise, we now see reports of anti-Semitic and anti-Christian attacks even here in Europe. It is especially important that we stand up for people’s right freely to express their faith, or indeed to have no faith at all. I welcome this opportunity to debate the specific issues of religious minorities in Pakistan, which I do not recall the House discussing during my time as Minister for the middle east, north Africa and south-east Asia.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) and others have mentioned the important contribution of the Pakistani diaspora to this country, which is important to recognise, and I am glad that it has been expressed today. Before going into the details, I say at the outset that we have a strong, powerful and important relationship with Pakistan. We have a historical relationship—Pakistan is a close ally in the Commonwealth —and we have a commercial relationship, too. Bilateral trade with Pakistan is moving towards £3 billion. We have shared security interests in the region and, as I have mentioned, we have a massive diaspora relationship, with thousands of people moving backwards and forwards between Pakistan and this country every single month.
As the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) said in her powerful speech, Pakistan is an important country that has made progress over past decades and has gone through a difficult period as it moves from military governance to civilian governance. We should applaud and encourage the continuing path in that direction. It is important to recognise where Pakistan has come from, but our relationship means that we can have frank and important conversations about some of the details that we have discussed today. That is where we are with our relationship. I address some of the challenges that we face knowing that Pakistan is a friend, and friends should be able to say such things on the record as matters of concern.
The all-party parliamentary group on the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, does a great deal of valuable work to support the beleaguered Ahmadiyya minority in many countries across the world. We are not only dealing with Pakistan; other countries have been mentioned, too. I pay tribute to the group’s work. We met to discuss these issues on 20 January—my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a regular at debates on such matters, were also there. I admire and pay tribute to the group’s leadership and chairman.
It is important that the all-party parliamentary groups on the Ahmadiyya Muslim community and on international freedom of religion or belief work together and continue to bring such matters to the fore and that we debate them in the House. Both groups discharge an invaluable service in reminding us of the importance of the freedom of religion or belief, which we in the UK are lucky enough to take for granted, but some people in other countries cannot, as we have heard today.
Religious minorities suffer more than most, and it is right that we should speak up for them on their behalf if we see evidence that their voices are not being heard and that their rights are being denied. Today’s debate, unfortunately, is a sad reminder of the persecution suffered by Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan. As has been said, the Pakistani constitution discriminates against them. They struggle to exercise their right to vote because they have to state their religion from a list on the ballot paper, and because the religion is not recognised they are denied the ability to vote. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) mentioned education, and Ahmadiyya Muslims are denied education for the same reasons. They face arbitrary detention, their literature is banned, their mosques are attacked and, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) and others have said, their minarets are also destroyed.
The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), the spokesman for the Scottish National party, also talked about the lack of justice in Pakistan. Last year’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office annual human rights report detailed cases of extremists specifically targeting Ahmadiyya Muslims. The report highlighted the case of an Ahmadiyya man who was shot and killed after a Muslim leader denounced the Ahmadiyya as “enemies of Pakistan” on a popular television show. I am sorry to say that it is not only the Ahmadiyya Muslim community that experiences persecution. Shi’a, Hazara, Christian and other religious communities also face intimidation and violence, forced conversion and marriage, attacks on places of worship and sectarian killings. All those appalling abuses continue to take place.
The misuse of blasphemy laws against Muslims and members of religious minorities, such as Christians, can lead to mob violence and the potential use of the death penalty against victims, which is a particular concern. A stark example is the case of Mrs Asia Bibi, a Christian lady who was accused of blasphemy after drinking water from the same bowl as a Muslim woman. She is facing execution after five years on death row. People in her own village, including religious leaders, have publicly stated that they would kill her if she is released. I continue to follow her appeal process very closely.
The Government deplore violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief, wherever they occur. We regularly urge the Government of Pakistan to honour their international commitments and guarantee fully the human rights of all Pakistani citizens. The scale of the challenge facing Pakistan is illustrated in the film “He Named Me Malala,” which I saw a couple of months ago. I had the honour of meeting Malala Yousafzai when she spoke at the Syria conference last speak, highlighting again the plight of minorities. It was an honour to have her at the conference.
Paul Scully
Does the Minister agree that, especially when we have an unstable world and an unstable region, it is important that we act as a critical friend to Pakistan and work with it to ensure that the country is stable so that it can progress?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will address the role of the Department for International Development. Pakistan is a country in which we invest an awful lot of money. There have been many questions about whether that funding should be conditional, and I will address those issues. He makes a valid point, and we are a friend of Pakistan. We want to work with the country, which allows us to highlight such areas to ensure that there is progress.
Siobhain McDonagh
I can see that the Minister is in trouble with his cold. I am unclear on whether the governor of Punjab has been to the UK or is about to come to the UK. If he has been, were the Government able to raise the issue of the Ahmadiyya in his region? If he is about to come, will the Minister include it in those discussions?
Mr Ellwood
I met the governor of Punjab—he happens to be the brother of the Prime Minister of Pakistan, so he has access to the powerbase—prior to meeting the APPG, so I did not specifically raise the plight of the Ahmadiyya community, but I did raise other matters. The plan is that I will visit the country in the near future. I, the Foreign Secretary and others have taken many opportunities to raise these issues and the plight of other minorities in Pakistan.
Our high commissioners are being changed over, and this morning I met Tom Drew, our next high commissioner, who is about to depart for Islamabad, and we discussed these very issues. He is aware of the concern and of the fact that this debate is happening today. We have also raised the issue with the Pakistani high commissioner in London, and I assure the hon. Lady that the next time I meet the Chief Minister of Punjab I will raise it with him, too.
Jim Shannon
I understand that the Minister’s voice is under some pressure; we can appreciate that. I just gently say to him that there will be a report from the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, which will be the Pakistan inquiry. It might be helpful for him to receive a copy. If he is happy with that, when we get a chance we will ensure that he receives a copy of the report—the inquiry was chaired by Lord Alton of the other place—as it might be helpful when it comes to presenting the case on behalf of all those religious minorities in Pakistan.
Mr Ellwood
I will be very grateful to receive that; I thank the hon. Gentleman very much indeed for the offer.
In addition to the conversations that I have already mentioned, in August last year the Foreign Secretary expressed our concerns about religious freedom and the misuse of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. The misuse of those laws is at the core of what we are discussing here. Our concern is that sometimes judges are not willing to enforce these blasphemy laws because of concerns about their own safety. We need to encourage and further advance greater maturity of the justice system in Pakistan.
I have also impressed on the Pakistani high commissioner to the UK, Syed Abbas, the importance not only of respecting the rights of religious minorities in Pakistan but the importance of the Ahmadiyya, Shi’a, Hazara and Christian communities, many of which we have referred to in debates here in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber.
We also work through the European Union to promote human rights overseas. For example, the EU preferential market access scheme has helped to incentivise progress on human rights in Pakistan. This has led to the creation of a cell to help with the implementation of international human rights obligations. Also, Pakistan has submitted overdue UN treaty reports and re-established a Government ministry specifically to lead on human rights. That is a very important and welcome development. This progress is encouraging, but we cannot be complacent. We recognise the need to maintain the pressure on the Government of Pakistan to honour their commitments to human rights, and we will continue to do that.
I turn now to some of the other matters that have been raised this afternoon. First, there is the issue of international aid. Aid is provided not on a national basis but on a federal basis, so we discuss these matters with the various chief ministers in Pakistan. As hon. Members know, the Foreign Office does not lead on aid, but I promise hon. Members that I will meet the relevant Minister in the Department for International Development to make sure that we can see that aid is being properly distributed in Pakistan.
Hon. Members will be aware that we have a proud legacy of making sure that aid goes to vulnerable people and is not somehow tied up in conditionality. The problem with placing conditions on the aid that we give is that we can end up denying it to the very vulnerable people whom we want to support. So we need to look at cognitive measures that will enhance and encourage change, but also recognise that the DFID contribution to Pakistan is immense. Indeed, I think that it is one of the highest aid contributions in the world.
Fiona Bruce
I fully accept what the Minister is saying about conditionality. The important issue that I ask him to raise with DFID Ministers is the fact that religious discrimination is a root cause of poverty, as we have demonstrated today in this Chamber. However, in my opinion, to date DFID Ministers have not sufficiently addressed this issue as a cause of poverty in the way that other issues have been addressed, for fear of appearing to discriminate. That is a hurdle in thinking that we need to overcome.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the criteria that must be met for aid to be advanced to a country. The development committee that focuses on these issues wrote the rules back in the 1950s, and the guidance on overseas development support was written in the aftermath of the second world war and designed to focus on poverty itself. We know today that instability is also directly linked to the cause of poverty, but the rules have not changed.
I have been encouraging change, and we are slowly moving in that direction. Those rules need to be updated and advanced, to recognise other ways of ensuring that poverty can be tackled, such as by providing stability and improved governance, so that people make better decisions to move their country forward and also alleviate the challenges of poverty.
A number of hon. Members spoke not only about Pakistan but about the wider issues. I think we spoke of those issues when we met the all-party group on the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Bulgaria was mentioned as well, which raises eyebrows. This is a country in Europe; it is part of the European Union. Why on earth are we seeing this sort of persecution in Bulgaria as well? I raised this issue with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, and he is pursuing it from his angle. I will ask him to be in touch with the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden to provide an update of what is going on. However, I am aware that the Grand Mufti of Bulgaria is very influential in these circumstances. We need to work harder, particularly as Bulgaria is essentially part of the European community, to ensure that persecution of the Ahmadiyya community does not happen so close to the UK.
A couple of other countries were also mentioned at that meeting. For example, on Thailand we continue to work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, not only on a wide range of refugee issues but on persecution as well. Again, I will write to hon. Members with more details of what is happening on that front. As I say, Thailand was raised at the all-party group meeting. So, finally, was Indonesia.
Our ambassador in Jakarta has discussed these issues, including the plight of the Ahmadiyya community, with the Minister of Religious Affairs, and has urged him and other community leaders to ensure that the right of individuals to practise freedom of religion and belief is respected, and indeed protected. I understand that a Bill is now going through that is based on the protection of religious and faith communities, and I hope that that will be a major advancement in Indonesia. However, we need to keep the pressure on and keep working on this issue.
To conclude, I once again thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden—
Siobhain McDonagh
I apologise for extending the Minister’s time on his feet, but will he address the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) about the religious inter-faith forum? It was set up by the Foreign Office under the coalition Government, but at this time it does not seem to have been re-established.
Mr Ellwood
I had asked for a note on that, to see what had happened. If I may, I will write to the hon. Lady. I am not familiar with where things are at the moment, and it would be wrong for me to place something on the record without knowing the details. However, the importance of this issue has been raised; the hon. Lady’s point is on the record, and I will write to her with more details as to what stage that forum is at.
To conclude, Mr Brady, thank you very much indeed for the opportunity to place these important points on the record and to put into context the work that the Government are doing to put pressure on Pakistan, one of our important allies, to advance its views on dealing with the persecution of the Ahmadiyya, and indeed of other religious groups, in Pakistan and in other countries.
I assure hon. Members that we will continue to take every opportunity to raise issues of concern with the government of Pakistan; indeed, when I next meet the Chief Minister of Punjab, I will raise this issue. Our aim is, of course, that one day everyone, everywhere, whatever their faith or belief, will enjoy the rights that we in this country take for granted
Siobhain McDonagh
I thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Brady, and I warmly thank every Member who has contributed to the debate. I think in excess of 16 Members have spoken. When I discovered that we had the Thursday afternoon before recess slot, I thought, “Oh dear.” I thought that I would be bringing the Lahore telephone book with me in an effort to fill some time. I am sure that everyone will agree that we have had tremendous and moving contributions from Members representing nearly all the parties in the House, and I thank them for that. I also thank the Ahmadiyya community for encouraging this amount of interest and support. It is a relatively small community in our country. It always punches above its weight—“punches” is probably the wrong word to use for a community that is not violent—and gets involved in its community and its issues at home. I thank all involved.
We have heard about the many dimensions of persecution of the Ahmadiyya community, but also about other religious minorities in Pakistan. I hope that our discussion will mark the beginning, not the end, of the UK Government’s consideration of what they can do to end religious persecution in Pakistan. Like many other groups who have sought refuge in the UK, the Ahmadiyya community gives so much back to this country. It is a great champion of charitable causes and promotes peace, cohesion and understanding in our communities, but the Ahmadis are fearful for their families, loved ones, friends and fellow community members back in Pakistan, where their lives remain at risk if they openly practise their faith. As anti-Ahmadi sentiment becomes more pervasive across borders, we are increasingly seeing discrimination in other countries, too. As our debate has demonstrated, the extent to which Ahmadis cannot access justice, enfranchisement or equal treatment in Pakistan cannot be underestimated. The persecution that they face is simply intolerable in this day and age.
The UK is proud to have Pakistan as a close ally—we all commend and celebrate that, but the relationship also requires the UK to make it clear that the freedom for Ahmadis and all religious groups to practise their religion without fear is a fundamental right. The UK Government and this House have a strong moral responsibility to encourage freedom of religion and freedom of speech, not just within our own borders, but internationally. They are not just British values but universal human rights.
I look forward to the Minister and the UK Government taking a more proactive approach in promoting what should be absolutely universal: the Ahmadi message of “Love for all, hatred for none.” That message still endures despite the persecution of Ahmadis, and it is a message we can all share.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims and other religious minorities in Pakistan.
Written Statements
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Student Loan Repayment Strategy
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)
Today we are publishing a new strategy for the collection of student loan repayments. This joint repayment strategy sets out how the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Student Loans Company, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the devolved Administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will work together to ensure the operation of a fair, robust and efficient student loan repayment system.
The Government are committed to maintaining the UK’s world-class education system while living within its means. By lifting the cap on student numbers, we are enabling more people to benefit from higher education than ever before. As more loans are issued to new students each year, it is vital that the repayment process is robust, convenient for borrowers and working efficiently to ensure the sustainability of the student finance system and value for money for the taxpayer. Reviews of the student loan repayments system by the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee during 2013 and 2014 recommended that the Government take further action to improve the repayment process. This new strategy sets out what the Government have done to date to improve the collections process and our approach to improving the student loan repayment system yet further.
The three objectives underpinning the strategy are:
Strengthened capability to trace borrowers and pursue and recover outstanding student loan debt;
Enhanced performance management through forecasting of future repayment rates, monitoring and target setting;
Improved efficiency to drive operational costs down and repayment collection up, while providing a high-quality customer service to borrowers.
The vast majority of borrowers meet their repayment obligations. We will do more to support borrowers who seek to meet their loan repayment obligations, and, in the interests of fairness to both the taxpayer and to borrowers who meet their obligations, we will be tougher on those who do not. We will take stronger action to trace borrowers including those overseas, act to recover loan repayments where it is clear that borrowers are seeking to avoid repayment, consider the use of sanctions against borrowers who breach loan repayment terms and, if necessary, prosecute.
This approach is fair for borrowers and good for the effective management of public money, providing value for the taxpayer and helping to ensure that the student finance system remains on a sustainable footing.
We will keep the strategy under review to ensure that the repayment system continues to meet these objectives, and we will report annually on progress.
A copy of the strategy document will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS524]
Steel Industry Action
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
Ahead of Monday’s high-level stakeholder conference on energy intensive industries, which follows on from November’s EU extraordinary Competitiveness Council on steel, I wanted to update Parliament on the UK’s contribution to EU-level action on steel.
The main area in which the EU can make meaningful change is with regard to unfair trade practices. Given the global scale of the challenge facing the steel industry, the Government, working with UK Steel and other stakeholders, have made every effort to ensure a speedy and effective EU-level response.
The Government have pressed hard for EU action to tackle unfair trade practices, wherever they has seen them. For example, the Government in July and November last year voted in favour of antidumping measures on wire rod and separately on steel pipes. It was also the UK last year that lobbied successfully in support of calls from industry, for an EU investigation into cheap imports of reinforcing steel bar (“rebar”).
It was the UK that called for and secured an emergency meeting of the EU Competitiveness Council in November which agreed on the need for swifter action on steel dumping. And, in recognition of the immediate risks posed to EU and UK industry by a surge in imports, the Commission this year has acted swiftly to announce registration of imports on both rebar and cold-rolled steel. To assist industry in bringing forward complaints, we have also intensified our discussions with the steel industry, including at the international comparisons working group chaired by me, to provide help with ongoing and forthcoming individual unfair trade cases.
On 5 February, the UK also sent a joint letter with France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Belgium, and Luxembourg to the European Commission to call for further support for the UK and EU steel industry. This letter has subsequently been endorsed by Spain and Slovakia. It called for:
making full and timely use of all trade defence instruments to tackle unfair trade;
ensuring that the upcoming negotiations on the European emissions trading system focus on preventing carbon leakage and the relocation of production and jobs outside the EU; and
exploring other ways to avoid the downturn of the European steel industry and guarantee its long-term and sustainable development.
The Government are strongly in favour of effective trade defences to tackle unfair trade practices. We have asked the Commission to improve the speed by which anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations are conducted, and we have written to DG Trade suggesting areas where investigation timeframes might be shortened. This would enable quicker action where the evidence points to unfair trade practices by international competitors.
The UK has long been a proponent of modernising the EU’s trade defence instruments—the rules covering protection for the EU against dumping and subsidised imports and other unfair trade practices—to make them more efficient, effective and transparent. But modernisation must also balance user and producer interests. Certain proposals brought forward by the Commission in 2012, including the proposal to abolish the lesser duty rule, did not strike this balance.
The lesser duty rule sets the import tariff in anti-dumping cases to the lower of either the level of dumping or the level of actual injury caused. This rule means that the EU imposes duties that are sufficient to protect EU industry from injury or, where the dumping level is lower, to eliminate the dumping. This ensures duties are proportionate to the harm caused, and effectively redress the injury to the producing industry, without inflicting disproportionate costs on importers and consumers.
That said, the Government strongly believe that the tariffs set in individual trade investigations must reflect an accurate estimate of the harm caused. In January the Commission announced provisional anti-dumping duties—ranging from 9.2% to 13%—on reinforcing steel bar (“rebar”). Though welcoming the duties, we shared the concerns of UK industry that these duties were lower than needed to protect them fully from the harm caused by unfair trade, and the Secretary of State raised his concerns with EU Trade Commissioner Malmström. We will continue to work with industry to press its case over the next six months while the Commission carries out its investigation, before confirming the final level of duties by July.
Many of the problems facing the UK and EU steel industries are global ones which, to be addressed, require engagement with the world’s steel producing nations, in particular China. On 29 January, the EU Trade Commissioner wrote to the Chinese Minister of Commerce to urge China to curb overcapacity in its steel industry. While welcoming current plans to cut steel production, EU Commissioner Malmström said that these would need to be translated into concrete action. The UK welcomes this dialogue between the Commissioner and the Chinese and is keen to see it continue. We will also continue to raise these issues bilaterally with the Chinese.
In order to ensure a level playing field across the EU, the Government have asked the Commission to be extremely vigilant and respond quickly wherever there are suspicions of wrong-doing. On 20 January the European Commission opened a formal investigation into Italian Government support for steel producer Ilva, Europe’s largest steel plant. That same day, the European Commission also ordered Belgium to recover €211 million from several steel companies within the Duferco groups, after finding that this distorted competition in breach of state aid rules.
Finally, the Government look forward to Monday’s EU high-level stakeholders’ conference on energy intensive industries. This builds on the outcomes of the November 2015 extraordinary Competitiveness Council meeting on steel. The conference will bring together stakeholders from the steel industry, other energy intensive industries, trade unions, representatives from member state Governments and the EU Commission. The UK has worked closely with stakeholders and the Commission to ensure that discussions will focus on addressing the serious issues facing the steel industry. The UK Government, represented by me, will be speaking alongside European Ministers. We will use this opportunity to maintain the pressure on the Commission to make progress in the areas covered in our joint letter of 5 February.
[HCWS528]
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee Eighth Report: Government Response
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr Oliver Letwin)
I am today presenting to Parliament the Government’s response to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2014-15: “What next on the redrawing of parliamentary constituency boundaries?”
The Government are grateful to the former Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for its work on this issue. It is essential that the Boundary Commissions have certainty about the rules that will apply for the redistribution of UK parliamentary constituencies for the next boundary review. The Government have no plans at this time to introduce legislation to make major changes to the boundary review framework which was set up in the last Parliament. This has necessarily informed the Government’s consideration of, and response to, the Committee’s recommendations.
[HCWS526]
ECOFIN
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Brussels on 12 February 2016. Ministers are due to discuss the following items:
Anti-tax avoidance package
The Commission will present proposals for tackling corporate tax avoidance, including implementing the UK Government’s country by country reporting template for multinationals. This will be followed by an exchange of views. The UK has led the way in the OECD and EU in negotiating and implementing tougher international tax rules and transparency measures.
Current legislative proposals
The presidency will update the Council on the state of play of financial services dossiers.
Implementation of the banking union
The Commission will provide a brief update on several dossiers linked to the banking union: the single resolution fund, the bank recovery and resolution directive and the deposit guarantee scheme directive.
Fight against the financing of terrorism
The Commission will present its action plan to reinforce the European framework in the fight against the financing of terrorism. Following an exchange of views, the Council will adopt conclusions on the new measures.
Preparation of the G20 meeting in Shanghai on 25-27 February 2016
The Council will adopt the EU’s terms of reference ahead of the G20 meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors in Shanghai.
Discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for 2014
On the basis of a report from the Court of Auditors, the Council will vote on the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the EU’s general budget for the financial year 2014.
Budget guidelines for 2017
Council conclusions will be adopted on the EU budget guidelines for 2017. These will inform the Commission of high-level priorities in preparation of the draft budget.
High-level group on own resources
Mario Monti, the chair of the high-level group on own resources, will provide a state of play update on the EU’s financing system.
[HCWS533]
Financial Services
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
I can today confirm that I have laid a Treasury minute informing the House of a reduction in HM Treasury’s contingent liabilities to NRAM plc (formerly Northern Rock (Asset Management) plc).
The Treasury minute concerns the guarantee arrangements announced on 8 December 2009 that put in place arrangements in relation to certain borrowings and derivative transactions of, and certain wholesale deposits held in accounts with, NRAM plc. At March 2015 the maximum contingent liability to HM Treasury on this guarantee arrangement was £6.5 billion.
The reduction is a result of the sale announcement on 13 November that UK Asset Resolution (UKAR), the holding company of NRAM (formerly Northern Rock Asset Management) had sold £13 billion of mortgages, consequently HM Treasury’s contingent liabilities have reduced as securities associated with the Granite securitisation vehicle have been extinguished. As a result of this the HM Treasury exposure under this guarantee arrangement has fallen to around £270 million.
I will update the House of any further changes to UKAR associated guarantee arrangements as necessary.
If the remaining liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.
[HCWS538]
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
On 21 January 2016, I announced my intention, after careful consideration of the recommendation of the commissioner team to return certain functions to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. The original directions were issued on 26 February 2015, following the Casey report and advice note from Sir Michael Wilshaw, HM chief inspector of education, children’s services and skills. Although a number of challenges remain, there has been significant areas of progress nearly a year on, and I believe it is now appropriate to return some functions to the authority.
However it is important to stress that the returned functions do not include functions such as licensing; children’s social care—including all services relating to child sexual exploitation; adult social care; audit; and other functions which still remain high risk.
On 21 January 2016, I invited representations from the authority regarding my intention to return certain functions to them to exercise. I have now considered representations received from the authority, including from the leader and the chief executive, and I am satisfied that the council is now able to exercise the functions identified by the lead commissioner in compliance with the best value duty, and that the people of Rotherham can have confidence that this will be the case. Therefore, today I am exercising my powers under section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999 to return certain service areas, including all associated executive and non-executive functions, to the council to exercise. Handing back these functions will allow some democratic control to be returned and for the authority to take an important first step on the road to recovery.
The functions to be returned are:
Education and schools; education for 14-19 years in all settings; school admissions and appeal system; youth services
Public health
Leisure services; events in parks and green spaces
Customer and cultural services, libraries, arts, customer services and welfare programmes
Housing
Planning and transportation policy; highways maintenance
The council’s area assembly system and neighbourhood working; responsibilities under the Equalities Act
Building regulation, drainage, car parking; environmental health; business regulation and enforcement—not including taxi licensing; emergency planning
• ICT; legal and democratic services; corporate communications; corporate policy; procurement; financial services, including benefits and revenues, but not including audit
Budget control in these areas and budget planning
Policy arising from Sheffield city region.
Today, the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and I have issued new directions that return the above identified service areas to the authority. With effect from 11 February, councillors will be responsible for decision making in these areas. The commissioners will provide oversight of the returned functions to ensure that they are exercised in accordance with the statutory best value duty and also retain powers in the remaining areas and other functions which still remain high risk. The directions and explanatory memorandum that accompany this statement can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-02-11/HCWS539/.
[HCWS539]
School Estate
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) has made the following written statement.
Today, I am announcing £1.4 billion of funding allocations to maintain and improve the condition of the education estate. Investing in our school buildings is a key part of the Government’s long-term economic plan to secure Britain’s future. It will help to ensure children across the country can learn in schools that are safe and in good condition.
For the financial year 2016-17, the Department for Education is allocating £200 million of devolved formula capital to schools and £1.2 billion to local authorities, voluntary aided partnerships, multi-academy trusts and academy sponsors, to invest in their own condition priorities. This includes funding for the repair and refurbishment of academies and sixth-form colleges through the condition improvement fund, the outcome of which we will announce later this year.
Good investment decisions require some certainty and stability of funding, which is why in February 2015 we announced three-year indicative allocations covering 2015-16 to 2017-18. The allocations we are announcing today, for 2016-17, update those allocations to reflect how the school system has changed, with schools opening and closing and more schools becoming academies. We have implemented these changes with minimal variation to the approach we set out last year. These updated allocations are also indicative of funding for 2017-18.
Details of today’s announcement will be published on the gov.uk website. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.
[HCWS529]
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
The Agriculture and Fisheries Council will take place on 15 February in Brussels. My hon. friend, the Minister of State for farming, food and marine environment (George Eustice), will represent the UK.
As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed:
The primary focus will be a first reading proposal on the sustainable management of external fishing fleets.
There will be a presentation by the presidency on the work programme for the Dutch presidency, as well as a presentation by the Commission on international agricultural trade issues.
An exchange of views on animal welfare, as well as a long-term strategy for agricultural research will also take place.
There are currently four confirmed any other business items:
Conference on antimicrobial resistance (tabled by the presidency)
African swine fever (tabled by the Polish delegation)
Difficult situation in milk and pig sectors (tabled by the Polish delegation)
Market situation (tabled by the Spanish delegation).
[HCWS530]
Foreign Affairs and General Affairs Councils
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 15 February and I will attend the General Affairs Council on 16 February. The Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, and the General Affairs Council will be chaired by the Dutch presidency. The meetings will be held in Brussels.
Foreign Affairs Council
The expected agenda for the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) will include Bosnia, South Africa, Moldova, Belarus, Libya and climate diplomacy. The Lebanon Foreign Minister will attend lunch where there will be an opportunity to follow up on commitments made at the London Conference on Supporting Syria and the Region 2016 and look at wider regional issues.
Bosnia
HRVP Mogherini will include Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) in her introductory remarks, signalling BiH’s intention to submit its EU membership application in the margins of the meeting. While the UK Government will wish to welcome BiH’s progress on its EU path, we will want to make clear what more needs to be done for the application to proceed—namely more meaningful implementation of the reform agenda, stabilisation and association agreement (SAA) adaptation to take into account Croatia’s accession to the EU; and agreement on a co-ordination mechanism to allow BiH to speak with one voice to the EU.
South Africa
Ministers are expected to exchange views on HRVP Mogherini’s forthcoming visit to South Africa and the future direction of the EU’s strategic partnership with the country. The UK will seek to encourage increased engagement and note the importance of the EU’s broad and significant partnership with South Africa.
Moldova
Ministers are expected to exchange views on recent developments in the Republic of Moldova.
Belarus
The FAC will have a discussion on relations between the EU and Belarus. Improving the human rights situation in the country remains a key priority for the EU.
Lebanon
Ministers will be joined for lunch by Lebanese Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil. As host to over 1.1 million refugees from Syria, Lebanon is on the front line of the humanitarian response to the crisis. At the Supporting Syria and the Region 2016 Conference held in London on 4 February the UK and co-hosts signed an agreement with Lebanon that will see the international community providing long-term support to strengthen the Lebanese economy and create job opportunities for host communities and refugees. Ministers will discuss the implementation of this agreement, the urgent need for Lebanon to elect a President, and security in the region.
Libya
The FAC will focus on the latest developments in the UN-led political process. The UK, along with the UN and international partners continues to urge all parties to resolve the remaining issues quickly. The EU will play an important role in providing immediate support to a Government of National Accord, and we will encourage the EU to develop its options for support in co-ordination with the UN.
Climate diplomacy
Ministers are expected to discuss the outcomes of the Paris climate change agreement and how best to support its implementation. They will exchange views on how the EU and member states should co-ordinate their efforts, including a draft climate diplomacy plan drawn up by the European External Action Service. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change said in her statement to the House on 14 December, this historic new global climate change agreement takes a significant step towards reducing, on a global scale, the emissions that cause climate change. The UK Government welcome the way the EU institutions and member states worked together to deliver the Paris agreement. The Government will continue to engage actively with EU partners and the institutions to support implementation of the agreement.
General Affairs Council
The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 16 February is expected to focus on European Council follow up, preparation of the February and March European Councils and the inter-institutional agreement on better regulation.
European Council follow up
The GAC will discuss the implementation of conclusions adopted at the December European Council, with a particular focus on the migration issue.
Preparation of the February European Council
The GAC will prepare the draft conclusions for the 18-19 February European Council, which the Prime Minister will attend. The February European Council agenda covers the UK’s EU renegotiation migration and economic issues.
Preparation of the March European Council
The GAC will prepare the agenda for the 17-18 March European Council, which the Prime Minister will attend. The March European Council agenda has not yet been released but we expect it to include migration.
Inter-institutional agreement on better regulation (IIA)
The GAC will receive a further update on the IIA negotiations from the presidency. The Council may also discuss implementation, depending on the progress made ahead of the Council.
[HCWS532]
EU Foreign Ministers (Informal Meeting)
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the informal Foreign Ministers meeting on 5 and 6 February in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
The informal format of the Gymnich allows EU Foreign Ministers to engage in a free-ranging discussion on a number of issues. In contrast to the formal Foreign Affairs Council (FAC), Ministers do not agree written conclusions. The next FAC will be held on 15 February. The Gymnich was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. Discussion centred on the European global strategy, Iran, and migration. The Gymnich also featured a scenario-based exercise.
Elmar Brok MEP, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs and Foreign Ministers from EU candidate countries joined EU Ministers for the session on migration. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence and Minister for Reserves (Julian Brazier) represented the UK in the session on the European global strategy.
Gymnich discussion
European global strategy
EU Defence and Foreign Ministers met at a joint working lunch to discuss progress in the drafting of the strategy. Ms Mogherini stated her intention to produce a strategy that was broader than just security issues and covered the range of priorities for the EU. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and Minister for Reserves highlighted the UK’s strategic defence and security review (SDSR) and commitment to spend 2% on defence and 0.7% on development. He said it was important that Europe should look first to NATO for its defence.
Iran
The next issue on the agenda was the EU’s relationship with Iran. Ms Mogherini said the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPoA) should be implemented and respected. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs added that the EU needed to take a cautious approach due to Iran’s ballistic missile programme and poor human rights.
Scenario-based exercise
At the joint initiative of Ms Mogherini and the Dutch Foreign Minister, Mr Bert Koenders, Ministers took part in a crisis simulation exercise, which involved a fictitious scenario followed by discussion of possible responses to an external threat.
Migration issues
The second day of the informal Gymnich meeting addressed migration with an extended session. EU Foreign Ministers were joined by Ministers from candidate countries and discussed the routes taken by migrants through the western Balkans and Turkey, the challenges ahead and possible solutions. Ms Mogherini intended to focus on implementing measures already in place, such as the Turkey action plan (AP) and work on contingency planning for the western Balkans routes.
The Foreign Secretary highlighted how the stream of legitimate refugees from Syria could worsen and stressed the need for a long-term strategy beyond the current crisis. This included addressing upstream push factors and supporting UN efforts and Syria’s neighbours.
[HCWS531]
Ballistic Missiles: North Korea
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I would like to update the House on the most recent developments on the Korean peninsula and the action the Government are taking in response.
North Korea announced on 7 February that it had launched a satellite that morning. The launch took place at Dongchang-Ri on North Korea’s west coast. It was carried out by a satellite launch vehicle which used ballistic missile technology. As the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), made clear in his public statement on 7 February, this latest provocation by North Korea is a clear and deliberate violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 1718, 1874, 2087 and 2094.
This provocation took place almost exactly a month after North Korea announced to the media that it had conducted its first hydrogen bomb test on 6 January. The Foreign Secretary updated the House on this issue on 13 January, Official Report, columns 21-22WS, and our assessment remains that the size of the seismic event caused by the nuclear test, while indicative of a nuclear explosion, was not indicative of the successful test of a thermonuclear weapon—also known as a hydrogen bomb.
We support the position outlined by the UN Security Council, as expressed in their press statement of 7 February, that this launch, as well as any other launch that uses ballistic missile technology, even if characterised as a satellite or space launch, contributes to North Korea’s development of nuclear weapon delivery systems and is a serious violation of Security Council resolutions. We are working with other UN Security Council members to adopt expeditiously a new Security Council resolution in response to these dangerous and serious violations.
I summoned the North Korean ambassador to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 8 February in order to make clear, in the strongest terms, the UK’s firm condemnation of this latest action. Our ambassador in Pyongyang has reiterated our condemnation of the nuclear test.
In addition to the Foreign Secretary speaking to the Japanese Foreign Minister on 8 February, we remain in close touch with the US, France, South Korea, China and other partners on our respective approaches towards North Korea.
We remain deeply concerned by North Korea’s continued development of nuclear weapons and missile technology in defiance of UN resolutions and international condemnation. Amid reports of widespread hardship and human rights violations, the priority must be the health and welfare of North Korean people.
Our message to North Korea is that this behaviour is unacceptable. Due to the regime’s continued flagrant violation of UN Security Council resolutions, it now faces an increasingly robust international response.
[HCWS537]
Ring-fenced Public Health Grants
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
I am today publishing the public health allocations to local authorities in England for 2016-17 along with indicative allocations for 2017-18.
Through the public health grant, we are investing £3.39 billion for public health in 2016-17 and £3.30 billion in 2017-18. I believe this is a fair settlement, which will ensure the long-term sustainability of public health services. We will be investing over £16 billion over the next five years for public health, in addition to what the NHS spends on preventive interventions such as immunisation and screening.
The indicative allocation for 2017-18 will help local authorities to develop and extend their planning, including initiatives better delivered across more than one year. During 2016 the Government plan to consult on options to fund local authorities’ public health spending from retained business rates receipts.
We are asking local authorities to adjust the way they report their spending from the grant on a number of subjects in 2016-17, and for the first time are including public mental health as a separate heading in spending returns.
Full details of the public health grants to local authorities can be found on gov.uk. This information will be communicated to local authorities in a local authority circular.
Attachments can be found online at: http://www.parliament. uk/writtenstatements
[HCWS527]
Policing
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am pleased to inform Parliament that Her Majesty the Queen has approved a one-year extension to the appointment of Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe QPM, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
I recommended this extension to Her Majesty having had regard to a recommendation from the Mayor of London as occupant of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. My recommendation recognises the vital work the Commissioner has done in fighting crime and in reforming the Metropolitan Police Service. He has been at the forefront of the vital and important challenge of policing London at a time of heightened security.
This extension to 25 September 2017 provides continuity for the Metropolitan Police Service during a change of political leadership in London, and will give the new Mayor of London the opportunity to take an informed view about any recommendation they may wish to make about the longer-term leadership of the organisation, after they take office in May 2016.
The extension enables Sir Bernard to continue his programme of reform of the Metropolitan Police Service and the vital task of cutting crime and keeping London safe.
[HCWS534]
Contingencies Fund Advance
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Michael Gove)
The Ministry of Justice requires an advance to discharge its commitments, some of which are set out in its supplementary estimate 2015-16, to be published in February 2016. This is a temporary cash advance due to the timing of Royal Assent for the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill 2015-16, which will not receive Royal Assent until late in March 2016.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £192,000,000 and additional cash of £268,000,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Ministry of Justice. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £460,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
The advance will be repaid upon Royal Assent of the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill.
[HCWS535]
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The Government are committed to modernising the way in which justice is accessed and delivered. We are investing over £700 million over the next four years to update the court and tribunal estate, installing modern IT systems and making the justice system more efficient and effective for modern users.
Working closely with the judiciary, we have begun installing wi-fi and digital systems in our criminal courts but much more needs to be done. We want to make the entire justice system more accessible to everyone—witnesses, victims, claimants, police and lawyers—by using modern technology including online plea, claims and evidence systems and video conferencing, reducing the need for people to travel to court.
As part of this modernisation, the court and tribunal estate has to be updated. Many of the current 460 court buildings are underused: last year 48% of all courts and tribunals were empty for at least half their available hearing time. These buildings are expensive to maintain yet unsuitable for modern technology.
Court closures are difficult decisions; local communities have strong allegiances to their local courts and I understand their concerns. But changes to the estate are vital if we are to modernise a system which everybody accepts is unwieldy, inefficient, slow, expensive to maintain and unduly bureaucratic.
On 16 July 2015 I therefore announced a consultation on proposals to close 91 courts and tribunals in England and Wales. Over 2,100 separate responses were received, along with 13 petitions containing over 10,000 signatures. I am grateful to all who took the time to provide their views. It is clear from the responses that the service our courts and tribunals provide continues to be highly valued.
Having considered carefully all responses to the consultation, we have decided to close 86 of the 91 courts and tribunals. A total of 64 sites will close as proposed in the consultation. A further 22 closures will take place but with changes to the original proposals. These changes, many suggested by respondents, include the identification of suitable alternative venues, such as local civic buildings; or different venues in the HMCTS estate to those originally proposed. I am very grateful to all those who engaged with the consultation to help us to reach the best solutions.
On average, the 86 courts we are closing are used for just over a third of their available hearing time. That is equivalent to less than two days a week. It will still be the case that after these closures, over 97% of citizens will be able to reach their required court within an hour by car. This represents a change of just 1 percentage points for both criminal and county courts. The proportion able to reach a tribunal within an hour by car will remain unchanged at 83%.
For each proposal in the consultation, we have considered access to justice; value for money; and efficiency. The consultation response, which is being published today, contains details of all the decisions and changes including an indicative timetable for closures, and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS536]
Universal Credit
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
The full universal credit service for new claims remains on track to be delivered nationally for all types of claimants from May 2016, completing in summer 2018.
Today, I can announce the jobcentres which will be go live with the full service from May through to the end of 2016. Details of the sites can be found in the table below and on the gov.uk website.
October 2016 | November 2016 | December 2016 |
|---|---|---|
Rugby | Harrogate | Frome |
Lowestoft | Richmond | Wells |
Bath | Ryedale | Lancaster |
Bridgwater | Hammersmith | Morecombe |
Newcastle Cathedral Square | Inverness | Widnes |
Runcorn | ||
Peckham | Whitehaven | Hartlepool |
Kennington Park | Workington | Fulham |
Taunton | Melton Mowbray | Shepherds Bush |
Northallerton | Daventry | Stratford-Upon-Avon |
Skipton | Market Harborough | Swindon |
Minehead | Dingwall | Hastings |
Fort William | ||
Invergordon | ||
Portree | ||
Wick |
This roll-out plan continues the successful delivery approach we have used to date, expanding steadily, safely and securely to ensure the system is resilient and we have the opportunity to learn as we go.
In agreeing this plan my Department has engaged with the local authorities. We will continue to work closely together to finalise and announce the plans for 2017 by July. Details for 2018 and the completion of the roll-out of the full service will be announced by September.
As each jobcentre rolls out all new claims will be on universal credit and it will no longer be possible, in that location, to make a new claim to income-based jobseekers allowance and employment and support allowance, income support, housing benefit or tax credits. By the middle of 2018 this transition will be complete and it will no longer be possible to make a claim for these legacy benefits or tax credits anywhere in Great Britain.
My Department will bring forward the relevant legislation for these sites in due course.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-02-11/HCWS525
[HCWS525]
House of Lords
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Retirement of a Member: Baroness Williams of Crosby
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement with effect from today of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her much- valued service to the House.
Libraries: Local Government Finance Settlement
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Local Government Finance Settlement on the provision of libraries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
The Government fully recognise the importance and significance of public libraries. It is a service delivered according to local priorities, but local authorities have a duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient service. It is too soon to determine the impact of the finance settlement, which was of course finalised only this week.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Lancashire, which is where I live, the budget recommended to the county council this very afternoon involves a reduction in the number of libraries across that large county from 74 to 34—in other words, 40 libraries are to be closed? Is this acceptable, as far as the Government are concerned?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, decisions on library services are of course a local authority matter, and Lancashire Council has completed a consultation seeking residents’ views on service design, need and use—libraries are changing all across the UK. We understand that a further period of more detailed consultation will be undertaken between May and July. I encourage residents to make the council aware of their specific library needs and ideas for the future.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that not just libraries but museums and galleries are under great pressure? Does she remember that in the financial statement in November, which was a very favourable one for those of us interested in heritage and the arts, the Chancellor talked about cutting heritage—galleries and museums—being a false economy? Can we do something to ensure that what is good for the nation is good in local government?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I entirely agree with my noble friend about the importance of funding for these areas. As he said, the settlement was very reasonable. Indeed, on the local government settlement, the proposal that has been adopted this week was made by Labour authorities, including Lancashire. The point is that libraries are changing—we have talked a lot about digital change, and volunteers are coming in. Lancashire is doing the right thing by consulting on change. I am sure that the final proposal will be different from what was first put forward.
Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s mother has done what the Minister asked and sat down and wrote a serious letter to a local authority complaining about local authority cuts. Does not that indicate that we have reached a very serious situation indeed, and the Prime Minister and his Government need to do something about it if they are to maintain the social fabric of local communities?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, the settlement means that every council will have for the financial year ahead at least the resources allocated by the provisional settlement. In addition, those councils with the sharpest fall in grant money will now receive transitional funding as they move from dependence on central government grants to greater financial autonomy.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the Minister has twice mentioned the changing nature of libraries. Of course, they are not just about books. Nowadays, they are a major and vital source for internet access, especially in poorer areas, where people need them to apply for jobs and where fewer households have broadband. Especially in rural areas where broadband coverage is much lower, they are a vital part of rural sustainability. The Government are rolling out broadband very quickly, and that is encouraging, but it does need time. What support are they giving to those vital online centres, many of which are closely related to libraries or in libraries, both for the sake of heritage but also for the sake of our economy?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The internet is absolutely vital, and obviously vital to these hubs which are bringing libraries and other services together. By May, 99% of libraries will have wi-fi for the customers to use, and 1,000 of the wi-fi connections have been provided through grants from the DCMS, for exactly the sort of reason that the right reverend Prelate articulated.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will my noble friend thank all the volunteers in counties such as North Yorkshire and across rural England who are keeping local libraries open in exactly the way that the right reverend Prelate has suggested? What more can the Government do to encourage more local councils to train volunteers in this way?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My noble friend makes a brilliant point. There was a 20% increase in volunteers working in libraries last year. Some local authorities are embedding this into their statutory service, as in Buckinghamshire. The Government are encouraging this joint provision because it will help to take our brilliant libraries—there are 3,000 across the UK—into the future.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, the Minister is right that it is local government’s responsibility to make the decisions on how to implement the Government’s severe budget cuts to local government, but does she accept that it is central government’s responsibility under the 1964 Act to ensure that there is a comprehensive and efficient library service, to which she referred, and which is the responsibility under the 1964 Act? If so, when and how are the Government going to implement that responsibility?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, the duty is of course on local authorities, but the noble Lord is right: the Secretary of State has a statutory power to intervene when an authority fails to provide the required service. Complaints that a local authority may be failing are considered very carefully by my department, case by case. The closure of a library branch, or branches, is not necessarily a breach of the 1964 Act—but of course we keep this under very careful scrutiny, as he knows, and publish a report on libraries every year, which is very important.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The fact is that that statutory duty requires the Minister to intervene. In fact, Ed Vaizey said that central government can and will intervene if a council is “planning dramatic cuts”. Of course, many councils are finding themselves in incredibly difficult situations. How many councils have the Government actually intervened on, and to what effect? How many have they actually called in to see whether they are meeting the statutory responsibility? This is an issue that this Government cannot duck.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, we take our responsibilities seriously. The department is engaged with a number of libraries. I have an annexe, which I am very happy to share with the noble Lord, setting out some of the different actions we have taken in respect of particular areas, including Lancashire. Of course, we want councils to do the right thing because this is rightly a matter for local people.
Schools: Food Nutrition Standards
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to legislate to ensure that food and drink provided in all types of schools follow Food Standards Agency food and nutritional guidelines.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, last year the Government introduced new statutory school food standards as a result of the school food plan. They were based on food groups to make it easier for cooks to prepare healthy, tasty dishes without needing a computer program to determine the necessary level of nutrients and are easier for parents to understand. They severely restrict foods high in fat, salt and sugar and have resulted, for instance, in children eating more vegetables.
Lord Storey (LD)
No doubt the Minister will be pleased and delighted with the success of free school meals at key stage 1. Will the Government consider extending that to key stage 2, perhaps paid for by a sugar tax—which, incidentally, would help the 84% of young people in the north-west who suffer from dental decay and would save the National Health Service £30 million a year on teeth operations?
Lord Nash
I entirely agree with the noble Lord’s comment about the success of universal infant free school meals, which is resulting in 1.3 million more children getting a healthy meal every day. We have funded that considerably, including for new kitchens. In secondary schools healthy food is generally available and we are doing all we can to make sure that, where it is not, it is made available.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Which guidelines are schools following? They cannot be following the Food Standards Agency nutritional guidelines because one of the first acts of the coalition in 2010 was to remove from the Food Standards Agency any and all work related to nutrition. Who is doing the guidelines? Is it now done behind closed doors in the Department of Health, where policy is not done openly as it is in the FSA?
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
The Government are undermining free school meals for up to key stage 1, which was a Liberal Democrat achievement in the coalition Government, by starving the programme of cash. Why are the Government going to remove the grants to small primary schools that enable them to deliver these hot meals to children? How will that help nutrition for those children for whom this is the only decent, nutritional meal they get in the whole day?
Lord Nash
My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right that we have paid an extra £33 million to small schools to enable them to engage in this programme. It was always intended as transitional funding to help schools put their service on a sustainable footing and we believe that that has been done.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, in view of the widespread desire to help our milk producers and of the nutritional benefits, has the time come to consider reintroducing compulsory milk in our schools, which helped to make so many of us healthy?
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many children come to school without having had breakfast? What is the provision of school milk? Some children are even getting rickets.
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness raises an extremely good point. It is deeply concerning that many children seem to come to school not having eaten properly, which cannot help their concentration in school. We have funded a Magic Breakfast programme which has resulted in nearly 200 new schools in disadvantaged areas offering breakfast clubs. It is focused on areas where free school meals are 35% or more in the schools. The programme has been very successful and we are looking at it further.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, academies established prior to 2010 and those established from June 2014 have clauses in their funding agreements stating that their schools must comply with national food standards, but those academies established in the years in between do not have such clauses. Can the Minister explain that anomaly and inform noble Lords what he intends to do to end it?
Lord Nash
The noble Lord is absolutely right: academies opened between September 2010 and July 2014, of which there were 3,900, do not technically have to follow the school food standards. But those standards were introduced only a year ago. Over the last year, 1,400 of the schools have voluntarily signed up to them, and we are encouraging many more to do so. We believe that most academies follow a healthy eating strategy. Indeed, the School Food Plan authors said that some of the best food they found was in academies. We do not think it is necessary to legislate further.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, if free milk is to be made available again in schools, with the Minister confirm that it would not be compulsory? For some of us it contains memories of a cruel and unusual punishment.
Lord Mawhinney (Con)
My Lords, in his first response my noble friend talked about new guidelines coming in last year that reduced the amounts of fat, salt and sugar in school diets. Could he tell the House what percentage reductions occurred in each of those three categories?
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister join me in paying tribute to dinner ladies, who provide a very important relationship to children, and who, perhaps through that relationship, can encourage children to eat well and healthily?
Police: Body-worn Cameras
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the current guidance provided to police forces regarding the use of body-worn cameras by police officers.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the College of Policing published interim operational guidance for the use of body-worn video in July 2014. The college is preparing evidence-based authorised professional practice, which we anticipate will be published later this year.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, Jermaine Baker was shot dead by the police in Tottenham last December. The fact that the firearms officer was not wearing a body-worn camera was viewed with suspicion by some and with regret by the IPCC. Does the Minister not agree that the Home Office needs to publish as soon as possible a statement on the current position on body-worn cameras and national guidelines, in order to avoid unreasonable suspicion falling on the police?
Lord Bates
The noble Lord asks an interesting question. The incident to which he refers involved a mobile armed surveillance support team. A lot of the guidance relates to the overt use of cameras by operational police. The covert is also covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. This is something that we need to look very carefully at, and I understand that we will be receiving reports from the IPCC in considering what further action needs to be taken, perhaps in the Policing and Crime Bill.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the latest research, published in today’s newspapers, explaining that 15% of stop and search is carried out unreasonably? This is an area of serious adversarial relationships between the police and the BME community. Is it not time that such evidence was available to individuals so that rights and liberties would not be affected?
Lord Bates
The Home Secretary has announced a reform of stop and search powers. Since those reforms were introduced, there has been a fall in stop and search; there were 540,000 instances last year, a fall of 40% in one year. At the same time, knife crime fell in the capital. We think that the use of body-worn video will only help to ensure that stop-and-search procedures are used in a fair and proportionate way.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
Does my noble friend pay tribute with me to the enormous amount of work that has been done by the Home Secretary in the reform of stop and search, which I agree is disproportionately used against ethnic minorities? Does he congratulate her on suspending 13 police forces which failed to use stop and search appropriately and were seen to be using it unlawfully, and can he outline to the House what further steps the Home Secretary intends to take to ensure that this power is not abused?
Lord Bates
We are doing a number of things in this area. We have issued the new reforms, and of course, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary keeps this under very tight review. We have also said that data must be collected on this, and transparency of data collection is a very important part of reassuring the public that these important powers are used proportionately and appropriately, irrespective of people’s ethnic backgrounds.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register on policing. Can the Minister enlighten us? Is it not the case that where there have been trials of body-worn videos, the number of complaints against police have fallen, and that they have been much more easily resolved? If all officers who carry out stop and search had body-worn videos, would that not reduce many of the tensions? It might have a good effect on the officers concerned as regards the manner in which they carry out those stop and searches as well as on the behaviour of those whom they stop. If so, should the Government not move much more rapidly to ensure that all officers on the street, whether covert or overt, are equipped with body-worn videos?
Lord Bates
Indeed; that particular study the noble Lord refers to was on a trial carried out by the Metropolitan Police and the College of Policing, and it found exactly that: it had a regulating behaviour both on those who were videoed and those who carried the body-worn camera. Public approval was in excess of 90% across a whole range of indicators that this was a positive innovation. That is why the Met has announced that it will roll it out across all front-line services—Hampshire and others have already done so. However, at that level it is a matter for the chief constable.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I endorse the comments that have been made by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. Who will have to approve the new guidelines to which the Minister referred, and will there be any parliamentary scrutiny or debate on them?
Lord Bates
They will have the standing of authorised professional practice, which comes under the College of Policing. That is published and it is open to review. However, we have changed the procedure from the Home Office guidance on body-worn cameras issued in 2007 to give the National College of Policing and chief constables greater power and authority to make those decisions, although that is public and will be open to scrutiny.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering the questions that are posed to him, unlike some of his colleagues, who ignore the questions and read from a ministerial brief. Will he consider having a word with them?
Lord Bates
I have no idea how to answer that. All I can say is that in my experience my colleagues on the Front Bench do everything in their power to make sure that the Members of this House get the answers to questions which they deserve.
Zimbabwe: Food Security
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the food security situation in Zimbabwe in the light of the declaration of a state of disaster by the government of Zimbabwe on 2 February.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, the UK led the international community when we began our response in September 2015. Our current £10 million humanitarian programme supports 336,000 people through cash transfers in the worst-affected areas. We are looking at options to extend the programme. We also support programmes valued at £48.8 million to build the resilience of smallholder farmers.
Lord Oates (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware of growing evidence that the Zimbabwean authorities are using food aid as a political tool by denying it to opposition supporters? Can she tell the House what measures the Government are taking to ensure that UK aid, whether provided bilaterally or through multilateral agencies, is not abused in this despicable manner, and will she assure the people of Zimbabwe that whatever the misrule of their Government, Britain stands in solidarity with them?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I am aware of the reports that the noble Lord refers to but I assure him that all the assistance given by the UK Government goes through local partners on the ground—we do not do anything through the Government—and we use cash transfers targeted at the households that are in most need. I take the noble Lord’s point but we also need to look the progress being made. Like him, we stand by the Zimbabwean people.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, when Zimbabwe gets a better Government, will Her Majesty’s Government encourage the Commonwealth to re-embrace Zimbabwe and bring it back to the prosperity that it deserves, not leaving it all to the Chinese?
Baroness Verma
My noble friend raises an important point about what the Commonwealth can deliver. It is right and proper that when we see progress, we encourage even greater progress, and that we make sure that countries are able to remain, or return to being part of, the Commonwealth family.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, part of the problem is man-made; part of it is simply the dislocation caused by reorganisation in Zimbabwe. Part of the tragedy is that historically Zimbabwe has been the bread-basket of the region, so this is, to some extent, a regional problem. Given the corruption in the Zimbabwe Government and more widely, as well as the inefficiencies in administration, is the Minister wholly confident that any food aid is getting through to the people who desperately need it?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, this disaster has been added to by the El Niño effect and we need to make sure that we address that, as well as ensuring, as the noble Lord rightly points out, that the people who most need assistance receive it. I am really proud that the Government step up, show leadership and encourage their partners to work as stringently as we do, ensuring that there is real monitoring of the delivery of cash transfers and food aid on the ground. Ultimately, the focus must be on the Zimbabwean people who most need assistance.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise the possible significance of climate change in what is happening in Zimbabwe at the moment? What is DfID doing to make sure that across government, particularly in the Treasury and DECC, there is a return to the high priority that the previous Government gave to combating climate change?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the Government have continued to support a reduction in the impact of climate change, and the Chancellor, through the Treasury, has added resources to the work being done. I do not think that this Government have been backward in dealing with climate change issues. In fact, in many areas we are leading the way, and I know that the noble Baroness will be reassured by that.
Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the problems in Zimbabwe at the moment is the very severe drought? If not unprecedented, it is certainly very severe. Is she aware that it is affecting not just Zimbabwe but surrounding countries, including South Africa, which are also suffering severely from the drought and a shortage of maize? Are the Government giving due attention to countries other than Zimbabwe?
Baroness Verma
The noble Lord is absolutely right. The drought is affecting not just Zimbabwe but its neighbours. The impact on Ethiopia is currently far greater than it is on Zimbabwe and other countries, so our focus is predominantly on those countries with the greatest need. However, it is a regional issue and we therefore need to ensure that we deal with it on a regional basis.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their efforts to ensure that aid gets to the people who need it and that corruption is not a barrier to that. However, the fact is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said, the Government of Zimbabwe are using food aid as a political weapon. This is a case for joined-up government. Can the noble Baroness tell us what representations the Government as a whole, through the FCO, are making to the African Union and to neighbouring countries, particularly South Africa, to ensure that such practices are halted?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, we, along with our partners, continue to press the Zimbabwe Government to ensure that any food aid is distributed according to need. It is absolutely right that we continue to press them, and our FCO colleagues do the same; we are a joined-up Government and we work collectively. However, in responding to this Question today, I want to assure noble Lords that the focus of my department is to ensure that those who need food the most get it as urgently as possible.
Pensions Act 2014 (Consequential and Supplementary Amendments) Order 2016
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 30 November 2015 be approved.
Relevant documents: 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on Monday 8 February
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 18 November 2015 and 11 January be approved.
Relevant documents: 11th and 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on Wednesday 10 February
Armed Forces Bill
(8 years, 10 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, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a pleasure to be speaking to the Armed Forces Bill. Such an opportunity normally occurs only every five years and, as always, it is a significant occasion. Its significance can be traced back to the Bill of Rights in 1688, which declared:
“That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against law”.
Since then, the legislation making the provision necessary for the Army to exist as a disciplined force and, more recently, the legislation for the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, has required annual renewal.
Since the 1950s, an Armed Forces Act has been required every five years to continue in force the legislation enabling the Armed Forces to be recruited and maintained as disciplined bodies. Those Acts have provided that, in each of the years between five-yearly Acts, an Order in Council is required to continue in force that legislation. That legislation is currently the Armed Forces Act 2006, which provides a system of command, discipline and justice for the Armed Forces. It covers matters such as the powers of commanding officers to punish disciplinary or criminal misconduct, the powers of the court martial, and the powers of the service police. The 2006 Act confers powers and sets out procedures to enforce the duty of members of the Armed Forces to obey lawful commands. Without this Armed Forces Bill, the Armed Forces Act 2006 could not continue in force beyond the end of this year. This Bill is a constitutional requirement. Each Government, in turn, have an Armed Forces Bill, not because their manifesto says so but because control over the system under which the Armed Forces are maintained resides not with the Executive but with Parliament.
When speaking about the need to renew the legislation for the Armed Forces, it is sometimes asked what would happen if that legislation was not renewed. The 2006 Act contains almost all the provisions for the existence of a system for the Armed Forces of command, discipline and justice—these I mentioned earlier. It also provides for other important things, such as provision for their enlistment, pay and their system for the redress of complaints. The central effect of expiry of the Armed Forces Act 2006 would be to end the powers and provisions to maintain the Armed Forces as disciplined bodies. Perhaps the most important example of this effect is that the duty of members of the Armed Forces to obey lawful commands, which is under Section 12 of the 2006 Act, and the powers and procedures under which this duty is enforced, would no longer have effect. Commanding officers and the court martial would have no powers of punishment for disciplinary or criminal misconduct. The obligation of members of the Armed Forces is, essentially, a duty to obey lawful orders; they have no contracts of employment and so no duty as employees.
I mentioned earlier the assertion in the Bill of Rights 1688 that the Army—and by extension now the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy—may not be maintained within the kingdom without the consent of Parliament. The requirement for renewal of the 2006 Act is based on that assertion. Failure to renew would call into question Parliament’s consent to the maintenance of our Armed Forces. This is why renewal of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is so important—and renewal is the primary purpose of this Bill.
This is a smaller Bill than the one five years ago which became the Armed Forces Act 2011 and considerably smaller than the Armed Forces Act 2006, which made significant changes, including establishing a single system of service law for all three services. The 2006 Act continues to work well and I pay tribute to the work of the then Government for this achievement.
The 2011 Act renewed the 2006 Act and, like most five-yearly Armed Forces Acts, it made a few other changes to the service justice system and defence more broadly. Its eye-catcher, of course, was the requirement to report on the Armed Forces covenant, which has made a huge difference to the lives of serving and ex-service personnel.
This is a modest Bill. The 2006 Act, as amended by the 2011 Act and the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Act 2015, which provides for the Service Complaints Ombudsman, needs only a few small changes. This Bill tidies a few things up and keeps our legislation current so that it remains fit for purpose.
So what does the Bill do? I have mentioned renewal of the 2006 Act. That is covered by the first clause of the Bill. It provides for continuation of the 2006 Act for a year from the date on which this Bill receives Royal Assent. It also provides for renewal thereafter by Order in Council for up to a year at a time until the end of 2021.
Currently a commanding officer may require a member of the Armed Forces, or a civilian subject to service discipline, to co-operate with a preliminary test for alcohol or drugs only on suspicion of an offence. Clause 2 extends the circumstances in which a commanding officer may require co-operation with such a test. It provides for post-accident preliminary testing without the need for suspicion that the person tested may have committed an offence. The new powers to require co-operation with tests apply only after accidents involving aircraft or ships or after other serious accidents. The results of such tests can be used in support of any type of investigation arising from the accident. The powers are derived from, but not identical to, those in the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 under which civilians may be required to co-operate with tests for alcohol and drugs.
Clauses 3 to 5 relate to the investigation and charging of service offences under the Armed Forces Act 2006. The clauses make a number of changes to the provisions in Part 5 of the 2006 Act which deal with the process of deciding whether a person is to be charged with a service offence under that Act. The changes simplify the process. The commanding officer rightly deals with 90% of cases in the service justice system and these provisions will not change that. Clause 3 is about simplifying the process for charging in some of the remaining 10% of cases which the commanding officer does not have power to hear, including offences such as perverting the course of justice and sexual assault. Currently, some cases which cannot be dealt with by the commanding officer must none the less be referred by the investigating service police to the commanding officer, and then from the commanding officer to the Director of Service Prosecutions for a decision on the charge and prosecution. Clause 3 provides instead for the service police to refer straight to the DSP any case where there is sufficient evidence to charge an offence with which the commanding officer cannot deal. It also deals with charging in linked cases—for example, separate offences that occurred during the same incident.
Clause 4 makes a minor, technical clarification to the procedure for the referral of linked cases from the commanding officer to the DSP. Clause 5 provides for the Director of Service Prosecutions to bring charges himself. Currently, where the director decides that a charge should be brought in a case, he cannot bring the charge directly but must direct the suspect’s commanding officer to bring the charge, who must then do so.
Clause 6 increases the range of sentencing options available to the court martial. Both civilian courts and the court martial can currently suspend sentences of imprisonment for up to 24 months. However, the service courts can suspend sentences of service detention for only 12 months. This clause gives the court martial the ability to suspend sentences of service detention for up to 24 months. Sentences of service detention are served at the Military Corrective Training Centre in Colchester. This would provide the court martial with another option when sentencing. In appropriate circumstances, suspended sentences can allow continued service alongside rehabilitation activities.
Clauses 7 to 12 deal with offenders assisting investigations. Clauses 7 and 8 allow the Director of Service Prosecutions, in return for assistance provided by a person to an investigation or prosecution, to enter into an agreement with the person, giving them immunity from prosecution or an undertaking that information will not be used against them in proceedings. Clauses 9 to 12 make provision with respect to reduced sentences for those who provide such assistance.
In the civilian criminal justice system, prosecutors such as the Director of Public Prosecutions have statutory powers to offer immunity from prosecution and restrictions on the use of evidence in return for assistance relating to offences. The Director of Service Prosecutions has no such power, yet in some cases the evidence of a witness or defendant could be crucial to a case, but fears about self-incrimination prevent that person coming forward. Clauses 7 to 12 would change that. The provisions closely follow those in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 that apply to civilian prosecutors and courts.
Clause 13 and the Schedule to the Bill provide for the Armed Forces Act 2006 as it currently has effect in the UK to come into force in the Isle of Man and the British Overseas Territories, except Gibraltar. We are consulting the Government of Gibraltar about extending the 2006 Act to that territory. I should make it clear that, as a matter of UK law, the 2006 Act applies to UK service personnel wherever in the world they serve. It will continue to do so. The Isle of Man and the British Overseas Territories other than Gibraltar are content for the 2006 Act to form part of the law of those jurisdictions. Discussions are ongoing with Gibraltar about whether it would be content for the 2006 Act to form part of its law. If it considers that that would be best, we propose to introduce an amendment as soon as possible to that effect.
Clause 14 reflects the Government’s commitment to the fair and equal treatment of LGBT Armed Forces personnel. It repeals two provisions regarding homosexuality in the Armed Forces, the existence of which is inconsistent with the department’s current policies and the Government’s equality and discrimination policies more generally. The clause amends Sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Currently, these sections contain wording that provides that those sections do not prevent a homosexual act from being a ground for discharging a member of the Armed Forces. The clause removes that wording. When Sections 146 and 147 were enacted, it was government policy that homosexuality was incompatible with service in the Armed Forces. Accordingly, members of the Armed Forces who engaged in homosexual activity were administratively discharged from the Armed Forces. That policy was abandoned in January 2000. Since then, these provisions have had no practical effect. They are, therefore, redundant.
The Secretary of State may make regulations under Section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989 to give war pensions committees functions relating to war pensions and war pensioners, such as considering complaints made by pension recipients. The committees’ existing functions relate primarily to the war pensions scheme, which provides compensation for injury or death caused by service in the Armed Forces before 6 April 2005. Clause 15 amends Section 25, allowing committees to also be given functions relating to the scheme which provides compensation for injury or death caused by service in the Armed Forces on or after 6 April 2005. These days the war pensions committees are commonly known as veterans advisory and pensions committees.
Clauses 16 and 17 give Ministry of Defence firefighters statutory powers to act in an emergency to protect life or property. These are the same powers as those given to employees of local fire and rescue authorities under Section 44 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 and equivalent legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Those powers include powers to enter premises by force if necessary, to close roads and to regulate traffic. Clause 16 also makes it an offence to obstruct an MoD firefighter who is acting in an emergency. Clause 17 gives MoD firefighters the same exemptions from provisions in certain Acts, such as rules on drivers’ hours, as employees of fire and rescue authorities.
The Defence Fire Risk Management organisation provides fire and rescue operational services and support across defence at airfields, specified domestic establishments and deployed locations in the UK and overseas, but it falls outside the ambit of the primary legislation that governs local fire and rescue authorities in the UK. Clauses 16 and 17 make simple, sensible changes to give MoD firefighters the same protections in law as their civilian counterparts. The Defence Fire Risk Management Organisation has more than 2,000 personnel operating more than 70 fire stations. Its firefighters fall into one of three categories: defence fire and rescue service civilian firefighters employed by the MoD; RAF and Royal Navy service personnel; and firefighters employed by a defence contractor. These firefighters currently have no specific statutory powers to act in an emergency to prevent or deal with fires, to protect life or to preserve property. The changes made by Clauses 16 and 17 will enable defence firefighters to carry out their duties in the same way as firefighters employed by civilian fire and rescue authorities.
That is what the Bill is about. As I said earlier, it is modest but none the less important. The number of expert speakers we look forward to hearing from during this debate is a reflection of that, as is the prospect of no fewer than three maiden speeches, from my noble friends Lady Pidding and Lord Shinkwin and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen. I pay tribute to our Armed Forces. We ask a lot of our men and women, whether serving in far-flung places or supporting UK flood relief operations. We are immensely proud of their work, their courage and their dedication and we take pride in the first-class reputation of our Armed Forces. Their success is underpinned by a fair and modern service justice system. I believe that we share a common purpose to keep it that way.
I have mentioned that we may bring forward a government amendment in relation to Gibraltar. If we do—if Gibraltar considers it best that we provide for the 2006 Act and the Bill to extend there—I will ensure that noble Lords are given this in good time. I look forward to the detailed scrutiny we shall undoubtedly give the Bill in Committee, and commend it to the House.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, military justice has come a very long way since the days—as happened to me many years ago at my captain’s table, waiting to dispense justice—when I heard my regulating petty officer order, “Wheel the guilty bastard in”.
In general, the Bill is uncontentious. Indeed, I think it resolves a number of anomalies. I know that my noble friend Lord Touhig has a number of areas which he might like to see expanded or tightened up and he will talk to those later. There are, however, two issues which I wish to raise and I have given the noble Earl prior notice of my concerns. I thank him for the briefing he gave to all of us on the Bill beforehand.
The first regards the issue of mesothelioma. After considerable pressure from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my Labour colleagues, the Government have taken action and announced that veterans exposed to asbestos during their military service and diagnosed with mesothelioma on or after 16 December 2015 will receive compensation. That includes veterans exposed before 1987, ensuring equality with that compensation available to all civilians. The Government are to be congratulated on that. One has to remember that none of us knew that it was dangerous. I can remember having snowball fights with asbestos in the boiler room of HMS “Albion” because we did not know that it was so dangerous.
But the announcement ignores a small number of sufferers who do not meet the qualifying dates. I know that the noble Earl—the Minister—is unhappy with what seems to go against the spirit of the Armed Forces covenant. Action needs to be taken quickly because people are dying as we speak. An article in this morning’s Independent puts it very succinctly: mesothelioma patients survive typically for one year following their diagnosis, so about 25% of those diagnosed will die every three months.
The Government need to act with alacrity and contact the afflicted veterans and their widows and families. Compensation should be available following the precedent of the mineworkers’ scheme for chest diseases. More than three months ago, the Prime Minister at PMQs undertook to look at this matter. I ask the Minister: can we now resolve this issue once and for all? I believe that it is the right thing to do.
My next concern stems from the Supreme Court’s decision of 2013 in the case of Smith and others v the Ministry of Defence, in which, by a majority of four to three, the court concluded that a claim should go to trial so that a judge could decide on the evidence whether it was covered by the doctrine of combat immunity or could give rise to a claim based on the Human Rights Act. The judgment has, not surprisingly, raised considerable concern in the military and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, asked in a Question on 25 June 2013 for reassurance about the relationship between human rights legislation and military law in war. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever—the government Minister at the time—did not give the cast-iron reassurance that one would have expected.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in the Armed Forces legal challenge Motion of 7 November 2013, said that he was driven to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, who gave a minority judgment in Smith. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, said that the approach taken by the majority,
“will in my view make extensive litigation almost inevitable after, as well as quite possibly during and even before, any active service operations undertaken by the British Army. It is likely to lead to the judicialisation of war, in sharp contrast with Stark J’s dictum in Shaw Savill (1940) that ‘war cannot be controlled or conducted by judicial tribunals’”.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, added:
“To offer as a panacea ... that courts should be very cautious about accepting such claims is to acknowledge the problem, but to offer no real solution”.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, stated:
“I have real difficulty in understanding what Article 2, the ‘Right to Life’, really means in the context of armed conflict. There is something strangely poignant when the mother of a soldier says to the press, after the decision in Smith, ‘Now all those soldiers have the right to life’. Perhaps that is the effect on the public’s mind of the decision”.—[Official Report, 7/11/13; cols. 393-94.]
I have to say that I share the views of both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord.
Thirty-four years ago this May, my ship was bombed and sunk during the amphibious landings in the Falkland Islands. I knew that my anti-aircraft armament was insufficient to counter air attacks so close against land. But it is the duty of military men to fight the war they are in with the equipment they have. The Smith judgment could see me taken to court for taking the correct military decision. This cannot be right.
It is total nonsense that one can use human rights legislation to drag military leaders through the courts for decisions made in war. In combat, men kill and are killed on a regular basis fighting for their country. Civilian norms cannot possibly apply. Yet there is a growing tendency, particularly in the European courts, to make judgments as if events on the battlefield were taking place in the halcyon days of peace.
It is not just the pernicious effect on the individual. In 2013, the Policy Exchange think tank produced a study entitled The Fog of Law, which showed clearly that such legal mission creep could paralyse the effectiveness of the military. In simple terms, our military will cease being able to win wars for us.
If health and safety at work were always to prevail, our military would be unable to fight. In combat, a sailor, soldier or airman might be ordered to take action that could result in virtually certain death. On the battlefield the right to life is not certain. I remain concerned about a possible wave of litigation and the impact it could have on our people and our military effectiveness. Parliament should intervene, and I ask the Minister: what can be done to stop the pernicious effect of this judgment and the pressures from the European Court of Human Rights?
Perhaps something can be done in this Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, intends to put down an amendment. He asked me to mention this. He will propose a clause that says something along the lines of, “The Human Rights Act 1998 will apply to a conflict operation in time of war only to the extent that is consistent with the provisions of the Geneva Convention”. The amendment is with the Public Bills Office at the moment. I would support it. If it is not in the Bill, I ask the Minister where such legislation can be enacted. How do the Government intend to get us out of this mess?
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Bill. I do not propose to follow the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, very interesting though it was. I am sure we will have an opportunity to debate those issues at a later stage.
I wish to argue that the court-martial system, which is integral to service discipline, does not enjoy public confidence. There have been many reforms and in my view, speaking as a practitioner and as chairman of the Association of Military Court Advocates, this lack of confidence is unmerited and unjustified. But it exists and there are cases coming down the track which will test the system in the extreme.
Back in 1994, I was engaged in the defence of a lance-corporal, serving in Germany, on a murder charge. He was acquitted and returned to his regiment. George Galloway, then a Labour Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Hillhead, used parliamentary privilege to assert that a murderer had walked free and was still at large, serving in Her Majesty’s Forces. He said:
“The military police, who were soldiers with armbands, and the military prosecutor, who was a soldier in a wig, bungled the case”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/3/95; col. 812]
When I appeared in a later court martial in Germany for a 17 year-old civilian son of a soldier, in another murder case, the staff sergeant who was the father of the victim in the previous case picketed the hearing with placards against the court-martial system. I have never heard of a Member of Parliament, nor even the press or public, attack a verdict of acquittal by a jury in a Crown Court in such terms. This did not even happen, for example, in the case I prosecuted in Cardiff during the miners’ strike, when two miners were convicted of the murder of a taxi driver using a concrete block.
The conviction of the 17 year-old went to the House of Lords Judicial Committee, where it was upheld. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, held that the procedure whereby a boy of 17 whose father had left the Army and who was brought from England to stand trial in Germany by court martial could not be considered an abuse of process because that was the process that Parliament had ordered. In 2007, some 10 years after that trial, the European Court of Human Rights had severe doubts on that score, but in any event, following the case of Findlay v United Kingdom, held that the 17 year-old’s conviction had been in violation of Article 6—the right to a fair trial—by reason of the way that the court martial was constituted.
Parliament had already responded to the preliminary decision in Findlay in the Armed Forces Act 1996. The role of the convening officer was abolished and decisions to prosecute were removed from the chain of command and given to the independent service prosecuting authorities. This was in recognition of the need to remove the impression, however mistaken, that the chain of command could have undue influence over court-martial proceedings. The Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000, passed after the Human Rights Act had come into force, made further changes, taking away the CO’s power to determine pre-trial custody and granting appeals against summary convictions.
My own contribution to reform at this stage—and this will appeal to the noble Lord, Lord West—was to table a Parliamentary Question as to why a defendant in a naval court martial was still being marched in at the point of a cutlass. The practice was abolished between my laying of the Question and the delivery of the Answer by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. In the time I have been involved in courts martial, the swords have gone, the stripping of the defendant of his belt and cap has gone, and the marching and the saluting have all disappeared. Importantly, the panel sits separately from the judge advocate. But public disquiet continued.
Noble Lords of an earlier generation will recall how Lord Campbell of Alloway campaigned on behalf of Trooper Williams, where the CO had dismissed charges of murder. But the Army Prosecuting Authority disagreed and passed the papers to the Attorney-General, who referred it to the CPS. The proceedings that followed at the Old Bailey were ultimately discontinued.
In 2005, charges of murder against seven members of the Paras were dismissed by the Judge Advocate-General, Judge Blackett, at a court martial at Colchester. There was disquiet that they had been charged at all. My own personal recollection was that I made a very unusual application in that case for an adjournment in order to get married in the Crypt of Parliament—something that Judge Blackett always brings up with me.
However, major reforms happened in 2006. Courts martial ceased to be convened ad hoc and became a permanent standing court, with court centres at Colchester, Bulford and Catterick. Other reforms included the merger of the separate service prosecution authorities and the creation of the office of the Director of Service Prosecutions. The service was fortunate in both its first director, Bruce Houlder QC, an Old Bailey civilian practitioner, and its second and current director, Andrew Cayley CMG QC, who used to be a prosecutor at the International Criminal Court.
In 2006, Judge Blackett gave evidence to the Select Committee in the Commons, advising it that the court-martial system should be brought into line with the Crown Court. Consequently, during the passage of that Armed Forces Bill, I moved amendments in this House to make provision in the court-martial rules that the court-martial panel should be drawn from all ranks and every branch of the armed services. They were to be selected by ballot from a pool constituted of people who were eligible to sit. The qualification was simply to be that the individual chosen was a serving member of the Armed Forces, subject to service law. It was not an outrageous suggestion, because that was the system adopted in the United States in 1952.
I also moved amendments that a person should not be charged with an offence against this section committed in the United Kingdom if the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales was treason, murder, manslaughter or rape. Further, I proposed that the verdict of guilty should not be entered by a simple majority but by a majority of five out of seven, if seven were sitting, or four out of five, if five were sitting. None of these amendments was accepted and the consequence was that the opportunity was lost to approximate trials by court martial to the Crown Court system.
The Act did not come into effect until 2009 and, meanwhile, in September 2006, the court martial took place of seven members of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment at Bulford before a High Court judge, Mr Justice McKinnon. The charges against them failed. Four of the other ranks and the colonel were discharged by the judge because,
“there is no evidence against them as a result of a more or less obvious closing of ranks”.
He said that there was a conspiracy of silence. Two other officers, one of whom I represented, were acquitted of negligently performing a duty by the panel after a full trial. However, this verdict was not accepted and your Lordships will recall that the Baha Mousa trial, or inquiry, was set up, which lasted three years and cost £13 million.
More recently, we have the concerns expressed over Deepcut. There was some evidence yesterday on the second inquest—which your Lordships will recall and which is published in today’s papers—that the Deepcut barracks were,
“heavily sexualised, misogynistic and toxic”.
Then there is the Anne-Marie Ellement case—two people have been charged so I will say no more about that. However, in the case of Sergeant Blackman, there has been great outside criticism and comment. The sentence was described as “ludicrous”, by a prince of the blood royal, no doubt defeating a convention that has lasted since the days of Charles I. In this House, my noble friend Lord Burnett, who will no doubt speak more about it, described it on 15 September as,
“a terrible miscarriage of justice”.—[Official Report, 15/9/15; col. GC 228]
Have your Lordships, if you think about it, ever heard of the verdict of a British jury in the ordinary Crown Court being described in such terms in this House? There is trouble brewing.
In January 2014 and September 2015, Public Interest Lawyers, headed by Phil Shiner, lodged complaints with the International Criminal Court. The extent of them, as described by the International Criminal Court, was that,
“UK Services personnel systematically abused hundreds of detainees in different UK-controlled facilities across the territory of Iraq over the whole period of their deployment from 2003 through 2008”.
It includes 200 cases of unlawful killing. The prosecutor of the ICC set up a preliminary examination and reported last November that,
“The Office is currently engaged in processing and analysing the vast amount of material provided”.
Your Lordships should appreciate that it would be a terrible insult and slight upon our system if the International Criminal Court were to declare that this country is incapable of dealing with war crimes within our own system.
However, the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, set up by the Ministry of Defence but independent of it, has itself investigated nearly 1,400 complaints of ill-treatment, including torture and murder. I am reliably informed that more than 30 of those allegations have already gone to the Director of Service Prosecutions and that a large number of cases will, at the moment, be tried by court martial. If they are dealt with by court martial, we can expect—and await—unrestrained comment and criticism of the system in the press and the media, leading to public alarm and further undermining of the system.
I am concerned about the welfare of those who serve this country in the Armed Forces and whom we put in the line of fire, and about the reputation of the British Armed Forces. Consequently, I propose to return during consideration of the Bill to the amendments that I put forward in 2006 and, if they are not acceptable, to propose that serious offences of murder, manslaughter and rape, and serious sexual offences, should be tried in our ordinary Crown Courts and no longer by court martial—the system that is under attack. I repeat that, as a practitioner, I have confidence in that system and in the judges and advocates who appear in it, but I fear that unless something drastic is done, its reputation will be destroyed.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the main purpose of the Bill has been fully outlined by the Minister. It is well understood that the Bill is an essential prerequisite for maintaining Armed Forces at the disposal of the Government of the day. However, this Bill follows the practice of the 2011 renewal of the new-look 2006 Act, and indeed of the quinquennial renewals of the single service Acts of the 1950s, before their displacement by the tri-service 2006 Act.
The Bill is, in effect, a Marshalled List of amendments to the 2006 Act and, on occasion, amendments to the amendments introduced by the 2011 Act. I complained five years ago, as we dealt with the 2011 Bill, that this did not make it that easy to understand and follow what the House was being invited to enact. Whether this endless approach of “marshalled amendments” to the 2006 Act is to proceed unchanged every five years into the distant future needs to be considered. For those steeped in legislative minutiae—the Bill team and the parliamentary counsel—it no doubt seems tidy and straightforward. But for the rest of us, whether versed in the ways of the military or not, I do not consider it to be that satisfactory.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, stressed, the Bill is of profound constitutional importance. It has to be right. When considering defence requirements we think of new equipment coming into service five, 10 and 15 years hence, and of the size and shape of the Armed Forces being varied over decades, but none of that is viable or in any way realistic without the timely passage of the Bill before us. If it were not to be passed, the Government would not have disciplined Armed Forces at their disposal to man all that equipment or to fight their wars. I hope that the Lib Dem Benches, with their recent predilection for unmandated and vainglorious challenges to the convention norms of your Lordships’ House, will not be tempted to try to hold the Government to account by refusing to pass the Bill after scrutiny.
I, for one, would prefer the Government to have tabled a Bill that incorporates their amendments to the earlier legislation—in other words, to produce the Bill in a format that can be read without repeated cross-referencing. Would it be that much more difficult for the Minister to guide the House through this rewrite of the 2006 Act, drawing attention to the changes and improvements to the earlier Acts that it incorporates? Is the approach merely a matter of convention? Perhaps the Minister can advise the House.
I have no particular points to raise on the list of marshalled amendments contained in the Bill, but there is for me a glaring omission in what lies before the House, to which the noble Lord, Lord West, has just drawn its attention. It totally lacks any approach to the difficulties that have arisen from the application of human rights legislation to activities during or close to combat, or to the increasingly vexatious problem of prolonged and historic litigation affecting or potentially affecting the operations of the Armed Forces and the lives of veterans long discharged.
Noble Lords will recall the growing media coverage of the latter issue in recent weeks. Defence Ministers have been reported as expressing anger and outrage. Indeed the Prime Minister himself has expressed his concerns, and presumably told the MoD to get a grip. In June and November 2013, when debating issues arising from the Supreme Court judgment on two particular cases which the noble Lord, Lord West, has just mentioned, I urged the Government then to be more proactive, although I accepted that precise steps would need to follow resolution of the particular cases before the courts.
Indeed, in a debate that November led by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I encouraged the Government to consider legislation to rule out from legal challenge under human rights legislation the behaviour of service personnel in the heat of battle or on dangerous patrols and similar operational activities. The European Convention on Human Rights was surely a safeguard for peacetime behaviour. I said that there was every likelihood that the situation would deteriorate further and that it would be a failure of moral courage and leadership not to tackle it. I also said that I hoped that the Armed Forces Bill due in 2016 could be a vehicle for legislating to ease these problems.
Nearly three years after the Supreme Court finding, and a protracted period for active consideration and staffing, there is nothing about this in the Bill—no sign of a proactive response. I remind the Minister what his party’s manifesto said, which he repeated in the Queen’s Speech debate only last May:
“We will ensure our Armed Forces overseas are not subject to persistent human rights claims that undermine their ability to do their job”.
The possibility of using a new Bill of Rights has been floated, but that Bill has yet to see the light of day. The Government should be ashamed of their lack of real progress.
What do I propose? There are two issues to consider. The first is the application of human rights law in conflict situations. I hope that the Minister will be able to report that, even at this late stage, the Government are preparing to consider adding to the Bill before us and honouring his party’s manifesto commitment. Surely that is a reasonable request.
The second issue, which would seem to cry out for a proactive government response, is the industrial-scale growth in cases alleging maltreatment, or worse, of enemy combatants by our own forces. Numerous recent cases going back not just years but decades are costing large sums and causing great stress and anxiety for those involved. Yet after prolonged and tendentious investigations, few or no plausible cases for full trial, let alone conviction, have yet been found. Surely the opportunity presented by having an Armed Forces Bill before Parliament must be used to introduce legal safeguards. The first step should be to introduce a statutory time limit for new cases against personnel on live operations.
It seems objectionable and unrealistic to attempt to bring something to trial, let alone have a hearing, when it depends on recall by witnesses and the accused of traumatic events of many years or even decades ago. I speak from personal experience. In 1991, the IRA launched a missile from a van parked in the road outside Banqueting House. The War Cabinet, of which I was a member, was in session in Downing Street. Fortunately, the missile blew up in the garden outside, severely rattling the windows and, to varying degrees, those of us sitting around the Cabinet table. But vivid as such an event was at the time, 25 years later I doubt whether the recollections of those of us who were there would produce a common, accurate description of what occurred in that room on that day.
Is it not time to introduce a statute of limitation specific to military activity before these no-win no-fee charlatan lawyers start roaming the streets of Buenos Aires in search of some so-called victims of abuse by the Armed Forces on the Falkland Islands in 1982, or in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991? I recognise this to be a big ask, since there is no general statutory limit in the UK for criminal cases. Nevertheless, the Armed Forces can be and are treated differently in law. I hope that one or more of my noble and learned colleagues might assist me in drafting a probing amendment or two to allow the Government to set out their thinking on these vexed topics.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, by happy coincidence, this debate takes place almost exactly on the anniversary of the signing of the Armed Forces corporate covenant by the right reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. There has been excellent work with the Minister in developing the impact of that covenant, and it is a pleasure to mark that anniversary today and anticipate the maiden speeches this afternoon.
This Bill properly clarifies the obligations and responsibilities of those serving in the Armed Forces and strengthens provision for maintaining good order and handling any instances of indiscipline with proper regard for justice. These provisions and the contributions that we have heard already remind us, although they are often technical, that individuals in our Armed Forces serve, and occasionally offend, in situations of stress and danger. The House will not be surprised therefore if I briefly draw attention to the importance—and I hope the Minister in summing up can confirm this—that we should all give to the areas of pastoral and family support for those who volunteer to serve us and the nation in this way in the Armed Forces, even when their behaviour falls below highest standards.
My concern relates to the ministry of chaplains in the Army, Air Force and Navy. Many of you will be aware of the pressures on these pastoral and support ministries, which are valued by service men and women because they are offered, and offered to all, regardless of faith or none, outside the chain of command, including and when under charge. This is a high-value/low-cost provision, and it is not always clear, to me at least, that the Treasury as well as the Ministry of Defence understands that. Rumours about a likely fall in chaplaincy numbers, about a new pay scale, which I imagine means a lower pay scale, and the potential de-enriching of the senior post holders, are worrying for the range and effectiveness of the ministry offered to all service men and women, a ministry that is so highly valued. What is rumoured and feared has implications; reduced numbers mean thinner provision; reduced pay risks problems of recruitment and retention; and reduced seniority suggests lower importance for chaplaincy.
Discipline is better enhanced and implemented when there is high morale and access to excellent pastoral support. I trust that in supporting this Bill we can be clear that the wider circumstances, the morale and the support of those who serve us is important alongside the proper legal process.
Lord Lyell (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very clear exposition of the Bill. I have spent a mere 43 years as a member of your Lordships’ defence group, so I have had the good luck to have fairly close contact with many members of the Armed Forces in many areas and have been able to see many of the problems that have arisen and are dealt with in the Bill.
I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Attlee is right in front of me because a number of years ago we were the only members of your Lordships’ defence group who went to Kosovo. We were introduced to the commander of the entire Finnish detachment. Colonel Lahdenperä saluted me and said, “My Lords, we are but conscripts”. He was lucky. I retaliated with an instant volley: “You’re speaking to one”. That stopped him a bit. Fifty-eight years ago, I was a young officer. Part of my training for the first month of my career was to attend commanding officer’s orders with the father of my noble friend Lord Cathcart—indeed, the late Lord Cathcart was my commanding officer—to see exactly what took place. I seem to recall that the offences were always charged under the Army Act 1955. Things have moved on considerably.
We have had a clear exposition—and we will have more from your Lordships and the Minister—from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who set out exactly the kind of work he does. We are very grateful to him, and I suspect many members of the Armed Forces are also very pleased that he can carry out that kind of duty.
I took a look at the Bill and at the speakers list. There are a number—a handful or more—of what I call noble and gallant Lords, really senior officers with enormous experience. I had a mere 19 months of experience as a young soldier. It should have been 24 months, but I broke my leg, so my time was shortened by five months. As a simple trained accountant, I looked at the Bill. Clause 2 deals with the commanding officer’s power to require alcohol and drugs tests. From my military career and everything that I have seen, I can understand that alcohol is present. I am sure the British Army and all the services are more than able to cope with any minor problems in discipline or other behaviour that might arise from alcohol. Drugs are referred to in the Bill, and that can mean all kinds of substances. The effects of those substances might carry on and delay. Even so, I feel entirely confident—indeed, the Minister will be confident—that these problems can and will be resolved in the Bill and elsewhere.
I had a look at what I call the geography. In the Bill, your Lordships will find many references to the Isle of Man and the British Overseas Territories. I am a curious soul, and I wondered what the requirement is for this Bill to have a particular application in the Isle of Man. The Minister gave a good description of the overseas territories, but what really touched my curiosity was the considerable amount of space and detail that has been allocated to Gibraltar. I received notes on what took place in another place. The Minister there said that if an amendment was required dealing with Gibraltar, it would be dealt with in another place—which is here. Your Lordships will have heard my noble friend say that some amendment might be required. Could he possibly write to me, without boring your Lordships today, on the particular problems associated with discipline in Gibraltar? He spelled out fairly clearly that the Bill will apply to British servicemen wherever they serve anywhere on the globe, but I am curious why Gibraltar and other overseas territories, let alone the Isle of Man, are singled out for detail in the Bill.
The other aspect of the Bill that tickled my curiosity was the two clauses dealing with Ministry of Defence firefighters in an emergency. I love to point out that I am a mere country dweller in the glens of Angus in Scotland. At least three times in the past 10 years we have had serious accidents, twice with aircraft crashing, once, alas, with fatal results although another time, luckily, it was not too serious, and there have been other cases in my neck of the woods. If a plane happened to crash on one of the glen roads in Angus or in the hills behind my house, what would happen? I presume that the first people on the scene would be civil firefighters. The police would also be there so that members of the public would find someone in a chequered cap and know that he or she would be able to direct events. There might even be civil fireman from the Tayside fire brigade; I would not know.
However, if Ministry of Defence firefighters attended, it mildly worries me how a member of the public such as myself would know who they were or what powers they had. If they had precisely the same powers that any other police officer or firefighter would have, then I am totally content. Still, I am perhaps curious rather than worried, and maybe my noble friend will be able to reassure me in writing just what are the additional powers referred to in these two clauses, above what is already in law in Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. If he can assure me of that, I shall be more than content to support the Bill and, above all, to listen to the wise and excellent words of the noble and gallant Lords who follow me, let alone the three maiden speakers taking part today. I salute all of them.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Bill and will ask the Minister to consider one issue that he has not touched upon today. Before that, I will say how much I look forward to the three maiden speeches that we are to hear, particularly that of my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, whom I know well from our work in another place. He has a distinguished career. He was chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, as I was, but he also served as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I think that we are all aware of his thoughtful and measured comments on most issues, and I am sure that we will hear them today. He has another side that I should perhaps mention. Anybody who has ever been abroad with him will know that he is an absolute shopaholic, and maybe we will see that side come out on some occasions as well.
As I say, I welcome the Bill, as I know will my noble friend on the Front Bench. I am sure that he will continue his style of yesterday and support the Government when they get things right as well as nudging them along in other places. Like my noble friend, I was a Minister in the MoD. Unlike him, I did not have responsibility for veteran affairs or indeed service personnel, although I was always aware of the work that he and fellow Ministers did, and the significant progress that they made, in terms of the care and welfare of our armed service men and women. Significant progress was made in terms of pay, in investing heavily in accommodation, which had been very much neglected for many years, and in helping injured veterans. Improved awareness of these issues during that time laid the foundation for the Armed Forces covenant.
Progress was also made in the 2006 Act, which the Minister referred to, in terms of trying to get clarification on a whole number of issues. I take the point that my noble friend Lord West and indeed the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, made, that there may still be some difficult areas, particularly for personnel who serve on active duty. We need to consider exactly how we can make progress and get the right balance in that area.
As the Minister said, many provisions in the Bill are not controversial, although obviously they will have to be looked at in further detail in Committee, because that is its purpose, and we have to make sure that the detail matches the overall objectives of the Bill.
I will raise one issue that was raised briefly in another place, and on which the Government could make progress without too much difficulty. Obviously, many changes in recent years have affected service personnel. We have seen a reduction in numbers and an increased reliance on reservists and the extra roles that they are supposed to undertake on the front line. But we have also seen some welcome progress, such as the fact that women may now occupy many roles on active service, which is very important and useful and which has been of benefit to our armed services and to the country as a whole. There is still some way to go but progress has been made.
I want to raise with the Minister the report that was carried out by the MoD last year about sexual harassment in the armed services. Obviously, sexual harassment is not just about women, but the report showed that it is a particular problem for women in the armed services, and it came up with some rather worrying statistics. The report recorded that 39% of servicewomen in the Army who had been asked about the issue said that they had received unwelcome comments and attempts to talk about sexual matters, 12% of women in the Armed Forces said that they had experienced unwanted attempts to touch and 10% had experienced attempts to have a sexual relationship. That is clearly not a good situation. There were statistics for men as well, which were also worrying, even though the problem did not seem to be so significant. It was a great breakthrough for the MoD to carry out such a survey and I congratulate those who were involved in doing that.
I recognise that legislation alone and any amendment to the Bill will not simply solve the problem. Increased awareness that behaviour of this kind is not to be tolerated will help. But if there were a requirement to publish statistics on sexual assault and rape, this kind of measuring and monitoring of the problem would help to get us nearer to the zero-tolerance situation that should be the case. I therefore hope that the Minister will consider changing his approach to the Bill. We have to change the culture but if we could have a requirement to monitor the situation, it would help very significantly. I therefore hope that when we come to Committee, the Minister will look favourably on attempts to raise this problem and get it into perspective, and to consider ways we might try to use that report and information to make the situation better in future.
I will say something about one more issue, which is the point raised by my noble friend Lord West on mesothelioma. He was absolutely right to stress the urgency of this issue. I was able to assist our late colleague Lord Lofthouse when he campaigned for miners suffering from pneumoconiosis and the compensation scheme got into difficulties because of the impact of lawyers who tried to jump on the bandwagon of those making claims. That took place over a long period because it was a much slower illness. Mesothelioma is a very rapid illness and is absolutely devastating. Many people have waited a very long time for compensation, which really should be paid on an equitable basis compared with compensation for civilians. I hope that the Minister will look at that issue as well.
Baroness Pidding (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. It was only a few weeks ago that I was standing in front of an amazingly talented group of schoolchildren in Gerrards Cross in my home county of Buckinghamshire. I was giving my critique of their public speaking ability as a judge in a Rotary Youth Speaks competition. Now the time has come for me to stand in front of your Lordships and deliver my maiden speech, and I hope that noble Lords will be as kind and encouraging to me as I sought to be to those schoolchildren.
It is a tremendous honour to stand here today in your Lordships’ House. For me, this is a steep learning curve, but the severity of that curve is eased by the tremendous support that I have received. Much is said about the warmth and helpfulness of the staff here, and I would like to add my personal thanks to all of them: the doorkeepers, the clerks and those who are hidden from view—all those who make the working of this House a little less formidable to a newcomer like me—and of course the wonderful restaurant and bar staff, who ensure that we do not go hungry or become dehydrated.
I am grateful, too, for the generosity of spirit of noble Lords on all sides of the House in making me feel so welcome and always being there with gentle encouragement and guidance, ensuring that I do not make a huge faux pas or, if I do, that I am swiftly but kindly corrected so that I do not do it again.
My heartfelt thanks go to my noble friends Lady Shephard of Northwold and Lord Bates for helping to navigate me through my day of introduction. Both have provided me with wise counsel and I know that they will continue to do so.
I have spent 30 years working as a volunteer for the Conservative Party, from the Young Conservatives through to holding the most senior roles for a volunteer—the elected office of chairman of the National Conservative Convention and deputy chairman of the Conservative Party Board. I pay tribute to our volunteers, who work tirelessly for all political parties. It often seems like a thankless task: out there whatever the weather, knocking on door after door, stuffing envelopes, delivering endless bundles of leaflets and sitting in draughty village halls for meeting after meeting, desperate to secure that elusive vote. And to what end? The reward: to be invited to attend more meetings or buy some more raffle tickets? No. The reason we do it is that we care passionately about our country and about making it a better place. We might not agree on the vision of this better place but I am certain that we all agree that the democratic process that we have in this country is something that we all are very proud of.
In the year leading up to the general election, I travelled to all parts of the United Kingdom, campaigning in more than 70 constituencies. I have never sought to be a parliamentarian. My role was always that of a volunteer, doing what I could to get others elected. So it is with a huge sense of pride that I now look down the corridor to the other place and see so many friends and colleagues elected. But here I am now, a parliamentarian myself. It is a huge honour and with it comes great responsibility.
It is a particular privilege to be able to make my maiden speech in support of the Bill before the House today. The Government have made meeting the needs of the Armed Forces one of their highest priorities. This is only right: when men and women risk their lives in our defence, they should expect nothing less. The military covenant is our side of that bargain, and I am proud of the Government’s record when it comes to the interests of service personnel and their families. We are helping them to buy their own homes, improving facilities for injured veterans and greatly broadening mental health provision across the Armed Forces, an area that was too often neglected in the past.
We have taken steps to make sure that British soldiers are no longer sent into danger without proper equipment. Over the next 10 years, the Government will spend £178 billion on defence equipment and support, and we have brought in private sector expertise in order to reduce both waste and delay in the procurement process. Not only are we making sure that our troops have up-to-date kit, but their organisation too is being adapted to the needs of modern warfare. The Government’s proposal to establish two new 5,000-strong strike forces, ready to deploy at a moment’s notice, recognises the changing nature of the threats facing our country today.
The United Kingdom remains committed to maintaining NATO’s target of spending 2% of GDP on defence, and to updating our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent. We have been the cornerstone of this alliance since its foundation, and these investments signal our determination to pursue an active, global role for Great Britain in the 21st century.
Under this Conservative Government, we have two clear objectives: to maintain an up-to-date fighting force with the equipment and support necessary to defend our country’s interests all over the world; and to guarantee that the men and women who serve so bravely receive the rewards and respect that they deserve. Our Government will continue not only to respect and honour the dedication and bravery of our Armed Forces but also to value them. I will lend all the support that I can to that.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow on from the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding. With over 30 years of voluntary political service behind her, I am quite sure that she is a welcome addition to the House with such experience. I am sure we all agree that her maiden speech was delivered with a nice touch, and I am quite certain she can return to judging elocution and speech competitions with great and totally deserved confidence. Also, her apposite and most supportive comments about our Armed Forces were very welcome and, given my background, I was very pleased to hear them. In all, it was a speech that offered a nice and pleasant foretaste of interventions to come.
Like the noble Baroness, I pay tribute to the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families who support them. Without the families, our servicemen and servicewomen could not do so well the job that they do.
I had the pleasure, if that is the right word, to be involved in a small way in the 2006 and 2011 Armed Forces Bills when they processed through this House. As was referred to by the Minister, it is good to see that this Bill is of significantly less complexity than the other two, especially the 2006 bumper Bill. Indeed, the fact that there are relatively few matters to address on this occasion, and most of them largely uncontentious and of a tidying-up nature, speaks well of the work that was done five and 10 years ago. I am particularly pleased that there is nothing before us which obviously threatens the service ethos or the command chain and the crucial role that they both have in fighting effectiveness—a point that is all too often forgotten by some. I trust that it will stay that way through Committee stage.
Having said that, I do have some comments. I want to follow up on and empathise with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord West, about mesothelioma. I note that the ongoing work on compensation for veterans suffering from this awful sickness was mentioned in the other place with respect to this Bill. Although it is pleasing to note that progress has been made on this, with a recent settlement announced by the Armed Forces Minister, the relatively small group of veterans who remain excluded because they fall the wrong side of the date lines set last year is regrettable. It seems manifestly unfair and runs counter to the tenets of the Armed Forces covenant. Perhaps the Minister will comment on why this should not find space in the Bill.
Secondly, I, too, wish to raise the subject of “lawfare”, as it sometimes known, and I make no apology for repeating what my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley said in his excellent speech. Absent from this Bill is any mention of lawfare or the increasing legal encirclement of our Armed Forces. For example, the Minister will be aware of the growing concern within the Armed Forces regarding Crown immunity, or lack of it, in warfare situations—a concern fuelled by the large number of cases being investigated of alleged inappropriate behaviour in the field in Iraq or Afghanistan, or accusations of the use of allegedly inappropriate equipment which overlook the precept in war that you have to fight with what you have got. There can be no better warning of where we have got to on this than the fact that some insurance companies are now touting insurance to commanding officers against the possibility of their being involved in litigation at some stage.
I realise that the Minister will say that commanding officers or people in command will be looked after by the MoD, but the point is that there is a perception in the public that military leaders down to junior level could be in the dock arising from actions and decisions within the Geneva Convention that have been taken in the heat of battle. All this is in danger of leading to a worrying risk averseness that will imperil operational effectiveness. Therefore I ask the Minister to say why the subject should not be addressed in this Bill. If it is not going to be addressed in this Bill, how are the Government going to reassure our service men and women on this point?
Finally, I understand that there are some other improvements to the service justice system which have not been included in the Bill—such as, for example, a provision to enable civilian courts to transfer suitable cases involving service personnel to courts martial; and, on courts martial, to address a concern about the ability of a board to find a person guilty in a serious case by a simple majority, by changing that to a qualified majority or one dissenting vote to come more in line with civilian practice.
I suspect that I am not going to agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will say in Committee, but on those particular subjects I think we probably are in agreement. So I ask the Minister to explain why such improvements have been omitted from the Bill and to assure the House that they will not be left out until the next quinquennial review.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on the lucid way in which he introduced this legislation. It is perhaps rather more complex than it appears at first sight and we look forward to his explanations when we reach both the Committee and Report stages.
I associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead. I yield to no one in my support of the Human Rights Act, nor indeed of the importance of human rights as the underpinning of a democratic state such as ours. However, I have grave reservations about the decision that was taken by the Supreme Court on a very narrow majority. I have heard it suggested informally, and possibly mischievously, that if a similar case were to go before the same court today a different result might well be achieved. None the less, the fact is that there now exists, as a result of that decision and of the way in which it has been commented upon since, a considerable doubt about the protection available to our Armed services when engaged in conflict. That doubt ought to be resolved. That is why when the noble Lord says that he will support an amendment—which, we understand, may be proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—I will certainly support both the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord when an amendment to that effect is put forward. It is a duty and responsibility of Parliament to resolve an issue that is clearly causing such uncertainty in the minds of those whom we expect to be responsible for our safety to the extent that they are willing to give their lives, if necessary.
I am unaware of any other country that engaged either in the second Gulf War, or, indeed, in Afghanistan, that has conducted such a lengthy and detailed post-mortem of the actions of those whom we sent to fight there. That of itself would not be an obstacle to us doing what is right, but it is certainly worth reminding ourselves that we may be imposing a standard on our Armed Forces far in excess of that being imposed by our allies on theirs.
As one who has recently run the gauntlet of a maiden speech, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, will not think it presumptuous of me to say that she spoke with such confidence and distinction that she can be guaranteed to be heard with great interest and attention when she speaks again in your Lordships’ House. She struck more than a chord with me about the vital importance in the political process of the raffle at the end of the coffee morning, or the wine and cheese party, which was once defined to me as the kind of party in which you hope that the wine is a little older than the cheese.
I speak with some diffidence on these topics, having listened to the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig and Lord Boyce, because they come to this with a depth of experience and understanding that no one who has not been engaged as they have can really expect to achieve. My observations are based on what I have seen from outside. My diffidence is also to a large extent compounded by the excellent contribution of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. My professional experience of courts martial is both dated and minimal, but he has raised a number of issues that will require careful consideration during the progress of the Bill in your Lordships’ House.
I will talk about two issues, one of which has not been mentioned, perhaps because it was not controversial in the House of Commons, nor does it appear to be controversial here: the repeal of the provisions of Sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. I speak to some extent from my experience as a Member of Parliament with a large military airbase in my constituency, based on the number of occasions on which I was consulted by servicemen and servicewomen about the possible consequences for them were there to be any question of homosexual behaviour on their part. It is right to remind ourselves that it was not long ago that even suspicion of such behaviour, irrespective of rank, achievement or service, could have brought an untimely end to a career, with consequences that were sometimes brutal and inevitably long-lasting.
Nor do I believe that the services benefited, because good men and women were lost and others cowed and frightened. Indeed, the military police assumed the character of a committee for the suppression of vice in a fundamentalist country. Telephones were tapped, friendships obsessively scrutinised and personal behaviour subjected to intense scrutiny. This repeal is probably the last legislative change necessary to reflect the change first in domestic attitudes and now in the military. We should accept and be glad that it has now come to pass because it reflects a proper balance between domestic law and law relating to the military, and the values of society as a whole.
The second issue is one on which I am slightly inhibited, but I believe that it is right to draw attention to the fresh inquest now opened into the death of Private Cheryl James. I am rightly constrained in what I may say because these proceedings are actively sub judice, but I feel able to raise a number of points of general interest. The Bill is substantially about discipline, but by implication it is about morale as well. I always believed that these were two sides of the same coin: poor discipline damages morale and poor morale most certainly damages discipline. That is particularly the case when the services deal with young and inexperienced members. Services take in young men and women of varying levels of maturity. The objective is to turn them into mature adults with a specific and, in some ways, unique set of skills. With that objective goes an obligation to recognise that, in many cases, so far as may be necessary, the services will act in loco parentis. I hope that the inquest will pursue some of these issues.
I finish by saying this, and I put it in abstract. If any serviceman or servicewoman, of any rank in any circumstance, were to be cajoled, intimidated, pressurised or otherwise to have sexual relations with another member of the Armed Forces of whatever rank, that would be a gross breach of the moral obligation owed to those who offer themselves to protect us with their lives as necessary. It is one which I hope would engage universal condemnation.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady Pidding on her excellent maiden speech. I look forward to hearing the other maiden speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and my noble friend Lord Shinkwin shortly.
Not having a military background, it is with a sense of humility that I contribute to the debate. I welcome the Bill, which recognises the integral role that our Armed Forces play in British life and the extraordinary service that they give to this country. The first duty of any Government is the defence of the realm. At a time of unpredictable threats and dangerous levels of instability the Bill needs to ensure that we maintain our world-class Armed Forces for the long-term security of our country. It is impossible for those of us who have never served our country to fully understand the sacrifice that those in the military make. It is therefore imperative that the Bill also seeks to ensure the well-being of these brave men and women.
As we have already heard, warfare has changed drastically in recent years. It is no longer fought on battlefields but in communities, with terrorism and cyberwarfare now posing significant threats. Asymmetric warfare and counterinsurgency require new and different approaches. Intelligence and cyber play an ever more important part. Highly trained rapid reaction forces that can deploy at very short notice are essential, with Special Forces performing a critical role.
The 2010 strategic defence and security review imposed a programme of significant cuts. This led to feelings of insecurity in parts of our forces, and, I understand, some haemorrhaging of high-quality people. Good leadership is paramount to the military, and attracting and retaining the best is of extreme importance. Are we managing to retain those high-quality warrant officers, captains and brigadiers, the middle-ranking officers who will become tomorrow’s senior leadership? New types of warfare need people with new and different skills to ensure that operations are not impacted. Do we have enough critical specialists? Are some areas suffering diminution of numbers, or having challenges recruiting sufficient specialists? If so, how is this being addressed?
Our Armed Forces covenant is an important national contract to address duty of care to our Armed Forces and their families, with a duty to report on the covenant being a centrepiece of the Armed Forces Act 2011. However, I have heard that there is a perception by some on the ground that the covenant is somewhat tokenistic.
As I have previously asked with concern in your Lordships’ House, while the covenant contains very noble principles, does the lack of penalties for failure to fulfil it make it somewhat toothless? In particular, I know there are concerns about how effectively local authorities are delivering on their responsibilities through community covenant partnerships. This includes affording members of the Armed Forces priority with housing needs and helping them integrate back into local life post-discharge. Has there been any audit of the delivery of the covenant by local authorities?
Of significant concern is that last year’s Armed Forces continuous attitude survey, known as AFCAS, found that almost half of service personnel actually know nothing about the covenant. Surely, a fundamental element of the covenant should be that personnel feel it is impacting upon their lives. If this is clearly failing, should we not seek to amend it or its delivery?
Being in the military is a vocation often lasting many years; therefore we also have a duty of care to the families, considering the toll on their lives while their fathers, mothers, husbands and wives are serving. Have we, as a nation, done enough to ensure that our duty of care is being delivered? It is concerning that 59% of respondents to last year’s AFCAS felt that their family life was disadvantaged through their service. This is by far the largest area of perceived disadvantage and goes hand in hand with the finding that the impact of service on personal and family life is by far the biggest factor influencing decisions to leave the Forces. So it is important that families are considered and listened to and that housing is of good quality and properly maintained. Living in housing that is damp, with peeling paint and malfunctioning plumbing, is unacceptable in this day and age.
The standards of healthcare we commit to our service personnel is one of the key pillars of the Armed Forces covenant. There has been much concern in recent years, as we have heard, about mental health. The proportion of service personnel who suffer mental health problems is broadly similar to that of the general population, slightly higher amongst those in combat roles. The concepts of being a soldier at war and seeking support for psychological distress are somewhat at odds with each other. In some cases, this prevents those who need help the most from seeking it, leaving them to suffer in silence. The fact is that they endure unique conditions and excessive levels of risk that the rest of us cannot understand. Of particular concern are reservists who return to normal life after deployment and may feel very isolated and unsupported.
It is every bit as important that personnel continue to receive support when they cease serving and become veterans. The onset of post-traumatic stress disorder is often delayed for many years. The charity Combat Stress still reports an average of 13 years between service discharge and veterans seeking help. While it is reassuring that a key goal of the military covenant is that veterans,
“should be able to access mental health professionals who have an understanding of Armed Forces culture”,
how does this happen? NHS doctors may be unable to relate to the effects of combat roles.
Combat Stress receives around 2,500 new referrals every year, resulting in approximately 6,000 veterans being treated by the charity at any one time. Last year the number of veterans seeking its help increased by 28%. I was recently told by Combat Stress that the majority of veterans under its care self-refer; thus it would appear that many veterans are put off from using NHS services to address their problems, instead turning to the voluntary sector.
It is encouraging that the stigma surrounding military mental health has decreased substantially in recent years, meaning that those younger veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming forward for treatment much sooner. I appreciate that the Government have already recognised this issue. By embedding the Armed Forces covenant into the new NHS constitution in England last year, members of the Armed Forces community will, in principle, receive the same standard of, and access to, healthcare as all other British citizens. However, more needs to be done, particularly for older veterans and reservists.
Our military personnel make great sacrifices to serve their country and put themselves in the way of danger. Above all, it is paramount that they feel valued. Do we really do this? Do we thank them enough and acknowledge what they have given when they leave? We have outstanding men and women serving. We need to ensure that they are recognised for all that they do. These are the people who will keep this country safe and we owe them a huge debt.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, for the last two and a half months I have had the privilege of chairing the Joint Committee on the Investigatory Powers Bill. It reported four and a half hours ago and it has meant, as my noble friend Lord Hart will tell us, a great deal of work. This has meant that I have been unable to make a maiden speech. I am delighted to do so this afternoon and I thank my noble friend Lady Taylor for her very kind words an hour or so ago. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, in her very fine speech, I make reference to the courtesy and helpfulness that I have received from Members on all sides of the House over the last couple of months and from the officers and staff of the House of Lords. It is a very different place from the House of Commons, but it is certainly a friendly place—more friendly, in fact, than parts of the other House.
I also thank my two supporters on introduction. My noble friend Lord Touhig, who coincidentally is winding up for my party in today’s debate, has been a noble friend of mine—although not always noble—for 66 years. I thank him for what he has done for me over all those decades. My other supporter, my noble friend Lord McFall, is a great and long-standing friend who served in the House of Commons with me for nearly a quarter of a century.
I made my other maiden speech 29 and a half years ago. I spoke then, as is inevitably the case, about my own constituency of Torfaen in the eastern valley of Gwent in south Wales, which is a very diverse constituency. It includes the industrial heritage town of Blaenavon, the great valley town of Pontypool and the new town of Cwmbran, but it also includes my home town, and that of my noble friend Lord Touhig, the small village of Abersychan. That small village has produced seven Members of Parliament since the Second World War, including my very fine successor, Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds, the great and fine biographer of the grandfather of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and of Aneurin Bevan. Of those seven Members of Parliament, four became Members of your Lordships’ House: myself and my noble friend Lord Touhig as well as Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and Lord Granville-West, who was one of the very first life Peers. In addition, of course, Lord Chalfont, of Llantarnam, came from the eastern valley of Gwent as well.
I am very happy to support the Bill. I do not have the expertise or experience of many of those who have spoken already and, indeed, will speak after me. A long time ago, in the late 1990s, I was the shadow Defence Minister responsible for personnel matters in the Armed Forces and it is so interesting to hear from the Minister and others how the world has changed in those 20 years. The Bill is worthy of support because it recognises that important change. I also served as the Secretary of State for Wales and, of course, for Northern Ireland. When I held that post the great value of our Armed Forces was so obvious to behold. I worked with them at all levels and the dangers that they faced and the work they did for our country was immeasurable.
I will also say that I have enormous admiration for the Armed Forces throughout our country. I am told that every parliamentary constituency has within it at least 20,000 people who, in some way or another, are linked to our Armed Forces. They are either members of the Armed Forces themselves or relatives; they may work in the defence industry or whatever. That is almost a third of the average electorate, certainly of a Welsh constituency, and any political party which decides to ignore that reality does so at its peril. Any political party which does not have a credible defence policy does so at its peril. I will not digress any further, other than to say than I am old enough to remember the general election of 1983, when my party suffered an enormous defeat partly because it did not have a credible defence policy.
I return in my maiden speech—I beg the indulgence of your Lordships—to the substance of the debate: the Armed Forces Bill itself. I will refer briefly to Clause 15 on the veterans and pensions committee, which will have an enhanced statutory remit, and to which the Minister has already referred. I think all of us would agree that veterans—by whom we mean young and old veterans—play a wonderful role in our national life and our communities. Certainly, in my former constituency, the Royal British Legion—I know that we will hear more on that later—the Cwmbran and District Ex-Servicemen’s Association and the Royal Regiment of Wales Association, of which I am president and declare an interest, all play a pivotal role in the life of my valley. That shows how important veterans are to our national life and to our local life as well.
Every January, in my home village of Llantarnam—which is also the home village of my noble friend Lord Touhig—a military parade is held, and a service in the graveyard of the parish church. Buried there is Private John Williams, who won the Victoria Cross at the great battle of Rorke’s Drift in the Zulu wars in 1879. That was a long time ago, noble Lords may think. But it was not; my father knew a survivor of that great battle. My family proudly became members of the South Wales Borderers, who fought at Rorke’s Drift in 1879. That small personal story with which I have regaled your Lordships is replicated throughout the whole of our country—and rightly so. This debate has given me the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who serve, and have served, in our Armed Forces. It gives the opportunity to your Lordships’ House to do exactly the same.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to follow the very eloquent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen. His status as a former Cabinet Minister is demonstrated by the fact that he has two very distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House as his senior supporters on either side of him. One could assume that they are there to support the noble Lord. However, there is perhaps another interpretation—that they are there to control him.
I was privileged to work with the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, during the Northern Ireland peace process for many years in his different roles. He started off as Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office during the negotiations. At half-past three in the morning, when we were in the midst of very difficult and complicated discussions, he still retained that pleasant approach to people in very difficult circumstances. He did not lose his temper or become aggressive and was always able to calm the troubled waters. He moved on to greater distinction and became Secretary of State, having, I think, served as Secretary of State for Wales before and after that appointment, a distinction which he shares with his noble friend Lord Hain. This House greatly appreciates the presence of this great parliamentarian who has served the people of Wales with distinction for many decades. I have no doubt that we will all be enriched by his presence in your Lordships’ House in the coming years. He is extremely welcome. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, on a very finely delivered address. That indicates that we now have two additional Members of our House who will serve Parliament very well.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the military covenant. During the passage of the previous Armed Forces Bill, amendments were passed to require regional Administrations to report annually to the Secretary of State for Defence on what they had done to implement the covenant. This was important because defence is a national issue; it will never become a devolved issue. It was important that the same level of service should be delivered in every part of the United Kingdom and that service personnel in any part of the United Kingdom should receive a level of service that was roughly equivalent. As many of the services are delivered by devolved functions, it was essential that that report be produced.
It is an absolute disgrace that when the first report was delivered to Parliament, the contribution from the Northern Ireland Executive consisted of no comment—no report—yet a very large number of people are dependent on services being delivered in that area. During the passage of the Bill, we warned that that sort of thing would happen. Although the military covenant continues to be delivered, that is largely because the relevant departments happen to be populated by Ministers who are sympathetic to it. However, that is not a permanent state of affairs and will change with time. I fear that this House will have to come back to this issue and it will be much more difficult to deal with at that time than it was during the passage of the previous Armed Forces Bill.
I turn to mesothelioma. No Member of this House has done more on that issue than the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who I am pleased to see in his place. Noble Lords will note that my colleagues in the other place tabled an amendment on Report which they subsequently withdrew after debate and assurances from the Minister. We have heard a number of noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords say today that a small number of people will still be excluded from the relevant provision. Let us not go through this again. Some people have been excluded for years and years. We know what the issue is. We know what the outcome of that is. Why do we not fix it once and for all and make sure that no one is excluded? We are not talking about a huge number of people, but a matter of natural justice is involved. I sincerely hope that in Committee the Minister will reassure us that all the personnel who are potential victims will be dealt with.
My next point concerns a matter to which many noble Lords have referred in this debate—namely, the ludicrous position in which we find ourselves as a nation whereby we are torturing ourselves and our Armed Forces through the litigation circus that is going on. Can one imagine what the legal consequences today would be of the bombardment of the Normandy beaches? We would be accused of blowing up French civilian property and injuring civilians. The captain who ordered the shelling would be charged with all sorts of things. The situation has run completely out of control. Ministers of the Crown have stood up in the other place and made speeches berating the fact that lawyers are chasing around looking for cases and pursuing members of the armed services. However, Parliament has voted money which means that they are being paid to do that. Opportunities for them to do that have been provided by Parliament. At the same time, many of the legal costs are far greater than the compensation received by many of the victims. Ministers know that and openly say so, but what solutions are coming forward? I say that no solutions are coming forward for the simple reason that this Parliament does not quite get what it means to sign a treaty. We are bound by all these treaties and we have signed far too many. They have led us to war and after war and we still face difficulties. I do not wish to see the United Kingdom armed services out of legal control; that would be totally wrong. Standards must be high and we must set examples, but that goes back to training. It also goes back, as many noble Lords have mentioned, to the legal framework within which the armed services operate.
We have taken this a stage too far. Take an example from Northern Ireland, where we have cases that are four decades old. We have a situation where there are still 30 detectives doing nothing but looking at the Saville case. What message are we sending to service personnel? They have saved hundreds and thousands of lives and come back from the battlefield broken in mind, body and spirit. Indeed, the person who now occupies the seat I held in the Northern Ireland Assembly lost both his legs in Afghanistan and suffered severe damage to his sight. What are we saying to those people when they are being chased after for years? I believe in the European Convention on Human Rights but courts there have interpreted it in ways that were never envisaged. It is not possible for such interpretations to sit right with a battlefield situation.
Nothing has come forward to fix this, because we are signed up to treaties—I do not think the Government know how to fix it. I hope the Minister will prove me and other noble Lords wrong. I do not know what the precise legal solution is but I know we need one. It will not be feasible to ask young people to go to war without one. Why do we send them to war if we are not prepared to carry through the logical consequences of doing so? We cannot authorise people to risk their lives and do what damage they can to the enemy and not follow that through. When they tell us that what they did is not their responsibility because this or that sergeant or captain ordered certain actions on the battlefield we cannot withdraw, wring our hands, and say that is terrible. The Armed Forces should not be left in this limbo: clarification is needed. We do not know when we might push them into battle once again. The world has never been more uncertain: dictators are acquiring huge amounts of weaponry; we have threats to the east and in the Far East; the Middle East is a mess. Any of these theatres could lead to conflict at any time and we have still not fixed this problem. With amendments, this legislation could be a vehicle for doing so.
Will the Minister address the question of mesothelioma and ensure that no one is left behind? The noble Lord, Lord West, talked about making snowballs with the asbestos in his vessel. That was a pastime in Harland and Wolff shipyard for years. Workers used to come home with white around their shoulders because they were covered in it. When I was Minister for Enterprise I set aside £180 million up until 2050 for cases we believed had yet to come forward. That is how long we are talking about. It is not simply the individuals who were there at the time who are at risk. They brought the material into their homes—their families may have done their washing and their children played around it. A new generation has this condition and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, knows, little or no research into treatment is going on anywhere in the world. I sincerely hope this is one thing this legislation will fix once and for all.
Lord Shinkwin (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I feel privileged to give my maiden speech, in this Second Reading debate on the Armed Forces Bill, on an issue dear to my heart. I know, both from what we have already heard today and from my experience of campaigning with many of your Lordships, that it is an issue of real importance to your Lordships as well that we honour the Armed Forces covenant. This Bill gives each of us an opportunity to renew our personal commitment to honouring that covenant—the sacred bond of trust between the people of this United Kingdom and those who put their lives on the line to defend the democratic freedoms we all too often take for granted.
I mention privilege for several reasons. Some people dismiss your Lordships’ House as a place of privilege, outdated and irrelevant. All I can say is that that is not my experience. When I think of privilege, I reflect on having witnessed your Lordships’ House in action long before I became a Member of it, and seeing a body which I respect precisely because it is relevant, engaged with the issues of the day and making a material difference to people’s lives.
When I was head of public affairs at the organisation which the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, was so kind to mention, I recall that I always stressed to the members of the team that I was honoured to manage that we should measure our performance in tangible outcomes of direct benefit to the Armed Forces family. The work of this House passes that test. At the legion, it was my privilege to work on several covenant issues with many of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, whom I was honoured to have introduce me to your Lordships’ House, together with my old university tutor, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. This work ensured not only that the principles of the Armed Forces covenant were enshrined in law but also the survival of the position of chief coroner, in the face of an understandable and continued drive to reduce the deficit.
I met with the chief coroner shortly before my introduction. We discussed his work, and we looked at the results. It is obvious to me that he is making a considerable, positive impact, especially for bereaved Armed Forces families, for whom experiencing the pain and grief that go with a military inquest is such a regular experience. It is also obvious to me that he is only able to make that difference because of your Lordships’ House.
In concert with Members of the other place—including Andrew Percy, Philip Hollobone, Rob Flello, the right honourable Jim Murphy and Greg Mulholland, to name but a few—it was your Lordships’ House which persuaded the coalition Government, to their credit, to take the position of chief coroner out of the Public Bodies Bill and thereby protect it from abolition. That would never have happened without the concerted efforts of your Lordships’ House—surely an example of the tangible and enduring difference this House is making to people’s lives.
Each of us has made our own journey to this House; mine has been less spectacular than most but perhaps more extraordinary than some. Twenty years ago almost to the day, I began a rather less enjoyable part of my journey here when I was taken down to an operating theatre for life-saving neurosurgery. The 12-hour operation was so dangerous and complex that my remarkable surgeon, Miss Anne Moore, could not give me odds on my survival. So if sometimes I appear dazed to any of your Lordships or the doorkeepers, clerks and other staff, who have all been so kind to me, there is a good reason: it is because I am. I doubt I will ever get over the shock of going from near death to learning to speak again over a period of several years and now to speaking in your Lordships’ House, and being able to thank your Lordships directly for the help you have given me and, through the work of charities such as the Royal British Legion and INQUEST, in which I was privileged to play a part, the whole Armed Forces family.
My journey here may have involved a rather unpredictable route, but the ultimate destination is all the more wonderful for that. In fact, a hugely traumatic and painful experience has been transformed into an immense honour and blessing. For that, I thank my family, my friends, the God who never left me, no matter how bad things got, and I also thank the most influential woman ever created, His Holy Mother, whose feast day as Our Lady of Lourdes is celebrated today.
In conclusion, there can be no responsibility greater than providing for the defence of the realm, no duty or indeed privilege more significant than honouring the covenant we make with those in the Armed Forces who sacrifice everything for us. I look forward to working in your Lordships’ House to ensure that this and future Armed Forces legislation builds on the important steps that the Government and Parliament together have already taken to honour that covenant.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and privilege to be the first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and to congratulate him on his outstanding maiden speech. It is very appropriate that he should have made it during the processing of the Armed Forces Bill because of the many years of outstanding service that he gave to the Royal British Legion. As he mentioned, I have particular reason to be grateful to him for his tireless and comprehensive briefing of those of us who were fighting for the retention of the post of chief coroner because, as he said, that retention has been responsible for an improvement in the conduct of military inquests. As the noble Lord has proved today, he has a deep understanding of veteran affairs, from which I am sure the whole House will benefit in future, as will the veterans whom he has served so well.
As the Minister said in his introduction, this is a very modest Bill and I propose to concentrate on three subjects that I hoped it would contain and on which I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments. The first concerns the Armed Forces covenant, which was made statutory in the 2011 Act. History suggests that now that our Armed Forces are no longer on active service in Iraq and Afghanistan, they will fade from the public eye, which will result in the plight of veterans, particularly gravely injured veterans, becoming less and less a matter of immediate public concern.
When the covenant was first proposed, I wrote twice to the Prime Minister, as well as repeating the plea that I made to him during the processing of the Act; namely, that the Minister for Veteran Affairs be removed from the Ministry of Defence and placed in the Cabinet Office. My reasoning for that was that no junior Minister operating from the MoD silo, responsible for the day-to-day affairs of those currently serving in the Armed Forces, cuts any clout in ministries such as the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, which have day-to-day responsibility for matters affecting veterans. However, if the Minister operated from the Cabinet Office, where the Armed Forces Covenant Committee is based, he or she could speak to them with the authority of that office, and oversee the focus on veteran affairs.
I appealed also that the statutory annual statement on the covenant required of the Secretary of State for Defence should include statements from all ministries involved in veteran affairs, listing what they had done for veterans during that year. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, when he was the MoD Minister in this House, hoping that this annual statement would be made verbally in both Houses so that Members could have an annual opportunity to check on progress by asking specific questions. My motive for that was and remains my fear that unless there is a regular opportunity to ensure that momentum is being maintained, undertakings, however well intentioned when made, risk being dropped and forgotten. I have two areas of particular concern.
First, there is no doubt that in future years an increasing number of veterans will suffer from mental health problems, including PTSD. For example, it is most important that anyone involved in an IED incident should have that fact recorded on their medical documents because history proves that they may well suffer flashbacks, which doctors can deal with appropriately if they know what a person has been through. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, I am not convinced that all that could be done to ensure that veterans’ mental health problems are being looked after in the same way as physical health problems is being done, and would like an annual opportunity to keep pressure on the authorities responsible for provision and improvement.
Secondly, too many veterans come into the hands of the criminal justice system, unfortunately. Times without number since I first became aware of the problem in 1996, I have appealed, first to the Home Office and then to the Ministry of Justice, for someone to be made responsible and accountable for veteran affairs in prisons. But that plea includes both police and probation, and there have been calls for the establishment of special veteran courts, as exist in America.
There have been numerous studies and reports on veterans in the criminal justice system by bodies such as the Centre for Mental Health, the Howard League for Penal Reform and, most recently, a commission sponsored by Lord Ashcroft, of which I was a commissioner. But despite the report of our commission receiving an official response from the previous Secretary of State for Justice, nothing has happened. We called for everyone entering the criminal justice system, initially via the police but later prison or probation, to be asked whether they had served in the Armed Forces so that appropriate action could be taken to help them both while serving their sentence and, most particularly, on release. Admittedly a number make bogus claims to have served, but the validity of such claims can soon be checked, as was proved by the police in Kent. What I am concerned about is the treatment of the depressingly large number of genuine veterans who are sentenced to either imprisonment or supervision in the community, with whose rehabilitation service charities and other ex-service organisations could be involved, if only they were alerted. This is, again, something that Parliament could and should chase up, which is why I appeal to the Minister that the annual statement on the Armed Forces covenant should be made verbally, by statute.
My second concern may seem like a small matter, but I think that it has a wider significance. At present, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales formally inspects—as he does every other prison—the Military Corrective Training Centre in Colchester every five years, but by invitation only. At a recent seminar, attended by the Secretary of State for Justice, the recently retired chief inspector said publicly that the MCTC was the best prison in the country, and a living example of how prisons should be run. This is partly due to the experience of its staff, no one being allowed to join the Military Provost Staff Corps until they have proved themselves to be capable soldiers. The remit of the Chief Inspector of Prisons includes both police and court cells but, now that the MPSC is to be responsible for running regional detention centres, which will replace the old regimental guard rooms, I believe that they too should be added to his list. Therefore I appeal to the Minister that this requirement should be made statutory in this Bill.
It is not as easy to be so specific about my third concern. Many other noble and noble and gallant Lords have already referred to the clash between human rights legislation and those involved in armed conflict. I personally despise the actions of British lawyers who have gone out to Iraq and Afghanistan touting for business that seeks to undermine the credibility and reputation of their Armed Forces. I agree with all those who have called for this to be urgently looked at, and I shall inform the Minister of one experience when I was Adjutant-General. The Second Permanent Under-Secretary came to the three officers who were responsible for personnel in their services and told them that they had to work out how industrial tribunals would be included in service discipline chains. When we asked whether such industrial tribunals came before or after the Queen, we were told that that was totally irrelevant because the Bill including this requirement had already had its First Reading in the House. We had not seen the Bill and when we sent for it we found that there were such ridiculous things in it as, if a person were ordered by his employer into a place of danger, he could seek an industrial tribunal. I wondered whether the OC B Company could take his commanding officer to an industrial tribunal if he were told to capture a hill. We discovered that this followed an instruction from Brussels—at least that was what was alleged. When we asked what our NATO allies—the Germans, French and Italians—had done about it, they said that their Governments had sought dispensation from this ruling. Our Government had not.
To what has already been said to the Minister, I add my hope that the assault on the clash between human rights legislation and those involved in armed conflict will not be conducted in isolation just in this country but will include our NATO allies, all of which have armed forces involved in the same dilemma. I hope very much that, rather than the modest Bill that the Minister has announced, the opportunity can be taken to include in it the very real action that is needed to solve what my noble and gallant friend Lord Boyce described as the lawfare question, which is one that I know worries the minds of every serving member of the Armed Forces at present.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I welcome and support this Bill and I also warmly congratulate my noble friends Lady Pidding and Lord Shinkwin and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, on their excellent, very different and very personal maiden speeches. I enjoyed all three, and I thank them.
If you look after the families, you look after the soldiers—these are not my words but those of the noble Lord, Lord Richards, who knows much more about the military than I do. Although this Bill focuses on disciplinary and other matters, I urge the Minister to continue to look at the wider context of the military and their families as a whole. Earlier this week I was pleased to attend the launch of the Homes for Heroes foundation, which is looking to break down the barriers faced by forces personnel and their families in owning secure, accessible homes, if that is what they aspire to do. It is also looking at and challenging the rented sector, when our soldiers leave the military. There are still a number of local authorities inadvertently not following the covenant in determining their housing allocation policies. I urge the Government to ensure that the covenant is adhered to, across all government departments and across local government. These are early days for the foundation; I wish it well and look forward to seeing the results of its work.
I have now had time to see the strategy for forces families, as mentioned in the strategic defence and security review. While I am a little disappointed that the strategy did not consult more widely with forces families, or with public services as part of the delivery network, the important matter now is the creation of a strong action plan and the delivery of the aims of that review.
Alongside secure housing, good education and health provision for the military and their families is soldiers’ transition into civilian employment. It is extremely important for the stability of forces families that they receive the necessary training and support as they leave the Army to ensure that they can get into secure employment.
In Wiltshire, we have 15,000 troops—the number will rise by another 4,000 by 2020—and the employment of these soldiers as they leave the Army is of high importance to our county. It is also important to the economy of the county. The Swindon and Wiltshire city deal and the Higher Futures programme, will broker higher education training courses, created with a number of local businesses, to convert the military training already received by our forces to qualifications required by the private sector, thus enabling our military leavers to reach their full potential in civilian life. The enterprise network provides sensitive, supportive advice to forces spouses or military leavers who wish to start their own businesses, and our university technical college in Salisbury utilises great support from the local 1st Artillery Brigade and Headquarters South West to help our young people to develop their leadership skills. We run transition fairs annually with the Army, bringing together the businesses, the soldiers, and our support services.
I know that this does not fit entirely with the Bill, but I wish to reiterate: if you look after the families, you look after the soldiers. I believe that our Army is a better Army when our soldiers know that their families are secure and that they have a secure future.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I am genuinely glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, as much of what she said I could not have said better myself. I feel this strongly because no matter how sophisticated the technology at your disposal or how advanced your strategic thinking, in the end that is no better than the people putting it into practice. Those people need to be confident that their families are secure and well-cared for, and that they will have a future place in society when they have left the forces. I might take issue with her on only one small point: I do not know why she referred to preparing them, when their service is completed, for their contribution to the private sector. I think that their contribution is equally needed in the public sector. I have often reflected on how much the public sector could benefit from some of the best elements—their experience and values—in the people who have served.
I, too, warmly thank the Minister for having introduced the Bill so thoroughly and well. I am sure that the whole House appreciated that. There is much in the Bill for which he will find support in all parts of the House. Anything that I will say is just about some things which I hoped that the Bill could perhaps have touched on, and not unrelated to what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has just been saying.
My first job in government, way back in the mid-1970s, was to be Minister for the Navy. In those days, we had Service Ministers. I am not sure that I am altogether relaxed that that tradition has gone because it was important to have Ministers who, in the deliberations of government, identified themselves with a particular service fulfilling its part in what was needed. I certainly learned a great deal in that job. I always looked forward just as much to my discussions with the various admirals with leading responsibility as to my discussions below decks with senior ratings and others. This again relates to the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was just making. It was often when among the senior ratings that I thought, “Are we doing enough, not just to ensure that these senior ratings, who are absolutely crucial to the successful operation of the fleet, are getting the certainty of a valid career when they complete their service but to enable society to understand what a terrific contribution people who have carried that sort of front-line management responsibility have to make to society?”. I was disturbed to find how often people who had carried tremendous responsibility to good effect were ending up as car-park attendants and all the rest. These considerations seem essential to the morale and effectiveness of our armed services. I would be surprised if the noble Earl, Lord Howe, did not 100% agree.
Having referred incidentally to how I looked forward to my discussions with admirals every week, I always had particular and keen anticipation for my weekly seminar with the Chief of Naval Staff. When I hear my noble friend Lord West in action, I always think that it would have been jolly good if he had been there discussing the things on which he speaks so strongly and with so much conviction. We might have had some quite lively discussions from time to time but they would have been greatly enjoyed.
We have heard remarkable maiden speeches today, which speak well for the future of the House, but I want to pick out two or three key points. First, we need to recognise the immense demands made on our service personnel in their work. To be effective servicemen they have, above all, to be effective fighters but nowadays they have incredible other responsibilities. I heard it put very well by somebody who had served in the Balkans. He said that they would suddenly find themselves having to be diplomats, negotiating their way through a situation. They may be under order in a convoy to get humanitarian relief supplies to a community when they come up against women lying down in front of them in the road, trying to impede their progress. They cannot run over those women, so they find themselves having to negotiate with them to get through that block and be able to proceed with their task.
Our personnel may also find themselves confronted with appalling floods—and my goodness, up in Cumbria I have seen the evidence of servicemen making a profound contribution. With the floods six years ago, let alone more recently, the contribution made by the RAF in the appalling situation in Cockermouth was extraordinary. We got through that awful episode with only one death, which was sad and felt by the whole community, when a brave policeman tried to divert traffic from a bridge, which he saw was about to collapse, and ended up drowned. The fact that the community itself got through without the loss of life owed a tremendous amount to the RAF, as it did to all the others who intervened, so there is a great range.
There is also a great demand on our personnel psychologically. Think of the servicemen operating drones: do not believe that there is no psychological strain in that situation. I saw it years ago when I was in the operations room of a new frigate. After my visit, I remember talking to a petty officer. He said, “Minister, did you see those ratings on those instruments?”. I said yes. He said, “Did you realise that the safety and survival of this ship, let alone its fighting effectiveness, depends on each one of those ratings and the instrument on which they are working?” They had to be able to interpret, and rapidly communicate, the significance of what they saw on their screens for the safety and fighting efficiency of the ship. That is terrific but it demands a great deal of certainty about the training and educational values of the men doing the work. It is no good relying on rules. I remember a Brigadier saying to me when I was the Navy Minister, “I can walk around with a copy of the Queen’s Regulations under my arm and it is useless. I would be lost”. It is leadership, the ethos and the whole value system of the service that ensures good performance. It should not be, “What is this rule telling me to do in this situation?”, but, “What is the right thing to do?”.
This relates to the searching discussion that there has been in the debate today about human rights and operations in the field. I care desperately about human rights. If we are not standing up for human rights, what the hell are we doing as a country? But of course there are tensions and what really matters are the ethos, spirit and leadership which run through the three services in this respect. It is really about instinctive decency and humanity, from which the rest follows. We need to be clear that these are fully felt and understood, which brings us back of course to education. It is not just a matter of going through some educational classes; it is about getting to the point at which you understand why these things matter, so that you do not have to think about them specifically in an individual situation just like that but have it deep in your psyche that that is what you are working for and what matters. This becomes terribly important in the age in which we are living, because one of the biggest battles we are involved in is the battle for hearts and minds, and ensuring that what we do and how we do it can be seen as an example all the time of a better society and of one worth living in. That makes tremendous demands on the services, and we must remember that all the time, including as we examine the Bill.
I have been in some very helpful correspondence with the noble Earl already on one point. I thank him for that and wonder whether it would be possible to put it in the Library, because it is quite important that the things that the noble Earl has said in correspondence with me are available more widely. The point concerns the minimum recruitment age. There is quite a lot of concern among responsible people in society that 16 is too young in the context of the things I have been talking about. I have an open mind on this issue, but it is one we ought to be looking at very carefully, because the minimum requirements at 16 are pretty modest, to say the least. Sometimes it is hard to establish that even they are being as well applied as they might be. We need to have people of real educational attainment coming into our services to have effective services, and there is an issue to be examined here. There is also evidence of a good deal of public concern about this: one of the Joseph Rowntree trusts commissioned a very responsible public opinion poll on the issue, which found that 78% of the public thought that the minimum recruitment age should be 18. From that standpoint, these are issues that we ought to be looking at.
I am also worried about the future for these youngsters who come in at 16 with minimal qualifications. They miss out on all the educational provision that is being put in place, not least by the present Government. When they come out of the services, they are going to be at a disadvantage because they did not have that, unless we are making very specific arrangements to ensure that they get support and help in acquiring the kind of education or training that would be available in civilian life. All I am asking for at this juncture is an undertaking from the noble Earl that these matters are fully recognised within the Ministry of Defence and are being taken as seriously as they should be. I am quite certain that he personally will share my concerns, but it seems to me that we need to look at this issue and make sure that there are measures in the Bill which would help in this respect.
I thank the noble Earl for having introduced the Bill so well and conclude by simply saying that I do not think this House can put on record strongly enough our appreciation and respect for service men and women and all they do on our behalf, as well as for the risks they take, the pressures on their families and the rest. It is incredible. They are so often overstretched and do not have all the equipment they need, which raises the bigger issues lying behind this legislation, which are of course our measurement of the threat, our destination in defence policy and the best way of meeting that threat, which is the fundamental question. The issues that arise in the context of this Bill then become crucial in making sure that the personnel aspects are fully covered.
Lord Burnett (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who was a distinguished Navy Minister, and I join with him in paying tribute to the members of our Armed Forces and their families. They always exceed the high expectations we have of them. In addition, it is a pleasure to say that we have had three outstanding maiden speeches today. No one could fail to be moved by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin.
In a debate on 15 September last year, to which my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford has referred, I said some words about the existing courts martial regime and some of its failings. This Second Reading debate on the Armed Forces Bill is an opportunity to elaborate on the criticisms I made in the earlier debate and to make one or two other points.
The Armed Forces Bill provides the system of command, discipline and justice for the Armed Forces. It covers the renewal of the powers of courts martial and, where there are failings in the courts martial system, now is the time to highlight those failings and to endeavour to remedy them. My first point is that there has been considerable criticism of the fact that, in a court martial, a simple majority can convict a defendant. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who has considerable experience in these matters, has been a long-standing critic of this iniquitous rule. The Judge Advocate-General himself has been critical.
In the case to which I referred on 15 September, involving Sergeant Al Blackman of 42 Commando Royal Marines, five panel members found the defendant guilty, while two found him not guilty. That ratio would not have been sufficient to convict in a civilian criminal court. It is outrageous that members of our Armed Forces serving in the most dangerous and demanding conditions—serving our country—should be treated less favourably than their civilian counterparts. One of the principal aims of the military covenant was to ensure that this did not happen and that members of our Armed Forces were not disadvantaged. A simple majority goes against the rules of natural justice, and amendments should be brought forward in Committee by the Government to bring the conviction ratio in line at the very least with the standard in civilian criminal cases.
My second point concerns the choice of individuals to serve on the panel. In civilian cases, the defendant can challenge members of the jury who, for one reason or another, are likely to be prejudicial. The ethos of a court martial is that you are supposed to be tried by your peers. In the case to which I have referred involving Sergeant Blackman, all of the panel, not just some of them, should have been drawn from individuals who had served through the horrors of the front line in Afghanistan or in similar combat conditions, who would have understood the effects that constant mortal danger, exhaustion and stress can have even on the strongest and best-trained individual—especially if that person had, over recent years, done six six-month tours on combat operations and witnessed the level of barbarism and brutality inflicted on his comrades by our enemies. As in civilian criminal cases, the court martial rules should be amended to allow a defendant the right to challenge individual panel members to ensure that he is truly tried by his peers.
Finally, like many others in this debate today, I should like to highlight the impact that human rights legislation is having on our Armed Forces. There are currently well over 1,000 public law claims filed against the Ministry of Defence in connection with British military action in Iraq. In addition, there are thousands of private law claims. These claims often relate to operations in which British Armed Forces were engaged decades ago. Our troops must at all times comply with the Geneva conventions, but we must ensure that we do not paralyse our Armed Forces with legal red tape and doubt. This leads to death and defeat.
In an excellent article in the Times on 30 March last year, Mr Tom Tugendhat, who has recently left the Armed Forces and who has considerable recent operational experience—I should add that he is now a Member of the other place representing Tonbridge and Malling—wrote:
“By applying human rights laws designed for the stable conditions of peaceful, postwar Europe to our forces operating in extremely violent and fast-moving combat situations, judges are damaging the fighting capability of the most accomplished military force in Europe. Victories abroad are being undermined by defeat after defeat before the benches of London and Strasbourg. … The Geneva Conventions allowed our troops to detain combatants or civilians if necessary — but our judges, and Strasbourg, couldn’t see the difference between Helmand and Henley”.
Those who drafted the European Convention on Human Rights did not intend the convention to apply outside the signatory states, and the Geneva conventions should take precedence in law.
There is power to derogate from the convention. I believe that the French Government contracted out of the convention in respect of their Armed Forces. I hope that the noble Earl will explain what steps the Government are taking to do the same.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I want to touch today on two matters: first, briefly, Clause 14, a provision which I particularly applaud, while adding, “High time”. I recognise that in practical terms it changes nothing; it merely tidies up the position with regard to homosexuals as it has stood for the past 16 years. It finally crystallises in legislation the change of policy which was forced on the Government by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in 1999 in Smith and Grady v the United Kingdom: that no longer are members of the Armed Forces engaged in homosexual activity to be administratively discharged from the Armed Forces.
For me, this has involved something of a nostalgic wander down memory lane. In 1995, I presided, at first instance, in the Divisional Court in the case of Smith, widely known as the “gays in the military” case. Of course, that was before the Human Rights Act and before, therefore, the United Kingdom was entitled to have regard to our convention obligations. Reluctantly, therefore, I was bound to reject the complainant’s case, compellingly though it had been argued by Mr David Pannick, Queen’s Counsel, as he then was. So, too, on appeal, presided over by the late and much missed Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the Court of Appeal similarly had to dismiss the claim.
I hope that it is not unforgivably vain to note in passing the opening line of my judgment:
“Lawrence of Arabia would not be welcome in today’s Armed Forces”,
and to record my statement in the judgment that:
“I for my part strongly suspect that so far as this country's international obligations are concerned, the days of this policy are numbered”—
and so it proved to be. Strasbourg’s judgment, correcting what had plainly been the United Kingdom’s stupidly mistaken earlier approach, should not be forgotten by those who seek any wholesale rejection of the convention.
The other matter that I want to touch on today arises not from what appears in the Bill but rather, as many others have noted, what is strikingly absent: anything directed towards solving the real problems resulting from the application of the convention to the operations of our armed services abroad. In this part of my speech—not, I hope, inconsistently—I shall perhaps be a little less respectful towards some of Strasbourg’s jurisprudence.
There are a number of aspects of the problems arising from the convention as applied to our forces abroad, and I cannot pretend that, to some extent at least, they have not been compounded by what many think to be the unfortunate decision of the majority of the Supreme Court in 2013, in another case called Smith, in which, as has already been made plain, by a majority of four to three, the court refused to strike out claims by our service personnel in Iraq under both Article 2 of the convention and in common law negligence. The noble Lord, Lord West, and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig and Lord Boyce, have already touched on that. The actual legal effect of the majority decision in that case has perhaps been a little misunderstood and exaggerated, but certainly the minority would have struck out those claims as unsustainable and objectionable in principle whatever their detailed facts. I have said before that, personally, I rather incline to that view myself.
I accept, too, that that decision and two other particular decisions of the Grand Chamber in Strasbourg, those in Al-Skeini and Al-Jeddah, in each of which the European Court reached a diametrically opposite conclusion from that earlier reached by us in the Appeal Committee of this House—I should perhaps declare that I was party to each of those—have all tended rather to undermine our military capability and to lead to our Armed Forces becoming hypercautious and risk-averse. The particular consequence of the Al-Jeddah decision in Strasbourg is that they have become unable to detain suspect foreign fighters whom we capture, however dangerous we judge them to be if left at large.
Those are the problems, and there is, alas, no single solution available to solve all of them. As for claims by foreign combatants and civilians, both personal injury claims and death claims, as well as—there are very many of these, too—claims for wrongful detention, the best solution now seems to me to be that in any future conflicts such as those in the past in Iraq and Afghanistan we should exercise our Article 15 power of derogation from the convention, leaving those operations abroad to be judged in accordance with international humanitarian law—that is, the Geneva Conventions—rather than the inappropriately restrictive constraints of the human rights convention which, as others have said, is designed essentially for peacetime conditions. Derogation makes it sound awfully simple. In fact, it is not—but now is not the time to explore all the difficulties.
As for claims against the Crown for death or injury suffered by our own Armed Forces, which is the particular problem confronting the Supreme Court in the Smith case, the solution has to be very different. Derogation simply does not have any application. In so far as such claims are brought in negligence in tort, I think that the only sensible way ahead is for a ministerial order now to be made under Section 2(2) of Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987—in effect reviving, in the case of,
“warlike operations … outside the United Kingdom”,
the effect of Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which had prevented claims for injury or death on military service, notwithstanding that the 1947 Act generally opened the way to tort actions against the Crown. Section 10 was repealed in 1987 really because personal injury damages by then had risen way beyond the level of benefits payable to those injured or killed in service. Although under the current Armed Forces pension scheme, which was revised in 2011 following the review by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, the benefits now payable are improved, they still fall well short of tort compensation.
The noble Lord, Lord West, has already mentioned the excellent Policy Exchange publication, The Fog of Law—and Tom Tugendhat, just mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, is one of the three authors of that publication. Later there was an equally powerful publication called Clearing the Fog of Law, which recognises—in my view, rightly—that as a matter of political reality, not to say fairness, it would be necessary as a condition of ending the right to sue for combat injuries, to award instead, in all such cases, without the need to prove fault, compensation representing the difference between the AFPS benefits and what would be awarded by way of tort damages. Obviously, this would result in more and larger payments than at present, but it would avoid all the problems of legal proceedings in the way of stress, delay and expense. Of course, it would also at a stroke eliminate the problem, presented by Smith—namely, that the risk of litigation itself causes a dangerously defensive approach to soldiering.
As to the other aspect of Smith, the possibility of claims under Article 2 of the convention, to reverse this it would be necessary to legislate, unless perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, tentatively suggested, a differently constituted Supreme Court could now be persuaded to depart from the majority view in Smith, which I believe could be done without any offence to our convention obligations. But if legislation is necessary, for want of any further such decision of the courts, it would have to prevent such claims for death or injury on active service. However, I repeat that I personally believe that such limited legislation would be consistent with our convention obligations and, indeed, even if challenged in Strasbourg, would be so found by the Strasbourg court.
As for the concerns expressed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, about the ongoing inquiries into historic allegations of criminality on the part of our forces overseas, these are concerns that I share—and I would be entirely happy to engage with him or others in discussing the possibility of introducing some provision on time limitations or some other possible way of addressing those concerns.
Whether all the various problems raised around the House today should be addressed in this Bill or in another, I leave to others. Assuredly, however, they should not be left unaddressed for much longer.
Lord Freeman (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the three maiden speakers today. They were exemplary. I have some past experience; in the other place one of my tasks for the Conservative Government was to brief those who were making maiden speeches—to a slightly larger House, perhaps, and perhaps suffering greater nerves than those who made the three very professional speeches today. I address my two Conservative colleagues, who are most welcome, and I congratulate them on their most excellent speeches.
I want to make two brief observations and then ask a question of the Minister. My first observation is that the way in which your Lordships consider the legitimacy of Armed Forces operations is rather rigid, in the sense that we are now looking at provisions that were effectively put in place in 2006. After five years there was a review, but it was relatively perfunctory, and we are now looking forward to 2021. That seems to be slightly inflexible. There may be opportunities: for example, Orders in Council could be in due course tabled in your Lordships’ House as a Motion, so there could be some discussion. Compared with the operations in the private sector and the business sector—issues affecting business are debated regularly in your Lordships’ House—it seems to be a rather inflexible procedure. That is simply an observation.
My second observation concerns the liability of reserve forces for prosecution by Armed Forces authorities. I speak as the past president of the Reserve Forces Association. I thank the Minister for his briefing on the subject. A number of your Lordships met the Minister for a briefing on this Bill. The answers that the Minister very kindly gave at that briefing were, to my mind, very satisfactory, but there is some doubt, and I shall continue to monitor it. When Reserve Forces are off duty—they may be travelling to their depot, for example—there may be a period of time when they are not actually serving as Reserve Forces and their liability under military law is sometimes in doubt. But I thank the Minister for the briefing and do not intend to press him.
My question refers to the protection of our Armed Forces abroad, under the judicial proceedings that might occur in the country in which they have been operating. There has been some progress, and the Minister kindly brought your Lordships up to date on the subject. But I wonder whether he could bring us finally up to date as to the legitimate protection afforded to British forces who find themselves persecuted or possibly charged by overseas legal authorities for actions committed in the course of conflict. I am clear that the proceedings should be under UK or British auspices and back in this country.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction and declare an interest as an ex-member of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body between 2004 and 2008. It gave me an interesting set of life experiences, including a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan and right out to the front line, including a bit of light shelling at Basra air base, which is not to be forgotten. So I am well aware of the threats, risks and dangers that our Armed Forces face. The scenarios that they operate in vary, as the challenges vary; more recently, the Ebola experience was another example of them rising to the occasion.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the maiden speakers. Unfortunately I heard only the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding. I did not hear my noble friend. I apologise for that. I had other business that I was trying to deal with at the same time. But I am sure that they will make an important contribution to the House.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. One has been comprehensively covered. Finer legal minds than mine have been at work on the issue. The legal actions that are taking place against past and present members of the Armed Forces are—I hesitate to use the word—obscene. The entry of the no-win no-fee brigade has created an unfortunate climate. This is not the first area where we have seen this happen. It has happened in a range of other areas, including PPI and whiplash claims. It will not be an easy problem to solve, as we have heard during today’s debate, but the Bill gives us an opportunity to examine the legal challenges that face our Armed Forces and to ensure that there is fairness and that we can deal with situations where things manifestly go wrong.
I was interested in my noble friend Lady Taylor’s contribution about the role of women and instances of sexual harassment. That is an important area. More evidence has recently emerged about the unfortunate incidents at Deepcut. My noble friend mentioned culture. Changing the culture of an organisation is the hardest challenge of all. It manifestly is changing, but whether it has changed enough is the question. What can we do to ensure that the current ethos in the Armed Forces reflects current standards of behaviour? Embedding that in the way that officers and troops behave and ensuring that the training reflects them is important.
I also welcome the clause dealing with homosexuality. It made me think about one other area on which I would welcome a comment from the Minister. Are the Armed Forces equipped to deal with the complexity of transgender situations, which are emerging more and more? It is not an easy issue, but it is one that will have to be addressed.
My noble friend Lord Judd made an interesting point about the recruitment of young people at the age of 16. One of the benefits of being on the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Board is that you are taken around to meet the troops and are able to speak to them without officers present. Young people going into the Armed Forces at that age often find that it brings a structure and purpose into their lives that they have never experienced before. It makes a profound improvement. If that were all that it did, it would not be enough. Of course they have to be properly trained. The Armed Forces have excellent apprenticeship schemes. They need to ensure that they are part of that so that when they leave, instead of it being a negative, it would be a positive; we would be sending young people back into society much improved. The only other safeguard is that young people making a decision at that age need to have the right to change their mind. I feel it is necessary to make that contribution because I have met so many young people whose lives have been improved, and I wanted to end on a positive note. This has been a really interesting and fascinating debate with some profoundly important contributions. I look forward with interest to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the Minister started this debate by saying that the Armed Forces Bill would renew the Armed Forces Act 2006, which provides the legal basis for the existence of the Armed Forces as disciplined bodies. I have just returned from addressing the 71st course at the Defence Services Staff College in Wellington in the Nilgiri hills in south India. I have known the institution since my childhood. When I was a little boy, my father was a major attending the course. When I was at boarding school in neighbouring Ooty, my uncle, Lieutenant-General Sethna, was commandant. Later, in the 1980s when I was at Cambridge, my father, Lieutenant-General Faridoon Bilimoria, was commandant. I returned there eight years ago to address the 63rd course in 2008. When I was there this week, I was taken by the immaculate condition of the staff college. It was the best I have ever seen it, under the leadership of its current commandant, the Guards officer Lieutenant-General SK Gadeock. He reminded me of the motto of the staff college—“To war with wisdom”—and the mascot of the staff college, its emblem, the owl. Of course, the owl stands for wisdom.
Are we being wise as a country when it comes to the law and the Armed Forces? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, spoke of the fog of war, and we have been speaking about The Fog of Law. Penny Mordaunt, the Armed Forces Minister, has spoken openly about the spurious cases being brought by parasitical lawyers whose behaviour is the,
“enemy of justice and humanity”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/16; col. 203WH.]
We have heard of “lawfare”. Legal firms have brought more than 1,500 allegations of abuse and killings against British troops in Iraq. Ms Mordaunt said that that they are bringing morally unjustifiable cases on an industrial scale. For instance, Public Interest Lawyers, founded by Phil Shiner, has brought a case against British troops even though it was accepted 11 years earlier that Danish troops were responsible and Danish forces had already accepted responsibility and paid compensation in 2003. Ms Mordaunt said that we will take action against any legal firms we find to have abused the system and made spurious and fabricated claims. Will the Minister say why this issue is not being addressed in the Bill? IHAT has a huge backlog. It spent £57 million to find evidence of wrongdoing in only one case. A team of more than 145 detectives and staff will not complete its work until 2019. We hear that further allegations may be brought against troops who have served in Afghanistan. According to Johnny Mercer, the situation is out of hand. No other country has legislation put to the Armed Forces in the way we are experiencing here.
The Prime Minister wants to stamp out spurious legal claims against British troops returning from war and this awful no-win no-fee culture. The Defence Secretary has spoken of ambulance-chasing British law firms and said that there is a case for suspending European human rights laws when sending forces into action. Does the Minister agree? The Prime Minister has said that the National Security Council has been ordered to produce a comprehensive plan to stamp out this industry. Will the Minister update us on this? This is stopping the Armed Forces doing their job. How long will it take to finalise the proposed new British Bill of Rights which it is hoped will replace the Human Rights Act and make Britain’s Supreme Court more powerful than the European court? In the mean time, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, said, does the Minister agree that we can derogate from the ECHR, as we did after 9/11, to protect ourselves from being sued if we are going to a theatre of operations where we think compensation could be applied? After all, France has opted out of certain elements of the ECHR in order to protect its military from the threat of litigation. Portugal, the Czech Republic and Spain have all derogated in the way that France has. Why can we not? Why should we not?
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, spoke about fighting effectiveness and about lawfare. Surely the ECHR was designed for civilian situations to protect the public from the misuse of state powers. Instead it is being used to bring legal claims against the military during times of war. The Geneva protocols should apply in conflicts of war. Does the Minister not agree?
The Policy Exchange, talking about its report The Fog of Law, says that,
“human rights laws mean British troops operating in the heat of battle are now being held to the same standard as police officers patrolling the streets”,
of London on a Saturday evening. This is completely out of proportion. In fact, Article 15 of the ECHR allows countries to derogate in times of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation.
My father commanded his battalion of the 2/5th Gurkhas in the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971. When they were about to take over a town, the brigade commander phoned my father and said, “I want that town taken by breakfast tomorrow morning”. My father said, “No, sir, I will not obey your order. I will give you that town by lunch. If I take it by breakfast I will lose too many of my men”. He did indeed take the town by lunch. Sadly, he still lost lots of his men. However, he made that decision in war.
I come to the question of adequate equipment. Since we are talking about the Gurkhas, whose 200th anniversary we celebrated last year, I say that my father’s battalion won three Victoria Crosses in the Second World War. I am on, and for six years was proud to chair, the committee for the Memorial Gates on Constitution Hill. In the ceiling of the pavilion there are the names of the Gurkha Victoria Cross winners. How many of them had adequate equipment? Their adequate equipment entailed a kukri with which they would single-handedly combat troops with a cry of “Ayo Gorkhali”—“Here come the Gurkhas”. Field-Marshal Manekshaw, another former commandant of the Defence Services Staff College in Wellington, famously associated with the Gurkhas, said that if a man says he is not afraid of dying, either he is lying or he is a Gurkha. This sort of bravery has no place for human rights lawyers.
Under the Geneva convention, lethal force is allowed as a matter of first resort against the enemy. Under the ECHR, lethal force should be used only as a last resort and only in exceptional circumstances. That is wholly inappropriate. The Minister said that the Bill is modest, and I am afraid I have to agree with him. It does not address a major issue. Last year was the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. What was the motto of the Duke of Wellington, one of the most famous heroes in this country? “Fortune favours the brave.”
In my talk to the Defence Services Staff College, which trains officers for armies, navies and air forces from all over the world, I spoke about the article 10 Things Entrepreneurs and Military Pilots Have in Common, written by Ron Yekutiel. Two of those 10 things were “Be bold” and “Just get the job done”. How can you just get the job done when you have the ECHR breathing down your neck and human rights lawyers ambulance-chasing you? This year at Harvard Business School, which I have attended for 14 years, we talked about the difference between playing to lose and playing to win. I believe that the British Army is famous for playing to win.
The SDSR 2015 was very positive, after the very negative one in 2010. Defence spending will rise by 5% by 2020-21. We will restore our lost capability after a decade of no carriers and no maritime patrols. We have one of the five highest levels of defence expenditure in the world. We are one of less than a handful of countries that now adhere to our 2% of GDP spending NATO commitment.
We are not a superpower; there is only one superpower on this planet and that is the United States of America. However, we are not a regional power or local power. We are at the top table of the world in every sense—the UN Security Council, the G7, the G8, the G20, NATO and the European Union. We are a global power.
The House of Commons Defence Committee produced a report, Flexible Response? An SDSR Checklist of Potential Threats and Vulnerabilities. It identified the following threats:
“Cyber-attack and espionage … Growing instability in the Middle East and North Africa … Increases in extremism, radicalisation and other enablers of terrorist activity … Non-state actors and hybrid warfare undermining the international rules-based order … Potential for conflict in the South and East China Seas … Potential for Russian aggression in Europe and the High North and possible dilution of the commitment to Article 5 … Economic dependence on unreliable partners … Inability to react to sub-conventional threats … Inadequate training opportunities for UK Armed Forces … Lack of numbers in UK Armed Forces and gaps in capabilities”.
On that note, when I was in India this time with the Indian Army it reminded me of when my father commanded the largest corps in the Indian Army. That corps has a strength of 100,000. The army that he commanded was 350,000 strong. Our troops now number 80,000. Lastly, the committee identifies:
“Lack of expertise in Whitehall”.
The report concludes:
“The SDSR must demonstrate adequate awareness of them all, and configure the Armed Forces to provide the flexibility, versatility and ability to expand which are essential for the defence and security of the United Kingdom”.
This is about the services. The motto of Sandhurst, where my grandfather was commissioned, is, “Serve to lead”. The motto of the Indian military academy where my father was commissioned, if I may paraphrase it, is, “The honour, safety and welfare of your country come first, always and every time. The safety and welfare of the troops that you command come second, always and every time. Your own safety and welfare come last, always and every time”.
We have had three varied and excellent maiden speeches today. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, spoke movingly of the Armed Forces covenant. We now have an annual report prepared on the covenant. Let us remind ourselves of what this is all about. The Armed Forces covenant is an enduring covenant between the people of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s Government and all those who have served the Armed Forces of the Crown and their families.
The first duty of government is the defence of the realm. Our Armed Forces fulfil that responsibility on behalf of the Government, sacrificing some civilian freedoms, facing danger and sometimes suffering serious injury or death as a result of their duty. In return, the whole nation has a moral obligation to the members of the naval service, the Army and the Royal Air Force. Together with their families, they deserve our respect, support and fair treatment. Recognising those who perform military duties unites the country and demonstrates the value of their contribution. This has no greater expression than in upholding this covenant. The covenant is at the heart of everything. We have to address the major lack in the Bill. I hope that we do.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his explanation of the Bill and to our most excellent maiden speakers.
I believe that the constitutional arrangements whereby we expend the service discipline Act annually by order and five-yearly by Act of Parliament is the right arrangement. I remind the House that I have an interest as I am technically still a commissioned officer in the Reserves, but not for long, since I will have to hang my boots up on my 60th birthday. I have exercised summary jurisdiction under the Army Act 1955 and in my very early days I was on the receiving end of it, although in retrospect I realise that it was probably much more to do with accounting for a lost camp-bed than for anything I might have done wrong. In answer to my noble friend Lord Lyell, I was using the Army Act 1955 in 1998 and it was still being used until the 2006 Act came into force.
I do not have any problems with the provisions of the Bill, but I regard it as an opportunity to raise a number of G1, or rather J1, issues, and not just service discipline arrangements. The difficulty with defence legislation is that the needs of the majority in the Armed Forces have to be balanced with the rights of the individual. I agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord West, and other noble Lords have said about the Human Rights Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised the issue of the age of recruitment. Perhaps the Minister could not just put the correspondence in the Library but share it with all of us who have taken part in the debate, as that would be very helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, talked about the statistics regarding “inappropriate behaviour”, if I may put it that way. I would be interested to see how those same questions and statistics compare with the experience in industry. It may be better or worse, but it would be useful to know what the difference is.
I will touch on “pay as you dine”. A few years ago, junior service people were charged for their food, whether they took it or not. This caused some resentment, and prior to the 1997 Parliament new arrangements were studied and were later put into place. In Committee, I will table some purely probing amendments to explore how the system is currently working.
I was very surprised that no noble Lords raised the issue of women in the front line. We already have women serving courageously in the front line and in harm’s way. They will engage the enemy as vigorously as their male colleagues. The issue is whether they should take on a role which is primarily to close with the enemy and kill him. Women are currently precluded from serving in the infantry or the Royal Armoured Corps operating armoured fighting vehicles. It is possible that, in respect of armoured fighting vehicles, women have advantages that outweigh the disadvantages. However, as regards the infantry, “closing with the enemy and killing him” is a brutal, bloody business. Physical strength is all-important. Since the average male is far stronger than almost all females, it follows that allowing women to serve in the infantry will reduce the combat effectiveness of the British Army and therefore I would strongly oppose it. There is of course an acid test for this issue. In the event of general war and conscription, would noble Lords be prepared to conscript women to serve in the front line? I very much doubt it.
We have talked a lot about the Government’s policy for the reserves, and while I have my misgivings I have a helpful suggestion; I will read very carefully what my noble friend Lord Freeman said. I believe that we should blur the distinction between regular and reserve service. This may be particularly relevant to cyber-reservists. Perhaps we should think of reserve service much more as being in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces but on a zero-hours contract. Rather than have me blunder around in the dark, it would be helpful if the Minister could arrange for me to be properly briefed on the current legal situation as soon as possible.
We have heard much about the military covenant, one of the principles of which is that no one who serves should be disadvantaged by that service. Over the last year or so, we have seen a retired officer of stratospheric seniority, who will have held the highest security classification, and who is also a Member of your Lordships’ House, having his public reputation traduced by a police investigation called Operation Midland. The public were told that the evidence was “credible and true”. As we know, parts of the operation were carried out in the full glare of publicity and not discreetly and sensitively. Of course, no one—but no one—is above the law and we need to give the police operational independence. However, I know that many noble Lords are deeply unhappy about this matter, which is fast moving, with developments even today. My main effort will have to wait for the next police and crime Bill, but I will table several amendments to address some of these concerns where they are relevant to the Armed Forces Bill. These might not necessarily be probing amendments, especially on Report.
I turn to the Blackman case. Several years ago, I told the House that service personnel deploying on operations have a secret dread fear, which is misconduct on operations. It is a sad fact that, if we are engaged in operations, sooner or later something will go wrong such as in this case. The House will recognise that the reason why we have a system of military discipline is so that our members of our Armed Forces, who are lawful combatants, will engage the enemy when required and, most importantly, they will adhere to the law of armed conflict and treat captured and injured enemies as they would want to be treated themselves. The fact that the enemy might not reciprocate is immaterial. We will not descend to the enemy’s level.
For years and years, during my annual training on the law of armed conflict I watched a video which covered some of the crucial points. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, has watched the very same video. Among the points were the duty to protect vulnerable non-combatants and cultural items and, most importantly, that wounded enemy get medical treatment according to clinical priorities and not according to whose side they are on. The video also made it clear that you cannot kill the enemy once he is wounded and no longer able to fight. There was absolutely no doubt on these points and the current training is even more detailed and carefully delivered.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnett, knows very well that I hold both him and the Royal Marines in the very highest regard. However, I have to part company with him on this issue. I am very sorry for Blackman and his family. When he comes out of prison I would support him in seeking good employment.
Lord Burnett
I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. The thrust of Sergeant Blackman’s case is that he shot a man he thought was dead; we should all be careful about what we say about the case, because the papers are now with the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and we await what its judgment will be on the facts.
Earl Attlee
I am grateful for that. I was going to say that he is a good man but he has fouled up, and has been convicted in the courts of a serious military offence and has to be disciplined, however unpleasant that is for everyone.
The noble Lord called into question the court martial system and in particular the experience of the officers on the board. Those comments were rather adventurous. I have served on two or three court martials but only for much less serious matters, and certainly not involving the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I can assure the House that, in my experience, the mindset of the board is to acquit if at all possible. Your Lordships will recall that the court martial acquitted Marines B and C, and I am bound to say that I would have been surprised if a civilian court had done so.
The noble Lord implied that the officers on the board would have difficulty in understanding the operational conditions at the time of the incident. That is not a fair criticism but, in any case, how much more difficult would it be for a jury in the Old Bailey? The reality is that of course Crown Court juries are forever deciding cases where they have no experience of the relevant environments, such as drug dealing, gang culture and organised crime.
In the past, I have intervened in support of service personnel who have been prosecuted when I believed that something had gone wrong. The Trooper Williams case comes to mind. I am very sorry, but nothing has gone wrong with the system and my counsel to the Minister is to do nothing. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, who, as I have said, I have high regard for. Fortunately, there is much common ground between us. I look forward to Committee.
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe (CB)
My Lords, I ask the House’s indulgence to say a few words in the gap. As one who has spent all my working life in the law except for two years’ military service in Germany with the Royal Artillery, I share the concern and disgust expressed in many corners of the House at the sort of ambulance-chasing activities which have been referred to—the “lawfare” trouble that affects us all. But as one of the four in the majority in the Supreme Court in the Smith case, which has been mentioned a number of times, I feel bound to say a word or two. It would be quite wrong for me to attempt to debate the whole case at length and at this point in the debate, but I ask the House to bear in mind three quite simple points about the majority decision of the Supreme Court.
First, it was not a claim that sought to establish either criminal or civil liability against any individual, officer or soldier, or group of officers or soldiers; it was, as I shall explain, basically a case about a failure of procurement of equipment. Secondly, the Supreme Court did nothing to say that the claim was likely to succeed or to encourage it; it simply refused to strike out the case as completely hopeless. Thirdly and most importantly, the reason that it was not a case that alleged a breach of a duty of care by any particular officer or soldier or collection of officers or soldiers was that it was basically about two particular failures of procurement of equipment.
One of the claims was based on an attack by a Challenger tank attached to an infantry unit at Basra against another Challenger tank some way away attached to a different infantry unit. The case was that the problem of a tank attacking a friendly tank could have been avoided by equipment which is referred to as, I think, friend or foe equipment and which, we were told, is fitted to American and French tanks but has never been fitted to tanks in the British Army. If it had been, it would have ensured that that incident did not happen.
The other claim was based on the failure over many years to produce a light armoured personnel carrier—it is the sort of thing that seems to happen all the time between the MoD and the suppliers; there is a constant wish to improve the specification and the design but it never gets done—which resulted in the use by the Army in Iraq of Land Rovers, which are very difficult to protect against various forms of attack.
That is what the case was about. The majority may have been right or may have been wrong. I agree that 4-3 is a very unsatisfactory way of deciding such an important case, and it may well be that the Supreme Court will revisit it. Who knows? But it is a very difficult area. The claim was basically that there had been a failure of a duty of care on the part of the MoD in London, not the Army in Iraq. It is a very much more complicated subject, as my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood indicated. I very much doubt whether it is right to attempt to deal with it in this Bill rather than elsewhere, but certainly it is a very difficult subject which needs careful thought. If that case is to be examined minutely, I ask noble Lords to read the long and anxious judgments and not to accept a tendentious account from those sections of the popular press that are determined to do down the Human Rights Act.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, this has indeed been a fascinating debate. The range of experience and expertise on all sides of the House is quite impressive. I rather suspect that more unites us than divides us with regard to this Bill. My noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham is not in her place this afternoon; she is at the funeral of Lord Roper, who certainly would have taken part in the debates on several of these Bills in times past.
I thank the Minister for arranging the briefing with officials. It was most useful and informative. Clearly, I must congratulate noble Lords on their really impressive maiden speeches. We look forward to them contributing fully to the business of the House in the future.
I wish to put on the record a tribute from these Benches to the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. I have had the privilege of seeing the Royal Navy at work over the last six months or so as part of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. On Sunday I head off to Norway to join the Royal Marines in their annual Arctic exercise.
In many ways the Bill is as important as the SDSR to the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. It affects their daily life, their work and, indeed, their retirement. I think that we could revisit on another occasion the debate that we have had today on the Geneva Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. I was really delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, with his expertise, suggesting that this Bill is not the right vehicle for settling these issues. That was my view but he has underlined it, and I am very pleased about that.
I state at the outset that I think that the measures in the Bill are sensible and timely, and we are happy to support them. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford covered issues relating to Clauses 3 to 12, and I shall pick up areas of concern outwith the Bill but within its scope. The issues I shall raise are predominantly those that might fall under the umbrella of the Armed Forces covenant. I was delighted to hear, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and, in his maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, talk about this really important document. Of course the Armed Forces Act 2011 incorporated the requirement for the Secretary of State to report annually on the covenant, and it is very necessary that we hold the Government to account on that.
Shortly after the operations in the first Gulf War ended, clusters of previously fit veterans reported developing unusual diseases, illnesses and symptoms. While all these symptoms can be present within the Armed Forces community and the general population more widely, what is unusual is that ill Gulf War veterans reported more of these symptoms than expected, and at a greater intensity.
As many as 33,000 UK Gulf War veterans could potentially be living with illnesses connected to their service in the Gulf, yet to date there has been little meaningful research regarding best practice to alleviate some of the associated symptoms. The veterans who have developed illnesses as a result of their service should be properly supported and there should be improved awareness of their specific health needs. I should mention that this is confined not just to our veterans but to those in the EU, the US and Canada. Will the Minister commit to the MoD investing in further research that will improve recovery outcomes for this particular group and set up formal communication channels to convey the results of US research developments for Gulf War veterans living here in the UK?
Military compensation is awarded partly as recompense for an ex-serviceperson’s loss of earnings. The Armed Forces compensation scheme, guaranteed income payments and the supplementary allowances paid under the war pensions scheme specifically relate to employment. However, military compensation payments are currently uprated annually in line with price inflation rather than average earnings, meaning that the real-terms value of these payments is decreasing year on year.
Indexation to the CPI is the least generous option, meaning that injured service personnel are currently financially disadvantaged compared to civilians in employment and their peers who remain in military service. This paints the Government in an ungenerous light to war veterans. The Government should index-link those employment-related aspects of war disablement pensions and Armed Forces compensation scheme payments to the triple lock. This would protect the value of military compensation payments for years to come. I know the Minister has pushed back on this, but I am asking whether he would consider it again.
Service personnel and veterans who are injured in service are able to access compensation through the war pensions scheme for those with conditions sustained on or before 5 April 2005, or through the Armed Forces compensation scheme for those with conditions sustained on or after 6 April 2005. Only veterans injured after April 2005 are currently able to retain their military compensation awards in full when accessing support for their social care. In contrast, veterans who were injured before that date typically find that they can keep only the first £10 per week of their compensation. It is unfair that the date on which a veteran was injured should determine the level of support that they receive, and it is not in line with the spirit of the Armed Forces covenant. Would the Minister consider amending the statutory guidance for charging so that all military compensation payments are fully exempted from financial assessments for social care support, whether residential or non-residential?
Many noble Lords have supported the case for those people with mesothelioma, including the noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Empey, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. In December 2015, the Veterans Minister announced that veterans diagnosed with mesothelioma on or after 16 December 2015 will be offered the choice between receiving a traditional war pension or £140,000 in lump sum compensation. Does the Minister think it fair that veterans diagnosed with mesothelioma before 16 December 2015, and who are already in receipt of a war pension, will not be eligible for the new scheme? Around 60 veterans have been denied access to the new lump sum award, and I would like to push the Minister on why the Government have not yet accommodated this small group but are “looking into it”. To put not too fine a point on it, time is short. A rethink would be welcomed.
I move on to the investigation of serious crime, murder, sexual assault and rape. Here, I am referring to offences not in battle but in ordinary circumstances: in work, in the community living that the Armed Forces find themselves in, and in leisure. When allegations are made that a member of the Armed Forces has violated service law, a CO has broad discretion to decide whether to investigate or to refer to the relevant police force. The Armed Forces Act 2006 requires this to be mandatory for certain criminal offences, but explicitly excludes sexual assault, voyeurism and sexual activity in a public lavatory. So if notified of such a crime, a CO is not required to refer the matter to the police. Discretion creates room for confusion. Failure of the services to maintain a crime register means that there has been no way for HMIC to corroborate this. The Government stated that victims may bypass their commanding officer and go directly to the police, but we have heard the anxiety from noble and gallant Lords sitting opposite me that this would undermine the chain of command and the training that service personnel receive to work through the established framework.
Service police forces are institutionally unable to offer the necessary independence in cases involving allegations of serious sexual assault and rape, especially in cases where both the victim and alleged perpetrator are service personnel, as there is a risk they may know those involved. Service police may have been trained, but they do not have the expertise and experience to investigate the most serious offences. In its report, HMIC has raised a number of concerns on this matter. Should not allegations of sexual assault and rape involving members of the Armed Forces always be investigated by civilian, rather than service, police forces? Confusingly, the HIMC report sets out that, for the Army, there is now notification of all serious sexual offences to a civilian police force. However, the report does not state whether this process is a requirement or an option and where it fits in with other protocols or applicability across other services. Could the Minister clarify this point?
In the civilian sphere, the IPCC is charged with adding independence to the oversight and handling of complaints. No such body exists to deal with the service police forces, which undermines the rule of law. HMIC has recommended that an independent body provides oversight. Are the Government minded to accept such a recommendation?
I would like to take the House to an area covered in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Great strides have been made in the last few years on health, such as the wonderful rehabilitation work at Headley Court and the excellence at the Ministry of Defence health units embedded in hospitals. The work done with veterans with mental health issues is a great stride forward, but the evidence suggests that those serving who have a mental health problem do not always seek help. There is still a stigma. Within the NHS, parity of esteem of physical and mental health is enshrined in law, and the messages are changing. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, spoke about a cultural change, but this cultural change has not yet found its way into the Armed Forces. Could the Minister give me an idea of the Government’s thinking on this issue?
Finally, to revisit something that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, full-time education or training is now compulsory for those up to the age of 18. I have visited HMS “Raleigh” and seen the duty of care that is shown to the young men and women training there. I also understand that there are Ofsted inspections. However, could the Minister confirm when the MoD last looked at the issue of the age when a serviceman or woman can enlist?
I am happy to take answers from the Minister in the form of a letter, copied to all noble Lords, if time does not permit a full response.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, the House will perhaps understand if I say I have a feeling I have been here before—a sense of déjà vu. I was on the government side as Defence Minister and in 2005 took the Armed Forces Bill through the other place. However, I never saw it through to becoming an Act. The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, phoned me and said he had to make room for younger members of his Government—and, in an instant, I was no longer a Minister. My successor, friend and colleague, and now deputy leader of my party, Tom Watson, took the Bill through to complete its passage in the other place. I have no complaints about losing office, having served for most of the time that my party was in government—although it did take some getting used to, to be told at 57 that I was too old to be the Veterans Minister.
That 2006 Act was the biggest piece of Armed Forces legislation for many years. It not only completed major reforms to the Armed Forces system of justice but was amended to include a pardon for the 308 shot-at-dawns—our own men whom we executed in the First World War.
I think that all would agree we have had an excellent debate today, and I look forward to Committee when we will examine the Bill in much more detail. We have certainly had three excellent maiden speeches. Perhaps the House will indulge me if I pay tribute to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen. We are each other’s oldest friends; I think that in our first photograph together we are aged three, playing in the sand-pit at Brynteg nursery in Abersychan. His maiden speech was first class, and I expected nothing else.
His work as Northern Ireland Secretary and as Minister of State before then saw him make a major contribution to the peace process. He is highly regarded and respected on all sides and, although he has only just made his maiden speech today, almost on the day he came into the House the Home Secretary asked him if he would chair the Joint Committee on the draft Investigatory Powers Bill which has reported today. I am not alone in looking forward to his further contributions.
The House has also been fortunate to hear maiden speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, served on Chiltern District Council. I, too, served in local government. I do not know whether she shares my experience that when I ceased to be a councillor and became an MP I found that I had swapped power for mere influence. In her excellent speech she spoke about volunteers. All parties require volunteers and we know how much we rely on them. It reminded me of an occasion when someone came to me having just joined the Griffithstown and Sebastopol branch of the Labour Party, of which I was secretary. He had attended his third meeting, seemed rather fed up, and said, “I joined the Labour Party to change the world, not the minutes of the last meeting”.
I have had the pleasure and honour of knowing the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, for a number of years and know well of his hard work with the Royal British Legion. His brother John worked with me for a year and did tremendous work. The noble Lord’s speech was thoughtful, powerful and moving and was underpinned by his deep and real faith. The Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes is a wonderful day on which to make a maiden speech in your Lordships’ House.
I thank the Minister for all his work and for the helpful briefings he has provided throughout as we have prepared for this Second Reading. I look forward to working with him on the Bill.
My party in government has a proud record on defence. At the end of the Second World War it was a Labour Government who committed us to an independent nuclear deterrent and who helped create NATO. I hope that that message is not lost on some members of my party today who might need some re-education. Between 1997 and 2010 it was a Labour Government who ended the ban on LGBT men and women serving in the Armed Forces and passed the Armed Forces Act 2006, which I have already mentioned. We invested in equipment to support our troops serving both at home and abroad, increased defence spending by 10% in real terms and invested in world-class health facilities for the Armed Forces such as the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, which I have visited.
It is important to note that throughout this Bill’s passage in the other place it received cross-party support, with colleagues from across the political spectrum recognising the constitutional importance of this legislation but also providing a level of scrutiny that will give our Armed Forces the best possible deal in the coming years. It is rare that a piece of legislation receives such strong cross-party support, which again underpins its importance. The way in which the Bill was changed in the Commons is a testament to the impact of cross-party working together. That, for me, is Parliament working at its best.
The Government made an amendment to the Bill to remove outdated legislation that saw homosexual acts constitute grounds for discharging a member from the Armed Forces, following an amendment tabled by my party and supported by other parties. On Report the Government agreed to a compensation package for veterans suffering from mesothelioma following the debate on a Labour amendment. We have had some important contributions today from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, and the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, who have shown us that there is still a gap we need to fill in that respect. Now that the Bill has come here, we will continue to work with colleagues across the House to secure the best settlement for our Armed Forces.
As my honourable friend Maria Eagle, who was our shadow Defence Secretary at Second Reading, said in the other place, Labour welcomes the intention of this Bill. Its ambition to simplify the system when people are charged with offences is certainly a step in the right direction. When I served as a Member of Parliament, I often came across cases from constituents who found the bureaucratic challenges thrown up by the civil justice system a barrier to gaining the justice they were seeking. We certainly do not want that in the Armed Forces.
Having said this, we will continue to press the issue of how rape and sexual assault are reported and dealt with in the Armed Forces. I am sure that we on these Benches are not alone in believing that it is a serious issue that warrants further attention and scrutiny, not least to enshrine equality into our Armed Forces.
The Government announced before Christmas their intention to allow women to serve in all front-line roles. Clearly that will be contentious, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said in his contribution. It demonstrates a wider commitment to equality in the Armed Forces but it must come with a greater responsibility to deal with issues such as rape and sexual assault. On this side, we want men and women to see joining Britain’s Armed Forces as an opportunity to get a career, a skill, a life-changing experience and yes, for some, a career for life. This is why we feel strongly about the need to face up to the issues surrounding sexual misbehaviour—a point made by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton. No man or woman thinking about joining our Armed Forces should be left in any doubt about our concerns on this matter. It is surely at the heart of the equality agenda to which we all aspire and which we want to see enacted.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. He mentioned the question of the territorial extent of the Bill so far as it concerns Gibraltar and gave us a good update. One assumes that we will have something, certainly by Report or Third Reading, so that we know whether or not it will extend to Gibraltar.
Secondly, there is some interest in how reports of murder, sexual assault and rape are dealt with in the Armed Forces. Can the Minister confirm what policies are currently in place to deal with such reports, how they are investigated and how they are prosecuted, and will he place a copy of these policies in the Library of the House?
Thirdly, in 2013, during the passage of what is now the Defence Reform Act 2014, the then Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, stated that if there was a case to be made to legislate to provide further employment protection for reservists, this could be done in the Armed Forces Bill. However, the Bill does not currently include any provisions to provide further employment protection for reservists. Can the Minister say why this has not been included in the Bill and whether any case was made to include it when the Bill was being prepared?
Fourthly, there is a gap in the Armed Forces compensation scheme as it impacts upon people with mental health problems. It can take years—perhaps five years or more—for mental health to be diagnosed. Once diagnosed there is no immediate financial assistance under the scheme Those with physical injuries can claim up to £60,000 if their injuries are level 8 or worse, but mental health is classified below this level. The solution may be a fast-track payment for mental health sufferers or even an interim compensation scheme. I appreciate the Minister may want to think about this matter and perhaps we can pursue it in Committee.
On this side we welcome the fact that the Government are finally recognising that homosexual acts no longer constitute grounds for discharging a member from the Armed Forces and that this is being enshrined in law.
I will raise the same question in relation to the Merchant Navy. I recognise that it is outwith the scope of this Bill but what steps have been taken to address this issue in the Merchant Navy? Specifically, can the Minister say whether he has had discussions with the Department for Transport, which has responsibility for the Merchant Navy, and whether we can expect further legislation to ensure that the Merchant Navy is on a level playing field with the Armed Forces on this matter? I accept that he might want to go back to the department before replying on this point, but perhaps we could have some information by Committee.
To conclude, I look forward to working with colleagues across the House on the Bill and I reiterate my party’s support for it. During the time I was a Minister of Defence I had my own mission statement. It was simply this: we will value our service men and women and their families and do everything practical in our power to demonstrate that. I am sure that, by working together across the House on the Bill, we will show the British Armed Forces that we are on their side.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that we have had a very good debate today with contributions of the highest quality. It has been a debate enriched and adorned by three excellent maiden speeches. It is a pleasure for me to say that I agreed and identified with every word of all three of them.
The difficulty of doing justice to all contributions is, I hope, obvious. I shall do my best to respond to as many as possible of the points that have been raised, but I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if I do not manage to answer each and every one today. I shall look carefully at Hansard and will write to any noble Lord where I have something to add.
Perhaps I may begin by responding to the many noble Lords—including the noble Lords, Lord West of Spithead and Lord Empey, the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig and Lord Boyce, the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Burnett, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and others—who raised a series of concerns falling under the broad heading of the law relating to human rights.
I turn first to the concerns about combat immunity and the so-called Smith judgment, raised by the noble Lord, Lord West, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce. Without any disrespect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, whose remarks I found very helpful, the Government are very concerned about the judgment, because the court ruled that some issues relating to military operations may be justiciable. This was one of the reasons for our manifesto commitment to deal with the huge volume of litigation currently engulfing the Armed Forces. We are determined to honour that.
Our particular concern is that the Smith judgment has left the position on liability for events on the battlefield unclear. We continue to defend the doctrine of combat immunity vigorously and a number of high-profile test cases are ongoing. We are examining the option of legislating, but we would look to do so using the most appropriate means. Once our proposals are mature we will announce further details. Clearly, it is important that we get this right and that operational effectiveness is not harmed.
Many of the noble Lords I just mentioned raised particular concerns about the volume of claims being brought against the Ministry of Defence raising human rights issues. Let me make clear the Government’s determination to address the risks arising from developments in international human rights law, which has the potential to impose ever-greater constraints on the Armed Forces and the MoD to operate effectively in defending the UK and its interests. The Government are committed to upholding the rule of law. Their view is that international humanitarian law, as embodied in the Geneva Conventions, should have primacy over human rights law for ensuring that military operations are conducted lawfully.
The Government are considering the options available to safeguard the ability of the Armed Forces to do their job, as I have said. Among our key objectives, we want to ensure that our service personnel are not pressured to become unduly risk-averse by the prospect of unmeritorious legal harassment, and that commanders can take necessarily rapid and often high-risk decisions. We are currently looking into a number of areas, including examining different areas of legislation where changes could be made and what more we can do to support our Armed Forces personnel and their families. We have established a programme to look at the different ways we can reduce the cost and volume of litigation against the MoD to ensure that our Armed Forces continue to operate unimpeded. The Queen’s Speech included a clear commitment to bring forward proposals for a Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act. We are actively working with the Ministry of Justice on the shape of the Bill to ensure that our Armed Forces can operate effectively in armed conflicts without overzealous constraint.
In addition, the Government are concerned to ensure that the extent of the doctrine of combat immunity is clear. We continue to defend the doctrine vigorously. As I mentioned, a number of high-profile test cases are going on. I reassure noble Lords that the doctrine of combat immunity continues to apply to those taking decisions in the heat of battle.
Lord Bilimoria
I thank the Minister for the very positive response to the points we raised, but the covenant was enacted in a way that was never done before. It is now reported on every year. It is a very positive measure. Why is it not possible for this huge issue to be incorporated in this Bill to protect the immunity of our troops, to allow them to fight with confidence and not worry about lawyers chasing them?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I said, and I hope the noble Lord will agree, it is very important that we get this right. I was reassured by the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, who said he did not feel personally that this was the right Bill in which to enact any changes. I am as eager as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, to see this matter sorted out and I have no doubt that we can return to it in Committee—in fact, I think it would be useful to do so—but I am not yet persuaded that we are in the right place to legislate in the time available to us for the Bill.
The vast majority of UK service personnel have conducted themselves highly professionally and have acted in accordance with policy and legal obligations. However, in the context of the work done by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, or IHAT, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, the law requires that allegations that crimes have been committed by members of the UK forces should be investigated. In our view, the IHAT is necessary, given the unprecedented number of allegations. Having this independent investigative body has enabled us to defeat the claimants’ attempt to persuade the court to order a single public inquiry, which would have taken many years and costed an estimated £200 million. The IHAT investigations can be completed more quickly and cheaply, ending sooner the uncertainty faced by service personnel.
It is true that the IHAT’s investigations have not yet resulted in any prosecutions. However, it has completed a number of investigations. The lack of prosecutions is because in some cases the evidence showed that no criminal offence was committed, while in others the evidence did not meet the domestic test for bringing a prosecution. It has taken a long time because it is far more difficult to carry out investigations into events in Iraq then events in England. Witnesses are often difficult to locate and to interview. The solicitors representing those claimants have also been extremely unco-operative, even though they called the investigations in the first place. I can assure the House that the IHAT is getting on with its job as promptly and professionally as it can. I urge the House not to interpret the absence of any measures on this in this Bill as an indication of our intent to do something. Work is in hand and we will set out proposals as soon as we are able.
Lord West of Spithead
Will the Minister say something about the firms, one of which, Leigh Day, has, I think, gone through the Solicitors Regulation Authority already, and PIL? Where do we stand in terms of what has been going on in Iraq with what is loosely termed “ambulance chasing”?
Earl Howe
These are matters currently under scrutiny. The firms that the noble Lord mentioned are, I understand, being quizzed by the regulatory authority for the solicitors’ profession. I am not aware of the outcome of those proceedings, but the noble Lord is right to pinpoint the issue of the way in which those firms received their instructions in the first place. That is a matter that we are as keen to get to the bottom of as he is.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Can the Minister update us on the International Criminal Court preliminary examination? Where are we with that?
Earl Howe
I fear that I cannot. I will need to write to the noble Lord about that and I will be happy to do so.
I extend thanks, briefly, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, for his contribution. I will not attempt to answer all the points he made, but I reassure the House again that these issues are under active consideration with the MoD and very recently, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, will be pleased to know, by the National Security Council.
My noble friend Lord Freeman was concerned that service personnel overseas might be subject to the criminal law of the host nation. We take steps to ensure that, before members of the Armed Forces are deployed overseas, arrangements are made with the host nations to ensure that the conduct of those forces in the course of their duties will not be subject to criminal proceedings under the criminal justice system of the host nation. Allegations of criminal misconduct will be dealt with under UK law, under the system established by the Armed Forces Act 2006.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, spoke of the need to do more about publicising data on sexual offences. While we are not yet convinced that it is necessary or appropriate to set out requirements in legislation for the publication of this data, the department is determined to make the data that we publish robust, consistent and accessible. To that end, we are actively considering how best to publish the data as an official statistic. The Service Police Crime Bureau records, for all three services, allegations of rape and sexual assault made to the service police. This information is released regularly in response to Parliamentary Questions and FOI requests. In the case of the latter, the information is uploaded to the MoD’s online publication scheme, where it can be freely accessed.
The Service Prosecuting Authority records, for each year, the number of cases referred to it, the number of cases in which charges are preferred and the number of cases where a conviction is secured. The Military Court Service regularly publishes, on the internet, details of every case heard at the court martial, including offences, outcomes and punishments. There is, therefore, a clear picture of the extent of this type of offending within the services, giving a strong indication of the proportion of case referred from the service police to the Service Prosecuting Authority which were prosecuted, and the conviction rate in such cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, also touched on the subject of sexual offences. It hardly requires me to emphasise—but I will—that sexual assault is unacceptable, in wider society or within the Armed Forces. At present, a whole range of allegations covering most sexual offences must be reported to the service police by the commanding officer. They can also be reported by the victim direct to the service police and, of course, the service police can investigate on their own initiative, but there are some, such as sexual assault, which are referred back, at least initially, to the CO. The Bill changes that. Where the service police have investigated any sexual offence and there is sufficient evidence to charge, the service police will be required to refer the case direct to the Service Prosecuting Authority. That is provided for in Clause 3. I will be happy to write to the noble Lord with further details around some of the questions he asked on this.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, took us to the whole system of courts martial and the service justice system. I should explain, in answer to the broad thrust of his question, that there is already a prosecutors protocol in place between the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Director of Service Prosecutions and the Defence Secretary which sets out the principles to be applied in determining where a case is best dealt with if the conduct occurred in circumstance such that both the civilian criminal justice system and the service justice system have jurisdiction to deal with the case. The protocol recognises that any offence can be dealt with by the service authorities.
The main principle in deciding whether it is the service authorities or the civilian authorities which acts is whether the offence has any civilian context, especially a civilian victim. If it does have a civilian context, it will almost certainly be the civilian police, prosecuting authority and courts which deal with the case. Under the protocol, many cases involving service personnel are dealt with by the civilian police. The service police are able to investigate, but if the circumstances are such that it is considered more appropriate for the civilian police to do so, then they will take the lead. We expect the prosecutors protocol to continue to apply even after the draw-down of forces from Germany, so that cases will continue to be dealt with in the appropriate jurisdiction from the outset.
Of course, we must not lose sight of the fact that the UK civilian police do not have jurisdiction overseas, and as long as the Armed Forces have an overseas role we will need to have a justice system which is capable of functioning extraterritorially and which supports the operational effectiveness of the services. The noble Lord also asked—
Lord Thomas of Gresford
The noble Earl will know that murder is under universal jurisdiction. Do I take it that murder cases arising out of the IHAT investigations, for example, will be referred to the civil court or to courts martial in this country?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I said, there is a protocol which lays down pretty clear guidelines as to how individual cases are handled. I do not think I can give a blanket answer to the noble Lord; it will depend on the circumstances of the case.
He raised other points, including the composition of courts martial and majority verdicts—a theme also pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Burnett. The proposal to change the current rules under which findings of guilt or innocence may be by simple majority would involve profound changes to the court martial system. The court martial may sit in the United Kingdom or anywhere in the world in times of peace or in conflict. Court martial trials may be decided, as in a magistrates’ court, by a small panel, usually of three officers and warrant officers, but a panel of five is required in more serious cases. A service defendant will ordinarily be tried by lay members wholly of his own service. The composition of the panel is determined by the court administration officer who is appointed by the defence counsel. The CAO will draw names at random from a pool of potential members and, having checked that they are eligible for membership of the particular board, will specify who the lay members should be. I would like to write further to both noble Lords to flesh out this whole issue but the great advantage of reaching a decision by majority is that it avoids a hung jury and there is no need for a retrial in the event of a lack of unanimity or qualified majority. As the noble Lords will know, this is a long-established process.
The noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Empey, the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor, and Lady Jolly, and others raised the issue of mesothelioma. The background to this was the announcement by my honourable friend the Minister for Defence Personnel and Veterans in December that veterans diagnosed with mesothelioma from that date would have the option to receive a £140,000 lump sum, to be paid from 11 April this year. I simply say that the Government understand the concerns that have been voiced in this debate and I can tell the House that work is actively continuing on the matter of those diagnosed before 16 December last year. While I cannot discuss that issue any further today, we hope to be in a position to say something soon.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, my noble friend—
Lord West of Spithead
I am sorry to intervene. That sounds very good news but I stress again that three to five people are dying each week. That is the only point I make.
Earl Howe
That is a very pertinent point to make and the Government are fully aware of the need to make speed as far as we can.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, my noble friends Lady Hodgson and Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Judd, all referred to the importance of service families. The families of our Armed Forces personnel play a vital role in enabling them to do the job that they do, for which the Government are extremely grateful. We have already taken a number of important steps to that end, but, following feedback, we have started to develop a new UK Armed Forces family strategy to review and improve the support we provide to families. That will be launched by the end of 2016. I could say a huge amount on the topics covered by my noble friend Lady Hodgson, especially on housing and veterans’ mental health, but the key question she posed, which I will briefly address, is how well we think the covenant is working.
At the start of the year, we consulted all three single services to understand how they perceived they were disadvantaged. The result has been a comprehensive assessment of delivery in the five key areas of healthcare, local services, spouse employment, education and commercial support. We have also undertaken a challenging package of work to check that our processes and procedures are working. The results were clear: the covenant is working but we need to make it clearer and easier for members of the Armed Forces community to access the support that is available, and delivery is not uniform. We are also aware that we need a mechanism to identify and address localised problems. Better metrics will help and for the first time the Armed Forces covenant annual report includes assessments of our performance in a number of areas. But we also need to be able to measure how the covenant is working at a local level, so the Ministry of Defence will continue to work with other government departments and the devolved Administrations and relevant charities to identify and develop relevant data.
I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, will forgive me for not addressing the points they made about the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. As time is short, I will write to them on that. I would, however, like to make two points in response to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who indicated that the MoD has no clout with other departments and that the covenant is in danger of fading from the public eye. First, this year the Prime Minister will personally take the helm of the Home Affairs (Armed Forces Covenant) Sub-Committee and ensure that departments work together effectively. Secondly, the Government have committed to a £10 million annual fund in perpetuity to support delivery of the covenant. The existence of that fund will surely keep it in the public eye.
Lord Ramsbotham
I thank the Minister for that. My main point was that if the statement is made verbally then we will have a chance every year to maintain momentum and make certain that all these issues are pursued.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I am in favour of annual reporting and we pushed that hard last time. I mentioned that the Northern Ireland Executive have failed to make a report. Therefore, that opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise what is happening with a reserved and excepted function, which will never be devolved, is no longer available. I raised this at the last occasion and would be most grateful if the Minister will ask his department to look at it. I fear that it is only a matter of time before something goes wrong.
Earl Howe
I will, of course, take that away as well. I simply say that delivery of the covenant extends to the whole of the UK and that there is money to underpin that in Northern Ireland. The annual report includes input from the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive. It is important that we continue to work together to ensure that there is universal support for the Armed Forces wherever they work and live, and that must extend to Northern Ireland. In 2013, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs assessed that over 93% of covenant measures applied in Northern Ireland. It is sensible that in 2016 we update our assessment of how the covenant is being delivered there and I assure the noble Lord that that will be a priority.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for not covering the other things I would have liked to cover. The noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Lord Young of Norwood Green, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, referred to Clause 14 and I welcome their comments. My noble friend Lord Attlee referred to women in combat roles and the blurred distinction—as he put it—between the regular and the reserved services.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, referred to the recruitment of under-18s and in particular how they were missing out on education. The noble Baroness also spoke about Gulf War syndrome and a range of other subjects, including the commanding officer’s discretion to investigate sexual assault, and the independent oversight of service police. I promise to include these and other matters in letters to noble Lords which I will copy to everybody. I also hope to follow up the important comments made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on service chaplains. The same applies to my noble friend Lord Lyell in answer to his questions about Gibraltar and the British Overseas Territories.
This is a good Bill. It is small but it does what it needs to do. I am greatly encouraged by the welcome that noble Lords have given it today and I look forward to Committee and the exchanges that that will undoubtedly bring. I beg to move.
Recall of MPs Act 2015 (Recall Petition) Regulations 2016
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bridges of Headley
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15 December 2015 be approved.
Relevant documents: 14th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
Your Lordships will recall the passage of the Recall of MPs Act 2015 in the last Parliament. The Act set out three conditions which would result in a recall petition being triggered, potentially resulting in an MP losing their seat and a by-election being held. It is perhaps worth reminding your Lordships that following passionate debates in this House, improvements were made to the recall procedure, including reducing the signing period from eight to six weeks and increasing the number of signing places that could be designated from a maximum of four to a maximum of 10.
These regulations prescribe how the petition should be conducted, the arrangements for signing, the mechanism for challenging the outcome, and the creation of offences in relation to the petition. The regulations also respond to amendments rejected when the Bill was before this House: for example, the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that the number of registered electors eligible to sign the petition should be made public, which will happen on the third working day after receipt of the Speaker’s notice and again on the first day of the petition, and to include successful applications to register to vote made on or before the day of the Speaker’s notice.
I was delighted to see the amicable passage of the regulations through the Delegated Legislation Committee in the other place two weeks ago. I was further heartened by the reaffirmed commitment from the Opposition in the other place to the implementation of the recall procedure and, by extension, these regulations.
No doubt your Lordships will have noted the period of time that elapsed between the Act receiving Royal Assent in March 2015 and when the regulations were initially laid in November. Obviously, this is a substantial set of regulations, as is proper for electoral law, and it has taken some time to draft. Furthermore, as was touched upon in the other place, the original regulations laid in November were re-laid in December after several anomalies were identified, particularly concerning the Welsh translation of some forms. Again, I can say only that once these errors were discovered we sought to rectify them immediately.
The regulations are comprehensive in setting out the petition process, as is the case for regulations prescribing other electoral events. Wherever possible, the processes are modelled on those for elections, with modifications to cater for differences, such as the petition being open for six weeks and the ability for the petition officer to designate up to a maximum of 10 signing places. The processes will therefore be familiar to voters and administrators and will adhere to the very high democratic standards that we demand of other electoral events.
The regulations also reflect views expressed during scrutiny of the Act and extensive consultation. As well as carrying out our statutory duty to consult the Electoral Commission, we have consulted with a number of stakeholders, including the Association of Electoral Administrators. Comprehensive user testing has also been undertaken on the key petition forms and their wording. We have opted for petition notice letters to be sent to electors as opposed to poll cards, so that those who regularly vote at elections are not inadvertently prompted to sign a petition, in a way similar to that in which a poll card prompts us to vote at an election.
Turning to the detail of the provisions, I assure your Lordships that I will not go through each of the 174 pages in great detail. Part 1 sets out how the regulations apply to the different parts of the UK. It also gives an interpretation of the common phrases used throughout the chapters. Part 2 is concerned with compiling the register of those eligible to sign the petition. It stipulates that the register must be constructed by street name where possible and include the names and elector numbers of those eligible to participate in the petition.
Part 3 forms a substantial part of the regulations. It concerns the conduct of the petition and is broken down into several chapters. Chapter 1 deals with general provisions such as the signing sheet. Chapter 2 sets out the steps that petition officers must take before the petition is available for signing. Chapter 3 sets out the manner in which the petition is to be administered at the signing place, including those who can enter a signing place, the delivery and receipt of signing sheets, and daily verification of the contents of the ballot box. Accredited observers will not be allowed at the signing location. Given that a petition can be signed only one way, knowing that someone has signed the petition is in essence the same as knowing what that person’s preferred outcome is. As such, the risk of signers feeling intimidated by the presence of observers is substantial.
Chapter 4 deals with when and how the count should be conducted, including the requirement for a postal signing sheet to be accompanied by a valid postal petition statement—or a declaration of identity in Northern Ireland—and the process for determining the validity of signing sheets by the petition officer. Chapter 5 deals with the steps that the petition officer should take after the count has concluded in relation to the storage and future disposal of the documentation completed during the administration of the petition.
Part 5 of the regulations prescribes the issue and receipt of postal signing sheets, along with who can observe such proceedings. This is restricted to the petition officer, his staff and representatives of the Electoral Commission. We have ruled out accredited observers from attending these sessions, as there is a need to protect the details of those who have signed the petition and to prevent a tally of signatories being made. Therefore, given what I have said, accredited observers will be allowed to observe only the count stage of a petition. However, the Electoral Commission will be able to observe all stages in order to ensure propriety.
Part 6 of the regulations creates a number of offences relating to the petition process. The offences created are in line with those already in existence for other electoral events. Finally, Part 7 contains miscellaneous provisions, the most significant of which is in relation to the questioning of the outcome of a petition.
Given the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, I will expand a little upon the marked register. After a recall petition has concluded, a copy of the marked register will be available only to the Electoral Commission, police and security services. However, we recognise that some restricted access may be required to help substantiate suspicion of fraud or irregularities—hence we have provided for the register to be available to anyone for inspection under supervision if the petition officer is satisfied that fraud may have taken place.
This contrasts with an election where a copy of the marked register is available to various bodies, including political parties, which may use it for campaigning purposes. Additionally, following an election, the marked register may be inspected under supervision by anyone who makes a successful application to the electoral registration officer to inspect it, stating the reasons for making the request and demonstrating why the inspection of a copy of the full register or unmarked lists would not be sufficient to achieve that purpose. It is worth noting, therefore, that there is not unrestricted access to the marked register after an election. The Government therefore feel that this provision strikes the right balance between transparency and secrecy.
I should also point out that including this provision in the regulations rather than the primary legislation is not an exceptional arrangement. The legislation governing the marked register for elections is detailed in the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 and the equivalent regulations for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Moreover, these provisions fit with the rest of the detailed conduct arrangements which are provided for in secondary legislation. The Recall of MPs Act under which these regulations have been brought forward is clear under Section 18 that further provision may be brought forward by regulation pertaining to the conduct of a recall petition. That includes access to the marked register.
In the last Parliament, both governing parties and the Opposition all had manifesto commitments to introduce a power of recall. The Government continue to believe that this is one of many vital steps to help restore the public’s trust in politicians and in the functioning of the House of Commons. These regulations will deliver on that commitment. They provide a comprehensive set of provisions that will allow petitions to be administered fairly and effectively and I commend them to the House.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
As an amendment to the above motion, at end insert “but this House regrets that the Government have made the decision to legislate on restrictions of use, supply and disclosure of the marked register following a recall petition in the draft Regulations, rather than in primary legislation.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I must thank the Minister, who could almost make statutory instruments sound fun. I seek, however, to move my amendment, which regrets that such an important decision on whether this is a secret vote or an open petition should be snuck away in a 174-page SI, which I think the Government hoped would be dealt with rather quickly in 10 minutes in the Moses Room, rather than, as we urged at the time, being included in the Bill. I will deal with my amendment to the Motion first and then attempt to cover all the remaining parts of the 174 pages before the moon rises.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, in the debate on the Recall of MPs Bill, as it then was, I recall my noble friend Lord Grocott saying that it is a measure of constitutional significance that will, as the Constitution Committee has said, affect the United Kingdom’s representative democracy. He reminded the House that had the Bill been an Act of Parliament 25 years before, only two MPs would have been affected. Although there were some supporters, including the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Windrush, in his maiden speech, the overwhelming majority of speakers expressed concern. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, summed it up by saying:
“Members of Parliament are, bit by bit, dissolving their authority and removing the primacy of the House of Commons”.—[Official Report, 14/1/15; col. 820.]
As a former member and acting chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, I expressed the view in debate that the Bill was unlikely to improve standards in public life or the standing of Members of Parliament. I thought it would enhance the powers of the Executive at the expense of parliamentary democracy.
Nevertheless, we are where we are. The Bill is an Act and will not be implemented fully until the draft statutory instrument before us today has been approved. As has been said, the Bill was 60 pages long and the draft statutory instrument is 174 pages long. I must admit that I approached it with some trepidation, secretly hoping that it would do credit to Jarndyce v Jarndyce. In the interest of staying onside with my noble friend Lady Hayter, who has been incredibly loyal to her Front Bench on this and has played a straight bat throughout, I shall not reveal whether the draft fulfilled my secret hopes or not.
I think we all hope that the Act will never have to be used. I would be grateful if the Minister could give some guarantees about the issues raised by my noble friend in moving her amendment to the Motion. First, what guarantee will there be that people walking in to sign for recall will not be intimidated? Secondly, how will he ensure that there will be no double voting? Thirdly, how much would overseas people be able to put into a campaign? Fourthly, is the Minister content that the election returns will be checked?
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My noble friend Lady Hayter raised a number of issues, and I think that I have deleted nearly all of them from my own contribution, because she has obviously raised all 174 pages of the document, as have I.
I supported the principle of the legislation when it went through the House; I have no problem with recall, although I took an active part in opposing a particular section of the legislation which dealt with the 10 working day trigger for suspension, which to this day I believe will end up with some rather difficult decisions for Members—in particular, the Committee on Standards in Public Life in the other place, where, I suspect, Members will be compromised. However, today’s debate does not deal with the trigger but with what it describes as the conduct rules. It is a classic case of the size of the regulations exceeding the size of the Bill, raising once again the whole discussion about skeleton Bills and the use of SIs.
Skeleton Bills are described, in the report from the Joint Committee on Conventions in 2006, as providing the circumstances in which it would be permissible for the House to divide on fatal Motions—not that that is my intention today. However, if today’s SI had formed part of the primary legislation, there would have been scope for Divisions, although I need to make it clear that I am not complaining. I recognise that the law in this area needs to cover all eventualities.
I want to deal with the detail of the SI and comment on comments made by Mr John Penrose speaking for the Government in the other place on 25 January. He said:
“The petition officer must publish the number of people allowed to sign the petition and the number that must sign for it to be successful. Those figures will be updated when a petition opens, to include any alterations to the electoral register”.
I ask a simple question on principle: should a person who is either too lazy or too indifferent to vote in the general election really be entitled to remove an MP on a petition? This is a quite interesting question. When you look at the stats, if the general election turnout is generally about 60% now—it used to be much higher when I was an MP, but it has gone down over recent years—suggesting an abstention rate as high as 40%, it means that if 25% of the abstainers sign the petition in a constituency, effectively they trigger a by-election. I wonder whether that is really the way we want to proceed on this. I accept the principle, but should abstainers have all that power to precipitate a by-election?
Penrose then went on to say,
“the petition officer must make ‘reasonable’ provision for the petition to be available for signing outside those times, which could include evenings and weekends. The regulations do not prescribe what the additional hours must be; they will be determined by local circumstances and covered by Electoral Commission guidance”.
Guidance can be ignored. The local authority decides what happens in the case of a borough where there is an overwhelming single party majority. The local authority could be awkward. It might wish to protect its Member of Parliament for two reasons. One might be political—it is sensitive to the loss of the seat and therefore does not necessarily want to follow the guidelines set by the commission—and secondly, as my noble friend said from the Front Bench, what about the cost? If the cost falls upon the local authority, it may well be that it is not too keen on the prospect of a by-election taking place. Are we absolutely satisfied that we have covered all such eventualities, that is to say, eventualities where local authorities might be a little cautious—I use the term—in the way it wishes to proceed?
I have to admit that a number of my questions might appear pedantic, but this is going to be a very controversial process, perhaps leading to legal proceedings challenging petitions. Every eventuality has to be covered because when Members of Parliament are subject to these petition proceedings and face the prospect of a by-election they will be hiring lawyers and whatever to go through these regulations in great detail to establish whether there is a basis on which they can appeal against the proceedings that are under way.
Penrose goes on to say:
“Unlike at an election, accredited observers will not be allowed to be present at signing locations, or at any stage of the petition process other than the count”.
I stood in a number of general elections over many years. My noble friend raised from the Front Bench the issue of people observing. People observe. People stand outside polling stations. They take numbers. On this occasion, they will not be taking numbers but, as my noble friend suggested, they might be taking photographs. If people are to be assigned a signing location which, as I understand it, is the position under Clause 16, you could have as few as 600 people entitled to sign at a particular station—I keep calling them polling stations, but in fact they may well actually be called polling stations or stations used in general election campaigns. If that is the case, then if they can observe from outside, why can we not observe from inside? What is the distinction? As I understand it, the way that the regulations are drawn up is that unless you are in a particular category—I think it is the Electoral Commission—you cannot enter the signing location. However, you can stand outside or sit in an office over the road and watch who is going in. There seems to be a lack of understanding about what will happen when people go in to sign off their names.
Penrose then went on to say:
“Accredited observers may be present at the count, along with the representatives of the Electoral Commission”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/1/16; cols. 3-4.]
Again, my noble friend asked about payment. Who is going to pay even the Electoral Commission observers? Are they going to be paid by the local authority? Are any of these people? We are trying to establish on whom all the costs of this process are going to fall.
What about the issue of people signing twice? Mr Penrose, in his reply to Wayne David in the Commons, stated:
“It should be easier to make sure that people cannot sign twice, in the same way that we do not allow people to vote twice on a polling day. However, the checks and the principle underlying the process—the mechanics—will, of course, still be the same”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/15; col. 7.]
Because the whole process is so controversial, if not the regulations then certainly the guidance from the Electoral Commission should be quite specific on this matter. For MPs affected, every petition signing will count, particularly if they are on the margin.
Paragraph 57(5) of the regulation states:
“A person is not entitled to sign any one petition as proxy on behalf of more than two persons to whom that person is not related”.
The same issue is raised in paragraph 63, which deals with the declaration. My question is simple: what does “related” actually mean—a cousin, a brother-in-law, a civil partner, a sharia-based marriage or an informal partner arrangement? These are the sorts of things that people are going to query, particularly in areas with a large ethnic-minority population.
Paragraph 59 deals with the use of personal identifiers. On that subject, I simply point out that a national identity card would do away with many of these administrative requirements. My next question is one of principle. Why is there a different approach in the conduct of the process in Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.
Finally, I turn to paragraph 129, which is headed:
“False statements as to MP or accredited campaigner”.
The paragraph says:
“A person who … during the period beginning with the giving of notice”—
I am deleting words that are not relevant to what I am saying—
“and ending with the last day of the signing period … makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of a relevant person is guilty of an illegal practice, unless that person can show that they had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, the statement to be true”.
The “relevant person” is described later as,
“the MP to whom the petition relates; or … a person who is an accredited campaigner in relation to that petition”.
For a start, who is an accredited campaigner? Secondly, what about a statement made in a local newspaper, particularly during the last days of the petition period? It could be in the form of editorial comment, an article or even a letter to the editor. We know from our experience of tabloid journalism that it is quite easy, without libelling the person, to write an article that completely undermines the credibility and character of a public figure. I oppose censorship and had great difficulty in thinking about this section. However, should not the last few days or week of a petition period be the subject of some restraint? A local newspaper could destroy a local MP’s reputation without even libelling them. We need some way of exercising restraint if an MP is to be given a fair hearing. Perhaps Ministers can discuss with the Electoral Commission whether some guidance might be appropriate in these circumstances.
I have raised a number of what might appear at this stage to be minor points. Each and every one of them could be the subject of argument both during and after a petition period. As I have already said, ideally, much of the regulatory detail outlining this SI should have been presented in primary legislation, thereby giving us the opportunity to amend and divide. I therefore hope that the Electoral Commission in its guidance notes will take on board the thrust of my comments, those of my noble friend from the Front Bench and those due from my noble friend who is to speak.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful, and I hope the House is grateful, to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—I should have said my noble friend because she has been my noble friend for many years now—for putting down this amendment, because it has led us to have a fuller debate this afternoon than we might otherwise have done. She has ably made her points of substance. However, I will go a little wider and consider what this tells us about secondary legislation.
This document, which I just managed to carry from the Vote Office without being forced to my knees by its weight, is an exemplar of how secondary legislation should not be. The fact is that secondary legislation in part is being considered by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on the Strathclyde report. Some of the things said this afternoon may be very useful input into the work of that committee.
This is secondary legislation and it has passed through both Houses, so I will not restart a debate on its purpose. I was in error by not participating at that stage. It was of course a delayed reaction to the MPs’ expenses scandal. The Government—and the opposition parties—wanted to show they were doing something about that. However, the Government, and the opposition parties, did not want to open the door very wide. There are countries which use the recall quite widely: in the United States a governor of California was recalled not long ago, and the speaker of one state who recently had the temerity to favour gun control legislation has also been recalled, which might be a warning sign of some of the effects which recall legislation that goes wider can have. In the Andean countries of Latin America, especially in the light of the pink tide that took place there in the 1990s, there are quite a lot of recall elections—Lima is the world capital, having held some 7,000. Incidentally, I am relying for this information on a seminar I chaired at St Antony's College Oxford, at which the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, spoke—which shows that academic seminars can sometimes help us. I learned there the nearest thing to an amusing fact about recall elections that I have ever learned, which is that one of their greatest exponents was Vladimir Lenin. He was a huge enthusiast. In post-revolutionary Russia there were hundreds of thousands of recall elections, until of course Lenin established himself and his friends in power, when for some strange reason their enthusiasm for the recall ebbed away. Our Government, wisely, did not want to establish a recall on the American or Peruvian scale, let alone on the Leninist scale, therefore we remain a representative democracy.
This legislation could hardly be more limited—the conditions in which it applies are very limited. If an MP is sentenced to more than 12 months in the jug, they are disqualified anyway, so the measure can apply only when the sentence is shorter than that, when they are suspended for more than 10 days by a committee of fellow MPs or when they withhold information on expenses. That is not going to happen very often and in most such cases the MP would, through shame, resign anyway. They could not hang on in those circumstances. Even if those conditions are met, you then have to get 10% of the electorate to sign your petition within six weeks. That 10% of the electorate is probably around one in five of those who voted at the last election, with turnout having been around 60% or slightly less. It is going to be one helluva job to organise that. The noble Lord, Lord Cooper, explained at the seminar how uninterested in politics people generally are. Some were asked, in a focus group, to name one politician and they were able to manage David Cameron. When pressed, they also managed Ed Miliband and his brother, Ed Balls, as the noble Lord reported to the seminar, so there is not a fantastic surge of interest. It could happen but it does not seem very likely.
The House does not need me to tell it that this is going to be a rare event. As my noble friend Lady Donaghy said, the Cabinet Office says so itself in paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum. It says that it is anticipated that recall petitions will occur extremely rarely. If you ask me, extremely rarely probably means never. Be that as it may, this really is a mouse of a proposition—and I am pleased that it is—but, although it is a mouse of a proposition, it has given birth to a mountain of secondary legislation.
I cannot claim to have read all 174 pages of the regulations—I defer in diligence to my noble friend Lady Hayter—but I have poked about in it. As a journalist, I always read documents from the back and usually get to the bit that someone is trying to hide. Regulation 128 deals with illegal canvassing by police officers. Can one imagine? “Mr Plod is going from house to house illegally canvassing. Let’s lock him up as swiftly as we can”. I admire the imagination that puts that into the regulations.
Another regulation bans exit polls. Why it should do that, I am not quite sure, but I can tell your Lordships that nobody is ever going to commission one. No single recall petition could possibly be interesting enough for anybody to commission an exit poll.
Parts of the regulations are wholly incomprehensible. I read Regulation 132, on the prohibition of paid canvassers, about eight times. I may not be the sharpest kid on the block but I still do not have the faintest clue as to what it means. I am reluctant to ask the Minister to explain when he winds up because we might then be here into the early hours of the morning, but I am sure that he will take the point.
We rightly deplore the growth of Henry VIII clauses. As I reflect on the legislative situation, there is one thing that has changed hugely since Henry VIII. In his day, the secondary legislation had to be written on parchment. It was a helluva process and, if anybody wanted to change it, it was a helluva process to write it on parchment again. Alas, our legislative procedure has been bugged by the discovery of the word processor. This makes it possible to add, muck about with and expand clauses, thus expanding legislation, with extraordinary facility. It is a case of, “If in doubt, put it in”. That is why the number of pages of secondary legislation has expanded from 4,800-odd in 1970 to 12,000 in the latest year for which figures are available, according to a recent Hansard Society study which was made available to the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber this week. There is nothing to stop it.
Secondary legislation this may be but it is the law of the land. Citizens can be sent to prison for disobeying the stuff that is before your Lordships this afternoon. Ignorance of the law, as we know, is no excuse, but not necessarily every citizen is going to read the 174 pages of this—I could not even manage it.
Although the Government have made one change in response to representations made to them, neither House has had the opportunity to amend this, and that refers to the point that my noble friends Lady Hayter and Lord Campbell-Savours made: that much of this should have been in primary legislation.
I hope that this afternoon’s narrow debate, and the slightly wider but still narrow debate about the Strathclyde report, will transmute into a much wider debate, which we urgently need, and one that uses one of many ways available to Parliament to look at the whole issue of secondary legislation and of scrutiny in the round. If that happens, this misshapen monster that we have before us this afternoon may, at last, have found a purpose to serve.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, it has been an excellent debate and I am delighted that we are having it on the Floor of the House. The noble Baroness was extremely gracious in trying to absolve me of responsibility for this misshapen monster, but I will do my very best to try to defend it, warts and all. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, described some of his points as pedantic. I do not see them as pedantic at all. That is exactly what we are here to do: to question the details, whatever they might be, in this volume before us. If what I say fails to accurately address some of the points that noble Lords raised, I will certainly write to all those who spoke and place a copy of that letter in the Library. As the noble Lord said, there are some very important points that we need to iron out.
I heed entirely what has been said about secondary legislation, especially something as long as this. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is absolutely right: this is exactly the kind of debate that we need to be having in the weeks ahead. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne is here, and I very much hope that he heeds what was said. I will certainly endeavour to draw his attention to those points.
To pick up on a few of the points that were made, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asked about people taking photos and intimidating petitioners outside the place. I want to make two points about that. First, petitioners have the opportunity to have a postal vote if they are really concerned about that happening. Secondly, and more to the point, I am told that—it is the same as for elections—anyone intimidating signers would be committing a criminal offence. I will write to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on precisely where that offence lies.
Lord Campbell-Savours
If you can observe from outside, why can you not observe from inside?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I think it comes back to the point that, if there is an accredited observer inside, they may be able to take the names of people who are petitioning and, therefore, those people might feel intimidated. I entirely see the noble Lord’s point, but I gently disagree. Let me come back to noble Lords on where exactly that is in law.
As regards the consultation on this, as I said in my opening remarks, the Electoral Commission has been consulted, as is required by statute. On top of that, consultation has been undertaken with the Association of Electoral Administrators, returning officers, electoral registration officers, the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, the Electoral Management Board for Scotland and the electoral management software suppliers. The territorial officers and officials in the Scottish Government have also been consulted on the relevant parts of the legislation. It is not statutorily required for the Government to consult political parties.
A very good point was made about the cost, and I apologise for not mentioning that in my opening remarks. I am told it is expected that a recall petition would cost approximately £100,000. In terms of the payment of that, the Electoral Commission would pay for its own staff and it would not be reimbursed for that. Other payments would be met centrally by the Treasury from the Consolidated Fund. Again, I will write to noble Lords to confirm exactly that point.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am worried about the media destroying the reputation of a Member of Parliament during the last week or so of a campaign. When the Minister writes to us, will he ask his officials to give consideration to this matter? I think it will be an issue when we get the first one. Everyone in the debate has presumed that the first one will be quite involved—and I think we are very near to the first one.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I certainly undertake to do that and to give it some consideration. It is another very valid point.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, asked me to interpret Regulation 132. I will try to do so. It prevents people being paid—in other words, employed—to canvass on behalf of either side of the petition. To do so is an offence of illegal employment.
These regulations deliver on the manifesto commitments of the three major parties in the previous Parliament to introduce a system of recall. As I said in my opening remarks, I hope that they will go some way to restore the public’s faith in our elected representatives in Parliament. I commend them to the House.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Lipsey, Lady Donaghy and Lord Campbell-Savours. My noble friend Lord Lipsey said that we had known each other a long time; it is actually some 45 years since we started work together. The last point, which my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours raised, about it being illegal to canvass, is very interesting. That means that an MP’s member of staff presumably could not work on behalf of the MP. I had also read and reread that. Presumably it means that no paid official of a party will be able to do it. It would be helpful for the Minister to be absolutely clear in writing that personal staff will not be able even to go around with the MP.
I will be brief because there are only two points I want to leave with the Minister. He has not answered the point about overseas voters. The significance of that is that there is no upper limit on what can be spent on a recall petition. The MP could spend only up to £10,000, but there could be 10 or 20 accredited campaigns working for a recall. Each of those 10 or 20 campaigns could spend up to £10,000. Indeed, there could be 20 or 30 campaigns spending up to £500 without even having to say where their money comes from. There is no upper expenditure on this. If the vote is extended beyond the 15 years to people who have been out of the country, these campaigns could be funded solely from outside the country. I do not expect the Minister to answer on that now because he has obviously chosen not to, but it is something that anyone who wants to keep big money out of politics has to think about.
I also remain worried about intimidation. The Minister said that people can, of course, apply for a postal vote, but that is only if the intimidation starts before the closing day for the postal votes. It is very likely, if people queue up and look at who is going into a signing place, that it would be much closer to the closing date, by which time it would be too late to apply for a postal vote. So the question of noting who goes in remains an issue.
Above all, my noble friend Lady Donaghy has shown the greatest wisdom today in her hope that this never has to happen. That would keep all of us most content—but, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said, if it happens it will be highly controversial. The way that these regulations have been written, and particularly the fact that they were not voted on either in this House or the other place, is regrettable. I thank the Minister for his time today, and my noble friends for supporting me on this Thursday afternoon. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.