House of Commons
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(7 years, 9 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
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163), and negatived.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill
Friday 18th November 2016
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 2016-17 View all Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text
13:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 257 / Noes: 35 - Question accordingly agreed to.
13:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 253 / Noes: 37 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I speak to the House today not out of personal interest, as much of what I say and propose will not affect my future in this House. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and many other Members will know that I have no intention of standing at the next election. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] I will be standing down, so my motivation today is not personal; rather, I am introducing this Bill because I want what is best for our democracy and believe that what is best for our democracy is best for all the people of this country.
The events of the past few months have shown us more than ever that politics is constantly changing, and in a changing world we need a democratic system that is fit for purpose. Conservative Members, in particular, are fond of quoting Churchill in this House. While I have never done so before, that does not mean that he did not occasionally say something worth listening to. Churchill told us that the democracy we have is not the best, but it is the best we have. There is a lot of sense in that. However, in order to have a democratic system that is suitable for the 21st century, we need to look at ways in which we can preserve the best of what we have while looking to improve engagement wherever we can.
That is why I propose that in agreeing to this Bill, the House will endeavour to keep what is best about our current system—things like the MP-constituency link, which is envied in democracies across the world—while ensuring that we do not lock out 2 million voters who have registered to vote since 2015.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Lady’s speech and looked at some of the stuff she said before the debate. Given that the House decided, quite clearly, to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600, to what question facing us today in politics does she think the answer is more politicians?
Pat Glass
Clearly the right hon. Gentleman was not listening very carefully to what I said, because I started by saying that the world is changing and politics is changing. What happened in the previous Parliament is not necessarily right for what is happening now. I also point out that the current Government have created 250 additional peers just down the corridor. Is that what he means by fewer politicians?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The hon. Lady is starting a most powerful speech on a very important subject. Does she agree that the answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who was of course at the heart of Government, is that we want more MPs and less government?
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a long-standing custom in this Parliament that no Parliament can bind a successor Parliament, so the point made by the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) is complete nonsense. Just because the coalition voted for and railroaded through some changes a few years ago, there is no need for this Parliament to carry on with that stupid policy.
Pat Glass
I will give way later if the right hon. Gentleman will let me continue a little.
What I am proposing is that we keep what is best in our current system, such as the MP-constituency link, which is envied in democracies across the world, while ensuring that we do not lock out 2 million voters who have registered to vote since 2015. Under the current system, they are not counted, and therefore they effectively have no voice in this place. Surely no sensible Government would deliberately discount 2 million voters simply because they do not suit their political fortunes.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
The Bill’s proposition is to increase the number of MPs from 600 to 650. The hon. Lady has twice said that the constituency link is important. Surely, whether we have 650, 600, 500 or 400 MPs, there will still be a constituency link.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I want to cut to the chase. Does the hon. Lady agree that the current proposals are a travesty to many constituencies across the entire United Kingdom, and are an attempt to silence Scotland, destabilise Northern Ireland and keep an over-bloated House of Lords in business? I welcome her debate.
Pat Glass
I thank the hon. Gentleman. One of the really good things about the Bill is the number of people from right across the country who have contacted me. People from all parts of the United Kingdom are getting in touch with me as they begin to realise that their communities are going to be divided.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has mentioned Scotland and Northern Ireland. The impact of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 will be greatest on Wales, because we will lose a higher percentage—11 seats—of MPs. That is wrong. It also includes three of four island communities, but does not give exemption to the principal island of the United Kingdom, namely the Isle of Anglesey, Ynys Môn.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend has made a very strong point about the difference in the registers and under-registration. Is she aware that that will be magnified in places such as Cardiff, which is among the fastest growing cities in the UK? We are already under-registered and we are going to grow very fast. The reality is that, within a year or two, the proposals will be so out of date and people will be so disfranchised. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a double whammy for places such as Cardiff?
Pat Glass
I do, and that situation is reflected right across the country.
Fewer and fewer people are bothering to vote in general and local elections, because they do not see it as relevant to their lives. We live in a time when many of our people see a divide between themselves and the establishment. That means us, by the way—even people like me, and I was born in a council house in a mining community and went to a comprehensive school. They see huge divides between us, the political elite—or the metropolitan elite, as the red tops like to call us—and anyone who seems to have a vested interest in parliamentary democracy, and the people, as the red tops like to call everyone else.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Does not the hon. Lady acknowledge that we have periodic boundary reviews to take account of changes in population? Her point about people being missed will be picked up by a future boundary review.
Pat Glass
I do acknowledge that point and I will come on to talk about why it is important that we conduct a review every 10 years rather than every five years. One of the communities from which I have heard most is Cornwall. Lots of people have been in touch with me, saying that they are unhappy that their own MPs are not dealing with the issue.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I may be metropolitan, but I have seldom been described as elite. Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the major problems in our capital city is that whole swathes of central London are now dark, because people do not live in the properties, and that the electoral roll has, therefore, collapsed? We also have constituencies with 19 wards, rather than the usual eight or nine. Does my hon. Friend agree that her Bill exposes far more than the dreadful dichotomy between the other place and this place? In fact, it exposes a dark heart in our democracy.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I am amazed that Government Members are talking just about population and not ascribing any importance to geography. Islands have been mentioned. My constituency of Ross, Skye and Lochaber includes seven inhabited islands. Many of them will end up in the new seat of Argyll, Bute and Lochaber, which would have more than 30 inhabited islands. How is a Member of Parliament supposed to represent people from so many island communities? It is a disgrace.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the 2 million people who are being left out equate to at least 25 MPs? To reduce us by 50 MPs seems nonsensical.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I am a lot more sympathetic than some of my colleagues to the hon. Lady’s Bill. How can she guarantee that the Boundary Commission will be able to implement its changes by October 2018, in time for the next general election? Is that practical?
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the exclusion of 2 million voters, whom we know to exist, from the electoral register goes against the very principles of representation, and that for a Government to knowingly under-represent citizens who register for elections goes against their interests as well as ours in this House? Does she also agree that those citizens who are late to register are more likely to be transient and poor, and that they are often the most in need of representation?
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Do the 2 million missing people include overseas voters? What assessment has the hon. Lady made of them?
Pat Glass
The figure does not include overseas voters. They are not part of the Bill. That issue is for a different debate at a later time.
We have seen anti-establishment politics at its worst in the recent US elections, when Donald Trump courted voters by portraying himself as the anti-establishment candidate and by saying the most outrageous things he could think of, irrespective of the offence he caused. We have also seen it here, with the emergence of far-right parties. Many of us saw and heard it during and following the referendum, both on the doorsteps and on social media. Ugly things were said about refugees, immigrants, migrants and pretty much anyone who is not like us.
Huge swathes of people living in both towns and cities have lost confidence in the parliamentary system. They feel that they have nothing vested in it and nothing to gain or to lose. We hear it all the time on the doorstep: “You’re all the same. You’re all in it for what you can get out of it.” Instead of ensuring that we reach out, engage with and listen to people when they do bother to register to vote, this Government are refusing to count them or to give them a voice, so that they have an excuse to cut the number of MPs, thereby making constituencies bigger and MPs more remote from their constituents. In doing so, they endanger what is best and unique about our parliamentary system. However people talk about MPs in general—however cynical they are—we all know that they view their MP as different.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
On the referendum, the number of peers is going up and the number of MPs will go down, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is the MPs who will have to take on the additional work of MEPs when we leave Europe?
Pat Glass
That is a good point, which I will come on to.
Under the current proposals, my constituency of North West Durham will become West Durham and Teesdale. It is already a large rural constituency, but it will become huge. It will stretch from the banks of the Tyne to the banks of the Tees, taking in all manner of the vastly different communities in between, and there will be one MP—thankfully not me—who will cover all that, provide the unique and valued MP-constituency link, and try to make that link real for all those people in all those communities. That will be replicated throughout the country if the changes go ahead.
My constituency is already huge. It will become unmanageable for the person who takes over from me. If someone from the north of my constituency wanted to see me at a surgery in the south, given that lines of communication go from east to west in that part of the country, it would take them all day on public transport and they would need an overnight stay. That cannot be acceptable.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
The point about geography is critical in Cumbria, where my constituency is. Under the proposals, we will end up with the largest constituency in England, Penrith and Solway. I have Solway at the moment, and my constituents are deeply worried, because they think they will lose representation. Cumbria is only not large in square mileage, but has mountains, lakes and difficult weather. A lot of the time, we cannot get from one part of it to another, and people on the Solway would lose their representation.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, further to the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), in Northern Ireland the proposals will sever political stability? There is a need for special consideration for Northern Ireland and for proper recognition of social, economic and geographical cohesion, which does not exist in the new proposals.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
The hon. Lady and I share something similar in our constituencies. My constituency stretches from the banks of the Tamar to the banks of the River Fowey. The difference, however, is that because my constituents would not find it possible to travel from one end of the constituency to another by public transport, I go to them, which I consider to be my job as a Member of Parliament.
Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)
On size, is the hon. Lady aware that the Boundary Commission for Scotland has proposed the notion that my constituency will be incorporated into a larger constituency called Highland North, covering 13,000 sq km, the same size as Northern Ireland? No one would seriously suggest that Northern Ireland should be covered by one MP, but that is what the proposals for Scotland suggest.
Pat Glass
The hon. Gentleman makes the case clearly.
The proposed system not only seeks to reduce the number of MPs, thereby making them more remote from their electorate, and to cut out 2 million registered voters, thereby giving them no vote, but seeks to create constituencies of equal size, irrespective of what that does to communities, and to include a review of the boundaries every five years, which will ensure that practically every constituency will change every five years. We will weaken MP accountability to our constituency and voters, because every five years the voters will be different people. In a sense, that will strengthen MPs’ accountability to their party, on whom they rely to be reselected, and will weaken their accountability to our constituents.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend’s detailed speech. The Boundary Commission proposals for Stoke-on-Trent will have two effects, certainly as far as my constituency is concerned. First, a number of my constituents who live within the city of Stoke-on-Trent will find themselves represented in the county—in the rural area—which will break their existing link with the city. They will still live in and pay rates to the city, but they will find themselves represented by an MP out of the city. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, my constituents and others who live in the city are represented by three MPs, who happen to be Labour but could be anyone in future. That will be downgraded to only two. What message does that send to the people of Stoke-on-Trent?
Pat Glass
That exemplifies how nonsensical the system will be. If we move ahead with the proposals, we run the risk of making MPs more accountable to their party, on whom they depend to be reselected, and less accountable to their constituents, who may well not be their constituents five years from now. I cannot believe that any of us want that. Like many in the House, I pride myself on serving every person in my constituency, whether they voted for me or not, whether they voted or not, and whether they have lived in the constituency for five minutes or five years.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
As a fellow north-easterner and as someone who worked in Sunderland, my hon. Friend knows Sunderland well. Under the proposals, Sunderland will be split between six constituencies—parts of six, from the current three—and my fabulous constituency will be split into three. As a Member who has served three terms and has had two seats already, if I was by some miracle lucky enough to retain a seat next time around, I would have had three constituencies in four terms, which must be a record.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider standing again for this House, because it deserves Members of her high calibre. Are we not getting to the crux of the debate? It is not really about geography, the electorate, the size of the House or even the cost of politics; it is a continuation of this Conservative Government’s gerrymandering of the constitution. They have gagged charities, they have neutered trade unions and now they want to gerrymander boundaries for their own reasons.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
As we are getting to the nub of why the Bill has been introduced, is it not the case that we have the Bill because so many Opposition Members are frightened of reselection, because of the threat of Momentum taking their seats?
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The anger goes beyond political parties. In my constituency, the nonsense of putting two wards from Sheffield South East in with wards from Rother Valley will create a constituency where we cannot drive from one side of it to the other without going through a second constituency. Indeed, one of the roads goes through a third council area and another region. As a result, 2,500 local people have already signed a petition against the proposal, because they see a constituency being created with no community of interest at all involved in that creation.
Pat Glass
That is what we are hearing in the debate today—cities being split, communities being split, and that is not good for our democracy.
We in Britain pride ourselves on being the home of democracy. However, can we really talk about democracy when we have an antiquated system in which the larger House in Parliament is made up of people who are unelected? The unelected House is large and growing, and can be enlarged further at the political will of a retiring Prime Minister.
I have huge respect for the other place, where sensible decisions are often made and where many bring their lifelong experience to bear, but we cannot get away from the fact that it is unelected, significantly bigger than the elected House and subject to patronage. Is that what we mean by democracy in the 21st century? If we are the mother of Parliaments, I respectfully suggest that many of the children of this mother of Parliaments have outgrown us and are now showing how it is done.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
On community connections and synergies, does the hon. Lady accept that in the time from when the drafts of the last boundary review proposals were produced to when the final proposal was made by the Boundary Commission for England, two thirds of the seats were changed in response to the concerns that were raised?
Pat Glass
The initial proposals were never implemented, so the constituencies remained the same.
The Government are even trying to sell us the idea that the proposed boundary changes are an attempt to save the taxpayer money. Granted that removing 50 MPs will save some money; the total amount is questionable but reasonably estimated to be in the region of £12 million. At the same time, the Government have massively increased the unelected House at a cost of £46 million. Whatever the Government say, this is not about saving money for the taxpayer or cutting the cost of politics.
We are in the process of leaving the European Union, so each and every one of us will no longer have access to a Member of the European Parliament. In counties such as mine, local government reform has created more and more unitary authorities. The reforms have removed our district councils and replaced them with, in some cases, very large unitary authorities, which can appear remote from people’s lives. I and my constituents used to have access to a parish council, district councillors, county councillors, an MP and MEPs. Some may say that that was too many representatives, but in the space of nine years, we have in effect lost two layers of representation. I believe that democracy is not served in this country by further reducing our representation.
It is blindingly obvious that the Government are not intent on reducing the cost of democracy. If the purpose of reducing the number of MPs is to save money, why is the number of unelected Lords constantly being increased at a cost that far outweighs the savings from reducing the number of MPs? Actions speak louder than words, and no matter how much the Government spin their actions, their attempt to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600, while at the same time massively increasing the number and the costs of the House of Lords, should be seen for what it is—a poor attempt at trying to hold on to power for as long as possible at the expense of our democracy.
Andrew Stephenson
I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Lady’s points about the House of Lords. I am hugely in favour of House of Lords reform, which was in the Conservative party manifesto. During the last Parliament, I voted for House of Lords reform, unlike many Opposition Members. May I gently point out, however, that the cost of the House of Lords has fallen by 14% since 2010? Its operating costs were £112 million in 2009-10, as opposed to £96 million in 2015-16.
Pat Glass
The Lord Speaker of the House of Lords has described this situation—the Government seeking to reduce the number of MPs, while the size the House of Lords remains the same or grows—as “untenable”. If the House of Lords is saying that something needs to be done about the size of its membership, why are we—or rather, the Government—reluctant to listen?
I believe that the time has come for us to have a proper, inclusive and open review of our system of democracy. The alternative may be that fewer and fewer people vote, as well as the further disengagement of large parts of our country from the democratic purpose, the rise of parties far less interested than we are in democracy and the threat that parts of our communities will see the state as illegitimate.
I want us to go forward, strengthening and reviewing our democratic processes as we go. My Bill seeks to retain 650 MPs, which will continue our unique and much admired link between the MP and the constituency. I want to ensure that we engage more and more of the potential electorate, and the first step is to include the 2 million people who have registered to vote since 2015 but are not counted in the current boundary review. Through the Bill, I want to give those 2 million people a voice.
I agree that MPs should broadly represent an equal number of voters, but my Bill seeks to safeguard communities and to avoid some of the stupidities that a 5% margin throws up. I therefore propose that there should be a margin of 10%. I also propose that we should review constituency boundaries every 10 years, not every five years, which will strengthen the accountability of MPs to their constituency, not weaken it.
The democracy we have is precious. It was hard fought for and hard won over many centuries. Arguably, we have done everything wrong along the way—we have had a civil war and civil unrest; we have seen many injustices and abuses; we even cut off the head of a king—but over the centuries we have inched our way towards the democracy we have now. We need to appreciate that our democracy is both precious and fragile, and we cannot allow one party or one Government to endanger what we have for the purposes of narrow party interest, irrespective of which party it is.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) on bringing the Bill before the House and on giving us an opportunity to discuss the issue.
Mr Speaker, you may feel, as I do, a slight sense of déjà vu. I declare an interest as the Minister in the coalition Government who, during the last Parliament, took through the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. I very much look forward to the speech of my successor but a few, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office. I will start with a bit of the context, but I will not try your patience by going on for too long with my opening remarks. I listened carefully to the arguments of the hon. Member for North West Durham, and I will cover most of them and say why I think she is mistaken or going down the wrong path on several of them.
I had not intended to talk about this, but there was an implication in what the hon. Lady and a few other Members said. Before the Great Reform Act of 1832, parliamentary constituencies were thought of by many people as their own property—indeed, they were their property—and they passed the ownership of their constituency down their line. I mention that because the discussion has so far missed an important point. We obviously feel a great sense of pride in our constituencies and we want to represent them and, most importantly, the people who live in them, but they are not ours. Our constituencies do not belong to us. It is the other way around: the people in our constituencies expect us to represent them. When I listened to some MPs talk about the constituencies they currently represent, it sounded as though they owned them. The minute an independent boundary commission proposes to change their constituency, the better to represent the constituents living there, they seem to take that as a personal affront.
Stephen Doughty
That is very much not the point that I and other hon. Members made. One key issue that I raised is that of under-registration, which has particularly affected students, young people, and black and minority ethnic communities across Cardiff and, indeed, many other constituencies across the country. Is it not unacceptable that such people are not allowed to have an MP who properly represents their numbers in the constituencies in which they live?
Mr Harper
I am glad the hon. Gentleman raises that point, because I do not agree with the premise of his question. Interestingly, during the last Parliament, the coalition Government introduced individual electoral registration. It does two things: it makes sure that people are properly represented; and it improves both the accuracy and the integrity of the electoral register. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for North West Durham about moving into a more modern world, the other thing we of course did was to allow electoral registration online. I am very proud of having started the process, which has been continued by my successors. It is now incredibly easy to register to vote. People can do it online with their national insurance number, which shows that they are eligible for registration, and it is very quick and very easy. A huge number of people have done so. In fact, I think that I am right in saying that the vast majority of those who now register to vote do so online. We have therefore made registration easier.
What the hon. Gentleman forgot to mention about students is that, just because they may not be registered in the town or city where they attend university, that does not mean they are not registered. Students are often registered in more than one location. When I was a student—tragically for me, that was a very long time ago—I was registered both at my parental home in Swindon and at my university accommodation in Oxford. Obviously, I only voted in one of those places in an election, as is lawful, but I was registered in both of them. If I had been registered in only one of them, that would not in any way have meant I was disfranchised. The hon. Gentleman needs to think about that before making such remarks.
Ian Paisley
Will the right hon. Gentleman address the really important point that boundary changes should be gradual and evolutionary, reflecting the gradual and evolutionary change on the ground, and ought not to be radical or explosive? The kindest thing that can be said about the current boundary proposals is that, when mapping these new constituencies, the mapper appears to have sneezed and made a complete mess of the electoral map.
Mr Harper
There are a couple of things I will say in response to the hon. Gentleman. I agree with his central point. Of course I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) that the last Parliament does not bind this one, but the law as currently enacted would reduce the size of the House of Commons. That is the position unless this Parliament chooses to change it by taking forward the Bill.
As I acknowledged at the Dispatch Box, the one-off reduction from 650 to 600 in this boundary change—which would have happened already if it were not for the stitch-up by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats in the other place that pushed it out for five years—means that there will be a significant amount of change. I will say a little more about this later, but part of the reason why I support boundary changes every five years is that it is better to have more frequent but smaller changes, to take account of changes in electorate, rather than what has happened over time—namely, very infrequent boundary changes that, because there has been significant movement in the electorate, are very significant. More frequent but smaller boundary changes are preferable. That is what the current position will bring into force.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Does my right hon. Friend agree that over the past 20 to 25 years my own constituency has been a prime illustration of what he is saying? The constituency of South East Cornwall used to be known as Bodmin; it does not even contain the town of Bodmin now. We see a lot of changes. I do not believe that I should have taken ownership of the town of Bodmin when the rest of south-east Cornwall was expanding.
Mr Harper
Let me just make this one point, then I will give way to the fabulous array of choices I have in front of me.
It is worth standing back for a moment and asking ourselves why we have boundary changes and why we in this country have chosen, unlike other countries, to have an independent process for them. I was thinking about how one could illustrate that in a memorable way. In the spirit of the cross-party unity that we particularly like to display on Fridays, I thought about who could illustrate this point very well. A few weeks ago at Prime Minister’s questions, the Leader of the Opposition referred to consulting great philosophers. He gave that some thought and the only one he could come up with was Baldrick, who had a cunning plan. That is relevant to this subject because you will remember, Mr Speaker—I will dilate on this only very briefly—an excellent episode of “Blackadder” about rotten boroughs and what used to happen before we had regular boundary changes. It featured an incumbent MP, Sir Talbot Buxomly, who was the Member of Parliament for Dunny-on-the-Wold. He died while visiting the Prince Regent, and Blackadder realised that Buxomly represented a rotten borough. It was a tiny plot of land, with
“three rather mangy cows, a dachshund named ‘Colin’, and a small hen in its late forties.”
There was only one voter. Blackadder chose to install Baldrick as the new MP, and bought the property to be the only voter. He amazingly cast all 16,472 of his votes for Baldrick, while also being returning officer and election agent. That was humour, but it illustrated a point: there were parliamentary constituencies very like that before we had boundary changes, rules for the distribution of seats and independent boundary commissions. That is why this subject is very important.
Ian Blackford
Can we come back to reality here? The situation in the highlands of Scotland is that three MPs will represent a land mass of 33,000 sq km—40% of the landmass of Scotland but less than 5% of MPs. How can that possibly offer democracy to the people of the highlands and islands of this country?
Mr Harper
Let me finish my point. I have not even started my argument and hon. and learned Lady is intervening. The job of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) is to represent the people who live in his constituency, as I represent those who live in mine, not to represent the spaces in his constituency. It is the people who matter. It is entirely true that his constituency is not as densely populated as some parts of the United Kingdom. That is reflected in the existing legislation—we chose to reflect the fact that there are four islands or groups of islands represented in the House, and the House accepted the argument that they needed special arrangements. Two of those are in Scotland. Another is the Isle of Wight, and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) made a very powerful argument that was taken up at the other end of the building.
Mr Harper
Well, I have not finished my response to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. When I have, I will of course give way.
We made that provision because there were powerful arguments from the late Charles Kennedy, who represented Ross, Skye and Lochaber before the hon. Gentleman, about the geographical size of constituencies. We therefore made provision for a maximum geographical size of constituency in the legislation, so that the boundary commissioners would not have constituencies that were too large. That limit in the legislation deals with the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Joanna Cherry
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that constituencies in the north-west of Scotland such as Ross, Skye and Lochaber have people living in the spaces and that those populations are really quite spread out as a result of something that happened in history called the clearances, whereby many people were cleared off their land—some to the coast, some furth of Scotland—and small pockets were left on the land? To represent his constituents properly, my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has to cover those spaces, which are very wide and disparate, have sea in between them and quite often suffer, unfortunately, from inclement weather. Has the right hon. Gentleman taken that into account?
Mr Harper
I have. But things have moved on. There are modern communication mechanisms. Members of Parliament for constituencies that are spread out and require Members to travel more than would be required in urban seats can claim more money for that travel through the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority; that is why, unsurprisingly, we see MPs with more rural and far-flung constituencies claiming more money. It is perfectly reasonable for them to do so, and that budget is unlimited, to reflect the fact that those MPs will have greater travel challenges in representing their constituents than MPs in more compact constituencies.
The fact is that we represent the people who live in constituencies. If we followed the hon. and learned Lady’s argument to its logical conclusion, we would end up with massive disparities in constituencies, as we have today; the votes of some electors in very urban constituencies are worth far less than those of electors in other parts of the United Kingdom. I do not think that that is fair or reasonable to those voters.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Blackford
The issue of democratic representation is crucial. My constituency office is in Dingwall. It is 130 miles away from where I live. On average, seven electors come into that office per day. They all come from the area around Dingwall. How on earth are the people in Ross, Skye and Lochaber to get effective representation when they live too far away from their constituency office? It is not right.
Mr Harper
I come back to the point that we have to focus on—the central argument, which I do not think the hon. Member for North West Durham focused on—is that the votes of our constituents should carry equal weight in this House. If we do not have seats of broadly equal size, some constituents are, in effect, being disfranchised and do not have the same voice in this House.
Wendy Morton
On the democratic deficit, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill risks us fighting the next election on the old boundaries, so seats such as mine, which has an electorate of just 60,000, would remain small and the democratic deficit would still not be properly addressed?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend is spot on. If we do not implement in time for the next election the boundary changes currently in train, the next election will be fought on constituency boundaries set according to an electoral register that is 20 years out of date. I will come to the point—on the face of it, it is a perfectly sensible one—that the hon. Member for North West Durham made about the new registrations for the referendum, but if hon. Members think that there is problem with people who have registered in the past year, I would simply point out that nearly 20 years’ worth of electors are currently missing from the registers used for parliamentary constituencies.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Harper
I will make a little more progress, because I think Mr Speaker would want me to do so.
The first big change in the redistribution of seats was the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885. Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I will mention it only tangentially, and for one reason. The Minister who steered the Act through this House was the then President of the Local Government Board, the hon. Member for Chelsea, Sir Charles Dilke. You might not be aware, Mr Speaker, but Sir Charles Dilke had some personal issues—to put it delicately—and then ceased to be the Member for Chelsea. He then had the enormous good fortune to become the Member for the Forest of Dean, my constituency.
Sir Charles was, in some senses, more successful than me. First, in those days, constituencies apparently wrote to prospective Members inviting them to become Members of Parliament without some tough selection battle against others competing for the seat. You might remember, Mr Speaker, from my maiden speech, that Sir Charles Dilke, after getting elected and then re-elected, was fortunate, the third time he sought election, in being elected unopposed. I said in my maiden speech that that was a record worthy of emulation. I am afraid that I completely failed to be elected unopposed at the 2015 general election, but fortunately for me, despite my being opposed, I was indeed elected.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to advise the right hon. Gentleman that I do not have a verbatim recall of his maiden speech. It might greatly sadden him, but it has the advantage of being true. I gently say to him that I agreed to call him early in the debate because I was advised that he was suffering from a heavy cold and sore throat and was keen to speak sooner rather than later. From that, I deduced that he would not wish to exacerbate his malady by speaking at inordinate length. I feel confident both because of that and because at least 14 other Members wish to catch the eye of the Chair that before very long he might approach his peroration.
Mr Harper
That is very thoughtful of you, Mr Speaker, although I am surprised, knowing of your enormous powers of recall, that you do not have a verbatim account of my maiden speech in your head, but then, sadly, we were not blessed in 2005 with having you in the Chair; otherwise, I am sure that you would remember it.
As I said, I only wanted to spend a short time on the preamble to my speech, although I was probably a little indulgent in taking interventions. I will deal specifically now with the points that the hon. Member for North West Durham made in her speech. First, she talked about gerrymandering, which the Leader of the Opposition has also talked about and which comes from the United States of America. Of course, there is a massive difference between us and the US. In most states of the US, boundaries are not drawn by independent boundary commissions, as they are here; they are drawn by the elected representatives, who are obviously partisan. Here, we are fortunate to have boundary commissions, all four of which, Mr Speaker, you chair in an ex officio capacity, although you do not take part in their deliberations. The four deputy chairs, effectively the operational heads, are judges, so they are, of course, beyond question in their political independence. In the United States, however, gerrymandering is a problem.
Taking your advice, Mr Speaker, I will not go on at length, but, for those who are interested and want to follow this issue at length, I refer to an interesting article in the Washington Post on 15 May 2014. Obviously, in the House we are not allowed to introduce written material or pictures, but the article referred to three districts, and the descriptions of them gave a sense of the interesting boundaries in America. Maryland’s 3rd is called the “Praying Mantis”; Pennsylvania’s 7th is called “Goofy kicking Donald Duck”; and Texas’s 35th is called the “UpsideDown Elephant”. The point is that we do not have gerrymandering in this country; we have independent boundary commissions following clear rules set out by Parliament, and they are specifically not allowed to take into account the partisan or party political effect of their decisions. I wanted to knock that argument on its head straightaway.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the United States, because the kernel of this idea of the Cameron Government came from an organisation called the American Legislative Exchange Council, which has talked about making it harder for voters in the US to register to vote and been at the forefront of things such as re-districting. It does not take a genius to see that a lot of the things that the Cameron Government proposed came right from its playbook.
Mr Jones
I am not sure what role the right hon. Gentleman played in drawing up the 2010 Conservative manifesto, but the boundaries legislation, as well as the attacks on trade unions and some of the other right-wing policies that came forward, such as stopping charities lobbying, came right from that playbook. I am sure he was not involved in that; he was just the poor Minister who had to implement it.
Mr Harper
I certainly was not “the poor Minister”. I hugely enjoyed my role as Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform. I got to spend an enormous amount of time in the Chamber, with Mr Speaker frequently in the Chair, although I am not sure he enjoyed listening to the debates as much as I enjoyed speaking in them. I do not, however, recognise the origins that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
The hon. Member for North West Durham made a serious point about the accusations made about people who registered ahead of the EU referendum. A thorough piece of work has been done by a gentleman called Matt Singh, who works for an organisation called Number Cruncher Politics, an independent organisation that has looked at this issue very carefully. For this to be an issue, the 2 million extra voters would have to be unevenly distributed across the UK. If in some areas there had been a much bigger rise in the number of electors than in others, that would of course affect the distribution of the 600 seats set out in the legislation.
Interestingly, Mr Singh, in his very thorough analysis of the 2 million increase, wrote:
“The data does not support the suggestion that using the later version of the register”,
as the hon. Lady proposes doing,
“would materially alter the distribution of seats. Instead it points to a very even distribution of the 2 million newly-registered voters between”
currently held Labour and Conservative seats. If we added all the 2 million, of course we would increase the size of the register, but because the extra voters are evenly distributed across the country, we would not significantly change the distribution of constituencies. So I think that is a bit of a red herring.
As I draw towards the conclusion of my remarks, as you wanted me to, Mr Speaker, let me deal with the Bill.
Wayne David
When it comes to missing voters resulting from the European referendum, the right hon. Gentleman’s analysis has been challenged by many people. I want to make that point first. My second point is about gerrymandering. The previous Government passed a piece of legislation and this Government have brought forward the date of individual electoral registration. The result, against the advice of the Electoral Commission, is to exclude 1.8 million people from the electoral register. If that is not gerrymandering, what is?
Mr Harper
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s contention. The fact is, of course, that individual electoral registration did two things: it made sure that the registers were more complete; and it made them more accurate. Many of the names that the hon. Gentleman talks about who are no longer on the electoral register were not, of course, real people or people then registered at those addresses. My understanding—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that before anybody was removed from the register, they would have been written to on a large number of occasions, and there would have been visits and canvassing going on at the individual properties. People were removed from the register either because they no longer lived at those addresses or because they had been registered more than once. The register is more accurate. What the hon. Gentleman is really arguing for is having an extra 1.8 million false entries on the electoral registers, which would make the system less fair rather than fairer.
Mr Harper
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, let me start to deal with the Bill, as I said I would. I shall deal specifically with the proposals set out by the hon. Member for North West Durham, and I want to make a bit of progress before giving way to my hon. Friend.
The first point raised by the hon. Member for North West Durham was about the number of MPs, and I think she completely failed to answer my question, which was to what question was the answer 50 more Members of Parliament. She did not tackle the cost of her proposals. The current law says that the number of MPs will fall from 650 to 600. Increasing that number by 50 would come at an estimated cost—I think she alluded to this in her remarks—of about £10 million to £12 million a year. That means about £60 million across the Parliament. I heard no proposals from the hon. Lady about how that was to be paid for or any reason why the proposal was a good one at all.
Mr Harper
I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The figure is based on how much MPs claim at the moment and how much we are paid in salary. What my hon. Friend needs to remember is that there is currently a massive disparity between MPs in Welsh constituencies, for example, who have fewer than 50,000 electors, and others. Those Welsh Members are already in a part of the United Kingdom where a huge amount of domestic policy areas are dealt with not by them at all, but by Members of the Welsh Assembly. They get the same level of support as my hon. Friend, yet he has to serve a much larger constituency in terms of electors—and he serves them very diligently indeed. In England, there is not a devolved Administration, so English MPs have to cover the full range of domestic policy areas. I think it would be perfectly possible to deal with the fewer number of MPs without seeing a significant increase in the expenses budget for each of us. Those MPs who currently have very small constituencies will have to deal with no more constituents than many of us already have to deal with.
Mr Harper
Let me first deal with the seemingly reasonable points about the House of Lords made by the hon. Member for North West Durham. She made a couple of points. First—big tick here—I was, of course, the Minister responsible in the last Parliament for securing a much smaller, democratically elected and less costly House of Lords. I received a great deal of support, but not from Labour Members. If Labour Members had given their support to the programme motion that we would have brought forward, we would have been able to reform the House of Lords and have a democratically elected Chamber. That did not take place.
Mr Bone
We cannot allow this myth to carry on. The Second Reading of the House of Lords Reform Bill got the biggest majority of that Parliament. The fact is that the Government did not move the programme motion, so we do not know what would have happened. It should absolutely not have been programmed, as it was a constitutional Bill that should have been gone through line by line. Any parliamentarian such as my great right hon. Friend should have supported that.
Mr Harper
I will answer my hon. Friend’s question, but not at length, as I do not want to try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is right that Second Reading was well supported, but we had clear indications that the programme motion would not have been supported by Opposition Members, so the Government—quite rightly, in view of all the other challenges we faced—were not prepared to risk other legislation not getting through Parliament as a result. We were not able to make progress.
What the hon. Member for North West Durham needs to recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) said, is that the cost of the House of Lords has reduced since 2010—it has fallen, not increased. Since last year’s general election, there has been a net change in the size of the House of Lords of only 14 peers. What the hon. Lady forgets is that Members of the House of Lords are now able to retire and that a disproportionate number of those retiring are Conservative peers. It is true that there was a significant increase in the 2010 Parliament, but that was, of course, under a coalition Government, and a significant number of the new peers were Liberal Democrats.
Christina Rees
This has never been about costs. The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office confirmed at the last Cabinet Office questions that the overall cost of the Government payroll will remain unchanged, so this is not about costs.
Mr Harper
It is about costs. I can remember standing at the Dispatch Box and setting out how much money we would save by reducing the number of MPs. If the hon. Lady remembers, this was part of reducing the cost of politics more generally. That is why, for example, in the last Parliament, Ministers had a pay freeze and Members in this place had their pay frozen for a significant period of time. It was during those difficult years when the economy and public finances were challenged. Reducing the cost of politics was not the only reason, however, because the primary reason for the boundary changes and for using a more up-to-date register was to have more equal votes and more equal-sized constituencies so that our constituents could be more fairly represented in this House.
Andrew Stephenson
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would be a more immediate cost if the Bill were passed of abandoning the process at the point at which it has currently reached? We have already had 500 hours of public hearings, with the involvement of 20 members of staff, 21 assistant commissioners and 14 videographers. There have been 36 public hearings across England, the last of which are taking place today. The cost of scrapping all that and redrawing the boundaries on the basis of this completely new proposal would, even if it could get through in time, surely run into many millions of pounds.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which is perhaps the mirror of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) in his very perceptive question. I may be being unfair to the hon. Member for North West Durham—if I am, I am sure she will put me straight—but I do not think she answered my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Under clause 2(4), legislation would be changed, so that instead of using the registers published on 1 December 2015, the boundary commissioners, while still reporting on the same target date of 1 October 2018, would have to use
“registers…published in or after 2017.”
I assume that the hon. Lady has in mind the register that would be published on 1 December 2017, but that does not give the boundary commissions much time to carry out a boundary review.
Ian Blackford
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We were informed by Mr Speaker earlier that the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) was called early because he apparently had a cold. May I suggest that if he is suffering—I am sure that he has the good will of the House if that is the case—it might benefit the rest of us if he went away and took his medication? If he does not genuinely have a cold, has he brought this House into disrepute by duping Mr Speaker?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
That was obviously not a point of order, but I, too, heard Mr Speaker say to the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would come to the end of his speech quite rapidly. A great many other Members wish to speak. I appreciate how learned the right hon. Gentleman is and how personally involved in this issue he was, but I think that everyone would be very grateful if he brought his remarks to a conclusion.
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Speaker made very clear that the right hon. Gentleman had asked to be called early because, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), he was suffering from a bad cold. Either that was not the case, or the right hon. Gentleman has discovered some miracle cure. If he has, could he share it with us?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Again, that was not a point of order, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said.
Sir Greg Knight
Before my right hon. Friend reaches the end of his introductory remarks, may I ask whether he agrees that it would help us to assess the weight of Members’ contributions if, at the outset, they informed the House of the current size of their electorates and whether or not they were facing a boundary change?
Mr Harper
That is a good point. There are dramatic differences among the numbers of constituents we all represent, with the same level of resources—and, as I said earlier, a further factor that was not reflected in the Act is that Ministers and Members of the House of Commons are not really responsible for much of the domestic legislation in parts of the United Kingdom where government has been devolved, because that is taken care of by the devolved Administrations.
Let me finally deal with the central point made by the hon. Lady. She said—and I have no reason to doubt her integrity in this regard—that she wanted to enable the boundary commissioners to conduct the review and to hit the target date of 2018 so that we could have new constituencies, according to her rules, before the 2020 election. Let us assume that the commissioners will use the December 2017 registers, and let us accept the argument—advanced very clearly by the hon. Lady and a number of other Members—that the issue is of interest to our constituents, and that the public hearings and public consultation for which the existing legislation provides will therefore take place, given that the hon. Lady does not wish to alter those provisions. That process will take 24 weeks. Effectively, the hon. Lady is giving the boundary commissioners 17 weeks in which to draw up initial proposals from the 2017 registers, engage in the consultation, listen to all the responses, come up with revised proposals, run another set of consultations, listen to any proposals for change in those, and then present final proposals in a matter of a few weeks. I do not think that that is credible. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has had any discussions with the four boundary commissions about whether it is in any way doable, but I do not think it is.
I served as the Minister responsible for these matters. I looked into the resourcing of boundary commissions, and had conversations with their secretariats about the work that was involved. I think that what is really at work here is a set of changes that would, in practice—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch put his finger on it—make a boundary review before the next general election impossible. This is a repetition of what the Labour party, along with the Liberal Democrats, did in the last Parliament. The aim is to push things out so that we can have a general election in 2020 based on boundaries that are 20 years out of date, on the basis of registers that do not effectively include people over the last two decades. I think that that would be an outrage.
I hope that the Bill is not given a Second Reading, but if it is, we shall want to amend many parts of this wide-ranging legislation in Committee to ensure that it does not make progress in its current form. If it were to do so, we would be ensuring that voters were not equally represented and their voices were not equally heard. I think that this is a very retrograde and bad Bill.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) on introducing the Bill. She referred to this place as the mother of Parliaments. In the past that would be said with pride, but we can no longer claim to other countries, particularly those with newly minted democracies, that we are the example to be followed. Now, sadly, the mother of Parliaments is a dissolute, degraded hag. There are major weaknesses in our arrangements, and the public are losing confidence in them. The number of constituencies is a matter of some importance, but it has nothing to do with the main doubts, the main injustices, and the main unfairnesses in our system.
We see in America a sense of outrage that the person who won the largest number of votes lost the election because of the distortions of the electoral college, but we have an extraordinary system here. When the ambition should be to make every vote count and be of equal value, elections are decided by a tiny number of people, namely the swing voters in marginal constituencies. How people vote in Blaenau Gwent or Eastbourne does not matter; what matter are the votes in the constituencies where changes take place.
Paul Flynn
I want to be brief, and I want to make this point, because it has not been made so far.
The Government’s proposal will make things worse. According to an analysis by the Electoral Reform Society, reducing the number of MPs will reduce the number of marginal constituencies, and will make the House less representative than it is now.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that what is really going on here is that the Executive are reducing the House’s ability to hold them to account, while at the same time creating extra peers so that they can get their own way? That cannot be right.
Paul Flynn
My hon. Friend refers to the crisis of scrutiny in this place. That is another major scandal, although one glorious exception is the meeting of one Committee of the House which is going to be made into a musical.
We should also remember that the Government’s proposal is a pre-Brexit proposal. There will be a huge amount of extra work to be done here. How can it make any sense to reduce the number of Members of Parliament in those circumstances? The Government’s proposal will make Parliament less representative, and it will no longer be a model for those in other countries. The Brexit proposal will impose a huge burden of legislation on the House.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
When the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, the electorate will have 73 fewer elected parliamentarians to represent their interests, and if the number of Members here is reduced as well, a shocking 57% of our lawmakers will be unelected peers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that reform needs to happen next door before any further changes are made in this place?
Paul Flynn
A range of reforms must be made. We are losing the Members of the European Parliament, and we have a crisis in Wales. The Welsh Assembly has only 60 members and their work has trebled, but it is impossible to argue in isolation for more Assembly Members, although virtually every member of the ruling party is a Minister, a deputy Minister, or the Chair of a Committee. The problems that exist in many areas can be dealt with only by a comprehensive and balanced Bill that takes account of the need for more Members of the Welsh Assembly and the need for fewer peers, and that will require a constitutional convention involving give and take and balanced decision-making. But at the moment we have the extraordinary situation of the Executive becoming immensely more powerful. That is bad government as far as scrutiny is concerned.
In the 1920s, 10% of the governing party was on the Government payroll vote. Under the Government’s current proposals to reduce the number of MPs, the Electoral Reform Society says that up to 43% of Government Members will have their mouths bandaged by the discipline of their party, through which they are inhibited from taking a full part in the scrutiny of matters considered by the House. That is a retrograde step.
I urge the House to look at the problems before us. Wales will be particularly hard hit by this. My constituency—my city—offers an excellent example of what will happen and the damage that will be done. There are two marginal seats now; one was won by a Conservative in the past. Those two seats will be merged into one and it will become not a marginal seat, but a rock-solid safe Labour seat, which will be to the advantage of the successor MPs.
The effect is similar throughout the country; this is a diminution in the value of our democracy. People are unhappy that they are not being represented, and the only way we can make sure votes count is with a proportional representation element. Otherwise, politics will be distorted, as always, by the system we have inherited.
If the Government are serious about reforming democracy, they should of course take the boundaries into consideration. The boundaries are an element of the reforms that are needed, but only a relatively small one. In the last Parliament we had a Committee on constitutional reform that produced a long document urging overall reform. At the moment the public are right to be cynical, but the only reform the Government are interested in is the one that will give them maximum political advantage. This is a party political stunt by them, ignoring the problems of the House and the ludicrous situation in the House of Lords where it is still possible to buy a place in our legislature by giving a big enough contribution to a major party. They are ignoring that scandal. Some 261 peers were added by David Cameron, which is outrageous. What has that done to the cost of democracy? The other place does great work in scrutinising this House, but it is hopelessly illogical that its membership is larger than that of this House, which has the role of creating legislation and scrutinising it. Nothing has been done about that; nothing has come from the Government, but that is essential.
We need a constitutional convention; we need root-and-branch reform. We are losing public confidence in our democracy, and rightly so. We have institutions here for discipline, which are very permissive. We also have an Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which is totally futile and has no powers. It is not a watchdog; it is a pussycat without teeth or claws.
There is rising resentment and cynicism among the public about the level of our democracy. That ends up in an obscenity like Trump taking over. We must defend our democracy and the quality of our democracy. That is crucial, and we do not do it by a tiny move by one party to gain political advantage for itself. We ought to come together as representatives and seize the opportunity for a major, massive, overhaul reform.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great honour and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn); I spent 13 years living in his constituency trying to get rid of him with absolutely no success whatsoever. While we hardly agree on anything, he is undoubtedly a leading parliamentarian, and I am pleased, in the best possible sense, that he is now back on the Back Benches and not constrained by being on the Labour Front Bench.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) on choosing this most important subject to be debated on one of the 13 private Member’s Bill days we have in this House, and congratulate all the Members who have made the effort to attend today. I hope that we will get a Division on this Bill and the House will decide one way or the other.
I also congratulate the hon. Lady on the tone in which she introduced the Bill. I thought it was the right tone. There are party political issues, as the hon. Member for Newport West said, and I will touch on them, but the hon. Lady got to the heart of the matter: this is about Parliament and scrutiny. I did spend a brief moment in her constituency during the EU referendum campaign, and it was a really pleasant constituency. I met people from many different parties, and it is a great shame from her constituency point of view that she has decided not to stand again.
I am also following another parliamentarian of great skill, my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who I thought when he first came to this House was definitely destined to become a great parliamentarian, which he is. He has, unfortunately, been contaminated by becoming a Government Minister, but now he is back, although he has not quite lost that contamination. In a couple of years, he will be back supporting Parliament and not worrying about the Executive.
I thought I would look back to how this all started. This was part of a backroom deal done when the coalition came to power. The Liberal Democrats wanted a vote on changing the parliamentary system, and the Conservative party wanted to equalise the seats, not because it really believed that was fair—although it is fair and the right thing to do—but because it was thought it would give the Conservatives more seats. That is the truth of the matter. To put the other side of the coin, I should say that there are many sitting on the Opposition Benches who are interested in this for reasons of self-interest, too. But I bet most of the Members in the House today are here for the fundamental issue of Parliament versus Government.
Sadly, I cannot see a single Liberal Democrat in the House today, including the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), who—I am sorry to have to correct my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean—was the Minister who introduced the Second Reading of the Bill that started all this. I thought it would be interesting to see how the hon. Member for North West Durham voted on Second Reading of that Bill, which took place on 6 September 2010. She voted against the proposals. I then thought I would check who else voted against the proposals. There was the then Member for Northampton South and my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash), for Christchurch (Mr Chope), for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner). So the Division was not entirely along party lines. There were people who were prepared to vote against, including, to their great credit, many from the Democratic Unionist party.
This issue goes back, therefore, to something the hon. Member for Newport West touched upon: the balance between the Executive and Parliament. Since what we might loosely call the expenses scandal, Parliament has been getting more powers back. We have had a Speaker who has put Parliament first and championed it, we have had Select Committees, and we have had other movements in that direction, including the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee. All the moves have been to take power away from the Executive and give it to Parliament. This move, however, completely reverses that trend.
I am all in favour of broadly equal-sized seats. That is fair, within a threshold, and I would be happy for the Committee scrutinising this Bill to look at that issue. The hon. Member for Newport West made the point that there were exceptions for certain geographical areas. The previous proposals referred to the Isle of Wight and to what I call the Western Isles, which had two constituencies. I think that that makes sense, and we should consider whether that could be expanded for certain constituencies—but I want to get back to the Executive.
The Electoral Reform Society has said that if there were a general election under the proposed new arrangements and the same proportion of MPs were to be elected as there are now, 43% of Conservative MPs would be on the payroll. That cannot possibly be right. We should not all be here to be in government. There are two equal roles for an MP, one of which is to scrutinise Bills that go through this House. Ever since the Blair years, the Bills that have come to this House have been programmed. Sometimes we do not even debate certain clauses of a Bill, and it is actually the other place that does the proper scrutiny. The elected Members here should have the time to carry out that scrutiny.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend has reminded us of that previous debate. Does he agree that one of the reasons that some of us could not support the Government on that occasion was that they would not answer the straight question as to whether there would be a pro rata reduction in the size of the Executive if there were a reduction in the number of MPs. The Government would not answer that, saying that it was premature to ask the question.
Mr Bone
I remember my hon. Friend making that point, with which I entirely agreed.
Things have got worse. We now have more Government Departments, and rightly so, given that we are coming out of the European Union, but I guess that we are also going to have 60% more laws to look at. The argument for reducing the number of MPs seems to be false, especially as we are getting rid of 70-odd MEPs. Also, the Government cannot possibly claim that they are doing this on the basis of cost. We have only to look at how much more money is being spent on Spads. Even during the Blair years it was only a few million, but it is something like £9 million now.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that this is also a matter of fairness and fair representation for all our constituents?
Mr Bone
I absolutely agree that as a matter of fairness we should try to equalise the seats, but it is absolutely wrong to reduce the number of MPs and to say that it is being done on the basis of cost. Democracy cannot have a cost put on it. We could of course have a dictator—that would be very cheap! But that is not how it works. In fact, the Government have tended to go a little way towards being a dictatorship. We have had sofa decisions that were not made in Cabinet, and at times it has been really difficult for us in this House to vote on certain issues because of these wretched programme motions. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering and I spent a lot of our time during the coalition Government voting against programme motions on every occasion, because we had said in our manifesto that that was what we were going to do.
The former Prime Minister made a great speech on Parliamentary sovereignty, and if those proposals had been enforced, MPs would have been encouraged to have a free vote in Committees—although the Government would have been able to change things on Report—and we would have had more open debates without programme motions. That all fell by the wayside, however, because the Government do not really want that to happen; and, to be honest, the shadow Government do not want it either. That is why we have never made progress on that. Hon. Members will remember that the timetable for this House was going to be run by a parliamentary business Committee within two years of us coming into power. I remember talking to the then Chief Whip, who said that that would happen over his dead body, and of course it never did happen. So please do not talk to me about manifesto commitments.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his point about the number of Members of Parliament who are on the payroll? Any Government—those whom I support and those whom I oppose—will have not only Members who are on the payroll but Members who want to be on the payroll. Reducing the number of MPs to 600 will inevitably mean fewer independent-minded MPs. Those on both our Front Benches would probably welcome that, but we should not do so. It will be a retrograde step, to say the least, if that happens, but it seems inevitable that it will.
Mr Bone
The independent Member is entirely right. Of course, I have to be really careful about what I say today because this could ruin my chances of getting on to the Front Bench. This is a serious and important matter, however. I say gently that there has been a tendency for some Members to come to this House not because they want to be Members of Parliament but because they want to be Ministers. They are not interested in the role of scrutiny. We cannot scrutinise the Government properly if nearly half those on our side are on the payroll. Equally, there will be Opposition Members who are on the “payroll”, even though they do not get paid, unless they are Whips. I have never understood why Whips get paid. We should do away with that, but that is another issue.
The role of scrutiny is really important. I have seen in a recent email that about six Select Committees have vacancies for Conservative Members. If we are having problems filling Select Committees now, what will it be like when there are 50 fewer MPs? Those 50 MPs will not, by their nature, have been in the Executive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, there are absolutely no proposals to reduce the size of the Executive in parallel with the reduction in the number of MPs, although there should be.
I want to deal with the question of timing. In my view, it is more than likely that we will have a general election in May, if not before. Such an election would of course be fought on the current boundaries. The argument that we have to get all these boundary changes in place before 2020 is therefore nonsense. Also, it is not good for a Conservative to say that something is out of date just because it is 20 years old. It might be time to start looking at it if it is 120 years out of date, but not after just 20 years.
I want to speak briefly about something that I feel passionately about, which is the other side of our role. We spend a lot of our time here in Parliament from Monday to Thursday—or Monday to Friday if it is one of the 13 weeks in which the House sits on a Friday—doing exactly what we are doing today. The rest of the time, we are looking after our constituents. I have been looking back, and I can tell the House that in the last 100 years, we have never had fewer than 615 Members of Parliament. Way back then, however, they did not have the constituency workload that we have now. I am not complaining about this; constituency work is a very important part of our role. For example, my Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden campaign generates an enormous amount of work. Most Members hold a surgery every week, and my estimate is that I receive at least 1,000 emails, letters and phone calls a week. We have a limited number of staff to help us with that. That workload is going to increase because we are getting rid of MEPs, and it will also increase if we reduce the number of MPs and make the constituencies larger.
I also want to look at how busy Members of Parliament are and what we have to put up with. I am going to touch on an area that does not get a lot of coverage because we do not like to talk about it, for very sensible reasons—namely, the question of security. I doubt that there is a Member in this House who has not been threatened in the last few years. We have seen the terrible death of a colleague. Other colleagues have been attacked. Only recently, I had death threats. My wife has had death threats. The police have intervened. In my first 11 years in this House, I had to dial 999 once from my constituency office because we were worried. Since the referendum, I have had to call 999 three times. I had someone outside chained to the gates of Parliament who had threatened me. I have had two bullet holes—admittedly from air pellets—put in the windows of my office. I have had my house attacked. I have had the office windows smashed. The vile stuff that we get on Twitter is unbelievable. One of the worst things that happened is that some months ago, there was a picture of my youngest son being executed by Isis. They had actually taken another child’s photo and mocked it up, but the police rang me up to say, “Where is your son?” I said, “Well, I think he’s at school”, and they said, “Well, you’d better check.”
We have to put up with all that. We have to have contact with our constituents, and I would not change any of that. Some of us will be getting enhanced security, and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is doing its best to help with that. We have to deal with that sort of stuff. We have to deal with constituents’ problems. Some of them are just run of the mill things where we can help out. A lot of the stuff we deal with relates to local government. A lot of it is social care issues, which this House really needs to look at from a bipartisan point of view.
Some of the stuff we deal with, however, is exceptionally serious. I can remember at least two occasions where we campaigned on such matters in this House. As a result of one of those, thanks to Gordon Brown, the NHS position on some treatment changed, and a little boy who would have died got a few years extra life out of it. That sort of thing is worth while, but it is time-consuming. The fact is that if we are going to put more work on ourselves because of leaving the EU while at the same time reducing the number of MPs, we will not do the scrutiny properly, and I am afraid that our service to our constituents will go down. I feel passionately about that, and that is why we should not reduce the number of MPs.
I will tell the House about the effect that the current reforms will have in Northamptonshire. Under the scheme, we are entitled to 6.5 MPs. It is proposed that the seat of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) goes all the way up to the borders of Leicester. There is no logic in that and no consistency. My seat will be divided between the constituencies of four different MPs, who will all be representing one council. It does not make any sense. The Boundary Commission proposals move people around willy-nilly. I would have 6,000 coming in from the Corby constituency, 3,000 going into Kettering, another 3,000 going into Northampton South and the northern villages going into the new Daventry seat, which will go up into Leicestershire. If we had the same number of MPs, Northamptonshire would be entitled to seven MPs and we would not have those problems.
I know that there are party political issues about numbers. I urge all Members to put that to one side and to think about Parliament, the Executive and why we are here. I urge everyone to support the Bill. There obviously will be issues that will need to be looked at in Committee. If the hon. Member for North West Durham would like me to, I volunteer to serve on the Committee.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). He made a thoughtful and powerful contribution on the issue. Our politics might not be the same, but he is undoubtedly a champion for parliamentary democracy, and his contribution shone through in that respect.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) for introducing this important Bill. She has done a lot of work on it, and she makes a powerful point that she is not doing so for her own political advantage because, as she told the House, she is not standing at the next election. I place on record that that will be a great loss to the House. She has been a great Member of Parliament for the people of North West Durham in the time that she has been here, particularly with her expertise on education, and she will be missed. If the last act that she performs is to ensure that the House of Commons can hold the Government to account in the future, she will have done a fine job. Opposition Front Benchers fully support her Bill.
The Labour party agrees with the principle of equal-sized seats, which has long been written into law and is the main purpose of the boundary commissions’ work. Before we hear messages to the contrary, we have to remind the House that when Labour was in office, we enacted the fifth boundary review in 2006—it was politically detrimental to the Labour party in terms of seats lost—because we believed then, as we do now, that we have to have boundaries in place that fully reflect the general populace. However, the proposals to redraw our boundaries are unfair. They run the risk of being undemocratic. In many parts of the United Kingdom, they are unacceptable to the local populations.
To see evidence of that, one only needs to consider what the Government have done while espousing the need to cut the costs of an elected Chamber. The nub of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough said, goes beyond how many MPs there should be or who represents where. It is about how democracy in the United Kingdom functions. I remind the Minister that, in opposition, the Conservatives promised to curb the costs of government and limit the number of special advisers, but the number of those advisers has increased by more than 20%, from 79 before the May 2015 election—the most recent election—to 97 in December 2015. That is the highest recorded number for a majority Government ever. In total, this Administration have spent £45 million on wages and severance pay for special advisers during their time in office. It is curious that Government estimates show a saving of £12 million from the cutting of 50 Members of Parliament. That is roughly the same cost to the public purse as the severance packages that the previous Prime Minister handed out to those who left office at the same time as he did.
When the new occupant of 10 Downing Street came into office in July, space had to be found for those special advisers and close friends who had been so callously thrown on to the scrapheap. They might not be experts, but they surely need a chance, too. In September, the bloated Benches of the other place swelled even further when a raft of them were ennobled by the former Prime Minister, taking its membership to more than 800—far greater than the size of this House. That act debased the other place’s responsibility to check and challenge the Government, turning it into little more than an opportunity to honour former party donors and friends.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Is the hon. Gentleman implying that Baroness Chakrabarti was a Conservative appointment?
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady knows that the custom and practice is that when the Government increase the number of lords, other parties also have that opportunity. However—this relates to my next point—the noble Lady that the hon. Lady references is an active Member of the House of Lords and of the Labour Front-Bench team. Many Members of the other place do not make an active contribution to the work of that Chamber and that needs to be looked at.
Only yesterday, the Government announced their intention to drop proposals aimed at changing the powers of the Lords, citing that the world has changed. Well, yes, it has, and if Brexit is the reason for stepping back from curtailing the powers of the other place, it is also a sound and justifiable reason to think again about the changes proposed to this elected Chamber. Although Lords reform is not directly linked to the Bill, it is an important part of how a fully functioning democracy works. It is worth recognising that over two thirds of the public have consistently supported real reform of the other place, yet cynicism and power are all that the Government seem concerned with when overloading the other place with former spin doctors and party workers.
I am heartened, however, by the fact that other people share my concern and that we may actually have support from the most unlikely of sources. When recently asked about his responsibilities in the Lords, Baron Lloyd-Webber of Sydmonton responded:
“I was put in as an honour, not as a working peer. Not as lobby fodder. I’m fed up with the fact that I keep being asked now to go in and vote for things about which I don’t have knowledge.”
The other place is so bloated that it is second only to China’s National People’s Congress—the largest legislature in the world—which is odd considering that China has 1.2 billion more citizens than the UK. For a more learned and respected opinion, I ask right hon. and hon. Members to heed the warning of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who rightly stated:
“It seems perverse to reduce the number of elected representatives in this place while the Lords continues to gorge itself on new arrivals.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 502.]
Wayne David
Does my hon. Friend agree that the figure of 600 to which this place will be reduced is entirely arbitrary? There is no logic or common sense behind it whatsoever.
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely. I can remember my hon. Friend making that point when the legislation was going through. Why 600? Why not 500 or 400? Why not 700 or 800? Nobody has actually set out a reason for 600. That is why it is right to retain the 650 Members of Parliament that we have today and have had in previous Parliaments.
Sir Hugo Swire
Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that anyone other than politicians believes that there are too few of us?
Andrew Gwynne
The facts are in front of us. At a time of global uncertainty and change, we need to reconsider the proposals because it is more than likely that we will have 73 fewer politicians in the coming years because no one will be elected to the European Parliament. Their workload will come to this place—not only the scrutiny of laws that are currently scrutinised in Brussels and Strasbourg, but all the extra work that goes with that. I am sure that all the lobbyists will find a track to Westminster. They will be cancelling their tickets to Brussels and will be wanting to speak about legislation to Members of Parliament here.
Although I am sure that Members on both sides will not shirk their duties, where is the sense in cutting the number of elected Members here when we have a massive job to do of unpicking 40 years of legislation regarding our relationship with the European Union and our partners within it and of scrutinising new trading arrangements with the rest of the world? Where is the sense in cutting the number of Members when the job of holding the Government to account is absolutely vital? With larger constituencies, we will inevitably have larger caseloads from our own constituents, too.
Andrew Stephenson
The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent case for the Bill, but we had about 650 MPs before Brexit and before we went into the Common Market. We now have the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, police and crime commissioners, and elected mayors. We are just about to get a huge devolution of power in Greater Manchester, which he knows about and has spoken eloquently about. I would therefore suggest that this House can be reduced probably even further than the modest reduction proposed in the 2011 legislation. I would go for 400 MPs. I would happily see this place reduced much further.
Andrew Gwynne
I just do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is no case for reducing the size of the House of Commons when we have in front of us the big task of making a success of the Government’s negotiations with our European and global partners. If we cannot hold the Government to account on that, this House will be failing in its duty.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Another argument for retaining the current number of Members of Parliament is that we have reports, including from the former head of the civil service in no less than The House magazine, that the number of civil servants will have to be increased quite dramatically. So the civil service will increase, but the number of people overseeing and directing the civil service and making laws will be reduced. By the way, the number of Assembly Members in Northern Ireland is going to decrease.
Andrew Gwynne
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, because we are talking about the costs of government here, not just those of Parliament. The two cannot be disentangled.
Moving on to the review itself, its unfairness and unequal nature are compounded by the fact that many individual voters have been omitted from the calculations used by the boundary commissions. I wonder how the Government can defend their position on equalising the number of voters in each constituency, which each and every Member would support, while using information based on an electoral register with close to two million voters not counted. As Government Members will be aware, the spike of newly registered voters enthused by June’s referendum and the increased sign-up from May’s local election mean that around 4% of the electoral register has not been counted in the review. That serious omission risks producing a distorted picture of our nation and alienating hundreds upon thousands of younger first-time voters under 30. How dare we tell the 700,000 young people who signed up in a few short months in the run-up to the referendum that we want them to engage, but that their voice is irrelevant in deciding the political map of our communities? Put plainly, the omission of close to 2 million voters has completely distorted the boundary review process, so the aim of equalising our constituency boundaries will not be possible.
Mr Harper
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening when I made my remarks about the independent analysis that has been done on the 2 million figure. If these 2 million voters are equally spread across the UK, they make no difference to the distribution of seats. Either what I said, quoting an independent source, is true or it is not. If he does not think it is true and he has a different analysis produced by some independent people, perhaps he could share it with the House; otherwise, this makes no difference to the distribution of seats and is a false argument.
Andrew Gwynne
What the right hon. Gentleman says is on the premise that this is equally spread, but of course it is not. There were increases in the number of people on the electoral register in every constituency, but in parts of the country where there has historically been under-registration, the spikes were larger than in other areas.
Wayne David
The Library has produced facts that contradict what the right hon. Gentleman has said. They show that if extra electors brought in for the purpose of the referendum were taken into account, London would have two extra constituencies, whereas the south-west and Northern Ireland would each have one fewer, so there would be a material difference.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. friend is absolutely right about that and he brings me to my next point.
Let us consider the example of London, a global city with a growing population that is expected to rise by more than 1.5 million in the next decade. Strangely, the same city is expected to lose a dozen MPs from its contingent of 73 if the current proposals go through unchecked. As my hon. Friend has said, to compound that, research from the House of Commons shows that over the six-month period from December 2015 to June 2016 the London electorate grew by 6%. That did not occur in isolation; during the same period, the south-west saw a rise of 4.7%, Yorkshire and the Humber’s rise was 4.2%, Wales’s rise was 4.1% and the increase in the west midlands was 3.2%. Those citizens are eager to play their part in the process, but for this purpose they are citizens whose voice no longer counts.
As we have heard, many of the proposed constituencies make very little geographical sense, homogenising vast swathes of rural Britain and tearing up historic counties. For example, dramatically cutting the number of Welsh MPs will do little to address the democratic deficit felt by some within rural Wales. Any constitutional changes, including in the very make-up of the constituencies we stand here to represent, should be done fairly, and everyone’s voice should be heard.
The truth about the plan to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 is that no real reason has been given for it. As my hon. Friend said, when the original Bill was being discussed, no Minister could give a real reason for picking the 600 figure. New boundaries, a smaller House of Commons and the shift to individual electoral registration all tilt the electoral battlefield further not just towards the Conservative party, but towards the Executive. There are no plans to cut the size of the ministerial payroll, and having fewer MPs to hold Ministers to account is not good for democracy. It cannot be democratic, fair or even competent to advance this review at the same time as we are stuffing the other place with unelected and often unprepared peers. Put all this together and we face a boundary review being conducted on the basis of a completely lopsided electoral register. If we proceed as planned, we will see a huge transfer of parliamentary representation from areas that are growing to areas that have not seen the same growth.
The Opposition are confident that this Bill will significantly improve the process of drawing up new parliamentary seats on a fair and equal basis. We believe that 650 is the right number of MPs to hold the Government to account. We give our full support to this Bill in the hope that the Government pause—
Andrew Gwynne
I am coming to the end of my speech. We give our full support in the hope that the Government pause, look again and proceed with changes that are agreed consensually with Members in all parts of this House and with all nations of the UK.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I should begin by saying that, like the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), who introduced the Bill, I have no personal interest in this, because I, too, will be standing down at the next election.
I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) that doubtless I am much contaminated by six years in government and 18 years on the Front Bench, but I nevertheless believe it makes sense for us to consider these issues as though we had a population that needs to be served by a system of government that works in the interests of that population. We should not be thinking about this simply in terms of the House of Commons, which is a matter of more concern to many people in this place than it is to many of our citizens, who want to be well governed but who do not know much about and do not much like the workings of the House of Commons. The House of Commons certainly should not think of itself as a model to the world, because, as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) rightly said, there is currently much scepticism about the organs of our democracy.
Sir Oliver Letwin
As my hon. Friend knows from previous conversations, I do take that view and have done so, uniquely in the Conservative party, I believe, for about the past 40 years. I shall briefly touch on that at a much later stage in my remarks, but for now I simply wish to observe that it is important that we think about this issue as grown-ups who are trying to look after the interests of our fellow citizens, not as people who happen to be sitting on these green Benches trying to look after the interests of the House of Commons, which is an artefact of no value whatsoever unless it is part of the good governance of our country in the interests of its citizens.
This is the first time I have attended a debate on a Friday for very many years, and I was surprised to discover that I was quite interested in the nature of the debate. It seems that, from time to time, there have actually been some arguments made—that is a rare thing to hear in the House of Commons. In principle, three kinds of arguments have been going on. The first is whether equalisation is the aim of the current Act governing the Boundary Commission activity or whether it is about gerrymandering. The second is about whether 600 is a better number of MPs than 650. The third is the question raised by the hon. Member for Newport West: is it right to make incremental change in pursuit of incremental improvements when large questions about the constitution as a whole also need to be addressed? I want to discuss each of those points in turn.
First, I turn to the question of whether the motive for and effect of the current Act of Parliament governing the Boundary Commission’s activities is equalisation or gerrymandering. As I would have expected, my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) dealt very effectively with the fact that the current Boundary Commission review does not include reference to the people who registered at the last moment. I was the Minister who brought to the House arrangements to ensure that people who registered at the very last moment were able to vote in the referendum, and it is certainly right that they should have been registered. My right hon. Friend dealt very well with whether the fact that they registered after the Boundary Commission figures were produced affects the outcome of the review to any significant extent.
However, we do not need to rely on my right hon. Friend’s view on that because the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who interjected from the Labour Benches, blew the whole argument out of the water when he quoted, quite sensibly, the Library figures. They showed that the total effect, even on an analysis less favourable to the argument I am making than that which was provided by the independent source for my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean—the House of Commons Library analysis—the total net difference is two extra in London and one fewer in the south-west and in Northern Ireland. There is no significant distributional impact.
Wayne David
The right hon. Gentleman does not mention the knock-on effect: a number of other boundaries are affected as a consequence of that change.
Sir Oliver Letwin
As a matter of fact, very few are. Even if there were a few, the net distributional impact is very slight. That has to be put in context to be understood. This was another point that my right hon. Friend made very clearly. I will come in a moment to the point that the Bill very clearly has the purpose and the effect of ensuring that we will not proceed with redistribution before 2020. If we do not proceed with it, the disequilibrium—the lack of equivalence that Labour’s spokesman, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), said his party favours—would be far, far greater than the discrepancy would be, even on the House of Commons Library figures, if the distributional impacts from the new registration were not taken into account. So either equalisation matters or it does not matter.
Sir Oliver Letwin
In a moment.
It appears that we have cross-party consent, at least on the face of it, to equalisation. Equalisation will be achieved to a far greater degree by proceeding with the current arrangements than by not proceeding with them. The only further question we have to ask is whether it was the hon. Member for North West Durham, who introduced the Bill, or my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) who were right when the discussion went on about whether it was possible to proceed with the hon. Lady’s Bill and for it to become an Act, and to proceed with the Boundary Commission proposals in time for 2020.
As it happens, I spent quite a lot of the past few years talking to the boundary commissions about these issues. I am prepared to say in Parliament, and I think it is not improper for me to say in Parliament, that I am absolutely certain from what they told me that there is not the ghost of a chance—and I think the spokesman for the Opposition, who appears to be a clever person, is perfectly aware that there is not a ghost of a chance—that we could have a redistribution before 2020 if we were to proceed with the hon. Lady’s Bill and it became an Act. That is, I think, the very purpose of the Bill.
Mr Harper
I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend finished that powerful point before he gave way to me, as it highlights what the Bill is really about. On the so-called missing voters, the point that he was just developing is that if we are not able to proceed with the boundary changes that the commissions are currently working on, we will fight the next election on seats that are drawn on electoral registers dating from 2000, so not only would we not be including the 2 million people who registered for the referendum and the 700,000 people who registered subsequently, but we would be missing the millions and millions of people who have registered to vote since 2000, and, by the way, we would be including all the people who were on the register in 2000 but who, sadly, are no longer with us.
Sir Oliver Letwin
My right hon. Friend is clearly right about that. It is a matter of fact, not of opinion. There would be less approximation to an equal distribution of population per seat and of registered voters per seat if we do not proceed with the current proposals than if we do. The Bill would therefore diminish the chances of there being an election based on roughly equivalent numbers of electors in each seat.
Mr Chope
On the question of whether the Bill is implementable in the timescale set out by its proponents, does my right hon. Friend recall that the Boundary Commission gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the previous Parliament to the effect that it would not be possible to make the changes unless the commission started, as it did this time, in February 2016? That was the latest point at which it could start if it was to produce changes in time for October 2018.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. That is the evidence that the Boundary Commission gave, but I was always, as I know he was when he was a Minister, suspicious of claims by agencies of the state that things could not be done on certain timescales, so I went to the trouble for some while to interrogate that set of propositions and to look specifically at all the things that could be done to diminish the elapsed time by doing things in parallel rather than in series, by constricting various forms of consultation, and by accelerating the responses to the consultations. I am satisfied that the Boundary Commission genuinely in this case could do not this with any semblance of propriety. It is not a matter of being able to overcome those problems by giving it more money or more resources. It simply could not do the job. I think the spokesman for the Opposition is perfectly aware of these facts and that it is his intention to ensure that we do not proceed with equalisation.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
If we are in the business of practicality, with the right hon. Gentleman’s long experience of contamination in Government, what makes him think that hugely controversial proposals that lack any consensus, that have united the Opposition parties across the House against them and that are opposed by independent-minded Conservatives have any chance whatsoever of getting an affirmative vote and an Order in Council some time in 2018? All this upset and nonsense is for nothing unless the Government start to listen to other voices.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. My guess is that the proposals will get consent. Time will tell. We will also see whether they get assent in the other place, which is much the greater question. Clearly, we have seen in the past few days the Government withdraw from measures intended to make it easier to ensure that if this place consents, the other place can be made to consent. Nevertheless, my own guess is that both places will consent. We will see.
In this debate we are not talking about whether or not the other place will consent. We are talking about whether we should adopt legislation that would prevent any chance of our having the opportunity even to assent. My point is that if we do not have that opportunity, we can be sure that we will not have a more equalised set of seats. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman, who is one of the canniest politicians in the United Kingdom over a very long period, very well knows that that is the case and he has a very great interest.
I want to address our party interests for a moment. It is as clear as day, although many Members who have spoken have been coy about being explicit about it, that there are party interests on both sides of the Chamber. It is perfectly true that equalisation would remove a bias in the electoral system that has existed against the Conservative party for a little while. It used to be the other way round at one stage; these things happen over time. The fact is—it is quite an important fact—that it is not in the interests of a political party to have the boundaries redrawn for 2020. As things currently stand in the polling, the Conservative party will have a massive majority in the House of Commons after the 2020 election and—[Interruption.] No, indeed, not in Scotland.
If things go terribly wrong between now and 2020, I do not believe that these changes will protect the Conservative majority under those circumstances. My whole experience of politics, which I suspect is shared by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), whose experience is longer and deeper than mine, is that when the mood of the country shifts, it does not make too much difference what the system is—it shifts pretty decisively one way or the other. So, although there are party interests here, they are not nearly as important as either side may believe, and we should be trying to do a sensible and right thing, rather than something that is in the interests of one party or the other.
Alex Salmond
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is totally disinterested, but I am also sure he is aware that the Scottish proposals, which would be of great interest to me, would mean that, on the same votes as at the last election, the SNP would have all the seats bar one in Scotland. Does he not understand, in a disinterested way, that I am trying to save the last Conservative MP in Scotland?
Sir Oliver Letwin
Actually, no. With his typical brilliance, the right hon. Gentleman is alluringly enticing us to avoid noticing that there would be a reduced number of Scottish Members altogether in this House. As his party currently controls almost all the Scottish seats, it is to his advantage to maintain the number of Scottish Members and, indeed, a system in which Scottish electors are typically over-represented by the number of their Members of Parliament, almost all of whom are from the SNP.
As I say, I do not actually believe that that is the material question. The material question is whether having the current set of proposals being operated by the Boundary Commission would equalise better than not having them, the answer to which is clearly yes. Is it right to equalise more rather than less? The Opposition and the Government appear to agree that that is right, and even my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough agrees that it is right. Are we going to equalise more or less if we proceed with this Bill rather than the current arrangements? The answer is clearly that we are more likely to equalise better if we proceed with the current arrangements rather than the Bill.
I want to turn now to the second question, about the number of Members of Parliament. There was a very interesting contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, and the Opposition spokesman made some echoing remarks about it. Both of them were really trying to argue that 650 is a better number—incidentally, I do not suggest that either of them suggested that there was a perfection about 650—than 600 for the purposes of doing what they each described as holding the Government to account. That is obviously a serious argument, in the sense that in a House of Commons in which 99.9% of its Members were on the payroll, the 0.1% of its Members who were not on the payroll would have some difficulty holding the 99.9% to account.
I do not personally believe that the difference between 650 and 600—or, while we are at it, 600 and 550, or 600 and 500—makes terribly much difference to the effectiveness with which this House is able to hold the Government to account. My experience is that one good MP, one effective Select Committee or one Opposition spokesman who knows what they are doing can hold a Government to account very powerfully, and a very large number of incompetent and inadequate people sitting on these Benches can wholly fail to hold Governments to account. I do not believe there is any clear relationship, still less any systemic relationship, between the number of people entitled to sit on these green Benches—most of whom, mostly, are not here—and the amount of actual, effective scrutiny of Government. It is quality, not quantity, that affects the scrutiny of Government.
It seems to me that we should address a different question in looking at whether 650 is a better number than 600 or vice versa—of course I accept that neither is a perfect number, and there is no absolute standard in terms of the right numbers. I think there is a certain myopia on this. We have to open our eyes and ask ourselves just how we look to the world. People have mentioned the other place, which, incidentally, I think is ludicrously structured altogether and is definitely in need of reform. Indeed, I tried very hard to get it reformed into a proper elected Chamber, and I shall go on arguing that case, because it is the only thing that will save that part of our democracy and actually create some checks and balances in our system. People have observed that the other place is now the largest legislature other than that in China, which obviously has more than 1 billion people in it. That may be true, but there is another legislature in this country that is almost as large—it is here. We have 650 Members of Parliament seeking to be the primary source of legislation, if I can put it that way, for 60 million people. In the United States, there are 100 Senators, who are counterpoised against, roughly speaking, the same number of representatives as we have in this House. If we add the two numbers in the United States together, the total is not that much greater than our 650, but those people are looking after the interests of 300 million people, instead of 60 million people.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I will, but let me just anticipate what I think my hon. Friend might be about to say. It used to be said that the reason that is appropriate is that the states in the United States have so much power. It is no longer the case—this is very much the point raised by various of my hon. Friends—that we live in a wholly centralised system; we live in something that is getting very much closer to being a federal system, in which vast amounts of the power that used to reside in this place have been devolved in one way or another to Administrations elsewhere, and more of that is going on all the time.
We are vastly overweight; there are many more of us MPs per head of population than in most other serious democracies. I am not aware of any Member of Parliament who could not handle some more constituents. Now, I accept that it is more difficult for those who live in and represent seats that are much larger. My own seat is middling, in the sense that it is 400 square miles. I do not have the advantage that urban MPs have of representing a very small patch, but I am not, of course, challenged in the way that some of our Scottish colleagues, for example, are with their vast seats, and I do accept, therefore, the reason for some exceptions. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean said, that issue was debated when we moved from 650 to 600, and a balanced judgment was struck about creating enough exceptions to try to deal with those who face particular geographical problems.
Mr Bone
My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech, which appears to be plausible, until we listen to the substance. He is talking about the United States of America, where there is a wholly different system. There is the split of powers, and, of course, the states have their rights. The comparison is completely unfair, and my right hon. Friend might want to look at look at the point again.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I think that is the nearest thing to a compliment I have ever received from my hon. Friend, and it is probably the nearest I am ever going to get, so I shall celebrate it quietly. I do not accept the second part of his argument—the first part I have already dealt with. He asserts that, in the absence of a separation of powers, which, as I have said, I would actually prefer to see, the danger from the numbers of MPs on the payroll, or the crypto-payroll of the Opposition, is that nobody is really holding anybody to account. Actually, the dynamic of this House of Commons—one can see it sitting here or standing here right now—is a dynamic of dialectic. The principal form of the holding to account of the Government of the day resides on the Opposition Front Bench, not, I regret to say this, with my Back-Bench colleagues, among whom I now number myself. It is the quality of the Front-Bench arguments from the Opposition that principally challenges the Government of the day. This House is designed to reflect that, and that is the reason we do not sit in a circle, but opposite one another. That is behind the whole structure of debate in this House. Indeed, the timetable of this House is organised on that principle. If my hon. Friend’s charmingly nostalgic, although never-existing picture of a House of Commons that was holding Governments to account from the Back Benches were accurate, we would not recently have introduced a bit of Backbench Business; we would have substituted Opposition days, of which there are many, with Back-Bench days.
Sir Oliver Letwin
My hon. Friend would be very much in favour of that, but that is not how this place works or has ever worked. This place works in terms of the dialectic between Opposition and Government. It is a very powerful dialectic. It reaches certain crucial moments each week at question times. It reaches its most crucial moment at Prime Minister’s questions, and that is the jousting match—often, alas, not terribly illuminating, but nevertheless—that causes the Government to be on their toes most, and that forces Prime Ministers to find out what is going on in their own Governments and to defend them across the Dispatch Box. That is much more powerful as a form of holding people to account than anything that can be done from the Back Benches, and it is nothing to do with the numbers. So I reject the argument that the numbers have any significant impact on the ability of this House to hold the Government to account.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of the change in Government policy in recent months has come as a result of Conservative Back Benchers scrutinising and challenging the Government when they think they have got it wrong rather than challenges from Opposition Members?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I agree that at a time when, regrettably, there is a rather weak Opposition, and when there are, as it happens, many very enterprising Government Back Benchers, not all of whom are willing to go along with everything, we will get cases in which the Government Back Benchers do perform a very important role in holding the Government to account. However, that is due to the quality and not the quantity of the contributions that are made by my hon. Friends on the Back Benches. We could have hundreds of lemons sitting here and not having the slightest effect on the Government of the day, or we could have five, or three, very effective Back Benchers who could cause very considerable trouble for the Government of the day. It is about quality, not quantity.
I want finally to address the interesting point made by the hon. Member for Newport West, whose argument was different in kind from that of the hon. Member for North West Durham and the other speakers. I hope he would agree that I am not doing his argument any injustice if I say that he was arguing, first, that there are many large constitutional deficiencies in Britain today—a proposition with which I abundantly agree—and secondly, that it makes no sense to try to change one particular element of the whole picture, though he admitted that it was an element that probably did require change, in the absence of an overall and thoroughgoing change of the whole system.
That is a very serious argument, but it is also very seriously wrong. I think it is wrong for two reasons: first, practically, and secondly, theoretically. Of course, in the end, the practical argument matters more than the theoretical one. The practical truth is that we are not going to get the kind of constitutional change that I think he, and certainly I, want any time in the near future. I personally was partly responsible for the total failure to secure the reform of the House of Lords. The House of Lords, in its current structure, is a wholly indefensible object. No rational human being could possibly argue that it is a good idea to have a legislature constituted in the way that the House of Lords is constituted. Indeed, I never heard anybody, in the whole of that debate, make an argument in favour of the House of Lords as currently constituted, except that they thought it was the lesser evil. What they meant by that varied. Some of the people I failed to convince said that what is better about the House of Lords is that it is totally useless, so it cannot do anything, and so the House of Commons reigns supreme. Some said that what is better about it is that it is not another House of Commons. Some said that what is better about it is that it cannot intervene in such a way as to prevent the Government of the day having their will, or create the kinds of checks and balances that I suspect that the hon. Gentleman wants, and certainly I want, to see in our constitution.
There were many reasons why people defended the House of Lords, all of which were of the character that things as they are indefensible, but less bad than they would be if we had a properly elected Chamber at the other end of the building. They were a rainbow coalition of people with different points of view on just that one point about the reform of the House of Lords, which made it quite impossible. There was a fascinating interchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean and Opposition Members, and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, about whether we had to withdraw the proposal. By golly, we had to withdraw it, because we had done the sums and we knew perfectly well that we were going to get nowhere near being able to carry it through. This was something that had been in the manifestos of both the two largest parties, and was the primary goal, once AV—the alternative vote—had bitten the dust, of the minor party in the coalition. All three parties had it in their manifestos, and one of them really cared about it, yet we could not even get that through.
Therefore, the chances of getting through major constitutional reform to create a system of checks and balances based on the separation of powers in a written constitution, which are things this country certainly needs, are very dim indeed. In fact, my guess is that some decades—possibly some centuries—from now, people will still be standing in this place talking about those issues. If we were to wait for that before making incremental change, we would have registers that are 50, 100 or 200 years out of date. That would not, practically speaking, be a sensible way to proceed.
Mr Bone
The point that I hope my right hon. Friend and I can agree on is that the Government decided not to proceed with the Bill on the Floor of the House without a programme motion. It is not that they would not have got it through, but that they refused to give up the time to allow it to be debated without a programme motion.
Sir Oliver Letwin
We ought to have a historical seminar about this. My hon. Friend is only partly right. It is perfectly true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean said, that if we had tried to proceed without a programme motion, the main sacrifice is that we would have been unable to do almost anything else that was in our programme for government and that the Government needed to do.
Sir Oliver Letwin
It was indeed a choice. What my hon. Friend does not recognise, though, is that it was perfectly clear, having done the sums, that we were not, at the end of it all, going to get anything through, so we would have achieved the miracle of sacrificing almost the entire rest of our programme for the sake of achieving nothing whatsoever. That was not an attractive prospect, and that is why we withdrew the proposal, even though the corollary of doing so—this is the supreme irony of discussing the matter today—was that the Liberal Democrats in the coalition refused to support the implementation of the very changes that we are now discussing.
Paul Flynn
I am grateful for the serious attention that the right hon. Gentleman is giving to the points raised. Does he think that given the current situation of intense public cynicism, it is unwise to put forward a piecemeal measure that advantages only one party and intensifies the problems of scrutiny and representation that we have in this country when we are nowhere near to making sure that every vote counts?
Sir Oliver Letwin
No, because, as I have tried to argue in the first two parts of my speech, first, I do not think that the changes going forward at the moment are simply gerrymandering, but that they are fairer. Secondly, I do not believe that reducing the numbers reduces the quality of accountability. I therefore reject the hon. Gentleman’s argument. I accept that if it were a bad thing to do, it would be a bad thing to do piecemeal, but if it is a good thing to do, it is a good thing to do piecemeal, even though it would be better if we could—unfortunately we cannot—achieve major constitutional reform alongside it.
Wayne David
Surely the lesson of our discussion about Lords reform, and of the debate about boundary changes, is that the only way to bring about major constitutional change of this kind is on the basis of political consensus between all the parties.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am afraid that I was receiving instructions to be brief while the hon. Gentleman was speaking, so I did not really gather the purport of his remarks, which I shall have to read in Hansard—I do apologise.
Even from a theoretical point of view, it is not proper for us to think that we should not make incremental changes that are to the benefit of the constitution simply because they do not achieve everything that could be achieved through full constitutional change. The reason that I do not think that that is true theoretically is that it is not how British history has proceeded. The whole of our history has been a process of incremental change of our constitution. There has not been a thoroughgoing review of our constitution since 1688, and even that was pretty ramshackle. Certainly, 1216 was extraordinarily ramshackle. If Members actually read Magna Carta, as opposed to the propaganda about it, they will see that it did very little other than enforce that the actions of the king be done through his court rather than by sole fiat. Some significant changes were made in 1688, but an awful lot was left undone. We then went through a whole series of incremental changes to create the universal franchise, which took a very long time indeed. On the arguments of the hon. Member for Newport West, we never would have had any of those changes, because we would have been waiting the whole time for a proper Bill that would have moved us immediately to a full universal franchise, which was obviously the right thing to do from the beginning.
The fact is that our constitution has evolved by slow, incremental change. I do not welcome that fact. I think that the United States is blessed in having had a constitution that was more or less fully formed from the beginning. By creating the Basic Law all in one go, I think that we did a better job in Germany after the war than we have done in Britain, but alas, that ain’t how things are done in the UK. It is in the spirit of our constitutional tradition to make incremental changes that make things fairer and enable us to proceed. That is what the current proposals do. The Bill would prevent us from doing that, so I support the Government’s rejection of it.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). It is obvious from his appearance here on a Friday morning that the Government’s loss is the gain of Friday Back-Bench business. I sensed the lemons bristling a little when he referred unkindly to some of his fellow Back Benchers. I am sure that they will respond to him in kind.
We overwhelmingly support the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), and we will do what we can to ensure that it progresses through Parliament and becomes legislation. In fact, we debated the issue a few weeks ago, when we invited the Government to reconsider their plans to reduce the number of MPs, and encouraged them to have a look at what is actually going on in our democracy and Parliament.
We profoundly believe that there is no case whatsoever for increasing the number of unelected Lords in that absurd institution down the corridor while cutting the number of parliamentarians elected by the people. It is simply absurd that, in this mother of Parliaments, more parliamentarians are appointed by a Prime Minister than are directly elected by the people. That is the cornerstone of our objection to what the Government are doing with the boundaries.
Of course, we do not want any Members from Scotland to have to come down to this Parliament. We have a slight hankering that the Scottish people are probably better placed than the Westminster Tories to run the nation of Scotland, and that the people of England could just about muddle along without us coming down every week to involve ourselves in their affairs. That is our starting point, but, as long as we are part of a UK unitary Parliament, and as long as this House exercises significant and real powers over our nation, it is right and proper that we have the correct number of parliamentarians from Scotland to look after the vital interests of our nation and our institutions.
Wayne David
I agree with much of the hon. Gentleman’s criticism of the House of Lords, but does he want the second Chamber to be abolished or reformed?
Pete Wishart
It needs to be abolished. It is unreformable. It is an absurd circus. I am not a unicameralist: I believe that a nation as complex as the United Kingdom requires a scrutinising Chamber. Some of my hon. Friends take a different view, but my personal view is that we need a scrutinising Chamber that is properly elected.
What an embarrassing humbling the Government received yesterday when they had to withdraw the Strathclyde review. You cannot take on the boys in ermine and get done like that! The Government will have to reflect on their overwhelming and embarrassing defeat at the hands of the House of Lords. They took on the aristocrats. Those guys won battles in the medieval ages to exercise their right to rule over us. The Government sent the bumptious Lord Strathclyde to try to tame them and that is the result.
I hope that the Government reconsider their approach to the Lords. All they are going to do is increase the number of peers. We now face the prospect over the next few days of having the dark lord Farage. The bad Baron Boot-Them-out-of-Here is going to be a feature of our democracy. Someone who has been beaten eight times in Westminster contests might find himself a parliamentarian through the back door.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend think that the system of appointments to the Lords by the Prime Minister is an example of the royal prerogative being abused and used irresponsibly?
Pete Wishart
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Yes, it is. As we are into a debate about the exercise of the royal prerogative, we should consider that, because he makes an interesting point.
The bad baron Farage will be joining 800 or so of the weirdest parliamentarians to be found anywhere in the world, in the second largest Chamber in the world. He will be joining not just the cronies, the donors and the party placemen, but the Church of England bishops, the aristocrats and, even worse, the Liberal Democrats—the Chamber of unelected horrors.
In the next Parliament, if the House of Lords continues to increase in the way that it has, we face the real prospect of something approaching 1,000 unelected Lords to scrutinise the work of 600 Members of Parliament. We will almost have two unelected parliamentarians for every elected one, yet we have the gall to lecture the developing world about the quality of their democracy.
The main case made by the Government to do this was to reduce the cost and the size of politics, but they are clearly not doing that. The cost of politics is increasing exponentially, not year on year, but month by month. We have heard about the armies of civil servants that will have to be created to staff the new Departments dealing with this Government’s chaotic Brexit plans; the number of Spads has increased by about 20% in the past few years; and the Government have put 250 donors, cronies and placemen into the House of Lords. What are the savings? The Minister claimed £66 million, but I believe that is over five years. The figure—I think the hon. Member for North West Durham said it—is closer to £12 million. When it comes to making savings that will not even pay for the paint on a Trident missile.
Joanna Cherry
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. I am fortunate enough to sit on the Exiting the European Union Committee. Is he aware that we heard evidence earlier this week that the cost of Brexit will increase civil service and bureaucratic costs across the United Kingdom?
Pete Wishart
Yes, we know that. Again and again we have heard from all sorts of Ministers about the need for new civil servants, who are being hastily recruited. The cost of politics is going up, although the Government claim to be cutting it. The only part of politics and Parliament that they are cutting is the elected part. That is the only one that seems to be featuring.
Andrew Stephenson
I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that the House of Lords should be abolished—I have always believed that. I have tried for reform and I will continue to push for reform and abolition, but does he not accept that the cost of running the House of Lords in 2010 was £112 million and that last year it fell to £96 million? That is a 14% reduction. I am not defending the House of Lords, because I think it should be abolished, but this Government have overseen a reduction in the cost of the House of Lords.
Pete Wishart
Here is a solution for the hon. Gentleman, given he is halfway towards my position on this: how about saving £100 million per year? Get rid of the circus! Then we are all happy. There are savings here and there, yes, and that is fine, but let us make substantial and significant savings by just getting rid of the monstrous place down the corridor.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in recent weeks a key issue was highlighted by Andrew Lloyd Webber, the peer who was not aware that he would have to be a working peer, and has been complaining about it? It is not right that peers are put in the House of Lords, but do not work, and that the number of working parliamentarians is being reduced by this Government.
Pete Wishart
I can feel my hon. Friend’s hearts bleeding at the news about poor, overworked Andrew Lloyd Webber. This is where we are. We know what we do in this House, the value we give our constituents and how hard we work. I was listening carefully to, I think, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who talked eloquently about the new tasks and functions that we have as Members of Parliament. That is right: we have new things to do. We know how hard we work, and it is almost disgraceful to observe what happens in the House of Lords, with people refusing to turn up and even complaining about having to turn up to go about their work.
I want to talk a little about what I think was first mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn): the findings of the Electoral Reform Society. That is very powerful information, and there could be a crisis of scrutiny. If the boundary proposals go through, 23% of all MPs could have ministerial jobs. There will therefore be fewer Back Benchers to scrutinise the work of Government. There will be an impact on our Select Committees.
Someone mentioned the Scottish Parliament, where Members have to double up on several Committees. That is one of our features; it has never been a feature of this House, but that reality might confront us in future. Members of Parliament will be expected to serve not only on one or even two Committees, but perhaps on three Committees in order for the Government to be scrutinised. We could end up with 34% of all Conservative Members on the Government payroll. That is just not good for democracy, and it is appalling for scrutiny. It might be very good for some Conservative Back Benchers who are looking at their career prospects, but it is not good for this nation or for what we are doing in this House.
As a couple of Members have mentioned, this is being done at exactly the wrong time. Seventy-three Members of the European Parliament will no longer carry out very important functions in Brussels and Strasbourg. The powers they exercise and the responsibilities they hold will be returned to an ever smaller pool of Members of Parliament. That will mean more and more work, including on Select Committees and in scrutinising—I do not know how Conservative Back Benchers will find time to do all that—which will be a real issue.
This plan was dreamed up pre-Brexit. The new Government have been very good at binning all the Cameroonian nonsense. They have their own clear agenda and view about how the Government should proceed. Here is an invitation to them: bin this one—put it on the bonfire of the nonsensical Cameroonian legislation—and make their own decision. The plan was concocted pre-Brexit, and it is no longer fit for purpose in the new real world we now live in.
We support the idea about the equalisation of constituencies. I do not think any of us have any real concerns about that, but it must take geography into account.
Pete Wishart
Oh, here we go. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) caught my eye first.
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. On geography, the fact is that three MPs in the Highlands will represent 33,000 sq km— 40% of the landmass of Scotland, with less than 5% of the MPs. It will be about 180 miles, or four and a half hours’ drive, across each of the three constituencies. How on earth are people supposed to be properly represented when it will be so difficult for any elected Member of Parliament to get around their constituency? Argyll, Bute and Lochaber will have more than 30 islands. Why are we not including the islands off the west coast of Scotland among the constituencies to be protected?
Drew Hendry
We have heard that the ludicrous proposals include the meaninglessly named Highland North constituency, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) pointed out, will be as big as Northern Ireland. Is my hon. Friend aware that the other proposed constituency, Inverness and Skye, would be the size of the country of Cyprus? We do not need Aristotle to point out that that is bad philosophy, but Thales would surely point out that it is very bad geographically.
Pete Wishart
That was eloquently put by my hon. Friend. All I can say is that I have a very modest 80 miles from east to west in my constituency, which feels decidedly small compared with the challenges and issues faced by both my hon. Friends. I am grateful to them for making that point, because it emphasises that when we equalise constituencies, we must take our geography into account, particularly the very challenging geography in the Scottish highlands.
Hannah Bardell
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is also about identity? My constituency of Livingston, which is in the county of West Lothian, prides itself on its uniqueness, as it lies between the two great cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow. Changing the constituency to Edinburgh Pentland and Livingston makes it sound as though it is just an extension of Edinburgh, which it absolutely is not.
Pete Wishart
We have heard that point again and again during this debate, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
What is fantastic and one of the key things that we have got right—I talk about things when they go right in this House—is the constituency link. It is a wonderful and marvellous thing to have the privilege to represent constituencies in defined areas, where we can build up a relationship with our constituents over the years. I have had the pleasure of being a Member of Parliament in this House for 15 years, and I have got to know my constituents. I know exactly the type of issues they will bring to me. From having represented them, I have a sense of the type of things that interest them. I believe that it is negative and bad to toy with this very valuable feature and to erode the constituency link.
When I was first elected, there were 72 Scottish Members of Parliament. If this goes through, there will be 53, so we will have lost almost a quarter of Scottish Members of Parliament within 10 years. I accept that some of that has been necessary—it was right and proper—because, with the Scottish Parliament, it was thought that the number of Members of Parliament should be reduced. However, to have 53 MPs to represent an area the size of Scotland will be very demanding and challenging for many of my hon. Friends.
In the last debate on this matter I mentioned that if the changes go through we will have more Members of the House of Lords from Scotland than we will MPs; I had detected 61 Lords with registered Scottish addresses. Since then I have done a little more research, and have found that I have five—this one solitary Member for Perth and North Perthshire has the benefit of five Members of the House of Lords. So, just to be equitable, how about we equalise the House of Lords along with the House of Commons? I would quite happily gift some of my Lords to urban constituencies, so that they could have the benefit of one of them serving them. Perhaps we should start to think about how to do that. People often ask us what we will do with the Scottish Lords when we become independent. I will put the House’s mind at rest: as a parting gift and gesture of our largesse we are quite happy to donate the Scottish Lords to the rest of the United Kingdom. You cannot get more generous than that.
I will finish by saying a little about what I think the boundary changes are really about. I do not believe they are about reducing the cost of Parliament, because the amount is peanuts in terms of budgets—it does not amount to much at all. This is all to do with trying to stymie the Labour party. That is what is behind all this. I have spoken privately to Conservative Members who have come to me and told me that that is what it is about—to ensure that the Labour party never gets back into government again. They want to do it now, while they have a majority. But the Labour party really does not need any assistance in becoming an electoral liability. It is doing it perfectly well on its own. It does not need Conservative assistance—let it get on with making itself unelectable. It is doing a fantastic job.
In trying to stymie the Labour party, however, the Conservatives are starting to erode the quality of our democracy. That is a dangerous thing given all the other knockabout stuff going on. Mucking about with something that seems to be working quite well and is one of the defining features of this House and the way we do business here will undermine and pick away at what makes this place good. Doing that while leaving that monstrosity down the corridor in its current condition, when it should be a national embarrassment and embarrass every single Member of this House, is an absolute and utter disgrace. There are things that we need to do to improve our democracy and our public life, but they do not include unpicking the great things that happen because we are a representative democracy. There is absolutely everything to do in dealing with that absurdity down the corridor.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) on her success in securing this private Member’s Bill. Although I do not agree with all the objectives she has proposed in the Bill, private Members’ Bills are an essential parliamentary device that enable Back Benchers to address issues that concern us and our constituents and, in some cases, to secure good, sustainable changes in public policy and legislation. I have successfully piloted two private Member’s Bills on to the statute book, the Marine Navigation Act 2013 and the Deep Sea Mining Act 2014, and I am very proud to have done so.
I do not agree with the provisions in the Bill that reverse the decision to reduce the number of Members of this House from 650 to 600. I stood on a manifesto in 2015 that said that we would
“reduce the number of MPs to 600 to cut the cost of politics”
and I stand by that pledge.
Mr Kevan Jones
Is the hon. Lady not an example of that very rare thing, a turkey voting for Christmas? When these changes were first mooted in 2010, the main losers in Cornwall would have been the Liberal Democrats. If the changes go forward, some of her Tory colleagues will surely lose their seats. Why would she want to support that?
Mrs Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his view, but I happen to disagree. I am hopeful that, at the next election, Cornwall will still be represented by Conservative MPs, and I stand by that election pledge. My constituents voted me to this place to represent them, knowing that that was my pledge.
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Member for North West Durham, but I have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I was going to raise a point of order during her speech this morning. In the interest of the smooth transition of the debate, however, and having asked to make a speech, I have chosen instead to raise the matter now. The hon. Lady said that she had received more representations on her Bill from Cornish people than from anyone else. I am sure she respects the unwritten protocol in this House that if representations are made to us from another MP’s constituents, we inform the MP and usually pass on the representations. I am quite happy to take an intervention, so that she can confirm that none of those representations came from South East Cornwall because nothing has been passed on to me.
Mrs Murray
I just felt that I ought to put it on the record that I, a Member for a Cornish constituency, have not been informed of any emails sent to another MP. I am quite disappointed about that.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady’s point is. From what she is saying, she would not change her mind anyway, so it would be a complete waste of time her constituents lobbying her on the Bill.
Mrs Murray
It is a case of treating other Members, no matter what their political affiliation, with some respect.
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend is making an eloquent point. The Guardian today cites people saying they are against Cornwall being split in half. Any Member they contact should be telling them that there is a 12-week consultation. We are well into it now, but people can still submit representations through the Boundary Commission website. They can still lobby and they can still change things. More than 40,000 representations were made by members of the public during the 2013 abandoned review. Surely, as Members of Parliament, we should be encouraging people to engage with the process, not trying to scrap or abort it, so that we have a general election based on electoral figures that are 20 years out of date.
Mrs Murray
I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
I would like to quote the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg). I know that he has already been quoted today and it is not something that I do often in this place, but he outlined well how we compare around the world. He said:
“Reducing the number of MPs allows us to bring our oversized House of Commons into line with legislatures across the world. The House of Commons is the largest directly elected chamber in the European Union, and it’s half as big again as the US House of Representatives.”
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) mentioned that last point earlier. The Government have estimated that the reduction in the number of MPs will save £66 million over the course of the Parliament. I am quite disappointed with Opposition Members who seem to have made light of that figure. That money could be focused on looking after and benefiting our constituents.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Lady, using the larger figure spun by Cameron, talks about £66 million, but the figure is £12 million a year. She was part of a Government who spent £9 million on a leaflet arguing their case for the EU. Where is her perspective?
Mrs Murray
If the hon. Gentleman refers back, he will see that I did not agree with that.
I am sure that these savings would be welcomed by taxpayers across the country. We often have to take difficult decisions to try and balance the country’s books, so should this place not do what it can to contribute? Should we not have to face a fair share of any cuts? We are always being criticised for cutting expenditure on education, putting pressure on teachers, putting pressure on NHS workers and putting pressure on our armed forces. Should we not share some of that burden and try to make some savings ourselves?
Mrs Murray
To refuse something, one has to be offered it. I think that the hon. Gentleman should pay attention to the Prime Minister’s response to a question from an Scottish National party Member on Wednesday: things like that are not normally discussed in this place.
Why are Opposition Members supporting the Bill? Is it to change the number of seats? That will lead to the redrawing of a map and the need for sitting Labour Members to be selected for new areas. Are those who did not champion the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) as Leader of the Opposition now nervous of the membership that gave him its support? Some 80% of Labour Members gave a vote of no confidence in their leader less than six months ago. Are they now nervous?
I cannot say that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 is perfect. In 2010, I put forward my own amendment to the Bill as it passed through this place to recognise Cornwall as a distinct area, and it stipulated that no constituency should cross over to Devon. As far as I remember, that was supported by my Cornwall colleagues at the time. Unfortunately, we lost that argument, and the legislation was enacted, with priority given to providing each elector with an equal say in who runs the country. Our Cornwall population is not currently such that a cross-over seat with Devon was avoidable—no matter how undesirable it was.
Last month, I upset councillors when I made a comment about Cornwall Council. Since then, rather than focus on local government matters, the council has been spending money on a Queen’s counsel and has convened a full council meeting to discuss the very subject that we are debating today—parliamentary boundaries. I will not call the council what I called it in this place last month but leave my constituents to make up their own minds on whether that is good use of resources.
I am similarly concerned about the cost of the Bill. This provision would be an unnecessary disruption to the boundary commissions’ well advanced reviews and undoubtedly mean more unnecessary costs, but the Government want to make an estimated £66 million saving. Although the hon. Member for North West Durham is no longer in her place, I ask her where she would find this money if not from legislation—would it come from further cuts to our NHS, our schools or our armed forces? I say no.
Mrs Murray
I am just coming to my conclusion.
Let us kick this expensive piece of legislation into the long grass where it belongs. Let us save some money, so that we can invest in our NHS, our schools and our armed forces, as a Conservative Government would, instead of spending money on politicians, which Labour seems to want to do.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Members of my party are in favour of equalisation in terms of constituencies, but we are resolutely opposed to the Government’s proposals for a reduction in the number of MPs, and we will therefore support the Bill.
The general arguments applying to the whole United Kingdom have already been well rehearsed today, so I shall not go through them all. I will say, however, that I agree with what has been said about increasing the power of the Executive at the expense of parliamentary scrutiny, and I agree that it is wrong for us to deal with the number of Members of the House of Commons without addressing the issue of the House of Lords. I agree that although we shall have 73 fewer Members of the European Parliament, the workload of this Parliament will increase enormously, and, given that it has more Departments, many more civil servants are apparently to be employed. What about the cost of that, and what about the cost of the extra special advisers? It has not been mentioned. Meanwhile, the number of legislators sent here by the people is to decrease.
Those general arguments apply, but I want to deal specifically with the impact of the Government’s proposals on Northern Ireland. The parties in Northern Ireland are taking steps—voluntarily, under the fresh start agreement; not under the direction of the Government here—to reduce the number of Members of the Legislative Assembly by more than 16% by the time of the next election. We are losing our three Members of the European Parliament, all of whom do a great job—although I must declare an interest, as one of them is a close relative of mine.
Reducing the number of seats in Northern Ireland from 18 to 17 may seem a small matter. However, the boundary proposals, as well as being a dog’s breakfast, have managed to achieve a consensus that used to be very rare in Northern Ireland, although, thankfully, it is now increasingly common: they have attracted cross-party, cross-community opposition. One party seems to be in favour of the proposals, but all the others are against them. If they are passed unamended, the majority of the Northern Ireland seats in the House of Commons will be represented—or rather, sadly, not represented—by abstainers and abstentionists. That is an unconscionable position.
Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the boundaries in Northern Ireland also dictate the Assembly elections. The number of Members per constituency, elected under the system of proportional representation, will be reduced from six to five. If the balance of the Assembly is at stake, through ill-considered, badly devised boundaries dictated by the necessity of reducing numbers and equalising on that basis, we face a real prospect that the stability of devolution in Northern Ireland itself could be at risk.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that not just the stability of Northern Ireland but the overall democratic principles of the way in which we all work together are at threat? Does he agree that the proposed changes are so major that it will be very hard to tweak any of them and that the best thing we can do is to try to prevent them from happening altogether?
Dr McDonnell
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the boundaries that we were offered in Northern Ireland under the original proposals are devastating? They cut across all communities and all borders. Most of our towns and cities have been carved up in a way that fractures communities and makes it very difficult for them to function and represent themselves.
Mr Dodds
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
I think that, in the light of all the arguments that have been advanced today, the Government must reconsider. These are serious matters. Major changes of this kind should result from a desire for party-political advantage. The knock-on effects of such a major constitutional change—not just for the House of Commons but for the Northern Ireland Assembly, especially when it comes to the peace process—need to be carefully weighed. I urge the Government to think again, and I wish the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) every success with her Bill.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be able to make a small contribution to this debate.
In the last Parliament, I was a member of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. As the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said, the Committee produced a report towards the end of the Parliament drawing attention to many of the issues reflected in the Bill before us today. Unfortunately, one aspect of the recommendations has not been incorporated: that a Bill or any proposals to this effect should be brought forward at the beginning of this Parliament because it is going to take time to implement them if they are to be brought into effect by the time of the next general election in 2020. The Bill of the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) comes, I fear, too late to enable those changes, many of which I support, to be implemented in time.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Which is more important to the hon. Gentleman: a time limit that has been set for us, or the fact that 2 million people are missing off the register?
Mr Chope
The hon. Gentleman should address that question to his hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham, because her Bill proposes that all these proposals must be brought forward by the four boundary commissions before October 2018, which is a very tall order. We took evidence from the boundary commissions in our inquiry and it was clear they would not be able to make major changes in the light of changes to the terms of reference unless they had a sufficient lead-in period. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) made that point earlier, and it has not been contradicted. When he challenged the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, saying, “You don’t really have it in your heart to ensure we get these changes through by the time of the next general election in 2020,” the Opposition spokesman did not seem to demur from that.
The most important thing is to establish equality of constituencies. In paragraph 31 of our report, the Committee said:
“We believe that, all other things being equal, constituency electorates should be broadly equal.”
What is the position at the moment? It was in the year 2000 that we had the basis for the current boundaries, and if this situation continues beyond 2020 we will still be using that basis. Office for National Statistics figures show that in 2010 only 254 out of 650 constituencies in the UK were within the 5% limit either side of the norm, and 187 were even outside the 10% parameters, which is what the hon. Lady proposes in her Bill. The evidence brought forward by the Boundary Commission for England is that in 2010 some 200 out of the 533 seats were within the 5% limit, but a large number were outside that. The latest figures, for 2013, are that 188 constituencies in England are more than 10% either side of the norm. That is thoroughly unreasonable and inequitable, and it needs to be rectified.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
We can see this as a mathematical exercise, but the fact of the matter is that under the terms of this boundary review a line would be cut right through the heart of Port Talbot in the centre of my constituency, smashing communities apart that have existed for many years. What we need at this time is unified political representation for our communities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that democracy is more important than mathematics? Do we really want to turn this place into an elective dictatorship?
Mr Chope
I am trying to address that point. If we are to have proper democracy rather than mathematics, we need a reasonable period within which the boundary commissions in Wales and England can look at the evidence and work out where it will be best for the boundaries to be situated. They could then consult and hold public inquiries on that basis. We have already heard, however, that if the Bill were to be put on to the statute book with a requirement for the new arrangements to be implemented no later than October 2018, it would not be possible for the boundary commissions—certainly those in England—to do the necessary spadework to ensure an equitable outcome, rather than one that would be subject to judicial review as a result of having been rushed and not taking into account the representations that had been made.
Mr Bone
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I want to get it clear in my mind what he is saying. Is he suggesting that we should equalise the seats and keep the same number of Members of Parliament, for reasons of democracy and scrutinising the Government, but that this cannot be achieved in the proposed timescale? Should we not simply allow the Bill to have its Second Reading and then amend it in Committee?
Mr Chope
I take my hon. Friend’s point. I am trying to plead with the hon. Member for North West Durham to come up with a proposal that would enable the boundary commissioners to come forward with their proposals before October 2018 and therefore enable her Bill to be implemented in time for the next general election. I am willing her to try to find a way of achieving that. From what we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, however, that could be very difficult. Some rough and ready exercises might have to be carried out, possibly involving a reduction in the time for consultations. I challenge the hon. Lady to come forward with proposals that would enable someone looking at this Bill to decide that it was practical to require the boundary commissions to have their proposals in place by October 2018. I hope that she will be able to address that point when she responds to the debate. If she cannot do so today, and if the Bill gets its Second Reading, we will obviously be able to deal with this in Committee.
In its evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in September 2014, the Boundary Commission for England said that the approach that it had taken to the previous review had been well received, but that
“if the Commission is to continue that policy for the next Review, it does mean there is very little flexibility within the timetable outlined above.”
That timetable suggested that the commission was
“working towards a formal launch for that Review around the end of February 2016”,
and that it
“anticipates submitting its final report of the next Review in September 2018.”
The commission stated clearly that
“if changes are made to the governing legislation in the interim, that may have a consequential impact on the timetable for the next Review.”
I have not heard anything from the hon. Member for North West Durham about her conversations with the Boundary Commission on its evidence to the Committee, or about whether she thinks that that evidence could be modified in the light of the needs that she has expressed on behalf not only of Opposition Members but of many Conservative Members who have concerns about this.
It is of paramount importance that, by 2020, we have new boundaries that reflect more accurately the need for equality of electorates in each constituency. At the moment, the disparities are so great and are getting greater, so we cannot wait beyond 2020. If the hon. Lady is saying with the Bill, “I agree with that point, we must do something before 2020”, it is incumbent on her to explain—if not today, in Committee—how it can be achieved and how she has been able to work with the relevant boundary commissions to bring that about. It is only if she can demonstrate the practicality of the Bill that she will ultimately be able to get the House’s support. It is a paramount requirement that we equalise the constituencies before 2020.
I gave evidence earlier this week to the Boundary Commission inquiry into constituency changes in the south-west. I was surprised by how few people came along to give evidence. There were probably half a dozen people. It was a two-day hearing. I finished giving my evidence before lunch—my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) gave evidence, too—and only one other person was due to give evidence between then and 8 o’clock in the evening. That was the first day of the inquiry; I do not know what happened on the second day.
There may well be means by which the prolonged procedure for examining these proposals can be foreshortened, but that is the kernel of the matter that the hon. Lady, in bringing forward this Bill, has to address if it is to progress and get on to the statute book.
This issue is very important. I am disappointed that the Government have not been prepared to say, “If we reduce the number of MPs to 600, we will have a pro rata reduction in the size of the Executive.” They could have done that. It would have been the right approach, but they have ducked it up to now. Perhaps the Minister will be able to assure us that there will indeed be that pro rata reduction. In a sense, that would mitigate some of the problems we have been discussing today.
I expect that the Bill will receive a Second Reading, because, unlike a lot of private Members’ legislation, it seems to have generated a lot of interest. It is great to see so many Members in the Chamber on a Friday. If the Bill does get a Second Reading, we need to look at its practicalities in Committee.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
My comments will be brief. I begin with a fundamental point: the number of people on the electoral register is central to our discussion today. Some 1.75 million people who registered just before the European referendum are not included in the calculations for the new boundaries, which is profoundly wrong. Importantly, it is not only morally wrong; it has a practical effect, too.
The House of Commons Library has stated clearly that the largest increase in the electorate was in London, where there was a 6% increase. If that figure was taken forward under the legislation providing for 600 seats, there would be an extra two constituencies in London and an extra seat in the south-west. Other parts of the UK would lose out. That is important in itself, but we must realise that it would have a knock-on effect on those regions. The parliamentary boundaries would be very different from those being suggested.
The Government, against the explicit advice of the Electoral Commission, brought forward the date for full implementation of individual electoral registration by one year from December 2016 to December 2015, and the register is only 85% complete. In other words, 1.8 million people have been deliberately excluded from the electoral register, preventing them from voting and taking them out of the calculations of the new boundaries. If that is not gerrymandering, I do not know what is. It is a quite deliberate political act by this Conservative Government. Most of those who are not on the register—those who have been excluded—are young people, many of whom live in private rented accommodation, which has a political implication that many of us know only too well.
It is important to recognise that the legislation on the statute book is politically motivated. It was dreamt up by Conservative party central office, enacted in large part by the coalition Government and refined to the detriment of the Labour party by this Administration. This Bill can be put into effect. It may need tweaking in Committee and the Boundary Commission may require extra resources to implement it, but it is entirely practicable in principle. If the Bill is passed and reaches the statute book, it would help to restore fairness and the idea that communities are central to our parliamentary democracy. That is why I support it.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I want to start by saying that I will be supporting the Bill and concur with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) about why he supports it. However, I will mainly talk about the impact that the proposed boundary changes will have on Cornwall. I want to explain why people in Cornwall, my constituents in particular, feel so strongly about this issue and have urged me to speak up today.
Many hon. Members will be aware that the restrictions in the current legislation mean that Cornwall will have to share an MP with Devon. There will have to be a seat that crosses the border between north-east Cornwall and north-west Devon.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Will my hon. Friend explain to me what part of his constituency may cross the border with Devon?
Steve Double
My constituency is clearly in central mid-Cornwall and no part of it will cross the border, but the people of Cornwall feel strongly about this whether they are directly impacted by the cross-border seat or not. The Minister will know that the matter has provoked strong feelings for many in Cornwall. I acknowledge that that reaction may seem strange and make little sense for people outside Cornwall—many simply view Cornwall as another English county—but the Cornish pride themselves on being different, un-English, and unique in many ways. It is therefore unsurprising that people who do not share that sense of pride and passion in being Cornish do not appreciate how the Cornish people feel. The truth is that this is an emotional reaction to the proposals.
I will admit that I have looked at many of the reasons for objecting to the cross-border seat in the current legislation, and there are no reasonable legal arguments to stop it going forward.
Steve Double
I will make a little progress before I take another intervention.
Cornwall’s democratic representation will not be somehow diluted by sharing an MP with part of Devon. I do not believe that an MP will be unable to represent two different counties in one constituency. Many hon. Members represent diverse constituencies with people from all sorts of ethnic and cultural backgrounds very effectively. This is about a purely emotional response from the Cornish. We have seen over the past six months that voters have become much more emotional in how they react to Government and our democracy—politics is now much more emotional.
Like many, I had hoped that the granting of minority status to the Cornish people would provide a basis for a legal challenge. There was great joy in Cornwall in 2014 when the Cornish were recognised under the Council of Europe’s framework convention for the protection of national minorities. We were told that it would give us the same recognition as other Celtic people in the UK, but it appears that this does not apply when it comes to parliamentary boundaries. Although the Boundary Commission has recognised and maintained the borders of Scotland and Wales when drawing up the constituencies, the same respect has not been shown to the Cornish border. Sadly, legal advice obtained by Cornwall Council has stated that our Cornish minority status is not something that can be used to argue against a cross-border seat, so despite all the rhetoric, it seems that the legal arguments against this boundary are very weak.
Mrs Murray
There has been a petition on this and some of my constituents wrote to me about it. I looked at the petition website and saw that 400 of my constituents—out of 72,000—had signed it. Does my hon. Friend know how many of his constituents signed it? He said he was speaking on behalf of the Cornish, but let me put on the record the fact that I am a Cornish girl and he was not speaking for me.
Steve Double
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I do not know how many people from my constituency signed the petition, but I have been out in my constituency, on the doorsteps, in the pub and at my surgeries, and what I do know is how many people have come directly to me to raise their strong feelings about this issue. That is what I have taken notice of. Leaving aside how many constituents have raised this issue with me, it is one that I, as a Cornishman, feel strongly about.
Mr Kevan Jones
Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House as to when he felt strongly about this, because surely in 2015 he stood on a manifesto that contained these proposals? At that time, it would possibly have been Liberal Democrat seats going, rather than Tory seats. Was that the thing that has changed his mind?
Steve Double
I will address that point directly at the end of my speech. As I said, despite a lot of the rhetoric on Cornwall, there are no reasonable legal arguments against these proposals within the current legislation. I have grappled with this issue for some time, asking myself the question: why do I, like so many other people in my constituency, feel so strongly about it? As I said, this is a deeply emotional response, and there are many reasons for that. The Cornish geography has shaped our attitude for centuries. We are surrounded on three sides by the sea, and on our only land border a river cuts us off for all but a few miles. In many ways, the Cornish have an island mentality. We see ourselves as detached and separate from the rest of England. History has also shaped the way we think. For centuries, there has been a sense of detachment between this place and Cornwall. Indeed, about 520 years ago thousands of Cornishmen marched on this place to protest about the imposition of a tax on the Cornish to fund a fight with the Scottish—some of us feel that we have been paying for Scotland ever since, but there was a sense of injustice.
This Government have started to do a great deal to rebuild that bridge. We have seen this Government on the side of Cornwall more than any other Government have been for many years. We have seen greater investments in our roads, with the A30 through Cornwall being dualled, and in our railways, where we are getting new rolling stock, having had the same rolling stock for 40 years. Support and investment has also been given to our airport and for tourism. We have seen this Government grant a devolution deal for Cornwall—it is the first and, so far, only rural devolution deal in the country. That is a great sign of this Government’s support for and confidence in Cornwall. Indeed, the Prime Minister recently said that the Government recognised the unique challenges that Cornwall is facing. So I am proud to be part of this Government, who, in so many ways, are supporting Cornwall, the Cornish economy and the Cornish people far more than has ever been done before. Even so, this issue has provoked a very strong reaction in so many people in my constituency.
It is no surprise that people who do not share the way we feel find it difficult to comprehend how strongly we feel. The issue somehow stabs at the very core of the way we feel about our county. We feel that it is challenging our identity. That in-built deep sense of Cornish independence is provoked by the thought of our border being crossed. Even though it is only a line on a map that represents an area that an MP will represent, it symbolises something far deeper in the Cornish psyche.
Cornwall is unique, so how can we expect others to understand? We accept that others will not understand and will not agree with us, but we cannot accept our views not being respected. Sadly, under the current legislation I see no way to draw the boundaries that does not produce a cross-border seat with Devon. No matter how forcefully we make representations to the Boundary Commission, its hands are tied by the legislation.
Alex Salmond
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, apart from that passing reference to Scotland, which we will overlook, but does he understand that, because of the nature and the criteria of the boundary commissions, nonsense such as the one that he is so ably describing will be replicated across the four nations of the United Kingdom, as well as the nation of Cornwall?
Steve Double
I recognise the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. My primary concern is with the people of my constituency, Cornwall and the impact of the proposals.
The number of representations made to the Boundary Commission on the issue is irrelevant because the commission’s hands are tied by the legislation. There is no flexibility in the legislation to allow for boundaries to be drawn wholly within Cornwall, so the only way to change that is to support the Bill and seek to change the legislation. That is the difficult conclusion that I have come to. When the Bill goes to Committee, will the hon. Lady who introduced it seriously consider putting in an amendment that would make a special case for Cornwall under the terms of the minority status that we now enjoy, to ensure that the boundaries can be honoured and kept wholly within Cornwall and the line does not have to be crossed?
I know that many of my hon. Friends will be disappointed and perhaps even angry with me, but I feel that I should support the Bill, partly because I do not believe that this is the right time to cull 50 MPs, and because it is the only way I can see to address the issue of the Cornish border and maintain Cornish MPs in Cornwall.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
I shall be brief as I know that others wish to speak. The issue has been well aired on both sides of the House, but I shall make two points in support of the Bill. My first point is on the geographical size of constituencies and how that has to be taken into account when we talk about boundaries. One need only look at the map on the briefing paper to see the size of some of the Scottish constituencies.
Drew Hendry
Does my hon. Friend agree that a constituency the size of a country such as Cyprus is unworkable for an MP?
Steven Paterson
Indeed. It takes an hour and a half to drive across my constituency. That is manageable for me as a constituency MP, but in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), if the southern end of his constituency were where I am standing now, the northern end would be beyond Nottingham. We have to be realistic. It is not the BBC weather map but an actual map that we need to look at if we are to understand how big some constituencies are. If they are to have proper representation, it is essential that their geographical size is taken into account. We should also bear in mind the distance of some constituencies from the seat of power here in London.
If we are to do a proper job of representing our constituents, as we are determined to do, we have to consider the size of the constituencies, as well as their population. That is why I welcome the figure of 10% as an indication of the quota. That is a reasonable suggestion that we can look at in detail, but flexibility must be built in to make it work.
The second point has been covered to some extent—I am referring to the circus that is the House of Lords. It is obscene that we continue to see that revising Chamber stuffed with yet more unelected lords and ladies with no mandate and not answerable to the people of this country. At the same time, we are entertaining a conversation about reducing the size of this elected Chamber. We really need to have a look at this. David Cameron, the former Prime Minister, put 261 new lords and ladies in the circus down the corridor, and we are exercising ourselves about reducing our numbers by 50, with all the complications and all the unpleasant and unnecessary things that that entails for democracy.
Patrick Grady
My hon. Friend talks about the complications that will arise from changing boundaries. The changes are supposed to be about saving the taxpayer money, but one effect will be that, irrespective of who the Members of Parliament are, a lot of constituency offices will have to move. In Glasgow, several offices, which are currently in different constituencies, will be brought within the boundaries of one or two constituencies, so there will be a massive logistical cost to implementing all of this.
Steven Paterson
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are all kinds of unforeseen, untold costs that will come with these changes; they will not save the money their proponents say they will. Therefore, we should be looking at bloated undemocratic institutions such as the House of Lords along the corridor and we should start sorting that out. If we do not want to abolish the Lords all in one step—although I would—we can certainly look at time limits and limits on the numbers. We should certainly look at putting it in statute that the Lords is proportional to the size of this Chamber. We should reduce the size of that unelected Chamber along the corridor so that we never get back to the position we are in now.
I support the Bill, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to express my views.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) in this important debate. I too would like to congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) on introducing the Bill. Having brought forward my own private Member’s Bill as a new Member last year, I understand the work that goes on behind the scenes to get something ready even to bring to the Chamber at this stage.
It was interesting to listen to some excellent contributions from right hon., hon. and, indeed, very learned Members, who often enlightened us—certainly me—on constitutional history.
I am rather saddened for democracy’s sake that the Bill would shelve the sixth periodic review that is now entrusted with the Boundary Commission. The current review aims to redress the widening democratic deficit now evident in this place. The Boundary Commission is an independent body, acting on a remit agreed by the previous Parliament to create constituencies with comparable electorates within a 5% tolerance of 74,769 electors per constituency.
Now to my little bit of history. One hundred years ago, the report of the Speaker’s Conference of 1917 stated that
“each vote shall, as far as possible, command an equal share of representation in the House of Commons”.
That is a really important point for us to remember in this place. Obviously, there have been many changes to the franchise throughout the last century, and the tenet of equality of representation has, I fear, been lost.
Electoral register figures from December 2015 show there were 58,359 electors in my constituency. The largest constituency electorate is the Isle of Wight, with over 100,000 electors, and the smallest is the unprotected constituency of Arfon, I believe, with an electorate of under 40,000. There is clearly a need for the current review to continue without change to its terms of reference. It should surely be the aim of all democratically minded people to work towards equality in representation, rather than to widen the disparity, as this Bill would.
The Bill could introduce a potential disparity. Reading the clauses, it seems to me that allowing for plus or minus 10% on either side could add up to 20% in some cases. If we take the stated ideal of 74,769, that would lead, based on figures from 2015 registers, to potential high and low electorates ranging from 67,293 to 82,245.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Does the hon. Lady believe that for the sake of satisfying an equation it is worth while creating constituencies the size of Cyprus or devastating the boundaries in Northern Ireland?
Wendy Morton
My constituency is a good example of the democratic deficit that the Boundary Commission review is seeking to address.
Mr Harper
I refute the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that this about an equation. It is not a fiction about maths; it is about making sure that our constituents’ votes are of equal weight in electing us to this Parliament. That is a fundamental democratic principle that the Chartists believed in and we should try to deliver, and my hon. Friend is setting it out very well.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is absolutely right.
In the 2017 registration figures, the disparity will be even greater. The proposals in this Bill are regressive, not reforming. In the eyes of the hon. Member for North West Durham, all electors are equal, but a growing number will be more equal than others.
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend is making an eloquent argument. Rather than changing all the rules halfway through this process—or almost towards the end of it—and trying to get this done again from scratch, would not hon. Members be better off encouraging their constituents to engage with the process? In the time between the initial proposals in the 2013 review to the concluding proposals, 60% of all the recommendations were changed. It is therefore perfectly easy, within the parameters of the 2011 Act, to come up with constituencies that reflect local communities and demographics in every area across the UK.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that, because I was about to talk about my constituency and pick up on some of those points.
Aldridge-Brownhills forms part of the borough of Walsall, along with Walsall North and Walsall South. As I said, its electorate currently stands at about 60,000, which is 7,000 fewer than that of either of my Walsall neighbours. I do not feel this is right, and I accept that changes need to be made to bring my constituency more in line with others across the country. The position is similar in constituencies in Birmingham. Edgbaston, with just under 63,000 electors, borders Hall Green, which has 74,000 electors—a disparity of about 11,000. The situation is repeated in relation to Hall Green and Hodge Hill, and there are other examples across the country. I therefore question what valid democratic reason there is for this Bill to perpetuate these disparities.
Wendy Morton
I am going to make some progress because there are still Members who want to speak.
Along with colleagues on the Conservative Benches, I was elected on a manifesto pledge to reduce the number of Members of Parliament, and the Government have a clear mandate from the people to do this.
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I still maintain that I was elected on a manifesto pledge to reduce the number of MPs. I recall the same point being made when I was knocking on doors in the 2010 election.
The hon. Member for North West Durham spoke of emails of support from members of the public, but I would question what consultation has been done in preparing to bring the Bill before the House. Perhaps that will be clarified at a later stage.
The House of Commons is the largest lower Chamber of any western democracy. The American House of Representatives, with 435 members, serves a population of 318 million. In Japan, the House of Representatives has 475 members representing 127 million people. It has long been argued that a small legislature is better at holding the Executive to account and at scrutinising legislation. That is why I am happy to support the Conservative manifesto pledge to reduce the number of elected Members. Much has been said this morning about the other place, but I think that we need to take the lead and put our own House in order before we seek to reform elsewhere.
As I have said, I accept that my own constituency of Aldridge-Brownhills must change. I and others in the constituency welcome the boundary commissioners’ decision to keep it intact and to expand it so that Bloxwich East and West are encompassed by the Walsall borough. Streetly is integral to that, and the boundary proposals will bring together the communities of Pelsall and Brownhills, which were previously separated by local government reorganisations.
This House should accept that a boundary review is under way and that the public are being consulted for the second time in five years. It would be wrong to ignore their views. To halt the process again would be unforgiveable. If the Bill is passed, the public could be forgiven for thinking that Members of Parliament were putting their own self-interest before democratic equality and democratic accountability.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Under the terms of the boundary review, Port Talbot, the town at the heart of my Aberavon constituency, would be cut in two, quite literally down the high street, and the steelworks would be cut off from the housing estate that was built for its workers. The clear and unified voice of Port Talbot and its people is being threatened by a Government who are determined to smash it apart.
Port Talbot and Aberavon have had a difficult 50 years, given the challenges faced by the steel industry, but we are starting to see the benefits of investment in our area. If we are to build on that and overcome the current uncertainty about the future of our steel economy, we must work to remain as one community and retain our unified political representation. That is why the Boundary Commission’s proposal is completely unacceptable. As much as iron needs oxygen to be transformed into steel, so our area needs unity if we are to build a future of security and opportunity.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Does my hon. Friend think that it is fair that some votes will not be counted because the Government have excluded nearly 2 million people from the register that was used in the referendum?
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is a barefaced gerrymander on so many levels, one of which is the missing 2 million registered electors.
By running a dividing line through the heart of Port Talbot, the Boundary Commission’s proposal threatens to shatter the unified political representation that our communities so desperately need. Instead of pressing forward with this act of constitutional vandalism that will disfranchise and fracture communities, strip this House of its independent voice and compromise our ability to serve our constituents, let us stand up for the power of Parliament, fight for our communities and support this Bill.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
It has been interesting to listen to the views of colleagues from across the House about the Boundary Commission’s review. I am in favour of what I campaigned for in 2015 and am happy with things as they stand. Although I do not fully agree with the commission’s proposals for my constituency, I think that it is sensible to equalise the constituencies around me.
The difference in the number of electors in my neighbouring constituency of Gillingham and Rainham is 7,000. It is absolutely right that two major constituencies representing what is now quite an urban area should be equalised. I therefore completely support what the Boundary Commission is trying to do.
Much has been said about community ties, and ensuring that they are preserved and that our constituents still understand who is representing them and why certain areas are joined together. I am really lucky: I am absolutely rooted in my constituency, I have lived there forever, and so has my family, and I know the place very well. However, at a very local level—although this is a little contrary to the Bill that the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) is promoting—the Labour party has proposed something that seemed to involve chucking three constituencies in the air and waiting to see how they landed. Labour has focused on breaking up places with established ties and even changing names, losing names such as Rochester, which is of significant historical interest and was once a city, and yet neither Rochester nor Chatham would feature in the proposed constituency names. I represent a part of the country where people are fiercely proud of the towns they come from, and I am lucky to represent three of the five Medway towns. It is important to keep the names so that everyone can clearly identify where they come from.
The other point I want to make is about geography. At the moment I represent a constituency that I can get to easily and I know it well, but the Labour party has also made proposals to change the constituency so that the MP would have to represent a part of Kent that has no relationship with the Medway towns—in fact, those constituents would not believe that they were part of the Medway towns.
I have immense respect for the hon. Lady, who has introduced the Bill to be helpful, but at a regional level, for seats such as mine, it will not help the situation. Sadly, therefore, I find that I will not be able to support her in her endeavour to introduce the Bill. I have been interested to hear some of the deeper debate about constitutional issues and, listening to the history, about how we got here. However, I still very much stand for what I campaigned for in 2015. I hope that the Boundary Commission proposals and this House continue to move forward in the endeavour to reduce the number of Members of Parliament to ensure that our representation is tight and works hard, with constituencies in line with each other.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Disability Equality Training (Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Drivers) Bill
Friday 18th November 2016
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Disability Equality Training (Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Drivers) Bill 2016-17 View all Disability Equality Training (Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Drivers) Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I rise to delay the hon. Gentleman for a few seconds in order that the rowdy Members celebrating a victory can leave with discretion and politeness to their colleague.
Andrew Gwynne
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want to place on the record my thanks to Guide Dogs UK for its assistance to me in putting this Bill together and those Members across the House who have indicated their support for its measures.
As a Member with, like all Members, disabled constituents specifically affected by discrimination from a minority of taxi hire vehicles, it gives me immense pride to present to the House a Bill designed to settle this issue and ensure all our constituents receive the service the law demands. For too long, this issue has flown under the radar and continues to specifically discriminate against the visually impaired, those with mobility and physical impairments and the more vulnerable in our society.
A minority of taxi and private hire vehicle licence holders frequently discriminate against assistance dog owners and other disabled people by refusing to pick them up. As I am sure Members present are aware, disabled people, including those with assistance dogs, are legally protected under section 29 of the Equality Act 2010. It is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of a protected characteristic or victimise someone when providing a service. This applies to taxis and private hire vehicles as much as any other service. Added to this, numerous disability groups, including Disability Rights UK and Muscular Dystrophy UK, report that their members are being charged higher rates, at times double the standard fare, to accommodate their wheelchairs. This is unethical and cruel.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
I interrupt the hon. Gentleman simply because we are short of time and a number of Members may want to contribute and I want to get this on the record. He has done a service to the House in introducing this Bill; there is no doubt about that. He is right about the legality, and he is also right about the ethics, and I want to assure him that I share his view. We should do more and we will do more.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance from the Government Front Bench and I am sure the people we all represent will be comforted to hear that, because it is perfectly right that disabled people want to live independent lives and do not want to be a nuisance to anyone, but often constant refusals and abuse are leaving many of them with little hope.
Catherine, a guide dog owner from Birmingham, reported:
“It makes me think if it’s worth getting a taxi at all. I rather struggle to go somewhere because I don’t want grief about my guide dog.”
Although these provisions are in place, it is undeniable that disabled people continue to suffer from severe restrictions in the use of taxis and private hire vehicles. The Law Commission confirmed this in its 2013 review of taxis and private hire vehicles. The reality, however, is worse: in-depth research from Guide Dogs UK shows that three in four assistance dog owners reported that they have been refused entry to private hire vehicles and taxis because of their guide dogs.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
I previously contacted my local authority on this matter to establish whether it was aware of the issues the hon. Gentleman will be highlighting here today. It advised that, owing to my letter, it had contacted Guide Dogs UK for further information so it could incorporate that into its training for drivers. Will he join me in calling for other Members to do likewise and encourage the voluntary uptake of training measures from the relevant bodies?
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely, and I commend the hon. Lady for the work that she has done on this in her own constituency. I encourage other Members to do precisely the same in theirs.
We need this law change in England and Wales—the situation is different in Scotland—to introduce training, so that every taxi licence holder is aware of their legal obligations under the Equalities Act 2010. There can be no excuse for refusing someone with disabilities access to a taxi. That is the law, and if taxi drivers currently do not know that it is the law, that is a training issue. That is why I think that my Bill has very many merits.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for each and every one of us in the House to raise this issue with our local authority and through columns in our local newspapers, to ensure that no one can use ignorance as a defence for refusing services to blind and disabled people?
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for sponsoring my Bill; his support is greatly appreciated. He is absolutely right to suggest that there is a lot more on the enforcement side that local authorities could and should be doing. At the moment, taxi licence holders who are brought before the licensing panel can plead ignorance and say that they did not appreciate that this was the law. However, if they have to have training as part of their licence requirements in the first place, or as part of their renewal requirements, they will no longer have that excuse.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, welcome though it is that local authorities are taking more seriously their responsibilities for training and enforcement, the only way to guarantee that people get the respect they deserve and that taxi drivers abide by the law is to put this requirement on to a statutory footing?
Andrew Gwynne
I absolutely agree. Best practice is in place in many areas across the country, but unless there is a statutory requirement for training as part of the licensing regime, we will never be able to weed out any bad practice that still exists.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing his private Member’s Bill and leading the debate today. He mentioned that the law would apply in England and Wales. We already have guidance on this in Wales, and Guide Dogs Campaigns is working with the Welsh Government on it. Will he work with the Welsh Government to ensure that a similar Bill can be enacted in Wales?
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely. I discovered as a result of the discussions I had when preparing my Bill that not all the relevant functions have yet been devolved to Ministers in the Welsh Government and that some of the duties therefore still rest with the Secretary of State for Transport here in Whitehall. That is why some of the provisions in the Bill relate to Wales. But my hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to get these provisions in place across the whole United Kingdom. There are parts of the UK that have advanced further down this track than England and Wales have done, and my Bill is trying to put that right.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
What response has my hon. Friend had from taxi drivers’ associations?
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention them.
Returning to the measures in the Bill, the Local Government Association is fully on board with my proposals, but we must ensure that local councils have the necessary tools at their disposal, so that they can properly administer the training scheme and ensure that the measures are being adhered to. Out of 297 visually impaired respondents to a Guide Dogs survey, 68% reported that they had not informed the authorities when an individual had refused them service. The most common reason they gave was that they did not believe anything would come of it. A freedom of information request and parliamentary questions that I have asked have made it clear that, since the practice of refusal became illegal in 2010, there were no convictions in 2011, there was one in 2012, one in 2013 and one in 2014. Yet we know that 42% of assistance dog users in any one year are refused a taxi service. There is a big problem here, and ignorance of the law is no justification. That is why training is absolutely crucial.
Let me be clear: those taxi and minicab drivers who are refusing to serve visually impaired and wheelchair passengers are breaking the law. The only exception for refusing someone with an assistance dog is on medical grounds, and for that they have to have a certified medical certificate permanently on display in the taxi. They cannot just turn up at a kerbside and decide that they will not take a dog because of some spurious allergy that they have just decided they have.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I had not intended to speak on the Bill given the time, but I heard the Minister and I want to give my hon. Friend’s Bill good wind. Does he agree that training, which is covered by his Bill, is absolutely essential? Even when people want to assist and they know what their duties are under the law, they can still fall foul of it. For instance, there was a report of a dog that had to travel in the sealed boot of a car. That cannot be right; training is necessary.
Andrew Gwynne
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely why training is necessary. My Bill would put that right on a national setting, rather than basing it on the good will of local authorities in different parts of the country. That is why the Local Government Association and other organisations are calling for precisely this law.
I want to end with a quote from Keri Doyle.
Mr Hayes
Before the hon. Gentleman ends, may I say something that might surprise him and the House? I hope that it is a welcome surprise. I do not rule out mandatory training as part of some future package. We need to put a package of measures together to support disabled people’s access to these vehicles. He is absolutely right to highlight the state of the application of existing law. Clearly, more needs to be done. I assure him that the debate matters to me and my Department. As I said earlier, it will be done.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the Minister. My only concern is that we have been waiting for the Government’s response to the Law Commission for some time. Notwithstanding the desire of officials and Ministers in the Department for Transport to want to do something, Government legislation and programming time is a matter for others in government. There are some incredibly pressing measures coming before this House in due course, not least on how we renegotiate our terms and conditions and our relationships with our European colleagues as we leave the European Union.
Notwithstanding the Minister’s desire to do something, I am certain that there may not be appropriate time in the near future to change the law. Disabled people need the law to change today. I say to the Minister: let us get the Bill through to the next stages, so that we can discuss how we make that help happen. Disabled people need it today. This matter cannot be something that sits in the long grass of good intentions for the future.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Having attended the event earlier this week with Guide Dogs in Parliament, does my hon. Friend share my surprise at learning that two thirds of guide dog owners have experienced problems taking their guide dogs somewhere, whether in a taxi or into a shop?
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The best thing about being promoted to the shadow Cabinet—I thank the Whips for allowing me to speak from the Back Benches on this one occasion—is that I will not for the foreseeable future have to enter the private Members’ Bills ballot. Some Members come to this House and put in every year and never get drawn. I have been here for 11 years and this is my third. When an MP gets drawn in the ballot, they get inundated with every good cause and by every charity under the sun, urging them to take on their case. I was already receptive to Guide Dogs UK and had already promised to do this piece of legislation for them if I was drawn. However, it was not until the Bill’s First Reading that I appreciated just how widespread the issue is. I was inundated with correspondence from guide dog and assistance dog owners who have been refused access. It is only when we listen to their stories that we realise just how widespread the problem is.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
I have had some dealings with visually impaired people—friends and constituents—and can only reiterate everything that my hon. Friend has said. They tell me that taxis are essential to disabled people’s independence because many are unable to drive or use public transport. The emotional impact of facing discrimination and confrontation when trying to carry out everyday activities takes a significant toll on disabled people, leading to a loss of confidence and independence anyway.
Andrew Gwynne
I absolutely agree. That is precisely why I am so pleased that Members stayed on after the previous private Member’s Bill to support this one. It is a worthy cause.
I want to give the last word to my constituent Keri Doyle, who lives in Reddish. She told me:
“I’ve been refused access to taxis because of my guide dog. It’s not my choice to have sight loss and my guide dog is essential for me being able to get around. It’s inconvenient, I’ve been late for appointments and it makes me angry that it’s still happening.”
Out there today, a minority of people in our society are looking to this place to support their rights and enforce the law. It is time to make them proud.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). He is a doughty campaigner in this place, and I wish him all the best in his new role on the shadow Front Bench.
I pay tribute to Guide Dogs UK for its remarkable and fantastic campaign work on behalf of people affected by sight loss and other serious issues. There is much worthy sentiment behind today’s Bill.
I was horrified by the stories recounted by the hon. Gentleman—individual testimonies from people who have been treated appallingly. I was concerned when I read the “Access All Areas” survey results and found it striking that 42% of assistance dog owners have been turned away and that 38% have been asked to pay extra for their dogs to be carried in taxis. That is completely unacceptable, but the law is clear. The Equality Act 2010 states that people must not charge extra to carry a wheelchair and that it is a criminal offence to refuse to carry an assistance dog or to charge for doing so. My experience of taxi drivers has always been positive, and taxi drivers in Corby and east Northamptonshire will be troubled by what we have heard today. They are proud of their work and proud to provide an excellent service, so they will share our horror at some of the stories and at how individuals have been treated.
It is right that fines are levied when the law has been breached. I understand that the standard fine is £1,000, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the level of the fine is kept under constant review to ensure that as time moves it continues to be appropriate on and meets the scale of what happened in any particular circumstance.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware of North West Leicestershire District Council’s approach, whereby it is a condition of a driver’s licence that all drivers undergo disability awareness training during the first year of their licence and a failure to do so results in the renewal of their badge being refused? Does he agree that that might be one thing we could consider introducing?
Tom Pursglove
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, as I was not aware of that example. I want to return later in my remarks to trying to spread best practice, wherever it is found, to ensure that we see improvements throughout the country. Where we see good examples of this work being done, we should not be afraid to embrace and promote them. They ought to be rolled out across the country to other local authorities.
Mr Hayes
My hon. Friend is right about that, as was the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). On the practical application of my good intentions—I am pleased at least that the hon. Gentleman thinks they are good—I therefore want to be clear that we need an accessibility action plan, to take account of what he said today and other measures such as those my hon. Friend and other Members have raised. We need to do this quickly. We need to consult quickly, as these consultations must not go on forever, and we then need to act quickly. We will do all those things.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the Minister, who, once again, has been clear about the direction of travel he wants on this issue. This is a short Bill. I have studied it in detail, and it has raised a few questions in my mind. I am sure that if it were to go into Committee or be part of any consultation process the Government were looking to undertake, these particular questions would be addressed.
Lyn Brown
May I say something gently to the hon. Gentleman? Is he aware that if he sits down quickly and the Minister then gets up and does the same, we can get this Bill through today? We now have nine minutes left and I just want to bring that to the House’s attention. If we support the Bill, our contributions need to be short.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. I am very conscious of what she says, but it is important that when we have votes in this House we have had proper scrutiny of the measures put before us, and I wish to draw out some important points before sitting down.
I note what has been said about consultation, and it is important that that is done correctly. I would be interested to know what consultation there has been, not only with local authorities but with taxi operators and the professional bodies that represent them. I would also be keen to understand a little more about who would be expected to deliver this training. Does sufficient capacity already exist?
Tom Pursglove
I am conscious of wanting to get through this, but I will give way.
Barbara Keeley
The hon. Gentleman talks about consulting, but has he consulted disabled people in his constituency? That is what all the Labour Members here are concerned about. Time is short, but we have a chance to get this Bill through. There is time for all the scrutiny measures that he is talking about later, so will he bear in mind the time and let the Minister speak?
Tom Pursglove
I am very grateful for the intervention and I am going to wrap up my remarks, but I have a final few points that I want to ask about.
I appreciate what the Minister said about best practice, so I am content with that. I am interested to know how the Bill’s provisions would apply to other providers, such as Uber. That is an important point. Black taxis would fall within the scope of the Bill, as drafted, but how does the Bill apply to Uber?
When the Minister responds, I would be keen for him to say a little about the Department’s thinking on taking the Bill’s provisions forward in any particular guise. It raises incredibly important issues. I am very impressed by the tenacity of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish in introducing it, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, because wherever discrimination occurs it must be stamped out—it is completely unacceptable. The law is very clear about this discrimination, and anything we can do to help spread best practice to try to improve awareness and enforcement can only be a good thing.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) on his success in securing this private Member’s Bill. I will not dwell on the two Bills that I took through this place in the previous Parliament. I strongly agree with the noble intentions behind this Bill, but I have a few genuine queries about it that I hope the Minister and the hon. Gentleman will pay attention to. The hon. Gentleman and I have not agreed across the Chamber in the past, and we have been opponents in an animal competition in which our cats had a little spat a while back.
I note that in the Bill a lot of emphasis is placed on the fact that not all local authorities have been able to impose inspections. I have a few suggestions for the Minister about how he might work with local authorities and the measures that he might introduce. I mentioned the policy of North West Leicestershire District Council. Its website explains:
“Taxis are an invaluable means of door to door transport. For many people, including the elderly and disabled people, taxis are literally a lifeline to the community.”
In my own constituency that is very true. We have so many villages where many elderly and disabled people rely on taxis to go to the doctor’s, the shops or even the post office. Taxis are the only means of transport and the most flexible mode of transport available. Sometimes in some of my villages people have a doctor’s appointment at, say, 11 am and there is only bus a day that leaves at 8.30 am, so they need a taxi to transport them instead. The attitude of drivers and their understanding of disabled people is vital.
The local authority that I mentioned says that it is likely that mystery shoppers will be employed to monitor industry performance. That is a good way of checking to make sure—
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
With reference to monitoring, will my hon. Friend take into account the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) about Uber? There must be some degree of equalisation between licensed taxi drivers and others who are not.
Mrs Murray
Indeed. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove). Employing mystery shoppers would be one way of ensuring that checks are carried out. Suspending the licences of drivers who have not undergone the mandatory training, as North West Leicestershire District Council has, is a good idea.
Mr Hayes
Given the time, I will have to say this now as I have no other means of doing so: whatever happens today, this cause will not die. I will make sure that it does not die. I invite the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) to come and see me next week to take it further. This discrimination cannot be allowed to continue. I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), but that is the only way I can make that point.
Mrs Murray
It was a pleasure to receive that assurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister. I am grateful to him for giving the House that reassurance. [Hon. Members: “Disgraceful.”] From my own personal knowledge, he is extremely concerned to make sure that people are treated equally. I hope the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, who introduced the Bill, listened carefully to that reassurance. [Hon. Members: “ Shameful.”] I strongly agree with, and have no doubt about, the intentions behind the Bill, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing it forward.
I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate—
Business without Debate
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November.
Unsolicited Marketing Communications (Company Directors) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 3 February 2017.
Registration of Marriage Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November.
Stalking (Sentencing) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Fireworks: Licensing of Premises
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Just over two years ago, an explosion and fire at a business—SP Plastics—in Stafford resulted in the tragic deaths of two people, injuries to others, the destruction of buildings and the loss of businesses. I would like to offer my heartfelt sympathy to all those who suffered as a result. I would also like to thank Staffordshire fire and rescue service, the national health service and Staffordshire police, as well as local volunteer groups that assisted them. The investigations into this tragedy have not yet concluded, so I will not comment on the causes. However, there is no doubt that the scale and nature of the fire was due to the presence of large quantities of fireworks on the premises.
I am most grateful to Stephanie Horton of River Canal Rescue for much of the information that follows. Her business premises were destroyed, and she and her 30 staff had to rebuild from scratch, all the time providing a vital service to river and canal users across the country. I pay tribute to her and her staff, and to the other business owners and staff who had to cope with the consequences of the fire.
My purpose today is to ask the Minister to look at improving the way in which the storage and sale of fireworks are regulated. I will also make some points about the way in which businesses that have suffered catastrophic events such as this are supported by public bodies.
It may help if I summarise the current regulations for the licensing of premises for the storage of fireworks. Someone who wishes to run wholesale or retail premises that store or sell fireworks, up to a total of 2 tonnes, must be licensed with the fire service, if they are based in some of the metropolitan areas, or with the trading standards department of the local council, if they are based elsewhere. Someone who intends to store or sell more than 2 tonnes, or the most powerful category 4 fireworks, which are designed for professional displays and large open spaces, will need a licence from the Health and Safety Executive.
In principle, the regulations seem reasonable. However, they depend on the training of the inspectors from trading standards or the fire and rescue services, and on proper disclosure from the owner of the business.
My first request of the Minister is that when the conclusive report into this tragic fire is released, she will consider whether the regulations are sufficient. There is a great deal of difference between a shop storing perhaps a few category 2 fireworks and a warehouse containing up to 2 tonnes of category 2 or 3 fireworks, yet the same application procedure applies to both. Should there be an intermediate category covering substantial sellers who fall below the threshold for licensing by the Health and Safety Executive, and should such larger traders perhaps be licensed by the fire service rather than the local council? After all, the storage of large quantities of fireworks—to me, 2 tonnes is a large quantity—is a fire risk. In the case of small retailers, risks are more likely to concern consumer safety and the age of those purchasing fireworks—work for which trading standards is eminently suited.
My second suggestion arises from the experience of those at River Canal Rescue, who found themselves without sufficient insurance cover because they were unaware of what was stored in the nearby warehouse. This suggestion, which could be implemented immediately, is that all applications for licences require that the trader be properly insured for the storage and sale of fireworks, and that this should include insurance cover liability to third parties. Nowhere have I seen this on application forms. If someone wishes to obtain a licence for a motor vehicle, they have to show that it is properly insured in respect of third parties. Fireworks are potentially as dangerous as motor vehicles, so it makes sense for the same rule to apply. It should also be a requirement that the insurance policy be displayed and that neighbouring businesses be informed of the fact that fireworks are stored so that they can, in turn, let their insurers know in case it is of significance.
Ms Horton of River Canal Rescue makes another reasonable suggestion, which is that those who are responsible for licensing—trading standards or the fire service—should conduct unannounced checks on premises, and that they should receive more specific training in fireworks where they do not have it. No system is perfect, but we must learn the lessons from whatever failures are shown to have occurred that resulted in the fire in Stafford. I believe that the proposal to make production of a valid insurance policy a precondition of receiving a licence is simple and capable of swift implementation.
I turn now to the aftermath of the fire and, in particular, the consequences for the businesses that were so badly affected. Ms Horton says:
“There was no support, help of concessions given to us by government bodies. We had to rebuild from scratch. We lost everything, including all of our accounts. It took nearly 6 months to reinstate these alone. Penalties, letters and a general disregard for our situation from HMRC gave us extra stress in a very stressful situation, especially when you take into account that there were 30 employees whose jobs relied on us to keep the plates spinning.”
Despite this, the company has been named medium employer of the year at the north-west national apprenticeship awards. That is an outstanding achievement given the circumstances. I suggest that there is more that Government and local government, can do, in co-operation with the business community, to ensure that businesses are fully supported after a calamity such as a fire that has affected them through no fault of their own. The local council—which, after all, collects business rates—could offer an officer, perhaps in co-operation with the chamber of commerce, who would liaise with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, banks and others to assist the business through that difficult time. In that way, jobs will be saved.
I have three suggestions to put to the Government: first, a licence system that is more appropriate to the level of risk involved; secondly, a requirement that proper insurance held by the applicant be a requirement of obtaining a licence; and thirdly, a straightforward system of support for businesses affected by fires, floods or other major disruptions. All this could, I believe, be put in place with little or no cost. At the same time, it should reduce the risk of such tragedies as happened in Stafford occurring and, even if they did, assist with recovery from them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
First, I extend my heartfelt sympathy to the families of Simon Hillier and Stewart Staples, whose lives were taken in the terrible incident at SP Plastics in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on 30 October 2014. He will acknowledge that, as there is an ongoing police-led investigation, I will not be able to comment further on it in my response today. However, Health and Safety Executive officials would welcome the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend once the coroner’s inquest has concluded. That would provide an opportunity to consider the findings in full and whether any further work is needed to help reduce the risk of similar incidents happening again.
The prevention of accidents with the potential to cause extensive harm to workers, members of the public and the environment remains a key Government priority. In the past 10 years, there have tragically been three significant incidents involving firework-licensed sites where people have died. Although that is a relatively low number, the consequences can clearly be catastrophic and, as in the case of the incident in my hon. Friend’s constituency, devastating to the families involved. There is, therefore, no room for complacency.
I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to making sure that the health and safety requirements in this area are robust, to enable businesses to effectively control their risks. Businesses in Great Britain must have a licence to manufacture or store quantities or types of fireworks that are considered to be of higher hazard. That is in line with their potential for harm. As my hon. Friend has said, in Great Britain the responsibility for issuing licences to business that wish to store fireworks or, indeed, other explosives is split between the local licensing authorities, which can issue storage licences for 2 tonnes or less, and HSE, which issues storage licences for more than 2 tonnes as well as licences to manufacture.
I shall talk first about the role of local licensing authorities. If any business wishes to store 2 tonnes or less of fireworks, or of other explosives, it must apply for a licence from the appropriate local licensing authority. The authorities require applicants to be “fit people”, and for them to supply accurate details of the types of activities being carried out; the types of fireworks or other explosives being manufactured or stored; and plans of the site. That helps to ensure that the authorities have a clear picture of what businesses are requesting the licences for and whether there are any issues that need further consideration.
Local authorities can grant licences only where predetermined legal separation distances between explosives and people are met, making sure that potentially higher-hazard licensing requests are referred to the explosive specialists at HSE. The licensing authority can revoke a licence if there is a change in circumstances that means that the person holding the licence is no longer considered fit, or if the site is no longer suitable. In addition, to acquire, or acquire and keep, certain types of explosives, the licence holder must have an explosives certificate from the police.
My hon. Friend has asked whether it would be more appropriate for the fire service to issue licences for larger traders. Licences to store smaller quantities of fireworks are issued by local licensing authorities, which include local council trading standards, fire authorities and the police. Local authorities are best placed to make decisions about licensing, as they understand, and are able to reflect, local concerns and requirements. HSE offers guidance to local authorities to support them in their assessments, and works closely with partner licensing authorities to ensure that the licensing framework is applied appropriately.
In Great Britain, if any business wishes to manufacture explosives or to store more than 2 tonnes of fireworks or other explosives, it must apply for a licence from HSE, which requires details of the types of activities being carried out; the fireworks or explosives being manufactured or stored; plans of the site; and the proposed distances between the fireworks or other explosives and people. HSE’s explosives inspectorate considers the suitability of the applicant and of the site and whether the application can be progressed. HSE-issued licences must have the agreement of local authorities. That enables local communities to highlight local factors and make sure that specific information regarding location and proximities is considered.
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about whether the levels of scrutiny are appropriate for the risks, and queries whether the 2-tonne threshold for HSE-issued licensing is correct. I am reminded, given the time of year, that the amount of explosive to be used in the gunpowder plot was 2.5 tonnes.
The thresholds for licensing come from a long-standing historical approach first introduced under the Explosives Act 1875. The thresholds were reviewed in 2002 and were considered still to be valid. I have extended to my hon. Friend the offer to meet the Health and Safety Executive to discuss such concerns, and I encourage him to do so. That will provide him with the opportunity to raise the issue of the 2-tonne threshold directly with the HSE.
My hon. Friend expressed concerns that business insurance policies for companies storing or manufacturing fireworks are not sufficient. Specifically, he suggested a requirement to protect third-party businesses from damages caused by any firework-related incident. Over the years, Parliament has legislated to require compulsory insurance for specific categories of risk, such as liabilities incurred by those using a motor vehicle on a road or in a public space. Businesses that employ staff are legally required to have employer liability compulsory insurance to provide redress for employees against bodily injury, illness or disease sustained in the course of employment. In addition to those requirements, businesses such as a firework display operator must have valid liability insurance.
The explosives and fireworks licensing framework focuses on the health, safety and security of the licensed premises and the impact on the surrounding community. Consequently, that health and safety legislation does not extend to cover business insurance requirements for licensed premises. However, I have already made the commitment that HSE officials would welcome the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend once the coroner’s inquest into the SP Fireworks incident has concluded to consider the findings in full.
My hon. Friend suggested that we should introduce a requirement for licensed businesses to inform neighbouring businesses of, and display, the fact that fireworks are stored on their premises. The HSE licence approval process requires businesses to notify local communities that they are applying for a licence. Applicants must publish a notice in a local paper stating: they are applying for a licence; they are inviting any representations on the application; and how the application may be inspected. Applicants should also write to or leaflet those affected. That helps to inform neighbouring businesses, communities and residential properties.
I note carefully the specific impacts that my hon. Friend described on companies in his constituency, including River Canal Rescue. He made some cogent arguments about what can go wrong when there is a lack of adequate information or separation from other businesses. I congratulate River Canal Rescue on its success in continuing to employ apprentices, which is such an important part of ensuring that our young people can go on to fulfilling careers. However, I have noted carefully what he said about the difficulties it has faced, which indeed many companies can face in emergency situations.
The Government strategy for regulators is set out in the regulators’ code, which requires regulators to ensure that they take proportionate approaches to regulation in line with the level of risk. The principles of the regulators’ code are applied by HSE’s explosives licensing team, with sites undergoing targeted interventions, including inspection. HSE has an effective enforcement policy statement and has developed an enforcement management model that aligns to the Government’s better regulation principles. Similarly, local licensing authorities also adopt a risk-based approach to targeting health and safety interventions. This principle-based framework is set out in the published local authority national code.
My hon. Friend has suggested that bodies responsible for licensing should conduct unannounced checks on premises and receive specific training in fireworks. As I have mentioned, the HSE works closely with local authorities and the industry to ensure that the licensing framework is applied appropriately. Licensing authorities use a number of intervention approaches to regulate and influence businesses, including the provision of advice and guidance, and both proactive and reactive inspection.
The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring suitable licensing requirements for fireworks and other explosives. The Health and Safety Executive works extensively with explosives and fireworks industries to support compliance with the law. The HSE regularly engages with industry stakeholders and has developed guidance with the industry. The existing licensing framework aims to make sure that, where businesses comply with the licence conditions, the risks of an uncontrolled explosion occurring are greatly reduced. Where businesses fail to meet these requirements or harm occurs, regulatory action is swift.
As I have already mentioned, the Health and Safety Executive is undertaking a review of explosives licensing as part its ongoing commitment to continual business improvement, and to ensure that the framework is fit for purpose. The review will look at how the HSE’s licensing approach can be improved and whether any possible burdens on business can be reduced while maintaining standards of safety. It will involve input from industry, other Departments and other regulators, including local authorities, which will provide my hon. Friend and other hon. Members with an opportunity to feed into the process.
We have heard my hon. Friend’s specific areas of concern, but there may well be others. The review is certainly a chance to scrutinise the current system. The concerns he has raised include those about the 2-tonne limit on local authority, as opposed to HSE, licensing and about the categories of fireworks, which is very important. However, there may also be other areas, such as the secondary manufacture or fusing of fireworks, which often takes place in companies seeking to put on professional displays.
My hon. Friend raised the concern that licensing should be required for any business in Great Britain manufacturing or storing hazardous quantities or types of fireworks. I hope he is reassured by my response that this is already the case. I thank him for bringing these important issues to our attention. Again, I would like to extend my sincerest condolences to the families of Simon Hillier and Stewart Staples. My officials would welcome the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the coroner’s findings once the inquest has been concluded, and to consider any areas of further work.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Equitable Life Payment Scheme
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)
The Equitable Life Payment Scheme (“the scheme”) started to make payments in 2011 and was due to close in 2014. The then Chancellor extended the scheme in 2014 to maximise the number of payments that could be made. He subsequently announced in the summer Budget 2015 that the scheme would close to new claims on 31 December 2015. From the beginning of 2016, the scheme began the process of winding down and completing all remaining claims. As the majority of these claims have now been paid, the scheme has today published its final progress report, which can be found at: www.gov.uk/equitable-life-payment-scheme.
The report gives an outline of the history of the scheme, details the significant efforts that have been made to trace and pay as many policyholders as possible, and provides a distributional analysis of the payments that the scheme has made over its four years of operation.
The report gives the final figures compiled by the scheme, which show that, as at 31 August 2016, the scheme has issued payments of over £1.12 billion to 932,805 policy-holders. This means the scheme has now issued payments to 90% of eligible policyholders. All the payments issued by the scheme have been free of tax.
It should be noted that the closure of the scheme to new claims will not affect the yearly payments made by the scheme to with-profits annuitants, which will continue for the duration of those annuities. The scheme has written individually to all with-profits annuitants to make them aware of this.
In the summer Budget 2015, the then Chancellor also announced that, as part of scheme closure, payments to non-with profit annuitant policyholders who were in receipt of pension credit would be doubled in early 2016. In fact the scheme succeeded in making the majority of these additional tax-free payments in December 2015, and all were completed by March 2016, providing additional help to this vulnerable group of policyholders.
[HCWS269]
UK Operations in Afghanistan: Reserves Call-Out Order
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mike Penning)
With the expiry of the call-out order made on 1 November 2015[1], a new order has been made under section 56(1B) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to be called into permanent service in support of United Kingdom operations in Afghanistan.
Under the call-out order made on 1 November 2015, 146 reservists have been called out for operations. We anticipate a continued requirement for reservists, with the right skills and experience, over the period the new order will be in force. This is fully in line with our policy of having more capable, usable, integrated and relevant reserve forces.
The order took effect from the beginning of 9 November 2016 and ceases to have effect at the end of 8 November 2017.
[1] Call-out order authorising the call out of reserve forces for operations in Afghanistan, signed 1 November 2015.
[HCWS268]
General Affairs Council
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)
I attended the General Affairs Council on 15 November. The meeting was chaired by the Slovak presidency and held in Brussels.
The General Affairs Council discussed: the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework; rule of law; legislative programming—the Commission Work programme 2017 and joint declaration; follow up of the October European Council; preparation of the December European Council on 15/16 December and the European semester.
A provisional report of the meeting and the conclusions adopted can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ en/meetings/gac/2016/11/15-16.
Multiannual financial framework
The presidency presented its proposed compromise text for the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework. The presidency’s proposal allowed for some additional budget flexibility over the remaining years of the seven-year period, while respecting the principles of the original 2013 deal. Most member states agreed with the proposal and it was agreed that it would be used as the basis for a Council common position for discussions with the European Parliament. However, Italy expressed concerns on the level of support for migration and youth employment and placed a reserve on the agreement. The UK abstained.
Rule of law
This was the first evaluation of the rule of law at the General Affairs Council. The presidency presented conclusions which called for a more structured preparation of the discussions and more focused topics to ensure a coherent exchange of views. Most member states agreed with these conclusions. The presidency also suggested a further review in 2019 to consider turning the rule of law dialogue into an annual peer review process—this proposal divided member states and will require further discussion.
Legislative programming—Commission Work programme and joint declaration
First Vice-President of the Commission Frans Timmermans presented the Commission Work programme for 2017. A joint declaration of the EU institutions will outline the priorities and objectives for the year ahead for the EU based on the Commission Work programme. Themes for the joint declaration would be: jobs and growth, migration, energy and the digital single market. The presidency will now discuss the draft joint declaration with the Commission and European Parliament.
Follow-up to the European Council of 20 and 21 October 2016
The presidency said it would aim to make progress on migration and trade between now and the December European Council. The presidency stated they had been working to advance visa liberalisation (Georgia, Ukraine, Kosovo and Turkey), with a trilogue taking place on 16 November.
Preparation of the European Council of 15 and 16 December 2016
The draft agenda for the December European Council is migration, security, economic and social development and external relations. The Commission highlighted that they would like the agenda to cover external migration, with progress on reform of the common European asylum system, as well as strengthening external co-operation on security and defence.
European semester 2017
The European semester 2017 road map was presented and the annual growth survey was published on 16 November.
AOB
Italy presented its plans to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome in March 2017.
[HCWS270]
Foreign Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council (Defence)
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 14 November. He and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence attended the joint session of the Foreign Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) on 14 November. The UK Ambassador to the EU Political and Security Committee (PSC), Angus Lapsley represented my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence at the Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) on 15 November. The Foreign Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) were chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. The meetings were held in Brussels.
Foreign Affairs Council
A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/fac/2016/10/18.
Turkey
The Council discussed Turkey in the light of recent developments in the country. The Council recalled the declaration by the High Representative on behalf of the EU of 8 November and agreed on the need to keep communications open with Turkey. No conclusions were adopted.
Eastern Partnership
Ministers exchanged views on recent developments in the six Eastern Partnership States (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine) and looked forward to the next EU-Eastern Partnership summit, to be held in November 2017 in Brussels. Conclusions were agreed. At the end of the discussion the Foreign Secretary debriefed Ministers on his recent visit to the Western Balkans noting that the EU and member states needed to be more visible and engaged in the region.
Syria
Ministers discussed the southern neighbourhood over lunch, focusing on Syria. Ms Mogherini informed the Council of her recent outreach efforts with key actors in the region, in line with the European Council mandate and in full support of the efforts of the UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura. The Council expressed its concern over the escalation of tensions in the region, and called for an end to the violence in Syria and support for the resumption of a political process. A further 18 Syria sanctions designations were agreed as a procedural point by the Council, bring the total to 28 since the October Foreign Affairs Council.
Libya
Foreign Ministers discussed Libya, and considered how to support the Government of National Accord and implementation of the Libyan political agreement. Ministers underlined that building a safe, secure and prosperous Libya that is able to tackle with confidence the challenges in the region is in our collective interest.
Security and Defence Implementation Plan (SDIP)
Member states agreed conclusions on the security and defence implementation plan (SDIP), which will increase the effectiveness of common security and defence policy. The Foreign and Defence Secretaries restated the UK’s guiding principle that nothing should undermine NATO as the cornerstone of European defence, and this was reflected in the conclusions. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg joined the EU Ministers for a discussion on EU-NATO co-operation, which the conclusions will help strengthen. The Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) also agreed on the need to keep the European defence industry open and competitive.
Ministers agreed without discussion a number of measures:
Council conclusions on Iran.
Council conclusions on security sector reform (SSR).
Council conclusions on the upcoming fifth review conference of the convention on prohibitions on restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to a have indiscriminate effects (CCW).
The Council authorised the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to open negotiations on a comprehensive agreement between the European Union and Azerbaijan.
The Council agreed in principle on the enhanced partnership and co-operation agreement between the EU and Kazakhstan and requested the consent of the European Parliament.
Foreign Affairs Council (Defence)
Commissioner Bienkowska spoke about the European defence action plan (EDAP), which is due to be adopted by the College of Commissioners at the end of the month. The EDAP will focus on: funding defence research; fostering support for defence supply chains; joint financing of defence capabilities; and an internal market with a defence industry that is fit for purpose.
Member states agreed an increase to the European Defence Agency (EDA)’s budget in line with inflation, the first increase in six years. The UK agreed to maintain the level of the EDA budget in real terms because the EDA had made some progress on reform and performance, and, importantly, in recognition of the EDA’s future role in taking forward SDIP and EDAP issues that could benefit UK security and UK industry.
[HCWS271]
House of Lords
International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Friday 18th November 2016
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) (Amendment) Bill [HL] 2016-17 View all International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) (Amendment) Bill [HL] 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, this is a simple Bill that I can simply precis. In the last Parliament, legislation was passed committing Britain to spending at least 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance. Ministers are to report to Parliament if they miss this target. However, by making the target an annual one, the Government run the risk of having to rush through expenditure at the end of each financial year to meet their target. The National Audit Office has pointed out examples where precisely this may have happened. This Bill, therefore, intends to make the target one that applies over a five-year period, not one year, which would allow much greater flexibility.
Looking around the Chamber, I see very good representation of what I might call “the aid crew”—people who know a great deal more about aid than I do. My knowledge of aid is confined to a short period on the Economic Affairs Committee, during which time we wrote a report on the subject, to which I will return. However, I do claim perhaps a little knowledge of another subject, and that is how best to manage the public finances. I wrote a book, The Secret Treasury—there were not many secrets, but that is what it was called—and it was mostly about how you sensibly control public expenditure under our system. That is the main motivation behind my Bill today.
I should say straight away that it is not in any way an anti-aid Bill. You could substitute defence, education or health for aid throughout the Bill. If an annual target had been set in those areas, I would have said that that also should be changed to a five-year target—it is mere good sense.
It will be apparent to most noble Lords that this is a re-run of a debate that we had in the last Parliament. I, along with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, moved amendments to the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, which would have had the effect of bringing in this five-year target. Noble Lords will have their own opinions as to who won the argument, but no amendment was made. Yes, this is a replay, but it is a replay under very different circumstances. To stretch the football analogy, we are now on a pitch that slopes the opposite way to the one on which we played last time.
Then, David Cameron was the Prime Minister in No. 10, in coalition with the Lib Dems. Mr Cameron was—how shall I put this in “lordly” language?—not known for his strong beliefs. But one belief that he did adhere to was giving a higher priority to aid. Some will think that this was for high moral reasons and others that it was to appease liberal voters so that they would not go back to thinking that the Conservative Party was the nasty party. As is often the case with politicians, I should think it was a bit of both. However, he was adamantly in favour of spending on aid. Today, Theresa May is the Prime Minister. It may be my failing, but I cannot find in her reported words any reference whatsoever to aid. But sometimes actions speak louder than words, and her appointment to DfID of Priti Patel, who has previous as a critic of aid, perhaps says more about where this Prime Minister stands than any words she might have uttered.
The Lib Dems, and I pay tribute to them, supported the Bill, partly for moral reasons and partly no doubt to show their supporters that they were having some influence on the Tory Government. However, that argument was dissolved with the election and the Lib Dems reduced to a rump in the Commons, although it is delightful to see them in such hefty numbers here. There is a new Prime Minister, a new Government and a new Commons with a new mandate. If this Bill has its way, there will be a new, less harmful way of putting in place the 0.7% target for aid.
The Economic Affairs Committee that reported in March 2012 was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, and included two ex-Chancellors and a bevy of heavy hitters, not including me. We were against having targets. The arguments that persuaded us are set out clearly in paragraph 15 of the summary and conclusions of that report, and I will save the House’s time by not reading them out now. I do not really want to go over water that has flowed under the bridge. We have a target of 0.7% a year and it would be way beyond a modest Private Member’s Bill to get rid of that. My Bill would simply change a series of one-year targets to a five-year target, again, of 0.7%. Incidentally, there has been some speculation because the Bill sometimes changes a single calendar year to multiple years. That was a mistake in my drafting. It could easily be amended on Report so that it referred only to calendar years.
This change will be relevant quite soon. Over the past couple of years, Britain has been meeting the Purvis target. However, under the new methodology for calculating gross national income about to be introduced, we would have fallen short. The excellent briefing prepared by our Library suggests that over the last few years we have not been spending what we should have been spending. We do not yet know what the outcome will be for 2016, but with a further shortfall looming, we can guess at the temptation of DfID to shove the money out of the door as fast as possible to meet the target. However, I am not confident that all that money will be well used and my confidence has been further eroded by the Government’s shifting of money from the DfID budget to the Foreign Office budget to make it look as though they are making their target whereas in fact aid money is being used for wholly different purposes.
But it is not my judgment that matters, but the judgment of more objective and more informed observers. Therefore, we have very seriously to consider the report, which was available even last time we debated this subject, from the National Audit Office. It said—not I said—that, when it was unlikely that the ODA target would be met, DfID increased its spending and quickly added activities to its plans, which made it,
“difficult to achieve value for money”.
Achieving value for money is the sole aim of my Bill. The report cited the way that the department had brought forward £300 million of activity planned for 2015 to 2014 to meet the target and then the department asked the Treasury for extra cash to meet the target in the following year. That is the kind of inflation that occurs.
“Never mind”, the defenders of the 0.7% aid target might say, “as this will mean more money for aid, which is what we want”. That is a judgment. My judgment is different. This kind of fiddling the figures is bad for aid and bad for the level of aid. The British public are not, for better or worse, supporters of aid spending. A poll in 2015 showed that 67% of the public made aid their number one target for public expenditure cuts—way out at the top of the list of potential public expenditure cuts. The British public, rightly or wrongly—and, in my view, sadly—are not aid fans.
I am sure that a great deal of shaping the opinion of the public is reflective of a kind of reporting in the press. I do not mean reporting in any pejorative sense because there was an excellent series last year by Dominic Kennedy, the investigations editor at the Times. It revealed examples of where we were using aid to prop up corrupt police forces or for cultural projects of one kind or another. That is not the kind of thing that aid fans like me want to see—projects that alleviate poverty on the ground. The new development secretary has inveighed eloquently about the abuse of multilateral aid programmes, but before she goes on too long about that she would be well advised to get the beam out of her own eye.
Aid will never be a vote winner, but if we continue with a set of rules that make waste all but inevitable, we may face a backlash from taxpayers that renders the whole programme vulnerable. Anyone who thinks that that is fantasy should look at what happened in Ireland. In Ireland they legislated for precisely this target. The Irish people got crosser and crosser and step by step they backed away from it so that they do not have such a target today.
Let me be clear with the House one final time. I am a passionate supporter of development aid. I know that there are great projects going ahead with Britain’s support. By most standards, I would call DfID a competent department. I am proud of that and I am even willing to pay my share of taxes to support that. But I am not happy to pay those taxes—and here I exaggerate to make my point—to go down various toilets of DfID’s devising as the Government try desperately to fulfil the daft mandate given to them by Parliament. I do not actually favour a five-year target, but I prefer it to the one-year aid target that the last Parliament, mistakenly in my view, legislated for. I beg to move.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for raising the issue of international development in his Private Member’s Bill today.
This Second Reading comes at a pertinent time following the announcement yesterday that the target spend on official development assistance of 0.7% of GNI was achieved precisely in 2015. The UK Government have led the world with their commitment to deliver 0.7% annually—a target set by the UN—and we are the first G8 country to do so. This target was first achieved here in 2013, two years ahead of the EU target, and the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act enshrined this commitment into UK law in March last year. That legislative commitment was not easy to attain and had to be hard fought for. We should be proud of our Government for this achievement and for setting an example that other nations should follow. As we have heard, the Bill before us seeks to amend the legislation from having an annual target of 0.7% to making it apply over five years, and that causes me some concern. I know that many question our commitment to overseas aid, but tackling poverty and thus tackling the root causes of many of today’s challenges in developing countries is not only the right thing to do, it is also in the interests of the UK.
I do not propose to reiterate all the arguments that were put forward when the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 was debated, but I think that we have all been shocked by the sheer numbers of refugees trying to get to Europe this summer. The majority of them come from countries where there is either extreme poverty or conflict, and the simple fact is that unless we help these countries, more will follow. I have seen myself when visiting countries the enormous difference that aid can make. Giving children an education in today’s world is critical for economic empowerment, and between 2010 and 2015 the UK has supported 11.3 million children in primary and secondary education. Over the four years to 2015 the UK had helped 64.5 million people to gain access to clean water and better sanitation, which impacts positively on health and livelihoods. I have seen women in Africa who expend all their energy every day walking miles to bring water home. Also, through working in fragile and post-conflict states, UK aid is protecting the national security of this country. The Syria crisis, one of the worst disasters of our time, has caused millions to flee their homes. It is to be applauded that the UK has committed £2.3 billion in humanitarian assistance from 2012 to 2020. When one visits the refugees in camps, as I and I am sure many other Members of this House have done, one can see what vital support we give. I remember a woman in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon trying to look after seven children in a tent. The water standpipe nearby was life-saving for her. I saw how traumatised women in a camp in Kurdistan who had fled from Daesh now had a safe haven where support was being given and some education provided for their children. This is all vital work which is the difference between life and death for so many.
I welcome the fact that we have a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State who are prepared to stand behind the annual commitment to 0.7% of GNI. Having made this commitment, we have to demonstrate to the British taxpayer that the money is spent wisely and efficiently and that we obtain maximum value for every pound spent. I welcome in particular the fact that DfID has put women and girls at the heart of development because it is the women of the developing world who are always the poorest of the poor. How will my noble friend the Minister ensure that some of our aid reaches the smaller organisations working at the grass roots, because it is there, working in communities, that meaningful change can be made?
What are my concerns about the Bill? I am worried that this change may undermine the overall goal of the international development Act and that it could be seen as the thin end of the wedge. While I recognise that it is not easy to ensure that the 0.7% GNI target is hit every year, changing it to every five years would mean that there can be annual slippage. I suppose I worry that in tight financial circumstances there might be a temptation at the end of five years perhaps not to make every year a good one.
As I have said, we fought hard to get the overall annual commitment to 0.7% and if we lose it now we will never get it back. At the moment this is a closed issue with 0.7% locked down. That gives the UK the moral authority to encourage other countries to do likewise. That is because the UK cannot do it alone. To lift countries out of poverty it needs other countries to come alongside and commit their resources too. This Bill will damage the UK’s standing in this regard and contribute to lessening the moral impetus on other countries to meet the target.
In conclusion, much as I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue of international development, I am unable to support the Bill.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, first I thank my noble friend most warmly for introducing this Bill. It is on an important subject and it is good that we are going to consider it in the House. It will need very careful attention in Committee. Perhaps I may also say that having known my noble friend for many years, his faith and commitment to our aid and development responsibilities are very real and he has evidenced them consistently.
What the noble Baroness has just said about the danger of slippage must be in the mind of anyone who has held ministerial responsibility. Slippage can begin to accumulate like a snowball. This is a difficult issue that I have never totally resolved intellectually. Having been a defence Minister and a development Minister, I do not think it is altogether satisfactory to have a defence policy or an aid policy that relies heavily on its percentage of the GNP. What you must have is an effective defence policy and an effective development policy. It is the quality and quantity of what is being done that is really important, and that ultimately is how an aid programme will be judged.
But the world is not quite like that. Why I supported without qualification all the energy that went into ensuring that the 0.7% commitment is enshrined in our legislation is because I know, from having held ministerial office in that area, that what the noble Baroness has just said is terribly important: the pressures coming from all sorts of different quarters might mean that in the end, while you might have an impressive aid programme to address the challenges of world poverty, suffering and injustice that gives you a lovely shining halo because you have a perfect project, it would not realistically add up to much of a contribution to world justice, peace and stability. From that standpoint, therefore, the target is important.
On annual or five-yearly reporting, there are issues that would need to be examined. A general election would almost certainly ensue within a five-year period, so would the outgoing Government really be held to account in the general election as fully as they should be? The other issue is how to ensure that results are being produced, and therefore some discipline about annual performance is important. However, there is a complication. I have no hesitation in saying, having been a development Minister, that I was subsequently director of Oxfam. During my time with Oxfam I learned an important lesson: the pressure to produce tangible results within short timescales can actually be distorting in terms of genuine and lasting development. Long-term development extends over a number of years, and there is an argument that in some situations you can judge what has been contributed only many years later, when you can see what has happened in that society. It may not always be exactly what you had hoped for, predicted would happen or stated as your objective, but it might be very interesting. Development is about not just producing results, but contributing to a process that belongs to the people of the country concerned and the communities with which you are working. It is about what they can gain in self-confidence, skills and abilities, and building them up over a lasting and sustained period. A lot of details will need to be looked at in Committee.
I hope I will not be accused of being sentimental—this House is very harsh on sentimentality, and rightly so— but I have a mind jammed full of vivid, real anecdotes I have encountered at first hand that have regenerated my commitment to this very important issue. I will share with the House just one. It was during that awful, bitter, cruel civil war in Mozambique. I could get to my destination only by hitching a lift on a relief plane. My heart was in my mouth during that flight. A merrier band of cowboys flying a plane I had never encountered. Furthermore, the state of the plane needed some attention, but it was carrying relief supplies and it got there.
What struck me when we arrived—I am sure many of us saw the situation on television and elsewhere—was this quiet murmuring from the huge crowd that had assembled. There were thousands of people. Some had lost absolutely everything. I was introduced to a family who, just a few days ago, had watched their village and home burn to the ground, and their seven year-old child be chopped to death and burned in the house. Here were these people. I was glad that I could come home and say to Oxfam supporters, the wider public and my colleagues, “It is worth it. We aren’t getting it all through because it’s a war situation”—one must be realistic; not all does get through—“but a very substantial amount is getting through and it makes the operation worth while”.
But that was not the main message that came home to me. This is the point at which the House may feel I am testing credibility, but it is true. What I experienced then had a great deal to do with my decision, when asked, to join this House, which is an experience I have always valued. Yes, the blankets, the soap, the salt, the food was getting through, but within days of those people getting into that camp, they were asking for spades, for shovels, to start growing their own food again. I thought of my home community in Oxford and of my own family. If we had been through a fraction of this experience, we would be totally broken. Yet here were these people, already physically and committedly rebuilding their lives.
I came home saying that I really had to do something about getting this message across. It is not these people’s privilege to be helped by us. That is a moral responsibility that we cannot escape. It is our privilege to work with people of so much dignity, courage and drive. Therefore, I hope that in the deliberations on the Bill, as in every debate we have on this subject, we remember that we are not generous, wealthy people saying, “We must give some of our wealth to the poor”. There may be people who say that, but that does not switch me on. Rather, we should say, “How exciting, how challenging to have the opportunity to work with people in these desperate conditions, in desperate plight, to build a more secure, just future”. Have no fear: we will not have a secure, peaceful world unless there is effectively growing social justice in the world.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I think I speak for the whole House in saying that we recognise his commitment to, and knowledge of, this area, and his contribution in this morning’s debate proves that even more.
A considerable coalition of support led to the international development Act reaching the statute book in 2015. That included: the previous Labour Governments from 1997, in particular when Gordon Brown was in the Treasury; the Conservative Party, in particular under David Cameron, with its strong stance on this position; and, in government and in this House, the great forbearance and patience of the Government Chief Whip in the Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who worked with me and supported me at sometimes tense moments. His commitment and that of others, especially from those such as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, led to a great deal of consensus in this House.
I particularly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Bates, to his position. He is extremely highly regarded in this House, and I know he will be a great addition to the department. I look forward to him summing up the debate today.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, I have been in the Bekaa Valley this year and seen those fleeing the terrible crisis in Syria. I have been in northern Iraq a number of times and seen internally displaced people fleeing Daesh, all supported by DfID programmes. UK aid is literally saving lives today as we debate the Bill. That needs to be recognised.
The coalition of support also included NGOs, which were unanimous in their view. For my own party’s worth, I said in the Second Reading debate that we were delivering a manifesto commitment. That manifesto was the 1970 general election manifesto, where my party had our commitment before the UN adopted it. The former MP for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, the right honourable Michael Moore, who piloted that Bill through the House of Commons, and my colleague my noble friend Lady Northover, who was at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government, together with other parties and NGOs, all had a desire to move away from what the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, described movingly in her Second Reading speech as the struggle that she had as a Minister, who could start a year not knowing what level of aid she could commit to programmes at the end of the year. Her challenge as a Minister had lived with her over the following years. I was struck by her commitment to this area.
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for allowing us to continue to scrutinise, to challenge and to question our development budget, not least because it is the public’s money, after all, and it is of a very large scale and a very large amount. Proper scrutiny and continuing questioning of it is valid. It is the role of parliamentarians to do that. I also commend him for his consistency, given his contributions to the Act, but while I commend him for his consistency, I do not think he will be surprised to learn that I think he is consistent, but not correct.
In some respects, I could understand if the Bill argued against meeting the target altogether. Some are making that argument in the rather reactionary right-wing press. We can see that their argument is that the aid budget should be slashed entirely. Thankfully, the vast majority of people are not calling for that. I remain slightly confused that the Bill seeks to amend the existing law in a way that would make the noble Lord’s complaints about the legislation on the statute book even more egregious. It is a perplexing paradox that legislation designed to improve an Act would actually make it worse.
In most respects, this Bill is a version of the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, tabled to the international development assistance Bill in February last year. In presenting his arguments then, he said:
“It is intended to avoid waste, to provide ministerial flexibility and to help in the management of our national budgets”.—[Official Report, 27/2/15; col. 1854.]
These are all very laudable aims, but I fear that the position has not really changed between then and now: his amendments would actually make the situation worse.
The Permanent Secretary of DfID told the International Development Committee in the Commons on 4 February last year, when asked about moving from an annualised budget to a rolling three-year programme:
“If you take a rolling three-year programme, what that means is for years one and two you have a lot of flexibility. In the third year, by definition, you have to hit a precise number, because it is the end of the rolling three-year period. In the fourth year, you also have to hit a precise number, because you are dealing with what you had in years two and three. In the fifth year, you are dealing with years three and four. In a rolling programme, you get the benefit in the first year and possibly the second year, but not at any point thereafter. You are locked in after that”.
In many regards, over the five-year period that the noble Lord asks for, we would lock it in even more. Add to that the greater uncertainty that comes from saying that it is simply an average over the period—we do not know whether he is arguing for an average or just a combination of each year—and we would really gain nothing from flexibility towards the end of the rolling period anyway. This is harder from year four of the first period. Locking in greater uncertainty is no way to bring about the aims that the noble Lord is asking for, and which the Act actually delivers. Far from offering greater ministerial flexibility, it would fundamentally defeat the entire purpose of trying to put stability and certainty into development programmes.
As the ONS statistics said yesterday, we are, in effect, in year three of meeting the UK target under a consistent statistical reporting mechanism that the ONS has recognised in its own papers. The 2015 Act now establishes this as the norm going forward, and that is very helpful, especially in the context that we still have to operate under DAC reporting rules, and DfID operates under its own relationship with the multilateral bodies on an annualised basis anyway. In effect, this Bill, unfortunately, cuts the ground from under the 0.7% commitment in its entirety.
For those who continue to argue that we should withdraw our legislative certainty and dilute our aid commitment, the two words “Aid works” are the simple repost. I spoke, as many noble Lords will have done last Sunday, to many young people who were taking part in Remembrance Sunday, about development assistance. It made me reflect back to when I was their age—to when I was 16. The combination of growing aid and concerted effort means that only 14% of people living in developing countries live on less than $1.25 a day. In 1990, it was 47%. We have made very significant progress.
Some 59 million deaths from malaria, measles and tuberculosis have been averted since 2000. There has been a threefold increase in the economies of the least developed countries between 1990 and 2014. Green energy investments in new renewables in many developing countries has gone from $45 billion in 2004 to $270 billion, leading to renewables such as wind, solar and biomass generating an estimated 9.1% of the world’s electricity. Most importantly, I think, 137 million more children worldwide were enrolled in primary school in 2013 than when I was 16 in 1990. Just imagine the benefit for the world’s future. The number of countries where an equal number of boys and girls attend school has increased by nearly 75% since 2000.
I use all these statistics to show that aid works. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said, UK leadership in aid is now working, recognised by the Global Fund replenishment conference, by the Canadian Government and by the funding for development conference in Addis Ababa—the list is long of where the world is recognising the UK commitment.
Finally, when introducing the 2015 Bill in this House I asked: if the UK was a global citizen, what kind of citizen would it want to be? I confess that I did not expect then that the world would see the UK leave the European Union and the USA elect a racist, nativist, narcissist, bigoted billionaire as its head of state. In an uneasy world, our citizenship in the world must surely be seen as forward-looking, stable, open, tolerant and giving, where we grieve here when there is conflict elsewhere, where we are ashamed when children are born malnourished and continue into adolescence with poor health, and are angry when girls are prohibited from reaching their full potential. The UK is a leader in global goals and in financing for development. We know that the development pressures in the world are unprecedented, but we also know that we can eliminate absolute poverty and end chronic disease that affects those least developed in our lifetime.
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for his consistency, but he will not be surprised that I humbly submit to your Lordships that we reject the Bill he is arguing for this morning.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for the opportunity to have this debate. I will not detain the House long.
During my time living and working in east Africa, I became acutely aware of the importance of international development, and in attempting to raise funds for educational development I experienced the challenges of having to think in the long term and strategically while being accountable in the short term on financial matters. I suggest to your Lordships’ House that, in framing international development, we need to have a medium or long-term perspective on outcomes but a short-term perspective on requirements for financial accountability. Overemphasising either leads to short-termism or to the dangers of misallocation of funding and lack of appropriate accountability. In the Bill, I therefore suggest that these two dimensions be kept together, rather than split apart and put in opposition to one another.
As with all things, there are both positive and negative points to draw on, some of which have already been helpfully identified, but one further area I want to explore is our use of the words “outputs” and “outcomes” in this context. In proposing this, I am advocating a well-known approach to development: “outputs” are those things that can be counted and recorded, such as buildings put up and people taught, whereas “outcomes” are changes which will need to be measured over time, such as those now engaged in new vocations making a difference. In proposing this approach to development, I am suggesting a short-term approach to outputs and financial reporting, but a medium and longer-term approach to outcomes in relation to strategic development and financial planning.
With those short remarks, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, well with his Bill, with the proviso that we do not change our overall commitment to the 0.7% annual figure, representing our serious commitment to development.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I warmly support this Bill, because I think it is sensible and right. I believe that the current law is an ass and is typical of the bad law we get when we go in for tokenistic measures—things such as the Dangerous Dogs Act. Leaving aside my personal view that spending 0.7% of our GDP on overseas aid is a waste of money which could be better spent elsewhere, I accept that if the country and the Government are determined to spend 0.7% then none of it should be wasted, and I believe that a large part of it is being wasted.
One of the most telling speeches I heard in this House on this matter came from a former Permanent Secretary on the Cross Benches when the last Bill was being passed. It may have been the noble Lord, Lord Butler, but I am not sure. Whoever it was, he said that he strongly supported the 0.7% target but that it was sheer folly to lay down a legal requirement that the department had to spend every penny of it in each year and was not permitted any carry-over. He said that, inevitably, in January, February and March, as the financial year ended, the Government would throw money at any old rubbish just so that they did not break the law by underspending. I paraphrase slightly—the noble Lord would not have used the phrase “any old rubbish”, but I think that that is what he intended.
As a matter of general principle, is there anything more insane or wicked for the taxpayer than that the Government would break the law if they did not waste enough taxpayers’ money by a certain date? This Bill is the law we should have had if we want to implement a compulsory 0.7% target, or any target. We have all seen it in local government, where there is a silly, wasteful spending spree in March because the Government —all Governments—will not let councils carry over unspent money into the next financial year. Therefore, setting a five-year window to complete the expenditure is infinitely preferable to a 12-month window. I would have preferred something like a permitted 5% carry-over each year so that projects with, say, a three to five-year lifespan would have flexibility as to when they spend the cash. I sincerely hope my noble friend the Minister will state today that this Bill will become government policy and the Government will implement it in due course. I often live in hope.
Turning to other related matters of overseas aid—I am afraid your Lordships will find even less favour with these remarks—as I said earlier, I accept that we may need to spend 0.7% on aid but that means that not one penny should be wasted on undeserving countries or projects. I greatly admire my right honourable friend Priti Patel for the stance she is taking on waste in overseas aid projects. However, I suspect that she is up against a huge, elitist development cabal of all the NGOs and those who make millions from managing projects, which will seek to defeat her.
When one looks at some of the outrageous things that have been funded, it is easy to pick out examples of appalling waste. But in my view there is an even bigger racket: the multimillion-pound organisations which bid for contracts to manage the disbursement of aid projects. They are brilliant operators. They tick all the boxes in the DflD forms—they are non-misogynist, transgender, equal-opportunities, anti-smoking, huggy, squeezy feminist liberals—and then go on to rip off the department in the way they manage the projects. I hope that in due course my right honourable friend may be able to purge these companies from the aid disbursement list.
Despite criticism of some of the waste, I accept that DfID has a far better track record of spending money on the most deserving poor than any other organisation on earth, particularly the EU. I hope that on Brexit day plus one the British Government will devote all the money they are giving to the EU to British-run overseas aid projects.
Now we come to what I consider some thoroughly undeserving countries. This House has rightly condemned FGM. I dislike that term since I consider it a bit of a euphemism. It is the brutal torture of young girls. It is vile and it is evil. Nevertheless, in February 2016 I asked DfID,
“which countries where female genital mutilation is known or suspected to be practised widely receive UK overseas aid”.
The Government responded a week later by saying:
“Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is one of the most extreme manifestations of gender inequality. It is a form of violence against women and girls and can result in a lifetime of physical, psychological and emotional suffering. It is a global problem—over 200 million women and girls across at least 30 countries, including the UK, have been cut. The UK Government remains firmly committed to bringing about an end of FGM. Our Flagship FGM programme supports efforts to end the practice in 17 of the highest burden of these countries. With the support from UK aid over 13,500 communities across these countries have publically declared the abandonment of FGM since 2008”.
So I then asked,
“which 17 countries their Flagship female genital mutilation (FGM) programme supports, how much aid each of those countries receives annually from the UK, and how much aid from the UK is spent annually on programmes to end female genital mutilation in those countries”.
DfID’s Answer was:
“DFID’s regional FGM programme is providing up to £35 million in funding to end FGM in 17 high prevalence countries: Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Mauritania, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda and Yemen. This funding is apportioned over a five year period from 2013-2018 and the breakdown by country is not readily available. Six of these countries (Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Uganda) have DFID country programmes”.
I looked to see what the funding for those six countries was. Last year, according to the DflD report, we gave Ethiopia almost £400 million, Nigeria £263 million, Sudan £208 million, Kenya £156 million and Uganda £123 million. These five countries alone got £1.15 billion in aid and they are among the worst offenders perpetrating the evil of FGM. As a sop, we have offered up to £35 million if they would please, please not do quite so much FGM in future. I am sorry but if I was a politician in one of those countries why on earth would I bother bidding for a bit of that £35 million when the British Government will continue to throw £300 million at me even if I do not bother doing a thing? If we mean to stamp out FGM in those countries, we must make it clear to all aid-taking countries: stop the torture of girls or no more money, or considerably less money.
Then there is another gross iniquity: giving money to wealthy countries and those that have space and nuclear programmes. I would like my noble friend the Minister to explain the articles in this week’s press that we are still giving money to India and China. There was some suggestion that that was not correct and that it was some sort of fancy trade and development deal, with which I might be slightly happier, but I thought that we were not allowed to link trade to aid. I am sure that my noble friend has a brief on this and I look forward to hearing the explanation.
I am relaxed about aid to India because it is not hostile to this country but the same cannot be said of Pakistan. It is a nuclear power, it has a massive army and—I say this very carefully—it is a potential force for evil in the world. Let me justify that: we have been engaged in war in Afghanistan and Iraq but we have never had a single terrorist from those countries. Over 90% of our terrorists have come from Pakistan or from Pakistani heritage. They have been indoctrinated in madrassahs, largely funded by Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan is the breeding ground for most Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the world.
In the past few years I have had the privilege of meeting two US generals who commanded in Afghanistan and they both said—in a guarded, political way—that Pakistan was the real enemy supporting the Taliban, aided and abetted by the Pakistani Government’s Inter-Services Intelligence, the ISI. They regarded Pakistan as a failed, pariah state. Our Government say that they are targeting aid to the poorest countries and there is no doubt that millions in Pakistan are in poverty. But much of that poverty is because of corruption and expenditure of almost $3 billion on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme. Is it our moral duty to feed Pakistan’s poor when their own Government starve them by not spending that $3 billion on them?
I ask my noble friend the Minister—but I know that he dare not answer if he wishes to remain in post—why do we give every year the massive sum of £400 million to a country that is a major nuclear power, practises FGM, murders its own politicians who defend other religions, persecutes Christians, is corrupt and is the breeding ground for terrorism in the UK? Those are a few simple questions but I know that my noble friend dare not comment.
Finally—your Lordships will be relieved to hear—if we are going to spend that money, whether over one year or five, let us have a slightly wider definition of what constitutes overseas aid. If the Royal Navy is engaged in picking up migrants in the Mediterranean and rescuing them, that should come out of the overseas aid budget because that is what it is. If we have to build a wall in Calais and provide for other camps, the cost of bringing in the migrants should also be paid out of the aid budget. If we are going to bring in the refugees and economic migrants, the cost to British local authorities should also be paid out of the overseas aid budget. Of course, these issues are not germane to this Bill but this is the only vehicle I have seen in the past few months where I could make these comments, which I know are not acceptable to the majority.
Going back to the core point, I hope I have not severely damaged the noble Lord’s Bill—I probably have—by commenting on it favourably; in fact, I know I have. It was not my intention to wreck this Bill with my comments. It is a sensible Bill, which allows us to spend the money more wisely, whether it is 0.7% or even 1%. The Bill deserves to pass and I wish it well.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I do not wish to respond to a speech with which I disagree entirely and which I believe is not backed up by evidence. However, I am very pleased to be able to speak on this topic in this House. I draw attention to my entry in the register of Members’ interests.
The UK’s commitment to and delivery of 0.7% has hugely enhanced our country’s standing in the world. Having had the privilege of chairing the International Development Committee for 10 years, I continue to be connected with the development sector and, having travelled extensively all across sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, I have met the recipients of UK and international aid and can say that it is well received. In many areas, it is game-changing in very positive ways; it cannot be done by blackmail or bullying but it can by engagement. Our standing among developed countries as the first and only G20 country to have delivered 0.7% has also given us considerable moral authority and leadership, not least because it is about not just the commitment to 0.7% but the quality of what we do across the piece with our aid budget.
Regarding the commitment to 0.7% causing waste, or uncontrolled or not well-monitored spending, there is not a great deal of evidence to support that. There was a problem—I say this with no degree of negativity—about the Labour Party’s commitment in government to deliver 0.7%, which I absolutely accept was genuine. The cross-party consensus was crucial. Nevertheless, it was done on a sort of hockey-stick approach: it was deferred and deferred so that once we got to the point of committing to 0.7%, a very substantial increase was required in one year. It would have been better phased in over several years and, yes, it did lead in that year to some difficulties. But none of those difficulties led to any evidence that the money was not spent effectively in delivering aid and development assistance.
We have of course now achieved the 0.7% and therefore that problem no longer arises to anything like that degree because the budget is much more predictable and the variation is much more manageable. The department is well capable of managing those fluctuations. There is of course a slight problem in the fact that government operates on a financial year and the 0.7% target is based on the calendar year, which is why there may be some variations. I do not think that anybody is concerned about a shortfall or a slight overshoot in any given year, which would require a report to Parliament, but it would be quite a different proposition if that was allowed to slip over five years.
In fact, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who argued his case very cogently and consistently —I understand that—I would nevertheless regard his Bill as a Trojan horse for those who wish to see the aid programme substantially cut back and dismantled. This is not least because it is a well-known fact of our constitution that Parliaments cannot bind their successors. It would therefore be perfectly possible for a Government to slash the aid programme on the grounds that it would be the responsibility of the next Parliament in some four or five years’ time to make up the difference and do it within a legal framework. That was surely why we introduced the legislation in the first place: to ensure that the commitment was maintained, and maintained on an annual basis.
There is also an absolute right to ensure that we get value for money and that we attack corruption and waste wherever it occurs. I acknowledge the right reverend Prelate’s contention that we need to differentiate between measured outputs and long-term outcomes, which are about changing societies and creating sustainable long-term capacity and development.
The Secretary of State, who has made some quite strong pronouncements, will however need to recognise that she is constrained in what she can do—I am glad to say that she is—by both British law and international law. For example, to suggest that we can use our aid and development budget to promote trade and investment as we negotiate our way out of the European Union would simply be illegal. It would not qualify as aid and would therefore not enable us to achieve our 0.7%. Parliament has rightly imposed that constraint on successive Governments to ensure that our aid is untied, is pro-poverty reduction and is not about furthering the commercial or political interests of this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, it is about delivering real benefits to the poorest people on the planet.
I make just one comment on the suggestion that we disengage with countries which have practices we do not like. That would be pretty well all of our aid programme going out the window. We are not a colonial power; we do not have the right to go in and say, “Our aid is conditional on you doing these things”. What we do is, first, to work with the people—all right, with the agreement of a Government—to address problems which they have and which we can assist with. In the process, we also engage in discussions about child marriage, which we have had a fantastic impact on in Ethiopia—I have seen that programme in action myself—and on FGM in many countries, where we are beginning to get traction and support those campaigning within those organisations which need the support of outside agencies to enable them to deliver real support.
Another thing is that the aid budget is already under pressure. The idea that we cannot spend this money and that there is not enough need is really not supported by any evidence whatever. There has been a massive increase in the requirement for humanitarian assistance, to which the UK has responded extremely generously, but in the process of doing that DfID has acknowledged that on occasions it has had to cut development programmes in order to support the humanitarian programme. This immediately demonstrates that there is constraint within the existing budget, which was a problem before the consequences of the referendum diminished the spending or purchasing power of our aid budget by the fall in the value of sterling. This has effectively cut the purchasing power by around 10% and in some countries by significantly more. The idea that the department somehow or other has difficulty spending money is belied by the fact that it is under pressure to ensure that it can cover all its commitments in these changing circumstances.
To those who are at all minded to support the Bill, I suggest that the idea that we should commit to 0.7% and maintain that commitment year-on-year is crucial to ensuring that the department, and those other government departments which spend ODA, have a clear framework and a budget for what they are doing. The UK should not find itself in the situation any time soon where, having achieved the 0.7% and shone out as a beacon to other countries for what we can do, we find ourselves slipping away and having to explain why our aid commitment has fallen back from 0.7%. It is interesting to note—I think I am right in this—that all those countries that have delivered the 0.7%, of which there are too few, have worked really hard to ensure that they maintain it. Some have even tried to exceed it and, in some cases, set higher targets.
Nothing should give the impression that the UK is turning its back on its commitment to be the second-largest aid donor in the world—in my view, the best in terms of what we deliver—and implying that somehow or other we were looking to our own domestic circumstances as a priority over the needs of the poorest people in the world. To quote Andrew Mitchell when he was the Secretary of State:
“We will not balance the books on the backs of the world’s poorest”.
I cannot think of anything that would compound the damage we have already done ourselves by disengaging from the European Union than suggesting that we were going to disengage from the poor people of the rest of the world. I am sorry to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that although it is not his intention, I believe that both the implication of the Bill and its practical output would have exactly that impact.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for giving us this wonderful opportunity in your Lordships’ House to have such a full and important debate today. I have to admit that I am very attracted and drawn to the idea of giving the Department for International Development a bit more time to manage its expenditure. However, I am not a budget person—indeed, I do not think this is a suitable House of Lords topic—so I stand to be corrected either way. None the less, this opportunity is too good to miss and I thank the noble Lord immensely.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bates on his appointment as Minister. This is my first opportunity to do so, and to say what full support I am sure he has from the whole House in this important task. As many Members have already said, Britain is just about the largest aid donor in the globe. The poverty is acute and the difficulties are enormous; our aid is therefore utterly vital.
I think I am correct in saying that the bulk of our aid is, and has been for some time, used for soft power. My comments will therefore look at that soft power and I may make one or two suggestions which I will be glad if the Minister will take away, think about and comment on another time. Soft power is vital at the top. It has enabled the United Kingdom to sit at the topmost table when discussing conflict resolution, peacebuilding, the rights of women and girls, which my noble friend Lady Hodgson focuses on, and other aspects that noble Lords have touched on. There is also an opportunity for soft power at the other end of the scale, and I have one or two thoughts on how we might increase our influence at the far end of the line where aid is being delivered.
When we look at the top of the soft power possibilities for the United Kingdom, are the Minister, the Secretary of State and the department as a whole able to report the ways in which that soft power is exercised? I regularly visit places where people are in great difficulty in conflict zones. I came back from Iraq on Tuesday. There are one or two rather important things that have not been brought to the Minister’s attention with sufficient strength. For example, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most powerful of all conventions, was drafted in this Chamber and in the other place and put forward by the United Kingdom. It was pushed very hard and worked on by the United Kingdom, and as a consequence it was adopted, signed and ratified by almost every nation on the globe. Somalia is a little difficult, and the United States has signed it but has not yet ratified it. None the less, if you look at that convention, you will see that it covers the entirety of what a child needs. In that context, a child is someone up to the age of 18 and, if the person is in particular difficulty, up to 20 years of age. Given the low life expectancy in some of the nations which need overseas aid, such as Yemen, where life expectancy is 47, we are talking about nearly half of a person’s life.
I see a point here which the Minister might wish to address long term. As he and his department are aware, internally displaced people have no rights at all. They have no United Nations convention protecting them in any shape or form. Those nations that never signed the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees also fall down a gap in terms of UN protection because it is extremely difficult to claim that anyone on their territory qualifies under UN rules as a refugee, but I return to IDPs. With probably about 40% of any refugee population or IDP population being under the age of 18 and therefore qualifying as children, those children have no protection of any sort. They are not given any special attention, there may be no registration system and they may not be reunited with their families. If you look at the figures, you will see that those children are the most vulnerable for human trafficking, sexual slavery and all sorts of awful futures. For example—I cannot check these figures, but they seem correct in terms of those who are quoting them—after the earthquake in Nepal 20,000 children disappeared. Indeed, this week on my return to the UK I saw in the papers that we have lost several thousand children. Children are very difficult to track unless you have a proper identification system and absolute clarity about who is responsible for what in terms of protecting them.
The point I wish to put in front of the Minister is that internally displaced children have no rights of any sort. When they are in camps, they are the most vulnerable to being trafficked, forcibly married and otherwise abused. They may have no opportunity to see their parents or any remaining members of their family again. Perhaps the Minister will consider using our soft power by demanding that the United Nations adopts an optional protocol on internally displaced children, thus allowing them the same level of protection accorded to refugees under international law. He might also consider pushing the United Nations to create a mechanism so that as soon as internally displaced children reach camps, whether run by the local Government or the UN, their identity is preserved to prevent their further abuse through rape, trafficking and forced marriage, and to reunite them with their family, which forms the heart of child protection mechanisms through the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Those recommendations are part of the set of recommendations that have come from a big conference I chaired in September at St George’s, Windsor, under the AMAR Foundation, LDS Charities and Cumberland Lodge. There are a number of recommendations, which I will leave with the Minister. On the soft power point, I particularly raise internally displaced children and their complete lack of protection. That is one way in which I would like to see the United Kingdom use a portion of its soft power at the top.
Another possible scenario the Minister might consider is that here in the UK we spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about a very small fraction of global refugees and internally displaced people and whether we will grant them a safe haven in the United Kingdom. When you look at the figures, you will see that nearly every displaced person or refugee wants to go back home. They just want a safer home. They do not want to be assaulted again. I am talking mainly about conflict countries, of which there are all too many. Yet the United Nations, which is a principal conduit of British overseas aid expenditure, understandably focuses on giving support to camps. I believe that once a person arrives in a camp, every possible effort should be made to help them get back home as soon as possible, if only because life in camps is terrible. There is almost nothing there. Very often, they do not even have the basics of life. I have recently visited camps which do not even have human sewage disposal and therefore people are sick all the time. Apart from that, the average length of stay in a camp is nine years, or 11 years, in some cases, and 24 years for squatters. Yet the UN, the World Food Programme and all other organisations focus on people in camps. Would it not be possible to think a little differently and push the UN to think about getting people back home again, which is what about 98% of people want to do? Of course this means rebuilding the health centre, the school, the roads and everything that has been destroyed, but all that is feasible. Speaking for half a moment as trade envoy for Iraq, I would like to see British companies being invited to do that because we are among the best in the globe and can do the work best, quickest and most efficiently.
In my capacity as chairman of the AMAR Foundation, I have just visited a number of camps and hospitals right on the front line very near to Mosul. I had the opportunity to give a whole load of medical equipment; it was very satisfying. It was a wonderful opportunity paid for by the Hunt Oil Company. I had another opportunity in a nearby new camp which was waiting to receive the refugees from the liberation of Mosul, just as the hospital was. I had the opportunity to open a health centre for the AMAR Foundation funded entirely by the Vitol Foundation—another very happy moment. None the less, when I looked around, I was gravely concerned at the level of implementation of British expenditure on the ground by, say, UNICEF, UNHCR or UNDP. I wonder whether some monitoring could be brought in. It is not very good for me to say something, as I am merely a stray visitor, but there should be some monitoring of the way in which the UN, in particular, uses British aid.
More than that, the final thought to leave with the Minister is about how British soft power could become visible on the ground. Everyone—by which I mean the various mayors and governors who I met and so on—said to me, “Where is British aid?”. I would say, “We have given this, this and this. We have just dedicated that, that and that. I have the correct figures in my head, which are enormous; we are far and away the largest donor”. But this is invisible aid. It comes through the UN and of course comes down through various subcontracts, which at the end of the day very probably mean that the funding spent is relatively small.
But irrespective of the size of the funding, my point is that I want Britain to shine. I want our aid to be known about, not just at the top table in Geneva or in New York, but so that the people on the ground understand that Britain cares for them. I want the local Governments to know that Britain is strong and powerful and is doing everything we can to fight the enemy, not just by supporting military efforts but by our huge amount of overseas aid. I have taken up too much time. I thank the Minister for listening, and I leave those thoughts with him, as I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for giving us this opportunity.
Lord Hollick (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Lipsey for his great perseverance and for giving us the opportunity today to consider and discuss how effectively our development aid programme is being delivered, and what improvements might be made.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey and I were both members of the Economic Affairs Committee, which in 2012 published the report he referred to, entitled The Economic Impact and Effectiveness of Development Aid. The report was enthusiastic about the positive role of development aid. We concluded that aid should be increasingly targeted towards building stronger and sustainable economies if it is to help reduce poverty and improve the quality of life in developing countries. We recognised that development aid is of course a fraction of the private capital now flowing into developing countries, but that it can play a vital catalytic and enabling role in promoting prosperity.
Our report expressed concern that a sudden increase in funds available to DfID, and the requirement to spend those funds in one particular financial year, would place great pressure on DfID’s resources and might lead to unwise decisions being made about the deployment of those funds. Noble Lords will be aware that in any walk of life the requirement to spend funds within a short period of time and by a certain deadline can promote a very perverse and dangerous set of incentives. It can elevate the need to spend above the full and proper—and sometimes lengthy—consideration of how best to spend that money. It is a case of invest in haste and repent at leisure. This is not an approach well suited to deliver the wise investment of considerable sums of public money. Good opportunities for grant aid or investment do not march to the drumbeat of Her Majesty’s Government’s financial year. That is why the Bill’s modest proposition that replacing the rigid annual spending window with a cumulative five-year window is common sense and can help to promote better outcomes and better value for money.
Since the report was published, I have had the opportunity to see DfID’s work at close quarters and to better understand the process of designing and delivering development projects, large and small. In 2014, I was appointed, like the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, by the Prime Minister as a trade and investment envoy, to Kenya and Tanzania. I now work closely with DfID, the Department for International Trade and the Foreign Office to help to promote trade and investment into both countries. In a way, Dr Fox is my boss—and he is not unaware, I hope, that I like playing golf on Friday afternoons.
I have been very impressed by the range and quality of DfID’s work and by its deep knowledge of different sectors of the east African economy. It has wholeheartedly embraced the prosperity agenda and is becoming the partner of choice for government, civil society, local business, and international funders and investors. Its business model has evolved from the traditional donor model of cash grants, often made to host Governments and international intermediaries, to direct investment in partnerships with specialist venture investors to help fund early-stage business and co-operatives, or to fund the expansion of small social enterprises. Direct loans are made to support projects which improve the infrastructure, the skill base and the regulatory environment, all of which help the economy to flourish—and in some of the smallest and most remote communities in east Africa.
A not-for-profit venture which is successfully implementing this model is TradeMark East Africa. It was set up in 2010 and has already invested $550 million over the last five years. Its success has attracted funds from 10 other nations, and TradeMark will now invest $700 million over the next five years, with 60% of funding coming from DfID—or “UK Aid” as it is now rather more snappily branded. TradeMark is funding investments to improve infrastructure, to ease the crossing of land borders by introducing digital cargo tracking, to improve skills and to simplify taxation—something we might perhaps try to do here.
TradeMark used to receive an annual disbursement from DfID, but now capital is released by DfID only when investments and projects are fully evaluated and approved. This funding method concedes the principle underlying my noble friend Lord Lipsey’s Bill: namely, that funding and cash transfers should follow approved investments and not precede them. We need look only to DfID’s practices to understand the importance of the principle that lies behind the Bill.
This funding model mirrors the hard reality of project funding and investment: the funding arrives only if the project is viable and the sums add up. Large or small projects take time to design, test and gain approval, and the level of funding required is often lumpy and does not fit into the neat world of government’s annual cash accounting. It is a world where funding flows to rigorously reviewed projects, not one where there is a guaranteed level of funds available to invest by a deadline unrelated to the readiness of the project.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey’s Bill reflects the tried and proven structure of the commercial investment fund world. Investors place their money in a fund, either in one payment or in a number of them over several years, and then allow the fund to make the investment when the opportunities have been extensively evaluated and approved. In the private sector, the fund’s five-year investment period can be extended if not enough suitable investments have been identified. This type of patient capital investment has proved time and again to generate better outcomes than investments made in haste under the threat of arbitrary deadlines.
Although the Government may be reluctant—perhaps the Minister may surprise us—to align the legislation to the way the project-funding and investment world works on the ground, there is a ready-made administrative solution. They can establish a fund, centrally, which is funded annually in line with government accounting rules. That would address the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that underspending one year might somehow disappear in subsequent years. The holding fund can then disburse funds to the country or to regional funds—just in the way it is doing with TradeMark at the moment—when the investments have been approved. This approach could, and indeed should, become the funding model for the newly established and rather clumsily named Cross-Government Global Prosperity Fund, which will disburse £1.3 billion of ODA money over the next five years to promote economic growth.
As DfID’s prosperity agenda matures and develops, it is likely to fund an increasing number of projects with debt or equity. This is to be welcomed, for debt repaid and equity sold for value will replenish the funds and allow them to become more self-sustaining and evergreen. Annual ODA targets can then be met, supported with the benefit of the proceeds and repayments from successful investments made in prior years. For instance, if DfID had adopted that approach when it originally funded M-Pesa in Kenya and made it an equity investment rather than a grant, it would now be the proud part-owner of the world’s leading mobile banking and payment system, worth well over £1 billion.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, the Bill is about reporting. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, you can on occasion get involved in disbursing rather more rapidly than you first intended. You can also be caught by delays created by circumstances and not be able to disburse. It is the unexpected effects on DfID’s cash flow and its accountability with which the Bill seeks to deal.
It is a pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hollick. The Commonwealth Development Corporation has of course behaved in entirely the way he was describing and has been doing so for nearly 70 years, having been formed in 1948 as the Colonial Development Corporation, subsequently becoming the Commonwealth Development Corporation and finally, in order to be modern, CDC Group—like “UK Aid” rather than DfID. It has been 100% owned by the British taxpayer throughout its life. It was a public corporation and technically still is. It is doing well, and I commend it to your Lordships as being an interesting institution to study when one is thinking about international development and aid.
International development and aid is a very complex subject. We have heard about some of that complexity this morning in some passionately delivered speeches. Measuring outcomes is very difficult. I was in a sense a colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for many years; he was at an NGO and I was at CDC as an economic development operator. I entirely agree with his conclusion that the whole business of knowing whether or not you are achieving a good outcome is very humbling. You cannot be at all certain that you know what you have actually achieved, and you might have to wait for your grandchildren to tell you.
International development and aid is also very controversial, which has also been illustrated this morning. I commend to your Lordships the great days of Lord Bauer and Lord Balogh debating the subject of aid in the 1960s as an interesting study. The literature that has followed over the years is very controversial, different in its views and passionately expressed. This is therefore a very difficult subject. When we consider it, it is probably as well to remember that we did not achieve our own development with anyone providing an aid programme, unless you include the Marshall Plan. There was no equivalent in the days when we were becoming developed.
The history, and what is being done, makes DfID’s task highly complex and difficult to evaluate as a whole. I come back to thinking in some detail about part of what DfID is doing, and trying to evaluate the whole. The reporting is also very complicated. The question then arises: is the system of accountability satisfactory? That is what I would like to spend the rest of my time on. The 2006 Act is pretty complete, setting out as it does accountability very well and in great detail. My question is: do the amendments to that accountability chain created by the 2015 Act actually stand up? Were they needed and, if so, why?
We should also remember that in 2011 the independent evaluator of DfID’s programme, ICAI, was also created. It is very busy looking in depth and detail at what DfID does and reporting to the Select Committee down the corridor. My argument is that, before deciding on the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and what he is attempting to do, we should consider the accountability chain that affects DfID.
DfID’s latest report, published in July, is 156 pages long. It does not have a single photograph; it is absolutely not a glossy. Well done DfID. I challenge your Lordships to find any other report that has more words on a page than that DfID report; it is very dense. I draw the House’s attention to an interesting paragraph about the remaining need to deal with matters that arose in the recapitalisation of my old employer, CDC, in 2004; Private Eye spent quite a lot of time in 2004 addressing some of the issues contained in it. It would make the most amazing subject for a PhD, and it would probably engage the Select Committee down the corridor for a full day, if it wanted to spend that time. That is only one paragraph; there are dozens of similar ones in the report. I draw attention to a particular line in it that says the Asian Development Bank supported 166,000 households to get water. I thought, “166,000 households in a world population of however many billion? It doesn’t sound like very much to me”. It would be very interesting to have another day just quizzing DfID on how it accounts for the money it disburses to this multilateral called the Asian Development Bank, and whether it thinks it is getting value for money. There is a legion of questions that we could ask arising from the DfID report. We should be very careful before we say that the burden we put on the department with the 2015 Act is okay.
Reporting to the OECD has been mentioned. The Development Assistance Committee has 35 members. It lists countries in four categories up to incomes of $13,000 a year. The money going has to be 25% concessional, using a 10% discount rate. Those reports, which are not easy to make, have to be in by 31 December. The recipe from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, does not actually simplify DfID’s job because there is no way we can escape the 31 December date for the OECD, nor would we want to. We will always have two year-ends, one on 31 December and the other on 31 March. That is the way it is and it would be a mistake to try to change it.
It is also true that DfID has so far achieved the 0.7%—and well done DfID—but the risks are still great. Suppose a delay is caused by an unexpected war or the shutting of a border. It only has to miss the target by £250 million, which is not a big sum in its life, to be on 0.69% or thereabouts, not 0.7%, and trigger the statutory requirement under the 2015 Act, if I read it correctly.
We should consider briefly the obligation under the 2015 Act. The Secretary of State’s statement is required to cover the economic and fiscal circumstances here and,
“circumstances arising outside the United Kingdom”.
That could lead to another 156-page report. It is an open door to a huge system of reporting. Do we really need it? Surely the present system of accountability under the 2006 Act means that Section 2 of the 2015 Act is not needed. My noble friends on the Front Bench are very good at explaining to the House when they consider something to be unnecessary, and that is my argument. We should not change the reality of what is being reported or what is being done, but we should look at whether we are putting an additional contingent liability on DfID with Section 2 of the 2015 Act. I think we are, and I look forward to further stages of the Bill in order to return to this subject.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I start by adding my warm words of welcome to the Minister in taking up his new post. Before I turn to what I had planned say, I shall address some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in his very wide-ranging speech, almost every word of which I did not agree with—in particular, his condemnation of giving aid to countries still practising FGM. His recommendation would condemn girls in those countries to the continuing practice; whereas engaging with the countries to change their practice would, in time, bring about the change that he says he would like to see. At this point, I pay tribute to the huge amount of work that my noble friend Lady Featherstone, who is no longer in her place, has put into alleviating this dreadful practice for the millions of girls who are subjected to it.
I also want to address the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, about Pakistanis. As a British Pakistani, I draw his attention to the fact that on the planes that flew into the World Trade towers on 9/11, there was not a single terrorist on board of Pakistani descent; rather, the vast majority were Saudi Arabians. Saudi Arabia is a country with which we do a great deal of trade in arms, yet we fail to condemn it for exporting its particularly vicious, mediaeval brand of Islam to countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are trying their utmost to deal with it.
I turn to my prepared remarks. There are people in the Middle East and parts of Africa who are on the move. They are on the move because they want the right to live in peace, freedom and human dignity. Decades of abject poverty has devastated families and communities, leading to the political unrest we have seen in recent years.
Until recently, it really was not our problem. We could tinker with the odd issue as it arose, respond to the various media frenzies and retire back into our comfortable lives until the next disaster struck. Today, it is different. Today, we have to confront these issues more directly, because they have arrived on our doorstep. A mass of people—indeed, the biggest mass movement of people in Europe since the Second World War—are desperate enough to cross a continent on foot and risk their most precious possessions to chance the Mediterranean because what they are fleeing is more terrible than what lies ahead.
This debate, brought to us by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is timely because it presents an opportunity to stress again the importance of developed Western nations working to alleviate poverty, and to assert again that, although it is the moral thing to do, this is not just about charity and justice, it is patently in our own interest—a point made most ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger. The problems posed by the issue of people on the move is overturning political norms at home, and we are seeing a rapidly changing political landscape, with all its inherent dangers. Surely it is cheaper and smarter to do what we can to help people where they live, so that they continue to live in their homeland—which is the option that the vast majority prefer.
In the fourth century BC, Aristotle said,
“poverty is the parent of revolution and crime”,
and it is incontrovertible that an important lever for sustained action in tackling poverty and reducing hunger is money. I am proud that it was a Liberal Democrat in the coalition Government, Michael Moore, whose Private Member’s Bill saw one of the finest moments in British history when we enshrined in law our pledge to fulfil the 1970 UN resolution to spend 0.7% of our GNI on international development. I should not forget the part played in its success by my noble friend Lord Purvis. Not only did they enable Britain to fulfil the UN resolution, but a Liberal Party manifesto pledge dating back as far as 1970 was also fulfilled.
What gives the legislation teeth is annual accountability. DfID is exemplary in the way it reports its activities openly and transparently—a lesson that other departments would do well to learn. The department’s work is widely respected across the world, so much so that international development is one of the few areas where the UK is still a global leader and reaps the huge soft power benefits that come from that.
DfID recently published its 2015-16 annual report, referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. He took different things away from it than I did. It gives me an opportunity to cite examples of what the department has achieved on Britain’s behalf, particularly with respect to giving us value for money. Here are some examples.
On wealth creation, it supported 69.5 million people, including 36.4 million women, to gain access to financial services to help them work their way out of poverty, exceeding the target of 50 million by some margin. On poverty, vulnerability, nutrition and hunger, it reached 30 million children under five and pregnant women, of whom 12.1 million were women or girls—again, exceeding their own target of 20 million by a considerable margin. On health, DfID supported 5.6 million births with skilled birth attendants, exceeding their commitment of 2 million. On education, water sanitation and hygiene, governance and security, humanitarian assistance and supporting people to deal with the effects of climate change, DfID can be proud of its work, and I congratulate the department. It has given us real value for money.
DfID also delivers results through the multilateral organisations that it supports, such as GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, which immunised 56 million children in 2014. Then there is the Global Partnership for Education, which trained 98,000 teachers in one year, and UNICEF, which helped 10.4 million children in humanitarian situations to access basic education in 2014. I for one welcome the fact that DfID’s achievements are presented to us on an annual basis, so not only can we see for ourselves the good work that the department is doing but we can use it to persuade others to follow our lead.
There is one other point worth making—that it is important to maintain quality as well as quantity of aid. We must bear in mind that other departments will now spend an increasing proportion of the official development assistance budget, increasing by more than 25% by 2020. There are obvious risks that this presents, such as diluting the quality and potential impact of aid. However, it also represents an opportunity to get cross-Whitehall buy-in for supporting progress towards sustainable development goals and policy coherence for sustainable development. It is clear to me that, to have peace on our planet, we must eradicate poverty—and peace must be translated into food, shelter, health and education. Money well spent and annually accounted for allows us to do just that.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Lipsey for putting forward today’s Bill. He has initiated an incredibly positive debate on the importance of development and aid. I respect my noble friend’s principled position; he is in favour of aid, but he is concerned that the rigidity of the target will lead to wasteful spending and therefore bring the budget into disrepute with an already sceptical public. It is right that we address those issues. We have to make the case—we cannot take anything for granted, particularly given some of the things that are happening in our world. Value for money is a vital ingredient of this debate, and we should not forget that.
My noble friend acknowledges that this is indeed a rerun of part of the debate on the 0.7% Bill, which is now of course an Act. His amendments then would have had the same effect as this Bill but, he argues, this replay is under very different conditions. He focused on changes to political leadership in the expectation that it could lead to a weakening of the 0.7% commitment. Yet, following the much-reported speech at the Conservative Party conference, the new Secretary of State Priti Patel said:
“Meeting the 0.7 per cent target for overseas aid is a manifesto commitment. It is enshrined in law and the Government has been unequivocal that we will continue to honour that promise”.
Good—we need to repeat that. We also need to remember that legislating for the 0.7% target featured in all three manifestos at the 2010 election, so we have a very broad political consensus for the principle.
As my noble friend Lord Judd said, development is about tackling the imbalance of power, politically, economically and socially. Value for money means measuring success by the change we make, not simply the cash we put in. My two noble friends mentioned the March 2012 report from your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee, which questioned the effectiveness of the targets, saying that,
“the speed of the planned increase risks reducing the quality, value for money and accountability of the aid programme”.
I agree that we need to understand that risk; as the aid budget increases, so must our ability to control it. That is why we strongly support, as I know all noble Lords do, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. Value for money should mean maximising the impact we make; when a budget as important as this is ring-fenced, there is a fiscal responsibility and a moral duty to deliver as much change as possible for the money we invest. That sort of value for money is crucial.
As we have heard in this debate, development is also in Britain’s interests. Britain invests in development to prevent extreme poverty, climate change and conflict. Retreating from that responsibility one way or another will still carry a cost; the way to eliminate that cost is to tackle it at source. The UK would be much better off growing and trading with a strong global economy, with a sustainable climate, supportive Governments and secure borders. That is what British development helps to achieve; tackling those big global issues can save us billions in future.
The world that we live in is a rapidly changing one. Defence, diplomacy and development are the combined necessary ingredients of securing the peaceful world we all desire. In promoting the Bill, my noble friend repeats the argument that increased flexibility in respect of the one-year programme will avert the danger that the money will be rushed out to hit the target in one year, and there will not be enough to hit the target so easily the following year. As noble Lords have said, the target has now been met for the third year—and I hope that, when we reach Committee, we can address the issue of evidence. Where is the evidence of this rush? Where is the evidence of waste, bearing in mind the elements of scrutiny that we now have, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, rightly drew our attention?
I agreed strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, when she repeated her commitment to the 0.7% target and said that she feared that any loosening of that commitment could be the thin end of the wedge. I agree with her; we have to see this commitment as a political one that binds us to the future, that is about changing the world as it is. Turning to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, it is an international target, not something in isolation. We participate in it because we want to show the world what we are doing. We want to lead the world and set an example that we want others to follow. That is why I am extremely concerned that any weakening of this principle could weaken our ability to argue for others to do more.
In this debate, many noble Lords drew attention to DfID’s latest annual report. I too was going to quote a number of examples, but that has been done for me already. The key element—it is a principle we have heard in relation to the sustainable development goals—is our commitment to leave no one behind. That means we seek to alleviate poverty and address those fundamental issues in every country in the world. Every item of the programmes we have heard described addresses the needs of millions of people. We are making a difference.
When he introduced the original Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made a comment which is worth repeating, as it addresses some of the issues raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. With the 2006 and 2015 Acts, we now have an annual target and a very strong framework of accountability, involving both the ICAI and Parliament. We should be properly assessing that framework and whether it is delivering the scrutiny we require to ensure value for money. I welcome the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in the sense that it has given us the opportunity to debate this issue, and look forward to Committee stage, when we can go into these issues in a bit more detail. At the end of the day, we want public policy based on evidence. We have very strong evidence that what this country does today is helping to change the world.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for this timely debate on international development. It does not often happen in your Lordships’ House, but last business yesterday was the debate on international development in Africa in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, and this is first business today. It is a welcome opportunity to flesh out, look again at and rigorously test the Government’s policies on international development.
It is absolutely right to place this in context. This is not a new debate; it goes back some time. My noble friend Lord Eccles referred to the history of the CDC going back 70 years. This particular pledge goes back to the UN General Assembly in 1970 and remained a commitment. I had not appreciated the point about the Liberal manifesto, but I do know that the 1974 Labour Government were the first to adopt it as an aspiration that they were seeking to achieve. However, it was not until the UN conference on financing for international development in Monterrey that serious impetus began to be given to that target. It was not until 2013, under the coalition Government led by David Cameron, that the pledge was met.
It is in the nature of good-quality debate that there will always be contributions that make one feel less comfortable and that nudge and challenge. I may be a member of the “aid crew”, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, put it, but it is there because of the conviction that the best route out of poverty is economic development and education. It does not matter whether you are from Gateshead in Tyne and Wear or growing up in Tanzania, Kenya or any other part of the world, the facts are the same: economic development is based on education and that leads to less conflict. The more trade there is in the world the less conflict there will be. That is what we are focused on.
If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was a little uncharitable towards the role played by David Cameron. As a former Treasury Minister, the noble Lord may have a great deal of knowledge of the Treasury and he has written about those times. I will look up his book and take a closer interest in it. However, I was around the table when these policies were being developed when David Cameron first took over as leader of the Conservative Party and I can tell noble Lords that they were heartfelt. He initiated Project Umubano, a social action project in Rwanda, which many candidates from the Conservative Party went on. My noble friends Lady Hodgson and Lady Jenkin, who are in their seats, were part of it. Hundreds of people went on that project and saw at first hand what was being delivered there and it had a transformational effect. Led by the work of Andrew Mitchell, it resulted in a policy document called One World Conservatism. Whether you like the title or not, this was a genuine, deep and heartfelt recognition of the work which needed to be done by Government to fulfil our responsibility—in our enlightened self-interest—to the world’s poor. I have immense pride that it was David Cameron, supported by George Osborne, Andrew Mitchell and William Hague—now the noble Lord, Lord Hague—who delivered on that pledge as part of the coalition. It continues to be a Conservative Party manifesto pledge and we do not want to consider the notion that we might not be living up to that.
Additional legal rigour was given to this by the tremendous initiative undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in this House and Michael Moore in the other place. This brought forward the extra bit of steel needed to ensure that we live up to the obligations which were, as my noble friend Lady Hodgson outlined, “hard fought for”. Having been involved in some of those fights, I believe we are in a better place now. Having established and settled the argument over funding levels, we can now move our attention and gaze to the effectiveness with which those resources are being deployed and we welcome that.
I will set out our position on the Bill and then address some of the points raised in the debate. The UK’s Official Development Assistance investment is creating a safer, healthier and more prosperous world and is something Britain can be proud of. It is not in Britain’s interests to allow states to become ungovernable or unstable, nor allow their paths to development to be blocked. The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, referred to it having a “catalytic” and “enabling” impact. We believe that, at its best, that is exactly what it should be. It should also apply to all other programmes.
With more fragile states across the Middle East and Africa vulnerable to insecurity and terrorism and protracted crises, driving people from their homes in search of a better life—as the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, mentioned—the world is rapidly changing. The notion that this is the time to withdraw or back off, whether diplomatically, militarily or through our development programme, is flying in the face of reality. This is a time when this country needs to be more outward-looking and globally engaged than ever before. In many ways that is the argument I use to my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Britain’s strategic leadership on the global stage is more important. We cannot sit back and wait for international problems to arrive on our doorsteps. An outward-looking and globally engaged nation must take action to tackle these issues at source. The UK’s leadership in responding to global challenges is critical for eliminating extreme poverty and firmly in the UK’s national interest.
Delivering 0.7%, alongside our world-class Diplomatic Service, is a very important commitment. Sometimes there is argument and contention around the 0.7% figure. However, the Government also have a 2% commitment on defence expenditure. I do not hear many noble Lords, including on the Benches behind me, questioning that commitment. They think it is absolutely right in a world that is less safe that the safety of this country and of other people around the world is a priority, so we make that commitment of 2%, and 0.7% is part of our aid policy on that. We have, of course, our permanent seat at the UN Security Council and our historic relations with the Commonwealth. It has enhanced Britain’s role in the world as a global leader on development, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, said. We have a hugely influential voice in this field. I was particularly interested in her suggestion that we ought to look at ways of giving our aid greater visibility.
Many noble Lords spoke of their visits to different countries. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, talked about his experiences in Mozambique and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, talked about the Bekaa valley. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, spoke of his experiences and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, talked about his extensive work and travelling during his time as the distinguished chairman of the International Development Committee in the other place. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester talked about east Africa. When we visit these places, we may ask why there is not greater visibility for the UK taxpayers’ contribution in these areas. Of course, sometimes that is due to safety concerns for the staff working in an area delivering the aid. However, in certain cases I think we could do better in projecting our soft power in the way the noble Baroness suggested. I undertake to look at that.
Aid had a significant impact in transforming the lives of the world’s poorest people between 1990 and 2010. In the world today, 88% of people have enough food to eat and lead healthy lives—up from 76% in 1970. Fifty-four million more children started going to school in sub-Saharan Africa between 1999 and 2011. Millions more women now have access to family planning, and the number of women dying due to complications during pregnancy and childbirth fell by 47% between 1990 and 2010. Britain’s own aid programmes have already delivered education for 11 million schoolchildren and provided 69 million people with crucial financial services to work and trade their way out of poverty. On that point I again come back to my noble friend Lady Hodgson, who asked about some of the microfinancing initiatives, which those of us who have looked at this area consider are often the most effective, yet sometimes it seems as if the funding is biased towards the huge organisations with great delivery capacity. While that may of necessity be the case, a lot of those large organisations are working with small communities in small villages, and with individuals within those villages, particularly with women, to bring about transformational change.
Meeting the internationally recognised—OECD-wide—approach to calculating 0.7% gives us the moral authority to hold others to account for failing to meet their own promises. This is critical in convincing others to step up and contribute more to often underfunded humanitarian crises. I was particularly struck by references to this moral authority and how it is developed. It was most visibly in evidence at the regional conference in London to secure support for Syria held in February 2016, which secured pledges of more than $12 billion, the largest amount raised in one day for a humanitarian crisis. At the conference, the then Prime Minister David Cameron announced that the UK would double its own pledge to the Syrian crisis from £1.2 billion to £2.3 billion. The best kind of leadership you can ever have on the world stage is leadership by example. I believe that that is what happened there.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for recognising the unequivocal commitment of the Secretary of State, Priti Patel, to overseas aid and to the 0.7% target, which she reiterated as a manifesto pledge. I know from the visits that she has made in recent weeks to Kenya, and last week to Sierra Leone, what a profound impact those countries have had on her as she has seen the effectiveness of DfID’s work around the world, as the noble Lord Hollick, mentioned. If the Bill were to be passed it could be perceived that, if we are to hit an average figure rather than an annual figure, certain years will be under the average. Therefore in those years we would fail to meet the obligation which has resulted in our having such a great effect on the world stage. That point was excellently underscored by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who said that there was a considerable downside to the proposals in the sense that we would lose the authority conferred by being a 0.7% committed donor. He also said that there is no visible upside, certainly in years three, four and five, as he rightly described the effect that procedure would have. As I have already noted, the five-year average target implies that in some years we will not meet that 0.7% figure. However, we are committed to ensuring that that happens.
In terms of annual reporting, the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said that living with two different year ends is something that has to be done in meeting an OECD DAC commitment. I was particularly interested in that not least because of my noble friend’s great experience in this area, having previously been for many years the general manager—as I think it was called then —of the CDC, or chief executive, as we would now term it. I was particularly interested when he asked whether we were doing too much reporting, overdelivering and duplicating. I am happy to look at that again. We will be able to examine the reporting requirements in the CDC Bill, which is now going through the other place, and debate whether they are too onerous.
DfID is one of the most effective aid delivery organisations in the world. It is widely respected. It spends around 1% of its budget on administration. It is rigorous in the way that it delivers its work. There are welcome elements to this Bill, which, if it is your Lordships’ will that it proceeds to Committee, we could explore further. For example, we could explore the right reverend Prelate’s comments on outputs and outcomes. We could also look at the work done by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact and its reports in this area and the work and scrutiny of the Select Committee. We believe that the work achieved through having this 0.7% target, and the impact that enables us to have on the world stage, are something we ought to cling on to and build on. I undertake to write to noble Lords and consult officials to see whether there are any issues I have not dealt with. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us the opportunity to talk about this issue and the reasons why we have got to where we are. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, we should not for one minute be complacent. We need to recognise that we are dealing with UK taxpayers’ money and we need to make the case for what we are doing, as so many have done this morning and will continue to do. We are grateful to them.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
Would it be possible to have an arrangement whereby, if the budget is not completely spent in one year, it could be carried over to the next year for agreed, acceptable projects? The reason I suggest this is because when the consultants took over the running of Guy’s Hospital some years ago, we had a legal agreement that any money not spent could be carried over but only for agreed, acceptable projects.
Lord Bates
That is an interesting point. In reality, when the allocation is made a lot of the funding goes to multiyear projects, because these are often more effective than one-off events. They are multiyear, which is important—so in a sense, as part of the overall commitment, there is a carrying-over of programmes. We believe that the 0.7% commitment needs to be met. To do that, we need to stand by the OECD DAC rules, and we committed to doing that both in legislation and in our manifesto.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I should correct one misunderstanding, which is probably my fault. I did not mean to say that Cameron was doing this for wicked motives; in fact, I said that he might be doing it for high moral motives. However, my more than 40 years in politics, including working for a Prime Minister and a Foreign Secretary, have persuaded me that it is not a good idea to think that you can tell exactly what motive lies behind politicians’ utterances. They nearly always have mixed motives, and we should consider their pronouncements on their merits rather than think that they are doing something for this or that reason. On that basis I do not think that I would make a very good popular journalist, but that is my view.
I also thank all those who have spoken in this debate and, because this has been a remarkably full House for a Friday morning, all those noble Lords who have sat through the speeches, listening carefully and grappling with a real, if limited, issue. I will not use the phrase “House of Lords at its best” because that comes out three or four times a day, but I think we have a good claim to that this morning.
At the same time, there were moments when I felt that we were ships passing in the night and that, in particular, some noble Lords felt that in some way I was up to something, which I was not. I heard the phrase “slippery slope”, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to a “Trojan horse”. My noble friend on the Front Bench spoke of the “thin end of the wedge”. I shall therefore use a cliché of my own: “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile”. I may be wrong about this but I believe that, if the Bill were to become law, the aid programme would be more soundly planned, more soundly based and more likely to survive the vicissitudes of public debate. So whether it turns out to be a Trojan horse or a galloping thoroughbred that carries us through to an even better system of aid in the future, only time will tell—but I do refute the proposition that I am in any way aiming to cut the level of aid.
The other thing that strikes me very much is how we would benefit from a Committee stage, where we could narrow things down a bit more. Some very intelligent suggestions were made for better ways of achieving the same objectives that I have. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, suggested 5% flexibility either way, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, had some very good ideas on this, too. With a further stage of the Bill we might be able to progress the debate until we reached a consensus on both sides, provided that the bottom line is observed, which is that whatever emerges does not result in a penny less than 0.7% of GNI being spent on aid—not a penny, because I would not countenance that.
Register of Arms Brokers Bill [HL]
Friday 18th November 2016
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Register of Arms Brokers Bill [HL] 2016-17 View all Register of Arms Brokers Bill [HL] 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 7-I Marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 58KB) - (16 Nov 2016)
Baroness Jolly
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister and her officials for a really useful meeting last week. Amendments 1 and 2 are technical and would rectify shortcomings in the original Bill debated at Second Reading, as highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report of 25 October this year.
With the leave of the Committee, I should like to outline briefly the purpose of the Bill. It is a small Bill to meet an obvious need. Its purpose is to require British arms brokers to register before they can trade. It brings arms brokers into line with those of other countries, such as the US—a country not recognised as being in favour of unnecessary regulation. Here, I should point out that a strong regulatory regime is already in place to ensure that licences are granted to export appropriate goods to states which we trust to act responsibly with the arms that are purchased.
At Second Reading the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby summed up the issues really well. He said that the Bill,
“builds upon existing legislation about licensing and export control, so we have a set of criteria and an assessment process in place so that all companies involved are scrutinised and licensed. We are doing the work that would provide the register. So the principle of identifying and monitoring arms brokers is established.
Secondly, there has been a recommendation from the House of Commons Committees on Arms Export Controls that the Government establish a register of UK arms brokers. So besides have a principle of identifying and licensing brokers, even in our own parliamentary system there has been some expert scrutiny of that principle and a recommendation that it is taken forward to a formal system of registration”.
Finally, I refer to the right reverend Prelate’s recent experience of being involved in the crafting and implementation of the Modern Slavery Act. He said:
“In the language of that world, which is analogous, there is the issue of … supply-chain transparency: how people trade and make it transparent for the benefit of all concerned, pushing back against temptations towards corruption”.—[Official Report, 10/6/16; col. 958-59.]
As I said, these are two technical amendments, which were prompted by the DPRRC. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for speaking, as I did not have the opportunity to take part at Second Reading.
I am a little puzzled by the meaning of new Section 4A(2) proposed in Clause 1. As I read it, it would mean that members of the Ministry of Defence, civil servants, members of the Armed Forces and the Treasury and various Ministers,
“involved in the financing, transportation, freight forwarding, or taking of any other action that facilitates the manufacture, export, or import of military equipment or military technology”,
should be registered. I find that odd. It is quite obvious that members of the Armed Forces and civil servants in the Ministry of Defence are involved in the design, improvement and manufacture of weapons to be used by our Armed Forces, but I do not really understand why they should be registered as arms brokers.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I must also apologise for not having been able to participate at Second Reading. However, I am glad to say that I cannot think of a Bill that is more pressing or important in the highly dangerous world in which we live.
Weapons are lethal. I have always held the view that the export of arms is so dangerous that it should be only to recognised allies, in the context of alliances to which we belong, or in the case of very specific arrangements that further defence interests as we see them and which can be monitored. The ethos has to be changed from one of exporting arms unless there is a reason not to, to seeing arms as very dangerous, hazardous and unwise things to export unless there is a very good reason for doing so. I believe that that underlying ethos is crucial. In the context of what I have just said, the amendment speaks for itself. As far as I am concerned, I warmly applaud it, as I do the Bill, and hope that it succeeds.
Baroness Jolly
Perhaps I can better help the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, by explaining that the issue he raised comes under the second group of amendments. The amendments in the first group are merely technical to determine how such legislation could take effect.
Lord Swinfen
I am quite happy for the noble Baroness to answer my query when we come to the second group. I shall wait patiently to hear what she has to say.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
One does not often hear those words in the House. It was very gracious of the noble Lord to agree to reorganise his speech in order to get the answer that he wants from the noble Baroness.
We have gone back slightly over ground that was raised at Second Reading and I do not want to carry on that trend. We should focus on the amendment. As has been said, this amendment has been recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and it is entirely appropriate for the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, to bring it forward for the Committee’s consideration today.
Having said that, I feel very strongly that this is a gap in an existing and strong system, as was referred to by the noble Baroness in her introductory remarks. We have a strong regime that deals with these difficult areas, and we have licensing and registers already in place. The additional work required is very small, but it fills a lacuna in our existing arrangements, which is very important, in that we do not currently focus on the agents or people in the supply chain, as she says. I recommend the amendment to the House.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for steering her Bill into Committee today. I know that there was an interesting and thoughtful debate at Second Reading, during which my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe expressed some of the Government’s reservations about the Bill.
I will pick up on one or two points before I commence my remarks. On the vetting of trade control licence applicants, presently only the eight elements of the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria are considered when granting or refusing export or trade control licences. The Government have no plans to introduce any further changes to those criteria.
The noble Baroness mentioned the need for greater transparency. The UK already publishes one of the most comprehensive reports concerning strategic exports. This includes reference to all our international reporting requirements, as well as information on export licences issued, refused or revoked by destination, including the value and type—for example, military—and a summary of the items covered by the licences.
The straightforward amendments in this first group, which stem from recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its fifth report, seek to clarify the Bill’s order-making power. The amendments simply change the type of subordinate legislation the Bill provides for so that it is in line with the other powers conferred in the Export Control Act. It remains the Government’s view that this power is not necessary to introduce a register along the lines of that being proposed by the noble Baroness.
Section 4 of the Export Control Act already confers a power on the Secretary of State to introduce trade controls on the acquisition, disposal and movement of goods, and activities which facilitate or are otherwise connected with these actions. As such, we already have the means to implement further controls, such as a register, via secondary legislation if the Government consider it to be in the public interest to do so.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
It was very helpful of the noble Baroness to explain some of the Government’s thinking on this matter, but she has highlighted one of the key questions, and I am sure that if I do not stand up and press this, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, will. If the Government already have the powers under the existing legislation, will she explain concisely why it is they will not act on what is so clearly a lacuna?
Baroness Mobarik
I wonder whether I might get back to the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Of course. I look forward to receiving a letter on this point. Perhaps the word “lacuna” has caught the noble Baroness unprepared and I should explain a little further—I am not entirely sure myself whether I have got the right word.
The noble Baroness made it very clear that the powers exist, and indeed we discussed that at Second Reading. However, there is a reluctance in the Government’s mind, as I have detected from what she said, around whether or not it is necessary to do so. You do not have to be a reader of lurid fiction or even have an imagination to recognise the sort of people who populate the world in which this activity goes on. Many firms are of high regard and good standing, but there is a penumbra —I am sorry, I must stop using these complicated words; there is a shadow—in which other people operate.
It would be helpful to the progress of this Bill and more generally to the world at large if the Government could be a little more forthcoming about the reasons why they do not support this. In addition to the licensing and registers already in place and the complicated processes that are gone through in government to ensure that licences are properly awarded, they should be able to focus on the people concerned.
Baroness Mobarik
One cannot get into the mindset of such people, but we have such a thing as brass-plate companies. They operate in name only. They are shell companies that have no presence other than a brass plate. Therefore, the kind of people that the noble Lord is talking about will operate under the radar regardless. The existing legislation is adequate, according to the Government, in controlling such behaviour as far as we are able to.
Baroness Jolly
I thank the Minister for her explanations. We have already gone into the next amendment, which I will introduce in a moment. To bring us back to Amendments 1 and 2, I guess that this is very much a legal point. We looked at the issues raised by the committee. We took some legal advice and came up with another form of drafting. It seems as though the Government’s lawyers are less than happy with what we have come up with, but I thank the Minister nevertheless.
Baroness Jolly
Baroness Jolly
“(b) a person may only be entered in the register if he or she is a fit and proper person to be registered as an arms broker.(4A) The Secretary of State shall specify in guidance what is meant by a “fit and proper person” in subsection (4)(b).”
Baroness Jolly
This amendment is really the nub of what we are trying to achieve. It calls for a fit and proper test for arms brokers. The majority of British arms brokers are decent, upright citizens who have chosen this particular profession and would most certainly pass any fit and proper person test as defined by the Secretary of State. However, as the Minister indicated earlier, some are brass-plate operators and work in offshore tax havens such as the British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein or Gibraltar. They pay no tax on considerable earnings.
The events of earlier this year highlighted the key role that offshore shell companies have played in large-scale tax avoidance, prompting a series of reforms and proposed new legislation in the Criminal Finances Bill, which will come before this House some time early next year. There is widespread political support to crack down on these activities and make it harder for individuals to use such offshore vehicles for tax avoidance, including greater powers of disclosure over such overseas assets.
Crucially, these offshore company vehicles have not just been used by those seeking to avoid paying tax. There is a direct link to arms brokering in that they are also the vehicle of choice for arms brokers wishing to conceal their activities. Here, I am clearly not referring to perfectly bona fide arms manufacturers, Ministers, members of the Cabinet or whatever who, if they are caught within the remit of the Bill, are caught totally unintentionally.
A registration system of arms brokers, including mandatory disclosure of all overseas company assets, would serve as a major enforcement tool for Her Majesty’s Government to tackle illicit brokering. It would also be fully consistent with complementary to parallel initiatives being pursued to clamp down on tax avoidance using the same overseas company vehicles and structures. As such, it would be wholly inconsistent with emerging government policy in this area and a huge missed opportunity to exclude arms brokering activities from the process of establishing greater oversight and regulation over offshore companies.
The UK has one of the most active and lucrative arms industries in the world and, at a time of global instability, it is critical that we play our part to ensure that it is transparent. Over 30 industries in the UK require registration, from bouncers to beauticians, yet people who make millions trading weapons, bombs and military equipment have no such scrutiny. The amendment would require all UK arms brokers to pass a fit and proper person test, bringing us into line with most western countries, including the USA and Australia. I beg to move.
Lord Judd
My Lords, the amendment is critically needed. It relates to my previous point. Ideally, we should export arms only when they are furthering our defence policies or our strategic alliances for specific purposes. If they are exported outside that context, it should be in a very carefully considered way that contributes towards world peace and stability. Of course all the huge issues of end use and the rest are critically important for context. From that point of view, I can imagine that only the most responsible citizens are qualified to be involved in this trade. The amendment is very important if we are to take the whole purpose of the Bill as seriously as we should.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I may press the Government a little on the extent of this register for arms brokers. My noble friend Lady Jolly has spoken about how, in the past, companies in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies have been used for quite extensive arms brokering to foreign companies. Many of us will remember a number of instances of that. I and others will also be aware of the extent to which our Government provide support to companies based in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies in their exporting activity but do not register and regulate them entirely. That is a possible loophole, which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, might even describe as a lacuna. It is important that we should be clear quite how far registration and regulation extends. Questions of transparency and proper regulation are always left ambiguous when offshore companies operating in our overseas territories and Crown dependencies are engaged, and historically they have been very active, in the arms brokering trade. I would like further clarification on that.
Lord Swinfen
My Lords, I know that I do not hear very well, but I did not hear the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, answer the points I made on the first amendment, although I heard her say on that one that she would respond to them when taking Amendment 3. I gather that we are now on that amendment and I look forward to hearing from her.
Baroness Jolly
The point I thought the noble Lord was making was to do with the breadth of the measure having to cover Secretaries of State, members of the Cabinet and British arms manufacturers who deal perfectly legitimately and regularly overseas. Do I understand the noble Lord aright?
Lord Swinfen
The noble Baroness is moving in the right direction, but as I read her Bill it would cover the Ministry of Defence, civil servants working for that ministry, members of the Armed Forces, the Treasury, Ministers in the Treasury and anyone involved in the manufacture and supply of arms for our own forces. I am sure that that is not her actual intention, and I am not a lawyer although I am descended from lawyers, but that is my reading of her Bill. It may be that she needs to look at this point before the Report stage.
Baroness Jolly
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. I am not a lawyer either and neither am I descended from lawyers, but I will most certainly take advice from them and ensure that, should the Bill reach the Report stage, I table any necessary amendments to exclude those particular groups. The aim of the Bill is to catch arms brokers who for the most part operate in small or single-individual companies hiding behind brass plates. Recently there have been several instances of brokers trading illegally. They have been charged and served their time, but because there is no registration, they can come straight back and trade again. That is the purpose of the Bill and so that is what the fit and proper person provision is for.
Lord Swinfen
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she will have a look at this point, and I look forward to hearing what she decides on it at a later stage.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am tempted to say that we probably all want to be sure those who are caught by the broad definitions which have been read into the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, are indeed fit and proper persons. I hope that Ministers would not object if that was a test which was applied to them, although the idea that it might be applied by civil servants to their incoming Ministers might be a bit of a shock to those who aspire to high office. I will not perpetuate that myth any further, and I am sure that the point can be dealt with as we move forward to the Report stage.
Again, the noble Baroness has done a good job in producing a better set of words to try to capture the issues that are in play in the Bill. A further point that she might want to consider before we reach Report is that it might be worth also looking at the recent report from the UN Human Rights Council, which has brought out the principles under which international trade should be regulated in order to make sure that human rights are not breached. Obviously, it is a tricky area and she has acknowledged that the people who operate in this world are often registered outside UK territorial reach and therefore we are not able to pursue them through the British courts or other areas. This is exactly the point raised by the UN Human Rights Council. It is about the need for us all to work together to try and make sure that any gaps in the system are not left unfilled. But these are broader issues than the context of this Bill and I therefore support the amendment as it is framed.
Baroness Mobarik
My Lords, this amendment would remove references to the consideration of criminal history and tax status to leave the determination of who is a fit and proper person to guidance that would be issued by the Secretary of State. Any fit and proper person test as a prerequisite for inclusion on a register would need to apply to all categories of applicant, including businesses, individuals, non-governmental organisations and other entities, and be robust enough to hold up to legal challenge if necessary. The Government, who remain committed to better regulation where it is necessary, consider the existing control regime to be sufficiently robust and fully in line with our obligations under the international Arms Trade Treaty. Requiring brokers to register in the way proposed would make the system considerably more complex.
I will pick up on a couple of points the noble Baroness made. The first we referred to earlier, which is brass-plating. Existing legislation would, in certain circumstances, allow enforcement action to be taken against brass-plate companies and their officers. However, there needs to be sufficient evidence to justify any such action. On her other point on tax evasion, HM Revenue & Customs considers all credible information regarding potential breaches of UK strategic export and trade controls, and takes a range of enforcement action based on the particular factors of each case.
I will refer to something that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised on human rights issues. Risks around human rights abuses are a key part of our assessment. We do not export equipment where we assess that there is a clear risk that it might be used for internal repression, would provoke or prolong conflict in a country, or would be used aggressively against another country.
Each licensing decision is currently considered on its own merits against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, known as the consolidated criteria. This provides a thorough risk assessment framework and requires us to think hard about the impact of providing or brokering arms and equipment and their capabilities. These are decisions we never take lightly.
I should make it clear that the UK operates one of the most robust and transparent export and trade control systems in the world. We are confident that, by considering all applications against the consolidated criteria, we employ a thorough risk-based approach to determine whether to grant a licence to a particular end-user or broker.
Finally, we are proud of the fact that the UK has been at the forefront of addressing concerns on arms brokering by introducing controls that apply not only in the UK but extraterritorially. That was the point that the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Stevenson, made. It is quite a technical issue and I can write to noble Lords to clarify further. As I said, it applies not only to the UK, but extraterritorially to UK persons overseas. This signifies our clear intention to prevent UK persons escaping brokering controls by simply operating outside the UK.
Lord Judd
I thank the Minister for responding to my intervention, but I do not believe she has quite taken the point. My concern is that weapons are so dangerous and potentially negative in their effect that they should be exported only in situations in which peace and stability are at risk, or an agreed necessary military action, in the context of an alliance, is undertaken. I cannot see really, logically, why anyone else would come in with a desire to export arms if it did not fit into that context. If it did fit into that context, why would somebody else have to apply? It therefore seems to me that if we are going to have these free-standing individuals operating in the market, they need to be incredibly responsible citizens who fully understand what the purposes of foreign defence policy, stability policy and all the rest really are. Otherwise, we are in a situation in which the conveyed message is that it is okay to export arms, unless we establish through our very effective controls systems that there is a very good reason for not doing it, whereas I think there has to be a very good reason for doing it. From that standpoint, this amendment moves in the right direction.
Renters’ Rights Bill [HL]
Friday 18th November 2016
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Renters’ Rights Bill [HL] 2016-17 View all Renters’ Rights Bill [HL] 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 8-I Marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 62KB) - (16 Nov 2016)
Baroness Grender
“(1) A letting agent who, in connection with the grant, renewal or continuance of a residential tenancy, requires from the tenant the payment of any premium shall be guilty of an offence under this section.(2) In subsection (1), “premium” means any fine, sum or pecuniary consideration, other than the rent or deposit, and includes any service or administration fee or agency charge.(3) In subsection (2), “deposit”, in relation to a residential tenancy, means any money intended to be held (by the landlord or otherwise) as security for—(a) the performance of any obligations of the tenant, or(b) the discharge of any liability of the tenant, arising under, or in connection with, the tenancy.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify the categories of sum which are not to be treated as a premium for the purposes of this section; and the maximum amount which tenants may be asked to pay in respect of such a sum.”
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I let your Lordships know that I am registered as a vice-chair of the All-Party Group for the Private Rented Sector.
In England, one-quarter of all families with children now live in a private rented home. In the UK, £48 billion is spent each year on rent for privately rented homes, double the figure for 10 years ago. Government data released yesterday show that the median monthly rent in London is now £1,473, a rise of 13% over the last two years. Salaries, as we are all aware, have come nowhere near to matching those rent rises. The number of renters is soaring, monthly rents are soaring and up-front costs are soaring. The sector is changing at a rapid and unsustainable pace and pushing many on low and average wages to crisis point. Ending of a private tenancy is now a leading cause of homelessness, and that does not include the hidden homeless who do not show up in any of the data. One in four renters now say that their last move strained their finances and more than one in three took on some form of debt to pay for it.
This amendment goes to the heart of one of the key issues for renters: high up-front costs, which are a barrier to moving into a home. Ironically, these are even higher for those on low incomes, who are seen as more of a risk to a landlord. Of course, those tenants should be in social housing—we have debated this a great deal and will continue to do so. According to Shelter, one in four renters moved home in 2013-14 and 29% of renters have moved three times or more in the last five years. That rises to 37% if they live in London. Shelter estimates that the median cost of moving for a private renter is £1,500 but we need to ask: how often will that be paid? As I have just explained, it could be paid as many as three times in a five-year period. That is the median cost; for many, it is much higher, with two or three months’ rent demanded up front along with the deposit, as well as letting fees.
Shelter’s research shows that average letting fees are £355 per move, with one in seven people paying £500. On rare occasions, renters have been forced to pay fees of £900 or more to a letting agent, simply for the privilege of moving into a home. Reference checks, credit checks, administration fees, inventory fees—the list goes on. Invariably, the fees charged are extortionate compared to the cost actually incurred by the agent and they are not necessary. Furthermore, any cost actually incurred should be covered by the lettings agent’s client—the landlord—not by the tenant. Far too often these high up-front costs are proving a barrier to tenants, who simply cannot afford to move.
This week Radio 4 broadcast a documentary, presented by Sarah Montague, called “After Cathy”, 50 years on from Ken Loach’s “Cathy Come Home”. It featured the audio diaries of three homeless people over the course of a year. One of them, Zara—not her real name —from London, a teacher and mum of a three year-old and an 11 year-old, had lived in the same private rented home for six years when her landlord put up her rent. She could not afford to move to cheaper accommodation because she could not afford the up-front costs of moving. This teacher is now homeless and has been living in emergency accommodation with her children for a year—a teacher. Does anyone in this Chamber really believe that this teacher, who could not afford the up-front costs to move to cheaper accommodation, would have been helped by a nice clear and transparent breakdown of the additional costs of the credit check, the inventory check, the administration charge and the cleaning costs, on a nice large poster in the lettings agency’s office that complied fully with the Consumer Rights Act, with clear guidance about who she could complain to if the fees were not sufficiently transparent? Does anyone genuinely believe that at that critical moment when she could not afford the up-front costs to move somewhere cheaper, transparency would have made the difference? It would not.
So the critical question in this key amendment and this part of the Bill is what to do about up-front costs—nothing else. I suspect the Minister will tell us that if we take away lettings agency fees from tenants so that only landlords pay them, as in Scotland, rents will rise. But Shelter’s research surveying 120 landlords found only one who had noticed an increase in agency fees and had passed this on to tenants. Of the 50 Scottish letting agency managers it surveyed, 76% either were positive about the change or said it had had no impact. If the Minister is going to say that he is not convinced by Shelter’s research on rents and lettings agencies in Scotland, will he please demonstrate that there is alternative research or a study that the Government have conducted which counter that claim? If there is no such research, I am sure he will tell us.
At Second Reading, the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, also said that tenants would still end up paying, but through higher rents. If the Minister makes that argument today, could he please tell us where the evidence comes from for it? The evidence from Scotland suggests that this is not the case. But even if it is, tenants would be better able to absorb a smaller rise over a 12-month period than having to pay the up-front costs in advance, with lettings agency fees on top. It is the up-front costs that this amendment and Bill seek to remove. I apologise for labouring the point but I want the Minister to answer specifically about up-front costs.
I am moving Amendment 1 having reached the conclusion that the list of potential fees in the Bill, as drafted, would leave too many options for newly named fees to be charged to get round the list outlined in Clause 2(2). The proposed new section originally specified registration fees, administration fees, an inventory check and reference, extension, renewal and exit fees. This amendment therefore bans all fees from the tenant to the lettings agency and specifies that charging a fee to a tenant would be an offence under that section. Subsection (2) of the amendment clarifies that this refers to anything other than the deposit and rent.
Subsection (4) would enable the Secretary of State to make exemptions through regulations, so that if evidence emerges of services in respect of which there is value to the tenant in charging a particular fee, this can be done. I do not anticipate any such fees but my new amendment allows for the possibility, if concrete evidence was indeed found that a fee for a specific service would be in the best interest of the tenant in some way. Such an approach would ensure that all interested parties can be consulted and allowed to have proper discussions about services where there is value. It also enables the Secretary of State to set through regulations a maximum amount for those exemptions.
While I have made it clear—if not somewhat laboured the point—that the central proposal is about taking away unnecessary up-front costs to the tenant and that transparency, while welcome, is not the solution, I would like to pursue one more matter about transparency. At Second Reading the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, said that,
“the Government have committed to reviewing the impact of letting agent fee transparency later this year ”.—[Official Report, 10/6/16; col. 987.]
I believe that November is a later part of the year and would like the Minister to tell us what progress has been made on that review.
If, when it comes to up-front letting fees charges to tenants, the Government are waiting, as many suspect, for some industry-led solution to come forward, I believe that they will be disappointed. The Government will have to choose whether to back the “just about managing” tenants, to use the current terminology, who now constitute 25% of the population, or to back an industry which, according to the evidence available, is able to weather the proposed change in this Bill with ease.
I conclude at this stage with what I believe is the significant challenge before us in the Bill. Is there a way to reduce up-front costs for tenants in the private sector when they move? I believe that there is. Do not allow this Government to hide behind the smoke and mirrors of transparency, however welcome that is. There is one central question in this section of the Bill: can up-front costs be transferred to landlords? Shelter’s evidence from Scotland—in the absence of any other—has shown us the way. There is no counterevidence. This amendment provides a positive yes and I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I extend strong support to my noble friend Lady Grender for this amendment and for her Bill as a whole. This amendment really matters, given the current state of housing supply. It was reported this week that in the last five years, local government spent £3.5 billion on temporary accommodation for homeless people. I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association. The main reason for that spending is the cost of accommodation. One of the contributors to it for individuals is the up-front costs they have to pay, which in very many cases have become too high. This creates a barrier to people moving into a home.
As my noble friend pointed out, because tenants in the private rented sector tend to move more frequently than in the public social housing sector, the costs can be more frequent and become increasingly unaffordable. Removing the up-front cost from the tenant is the right thing to do and I hope that whatever happens to this Private Member’s Bill, the Government will take on board how serious this issue has become. I understand there is to be a housing supply White Paper some time after the Autumn Statement next week. Whether that comes in December or January—perhaps the Minister can help us with that—who funds what in the private rented sector has to be addressed, and for that reason my noble friend Lady Grender has our full support.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her work on the Bill, which highlights a number of key issues affecting the private rented sector. She introduced her amendment with one or two rather broader points about the private rented sector, which enables me as well to say something of a slightly broader nature.
At present, there is a real fear that as shorthold assured tenancies within the private rented sector, to which the noble Baroness referred, gradually terminate, tenants in receipt of housing benefit or universal credit will be rejected by landlords who will find a gap between the amount the tenant can pay using their housing benefit or universal credit and the market rent which the landlord can easily obtain. While that gap exists, landlords will want to see tenants currently in receipt of housing benefit or who in future will be on universal credit out of their accommodation. This is not simply cruelty; this is the market. It will be unwise for a landlord to continue to let to people who have a big shortfall between the amount they receive to pay their rent and the actual rent they are being asked to pay. Even generous landlords who are prepared to go half way will still find that they are in a very uncomfortable position if they know that the people from whom they are asking the rent do not have the money to pay it. They know that there will be trouble over time, so how much better to take a couple, both working, who can afford the rent?
I see a position in which, gradually over a period, virtually all those in high-pressure areas such as London who are currently letting to tenants on housing benefit will wish to see those assured shorthold tenancies terminated, so those tenants will be outside the private rented sector. Sadly, I fear that the social housing sector will find it very difficult to cope with the pressure that that will bring as all those tenants are shed. We are sure to see homelessness grow. I am indulging in some broader comments before addressing some aspects of Amendment 1.
I declare my interest as chair of the Property Ombudsman Council as well as my other interests as set out in the register. I fear that chairing the ombudsman service, which looks after complaints about agents and therefore about fees and the transparency issue that is being debated, prohibits me from using this platform to comment today.
I shall draw attention to one way in which this issue may be taken forward, if the Government feel unable to accept Amendment 1 today. I am leaning on the precedent created by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who, during the passage of the Housing and Planning Bill pressed for an amendment that would place a requirement on managing and letting agents to take out client money protection insurance—this being a proxy for being a respectable body in many cases. Her amendment to place a requirement on agents was not accepted in the context of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, but the Government agreed to take the issue away and create a working group to look in depth at the issue. I suggest that if the Government feel unable to accept Amendment 1, they might think that that excellent precedent, which has now been brought to fruition with DCLG civil servants hard at work looking at these issues under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, might be repeated in this context—in which case I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, could play a leading role in such a working group and I ask the Minister to consider it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who has rented out property for a long time. I believe I raised this point at Second Reading, and I certainly did on the Housing and Planning Bill last year. What concerns me about all this is where the money is going to come from. If the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, believes that people will simply reduce their rents, it is unrealistic. When she talks about how much rents have gone up, that is nothing compared to how much property has gone up.
Baroness Grender
To clarify the question, is the noble Baroness asking where the money that the lettings agencies currently charge would come from?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I am raising the point because, as I have discussed in the past—not during the last Bill, but previously—the inventory cost has to be borne by someone. If the inventory cost is paid only once, by the person who has the benefit of it, it is not then built into the rent in the way it would be if the landlord paid it, when it would be included in the rent, and every time there was a rent increase, there would be an increase in the inventory cost. It would already have been paid and would be a one-off and out of the way. I am very half-hearted about these suggested changes here.
People are overlooking the situation where, particularly in London, landlords are giving up ordinary residential lettings. There is quite a desperate shortage of lettings for ordinary people wishing to rent, because landlords can make so much more money out of Airbnb, which is totally uncontrolled. I opposed the practice when it came up last year during passage of the Deregulation Act, but no one else did. Now, sure enough, Berlin is bringing in controls. New York, Vancouver—all these places—are finding themselves in the same position. The Mayor of London has acknowledged the problem. It is only capital cities that have ever had that limitation on short lets. Whether it is in the tenancy agreement or not, people are totally ignoring that and simply letting them, because they can earn as much in four months as an ordinary landlord would in the whole year. It is much more complicated
Again, we have talked about references. The Government expect you now to know that your tenant, whoever they are, is entitled to be in the country. As for the days when people could employ someone who was not legitimately here, all that changed, if your Lordships remember, with the situation that came up with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. This is much more complicated than people appreciate. This amendment sounds very good and sweeping but the whole thing has not been thought through in enough detail. There might be limits on what you could charge, but as I have said before, I remember letting a property in the days when the Wilson Government just froze rents. They were frozen for about two years, and then they absolutely escalated when the freeze was lifted.
You cannot really find a very easy answer to this, but I am very much in favour of an answer. I thoroughly approve of the idea that you should have access to a register of rogue landlords and all that, but it is unrealistic to imagine that this list of things which the noble Baroness has set out in detail will suddenly become inexpensive or vanish or something. Where is it going to vanish to? This is what I would like to know. I am convinced it will just be built into rents. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, spoke about this recently, as a landlord or someone who had been one way back in history. He said that people had to realise that people who were landlords were doing it as a business, which is true. It is most unfortunate that the supply of housing, both social and ordinary commercial, has vanished, because people need homes and they need them desperately. We all hope that that housing Act will produce more homes for people at affordable prices but the press on it has not been very encouraging. I wait to hear what is said about it.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for tabling the Bill. I declare my property holdings as set out in the register of interests. As personal background, I have spent over 35 years working in the property market as a chartered surveyor, most of it on the commercial side, specifically in development letting, investment and funding. There is a close relationship between commercial and residential when dealt with in bulk.
Who is principally affected by the clauses of the Bill? It is the lowest earners—the most vulnerable, in that sense. It is no coincidence that Shelter has briefed on this, and I think it is tragic that that was necessary. It is students in higher education who have to go to their place of education. It is students who become jobseekers and have to move again. It is a transient group. It is immigrant labour that goes to wherever the work is; there is no shortage of that, apparently. And it is my daughter; in fact, this week both my daughters have applied to rent residential accommodation, and they are learning all about the bumps in the road that we are discussing.
This is the era of social mobility. The world has moved on and the working population is much more mobile. People may move several times, particularly in the early steps of their working lives. They are unlikely to buy, we know that; they rent, and the housing provision must respond. I am afraid the evidence suggests that dishonest or at the very least questionable practices are rife. I thoroughly endorse the list of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and in fact I think the list is considerably longer than we were given. Only regulation would prevent this.
The problem is that, as we have just heard, it is difficult to identify what might be fair and what is spurious. The list is growing. In fact, I have with me the small print from one of my daughters’ contracts with a national firm of estate agents. The small print, which is smaller than I can read with these new glasses of mine, identifies seven different specific items, several of which I as a practitioner in the marketplace think are spurious. It is shocking, with non-refundable payments and refundable payments that, as we know, are sometimes not refunded. The people affected by this have very little recourse—they do not have the wherewithal or the experience, and they are dealing with an institution. Every time they move, we have heard, they pay again: £1,500, a month’s gross salary for many people. For the dishonest agents, if I may be so bold, it is low-hanging fruit. It is an important revenue source. I am sorry to say that, but I am afraid it is probably true. Rents are not going to rise because these costs are transferred to landlords; that is not how economics works. Rent rises because of supply and demand. If there are not enough flats to go around, the rent goes up, and if there is a surplus, the rent comes down.
I am not one-sided on this. The list of fees is not all bad, as we have also heard. Landlords need deposits and references. However, the clever instrument in the Bill is that the Secretary of State is given the right to approve those fees that are considered fair. An adequate supply of housing would stifle spiralling costs, and competition for tenants would trim the fees. However, the shortage of government support for new rental development, particularly in the social housing sector, means that the private sector fills the gap. There is a new product in the parlance of property, the private rented sector. It does not sound very new but it is new in that context, and it refers specifically to the bulk development of residential property that is exclusively built to rent. It is designed to rent, not for sale. It is not for sale after two or three rental periods; it is designed for long-term renting. Services are engineered into the architecture.
This is a new product which some other countries already enjoy and have done for a long time, but our market has never embraced it in the private sector. There are tens of billions of pounds now looking at this market in the UK. It is happening. Sites have been acquired, developments are being processed and planning is being obtained. They are being built in bulk and they will deliver tens of thousands, at least, of new residential units.
I have spoken to Legal & General, a well-known and respected investment manager. It has allocated more than £100 million for this sector. It will finance and own it itself and wants to completely re-engineer the whole rental model. It wants it to be tenant-friendly, and thinks it can be done to provide it with a worthwhile return. It is possible, and the Government should applaud it.
Existing legislation is just not fit for purpose. It is creaking and, with the scale of new development on the horizon, must be updated. There is design of the highest standards, with the quality services I referred to and everything there for the tenant, but who will find the tenants? The letting agent, unless the organisation owning the property is big enough to run that in-house. It is tragic that this product, for want of a better description, could be brought to its knees in reputational terms by spurious fees and up-front costs frustrating the mobility of labour. The scale of this new prospect deserves our attention, and the Bill is a vital step in preparing for it.
To conclude, the Government have a choice: ignore it and play to the unscrupulous—I fear it is as simple as that—or support this initiative, update the law, give it teeth, stamp out unacceptable practices and protect the most vulnerable. Any Bill improving the lot of those in need is to be welcomed; this is one.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I should first declare that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I fully support Amendment 1, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. It replaces what is presently in the Bill with a more detailed provision to further protect tenants and, we hope, avoid a rogue letting agent getting around the Bill. I am particularly pleased to see the reference to deposits in subsection (3). As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said, the amendment also gives flexibility on what should or should not be treated as a premium by giving the Secretary of State power to make regulations to set that out. Importantly, it also allows the Secretary of State to set by regulation the maximum amounts that tenants may be asked to pay; a welcome flexibility here.
I also endorse the general comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. As she said, housing is an issue that we have debated many times and will continue to do so: the cost of housing, up-front costs, fees, the lack of social housing, the cost of rent in the private sector, et cetera. The noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Best and Lord Thurlow, all made contributions that I endorse. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, expressed some concerns and reservations about the clause and the amendment in particular. I do not agree with her: these fees and charges can be abused and tenants taken advantage of; the amendment seeks to address that. I particularly endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, who spoke about the effect that supply and demand has on the housing market. As he also said, at present, the legislation is not fit for purpose. I fully endorse the amendment and hope that we get a positive response from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on this amendment, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for so ably moving it and making some very significant points in relation to this. The Government are clear that the majority of letting agents provide a good service to tenants and landlords—that is our starting point. The Government also know how important housing affordability is and the challenges faced by some tenants, in terms of consumer protection. We have introduced a number of measures to help to tackle this issue. Since 1 October 2014, for example, it has been a legal requirement for letting and managing agents in England to belong to one of the three government-approved redress schemes. Those schemes offer a clear route for landlords and tenants to pursue complaints, weed out the cowboys and cowgirls who give agents a bad name, and drive up standards.
While landlords and letting agents are free to set their own charges, they are prohibited from setting unfair terms or fees under existing consumer protection legislation. We have gone further; in May 2015, under the Consumer Protection Act, we introduced transparency measures that require letting agents to publicise a full tariff of their fees, whether or not they are a member of a client money protection scheme or which redress scheme they are a member of, prominently in their offices and on their website. For the first time, a fine of up to £5,000 has been introduced for agents that fail to do this.
Baroness Grender
If the Minister believes that there will be an impact on rents, can he cite evidence of any research done by the Government into the changes in Scotland, given that at the moment we have one piece of research that says—and I say it again—120 landlords were surveyed and only one had put up costs as a result of the change in Scotland? Does he have some alternative research to present?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Baroness will have heard me say very clearly that we are awaiting the outcome of both the working groups looking at the issue. They will provide important evidence and will have looked at this issue in far greater detail than I have, so I anticipate looking at that when we have the report. I want to take this away and consider it further. I am not opposing the amendment; I am expressing reservations. The noble Baroness and other noble Lords have raised some important issues. I will take this away: we really do need to see the evidence. I hope noble Lords will understand that this is an evidence-based approach that I want to be pragmatic about.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Is the Minister going to address the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, about supply and demand and rent levels? All noble Lords accept that we have a major housing crisis in the country now. I live in Lewisham and when I look in estate agents’ windows I am always shocked at the level of rents now charged in that part of south-east London. Very modest houses can now command extortionate rents and people are just driven out of the area.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Lord will have previously heard me and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. There is an issue of housing supply across the board. There is no question of that: it has been a problem for successive Governments and we have to address it. It is not as simple as addressing a particular part of the problem: it is across the board. There are challenges in all the sectors: private rented, social rented and owner occupied. This is not a straightforward issue and we have to be careful that any changes that we make do not have impacts elsewhere. I therefore want to reflect on this in a positive way and consider all the evidence.
Baroness Grender
Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that, as the promoter of the Bill, I am minded to accept my own amendment. There is no doubt that there are good lettings agents out there who are members of government-accredited redress schemes and pursue best practice. They should continue to charge a fee for the work that they do but the fee should be from the landlord, who can shop around and choose which lettings agency to use. Landlords can decide to use the decent, regulated ones. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for bringing the Committee the perspective from the private sector, which is critically important. I again praise Dorrington Residential, one of London’s leading private sector residential landlords. It has announced that it will work only with lettings agencies which agree not to charge renters any fees. In its own words, it cannot see why other landlords and the Government do not follow suit. There is evidence that it can work and does not impact adversely on the private sector. It is advocated by some private sector landlords, which I praise for doing so.
Citizens Advice produced a report entitled Still Let Down, which found that 18% of letting agents were still not members of a redress scheme, despite this being required since October 2014. Only 4% of renters knew the name of the scheme of which their agent was a member. Generation Rent researched 720 agency websites, of which 96 had no fees published and 240 did not list, as they should, which redress scheme they belong to. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, whom I thank for his support, about the spurious and unreadable small print. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best. The critical issue, which is not covered in the Bill, is housing benefit and universal credit and the attitude of private sector landlords to it. This is, of course, why we need a healthy, burgeoning social rented sector and we need to build more social housing. I expect with a heavy heart a White Paper which is coming in two weeks. According to an exclusive which I read in the Sun yesterday, this will tell us to build higher and higher—a new whizzo wheeze. I still say that we should give the money to local authorities, or remove the cap, and let them build. We all hold our hands up; there is a 30-year legacy which all of us in government have owned, but building social housing is now critical and we have to get on with it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for her support and long years of campaigning in this area. I am sure that all tenants are grateful for this and her pursuit of trying to sort through the complicated issue of leaseholds. The purpose of Amendment 1 is to simplify: it takes away all the lists and bans all lettings fees, but allows the Secretary of State to specify exemptions through regulations. I think that is a better and tidier way of doing it. However, if the Government were to kindly indulge me with a Report stage, I would be happy to work with the noble Baroness and look at any tidying up that could be done to accommodate that issue.
The noble Baroness said that the money has to come from somewhere. I again refer to the experience so far in Scotland. I am very happy to look at alternative evidence on this but so far the evidence is that rents did not go up. However, let us assume that the noble Baroness is correct and rents go up. If they did so, they would be eased out over a 12-year period. I have another example publicised by the BBC yesterday of a lady, Lucy Surridge, who has spent nine weeks living in a hostel in Dagenham, east London, with her 11 year-old daughter and six year-old son. She is a full-time school chef and was made homeless when her landlady sold the property. She is 29 and has approached several agencies, which have told her that she needs to earn £38,500 before they would consider renting to her, and she would need £3,500 in deposit fees. I challenge most noble Lords, bar the obviously extremely wealthy ones, to find that kind of ready cash immediately. That is the critical question we are addressing, that of up-front cash in such cases. I have an 11 year-old who is applying to secondary schools, but I have a fixed and permanent address. However, the two ladies I have described are applying for places in secondary school for their children from an unclear and unfixed address. I know that everyone is up in arms about Brexit, but why we are not rioting on the streets about this is frankly beyond me.
I pay tribute to the Debrief organisation, which has campaigned to make renting fairer and has many examples of people who have experienced exorbitant tenancy fees. A lady called Emily has talked to me. She has moved four times in four years, only once out of choice. Her most recent moving fee was £1,850. She has had to pay that sum up front four times. When this Bill was initiated, most people who contacted me were young professionals living in London. However, as the Bill has been publicised, a striking number of older people have contacted me with similar issues. Whatever we think of the private rented sector and its suitability for tenants on low incomes, we are stuck with that form of tenure for a while. Government data released yesterday show that the affordable housing stock is growing at the lowest rate since 1992—52% lower than last year. Lack of affordable homes is forcing more and more people into the private rented sector, so we are stuck with the private rented sector as an immediate stop-gap solution, even if we could all wave our magic wands and instantly start building social housing at a very fast pace. Therefore, we have to make the private rented sector suitable for people on low incomes.
For all those reasons, I particularly thank the Minister for saying that this is not the end of the journey on this amendment, and that he will consider it. I very much like the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Best, which I will call the Hayter/Palmer precedent. I see that as a very valuable way to move forward on this. I am aware, of course, that there is a working group and people are holding meetings to discuss this. However, at some point people will be at loggerheads and the Government will have to make a decision. I beg the Government to make a decision in favour of the tenants I have described.
Finally, I thank my noble friends on these Benches—and my noble friend Lord Shipley, in particular—for their support for this area of the Bill.
“(2) In subsection (1), for “may by regulations impose duties on a private landlord of residential premises in England” substitute “must lay before each House of Parliament a draft of regulations which impose duties on a private landlord of residential premises in England or the landlord’s agent (or both)”.(3) In subsection (3), leave out “may” and insert “or the landlord’s agent (or both) in the draft regulations must”.”
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 3. In doing so, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Housing and Planning Act enables the making of regulations governing electrical safety checks, and Clause 3 of the Bill would make such checks mandatory. Amendments 2 and 3 seek to ensure that letting agents acting on behalf of landlords are compliant with regulations that are introduced. Where a letting agent was employed by a landlord to deal with the maintenance of a property, the amendments would ensure that the landlord could enlist the letting agent to ensure the upkeep of their responsibilities in relation to electrical safety checks. The amendments are intended to clarify and provide assurance to landlords and letting agencies regarding their responsibilities while seeking to ensure that electrical safety checks place no undue burdens on landlords and that they are kept in line with gas safety checks.
We have debated electrical safety checks many times in your Lordships’ House, most particularly during the passage of what is now the Housing and Planning Act and during the Second Reading of this Bill on 10 June this year. During that time we have all quoted many important figures demonstrating the priority that needs to be given to electrical safety checks. We all welcome and support the mandatory checks for gas safety, carbon monoxide and so on, but the reality is that more deaths in the home are caused by electrical fires than by gas. Therefore, it remains a mystery to us why electrical safety checks are still not mandatory. The Bill proposes that they should be.
At Second Reading on 10 June, some six months ago, the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, said:
“We plan to conclude further research as soon as possible”.—[Official Report, 10/6/16; col. 988.]
Given that six months have now elapsed, I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some information about the progress of that further research. I know, for instance, that a working group has been set up, that it has been meeting to look at this matter and that it is nearing the conclusion of its work. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to say to us today that the Government intend to use the enabling provisions in the Housing and Planning Act and that they will produce draft regulations.
If the Minister is able to confirm that the Government will be producing draft regulations, I wonder whether he can give us any indication of when we might expect them. If I may say so, “shortly” would be very much more welcome than “in due course”. Over the years, some of us have learned to interpret what “in due course”, “shortly”, “in the fullness of time” and so on actually mean. So “shortly” would be very welcome but a precise indication would be even more so.
Also at Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill—we should perhaps make it clear that that is the Lord Palmer to whom we have been referring in this debate—spoke, among other things, about the frequency with which electrical safety checks should be carried out, suggesting every five years. In his reply, the Minister said:
“Maybe that should be four or three”.—[Official Report, 10/6/16; col. 989.]
An average tenancy in the private rented sector has now increased slightly and is four years. Electrical Safety First, which has given excellent safety briefings in support of this issue over the years and for this debate, and most of the industry and stakeholders believe that every five years strikes the right balance with regard to all the interests concerned and given the current turnover in the private rented sector.
Checks every five years in the private rented sector would align it with HMOs in England as well as with legislation being introduced in Wales and what is already in place in Scotland. It would therefore seem sensible for England to follow suit. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Government now accept that the appropriate frequency for mandatory checks should be five years—more frequently when desired, but mandatory for five years? We have debated this subject many times, and I suspect that this will not be the last debate on the subject. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I will be very brief, as I am conscious of the time. I fully endorse Amendments 2 and 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The noble Lord has a track record in campaigning for electrical safety in the private rented sector, and I pay tribute to him for that. As we have heard, the amendment seeks to ensure that letting agents acting on behalf of landlords can be enlisted to ensure that they meet their statutory responsibilities. As the noble Lord also reminded us, we have protections for gas and carbon monoxide poisoning through checks, and it is only right that we get electrical safety checks on the same statutory footing. I fully support both amendments.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for moving these amendments and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his brief contribution. If approved, these amendments would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations requiring landlords and/or their agents to ensure that electrical safety standards are met in their rental properties. I am conscious that many noble Lords, rightly, feel strongly about electrical safety—I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his campaigning role on this—and that it has raised considerable debate. I also know that Shelter has campaigned on this; I pay tribute to its role.
Yet again, the Government are taking a measured and pragmatic approach. As noble Lords have appreciated, we have taken an enabling power in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that allows us to introduce requirements on regular electrical safety checks in rented properties at a future date. It has also been stated, correctly, that we have established an electrical safety working group and are working with experts from across the sector to fully assess whether regulations are needed and, if so, to determine the detailed options for regulation. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to say, “These are the regulations that we will bring forward” or to give a date when we will bring them forward, because we are awaiting the report. The working group has met twice, is due to meet again in the coming weeks, and it is due to present its reports to Ministers by the end of this calendar year.
Six months is an appropriate period in this regard; it is entirely right that on something of this nature we look to a working group to report in a six-month period, and that is what we are doing. The Government will then need to consider it and will of course do so—it is an important issue. I am afraid that I cannot give an undertaking about when regulations will come forward if they come forward. I will not say “in due course”, “timely” or “coming shortly”. However, the Government take this issue seriously, and I can understand the spirit in which these important amendments have been tabled. I can provide the reassurance that the Government regard this as important and will carefully consider the report of the safety group.
However, as I said, it would be premature to commit to legislation, and particularly the scope of any legislation, before the working group has concluded its research and before we have had a chance to look at it and consider what is appropriate in the light of that research.
Baroness Grender
My Lords, again it will not surprise the House to hear that I am minded to accept Amendments 2 and 3. This is a Government leaning on the rented sector for support, like leaning on a walking stick that has woodworm, damp and dry rot. We need to improve the rented sector to meet the needs of people over at least the next decade, if not two. Shelter’s research states that one-third of privately rented homes in England do not meet the Government’s decent homes standard, while almost one-fifth pose serious health and safety hazards. The lack of compulsory electrical checks plays a significant part in that.
As I conclude on the final part of this amendment, I would like to pay tribute to Electrical Safety First, which has been campaigning, along with my noble friend Lord Tope, to bring about these changes. More widely, I would like to thank Debrief and its petition, Generation Rent, Shelter, Crisis and Citizens Advice, all of which supported the Bill. I would also like to thank Hull City Council, which yesterday passed a motion at full council supporting the Bill. The motion was proposed by Liberal Democrat Councillor Charles Quinn and supported by Labour councillors. I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to hear that Conservative Councillors John Fareham and John Abbott also voted in favour in Hull, because all three parties think that renters now need a fairer deal and that getting rid of up-front costs will help.
I want to take the opportunity to say that I am pleased that the earlier clause on rogue landlords received the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. That information should be publicly available in the same way that, for instance, employers who flout the national minimum wage are made public. I see no reason why information on rogue landlords cannot similarly be made public.
In conclusion, and in the knowledge that there possibly will not be a Report stage for the Bill, I want to say that we on these Benches will not let any of the issues in the Bill rest here. My colleague Tom Brake in the Commons will take up as many of them as he can. If a White Paper is to be forthcoming, we will try to ensure that all four of the substantive clauses are continued through other legislation. In particular, we will continue to pursue, with some passion and vigour, the issue of up-front costs to tenants, which is hurting tenants every day.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before the noble Lord, Lord Tope, decides what he will do with his amendment, I want to say that I worry that the Minister’s use of the word “measured” is another euphemism for “in due course”. Will the Minister please take back to the department the strength of feeling here? Although six months may seem a relatively short time, this issue has been around for a very long time. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, we really have to sort out the electrical safety check to prevent deaths. The Government have the power and we need to resolve this sooner rather than later.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I fully accept that. I think the noble Lord is in danger of appearing churlish on this. I have said that we regard it as a very important issue. However, it would be premature to act before the working party has brought forward its report, which it will shortly do. As soon as it does, the Government will look at it very seriously. I do not think that that is an unreasonable approach.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting my amendments. It does not come as too much of a surprise to me, but, in my 22 years in your Lordships’ House, it is a very rare pleasure for me to have an amendment supported so willingly and with so much pleasure.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and his colleagues for their continuing support, and to the Minister for his reply. I believe that the working group to which he referred has its last meeting next Monday. I understand, therefore, why he feels it would be inappropriate to comment before it has even had its last meeting, let alone produced its report. If it produces that report by the end of the year, and I hope that it does, I hope that the Government will not take too much longer to measure it. Successive Governments have taken measured approaches to this for years—not months. Therefore, my reference to six months was perhaps a little optimistic.
The Minister has said, and I believe him, that the Government are taking this seriously and that they have a pragmatic approach. It is hard to see why, if that is so, they are not yet able to commit to at least making safety checks mandatory, even if they are not yet in a position to go into the technical detail necessary for the publication of the draft regulations.
As my noble friend Lady Grender said, I do not know how much further this particular Bill will go in its progress, but this issue and the issue raised in the previous debate will not go away. They will be pursued. We will continue to pursue them and I feel sure that the Labour Opposition will continue to pursue them. We hope that the Government will indeed take their pragmatic, not-too-long, measured view and bring forward draft regulations for debate within the foreseeable future, by which I mean the first part of next year.
“(5) In subsection (5), after “landlord” insert “or the landlord’s agent (or both)”.”
Lobbying (Transparency) Bill [HL]
Friday 18th November 2016
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Lobbying (Transparency) Bill [HL] 2016-17 View all Lobbying (Transparency) Bill [HL] 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 13-I Revised marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 98KB) - (17 Nov 2016)
Lord Lansley
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the amendments that I have tabled. They appear forbidding in number, but I encourage noble Lords to recognise that a large number of them are intended to put back into the legislation, were the Bill to be passed, the structures, duties and powers of the registrar in order to make the job of the registrar effective. I am not intending today to revisit the argument about the scope of the definition of what should be the subject of the register for lobbying, nor about who the lobbyists in question have to contact in order to be within the scope of the registrar.
I do not agree with the Bill—I make that perfectly clear—but the purpose of our Committee stage should at least be that, were the Bill to make further progress, it should be in a form capable of being enacted. I hope that noble Lords will understand the motivation behind most of my amendments. Some are trying to circumscribe it a little and ameliorate some of its rather expansive terminology, but most are in order to make it effective, if it could be so.
I should draw attention to my register of interests. I do not actually undertake any consultant lobbying but I suspect that what I do would be captured under the proposed register. I think that that is probably true for most Members of this House, frankly. It may not be—we need not argue about that—but it is probably best that we all make a declaration in any case that we might find ourselves in such a position.
I can be very clear about the first amendment. It is simply to make it so that the Minister in question can be a Minister from the Cabinet Office. As your Lordships will recall, I was a Minister in the Cabinet Office and I was the Cabinet Minister responsible for the Bill; I was the Lord Privy Seal. But actually the Minister in question who will be making appointments and undertaking other duties in relation to this Bill is very likely to be a Minister in the Cabinet Office and not a Secretary of State. It would therefore be more effective for the description to be that of a Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I start by declaring no interest—although if this was carried some years ago I would have been caught by it. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord. As he is aware, we are very short on time today and I intend to be as speedy as possible in addressing what he has put before us. I also intend to be as co-operative and helpful as I can be, and I even hope to persuade him not just to move amendments to make the Bill better, as he sees it, but possibly to see some merit in giving it further support. I invite him to think about that. I accept the amendment.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, as has been noted, this amendment would reflect the normal practice that Ministers rather than Secretaries of State are referred to in legislation. While this change might be welcome for the sake of consistency, it does not change our overall position. We believe that the existing legislation as it stands is effective and we do not think that it needs to be supplemented.
Lord Lansley
Lord Lansley
My Lords, the purpose of the second group of amendments is to remove from the Bill the intention that the Secretary of State should prepare and issue a code of conduct. Clause 1(3)(b) states that the Secretary of State should,
“prepare and issue a code of conduct”.
That is the subject of Amendment 2, and of course Clause 7 follows that in determining all the circumstances relating to a code of conduct. I will not go on at length. I think I was very clear at Second Reading that in my view there is a structure of voluntary codes that are more flexible, able to operate qualitatively and are therefore more appropriate to the task. This would be an unacceptable and unwise substitution of an inflexible and potentially much more limited statutory code for what in practice are developing as flexible voluntary codes. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, as the noble Lord described, a variety of codes are on offer at present from different organisations. It seems to us that this causes confusion and leads to a lack of clarity, so there is a strong case for the type of standard code that operates in other places. But in the light of the issues that we have on timetabling and to move the business forward, we have reflected seriously on this and have looked at the group of amendments closely. On balance, we have decided to make a major concession and agree that a code of practice should not be included in the Bill this time round. I am therefore prepared to accept the amendment.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, the Government believe that the self-regulatory codes administered by the lobbying industry work well, and the 2014 Act on transparency of lobbying aims to complement rather than replace the existing non-statutory codes. It is not necessary to regulate through a statutory code of conduct as the existing systems are working well. In that regard, the amendments in this group that remove the requirement for a statutory code of conduct would be welcome. However, they do not change our overall position: we cannot support the Bill as we believe that existing legislation achieves what it set out to do and that further regulation is not necessary.
Lord Lansley
I am grateful to the noble Lord sponsoring the Bill for what he described as a “concession”. From my point of view it is a very welcome one. There are a number of codes. People may argue about their relative effectiveness. I know from observing the behaviour of some of the organisations—for example, the APPC—that the members on that register take this very seriously. They see it as their role to enforce it, to make judgments and to improve the code as they go along. It is demonstrating itself to be flexible. There are good instances of self-regulatory activity in this country and wherever we can support self-regulatory action we should.
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I take it that he is accepting Amendment 2 and that Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill—as well as Amendment 14, which follows from that. I would be very grateful if the House would agree the amendment.
Lord Lansley
“(4) Schedule (The Registrar of Lobbyists) makes further provision about the Registrar.”
Lord Lansley
My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 3 is to introduce a schedule that sets out the provisions of the establishment of the registrar, which directly parallel what is in the existing legislation, for which I was previously responsible. The schedule establishes the registrar as a corporation sole, and enables the registrar to sue, be sued and enter into contracts. It means that the registrar is not exposed as an individual but has a corporate entity. That can therefore create continuity. It enables the accounts and money to be provided by the Government by way of loans or grants, and it makes the accounts and activities of the registrar subject to examination by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and, if necessary, by the ombudsman.
I hope your Lordships agree that, if the Bill is enacted, this will enable a smooth transposition from the existing registrar structure to the registrar’s new responsibilities. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. Again, they are acceptable. I will also move Amendment 31 in this group, which makes a minor amendment to take into account that this would extend the scope from the present arrangements to cover in-house lobbyists too, if it becomes law. It is an appropriate technical amendment to make.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, the amendment would reproduce wording that is identical to Schedule 1 of the Transparency of Lobbying Act 2014. The schedule sets out the role and functions of the registrar. We believe that the 2014 Act effectively fulfils the purpose for which it was passed and that it does not need to be changed or amended.
Lord Lansley
My noble friend will not be surprised that I agree with her, but since the Bill would repeal that schedule to the present Act, it is necessary, were the Bill to make progress, for the schedule to be reinserted. I am very grateful for the support on that issue. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley
Lord Lansley
My Lords, in this group we are not in the territory of simply trying to put in place the necessary structures, powers and duties of the registrar, but are concerned with the definition of lobbying and who lobbyists are. I feel it is too wide-ranging. I do not want to have a debate at this stage on narrowing it right down, but there are some egregious examples, which are reflected in the amendment. So in Amendment 4 it should not apply to all shareholders but only to those who have a controlling interest. In Amendment 5, lobbying has to relate to government policy, statements and decisions: for it to include everything that relates to every government position seems excessive.
Amendment 6 would put us back in the position we are currently in and make the situation clearer, avoiding the worrying risk that we would have to decide when Members, particularly of this House, are acting in an official capacity. Is that everything that they do, on every subject, for every potential organisation which might ask us for our interventions or support? No—I think it is better to be very clear that payment, for this purpose, does not include payments to MPs and Peers. That is how it is reflected in the current legislation.
Amendment 7 reflects the current legislation and excludes statutory communications; so one cannot be required to register by virtue of the fact that one undertakes communications which one is required to do by law. Regarding Amendment 8, I was not happy that the exemption was well enough drawn to make it clear that the communications in question must be directed at public officials. If they are not directed at public officials they should not, therefore, be captured in the scope of the register.
Regarding Amendment 9, I could not understand why trade unions engaging in negotiations should be left out. When transparency is being pursued, why should it not apply to trade unions in the same way as anyone else? I was rather aghast at the presumption that media workers should be excluded from the transparency requirements altogether. The point is that when anybody is engaging in communication via the public media, that should be exempt, but media workers should not be exempt by definition, otherwise there is a risk that simply by virtue of the fact that one is employed by a media organisation, one would regard oneself as outwith the scope of the register. That should not be the case because one could, none the less, in practice be engaged in lobbying.
I realise that there are intrinsic merits in some of the amendments in this group, and people will argue about others. I hope your Lordships will find favour with one or two, particularly Amendments 6 and 7, on payments to MPs and Peers and the exclusion of statutory communications. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, again I express my gratitude for the explanations the noble Lord has given for these amendments. I hope he will not be surprised to hear that I am going to accept most of them. In Amendment 4, “controlling” is perfectly acceptable. I shall leave Amendment 5 to one side for a moment. Amendment 6 is, I believe, from and identical to the previous legislation, which is already in force, and I am happy to accept it. I am prepared to accept Amendment 7. The wording of Amendment 8 is better than the original, so that is accepted too. The noble Lord might not be surprised, given my background, that the bit about trade unions appears in there. I do not have quite the same close links with the media, but I do my best there, where I can, and we are prepared to accept the amendment.
The one area I am not happy about is Amendment 5, which would delete “or position”. Again, I go back to my past experience. I was in the trade union movement for most of my life but also spent some time in business —I swapped sides, almost, so to speak. I was involved with people who were coming up with ideas about how they could make public service operations more effective. They would devise ideas and I would be part of that. We put the ideas in a bag and went to, for example, Australia and sought to persuade the Government that they could do a particular piece of public policy work better if only they would adopt what we had in mind. The Australian Government had no policy on that issue but we were able to persuade them that they should do it that way. Of course, we then bid for the business. We then took our portmanteau and went to Hong Kong and all round the world, persuading different Governments, in the UK as well. Often the Government were not running public services as efficiently as they could have been, and we came along with ideas on how they might change things.
However, such activities should be in the open. The public should be aware that efforts are being made to change not just the policy but the Government’s mind. We have a good example of that at the moment with Brexit. Technically, we have no real policy on Brexit, so far as I can understand—or that we have been able to elicit from the Government—but we know that positions have been reached and that people are lobbying. Technically, if you believe in transparency, that should be in the public domain. This is what the amendment would remove and it would limit the area in which it would take place. I hope I might persuade him that he should withdraw the amendment and reflect on it.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, in some cases, such as Amendment 5, what is proposed seems to be a logical amendment to the original Bill. However, in others, such as Amendments 6 and 7, the wording is identical to that used in the 2014 Act. As those proposals already exist in statute, they would unnecessarily duplicate existing legislation. Overall, the Government believe that the definitions in existing legislation are effective and fulfil the regulatory aims the Government believe are necessary. As such, the definitions of “lobbying” and “lobbyists” do not need to be changed, as proposed in the original Bill or this group of amendments.
Lord Lansley
I am grateful for those responses. As my noble friend on the Front Bench will understand, my purpose here is to try to see how these elements of the existing legislation should be incorporated into a Bill that would otherwise repeal the whole Part 1 of the original Act. They would be lost and I think they would need to be reincorporated before the Bill could properly make progress.
I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on Amendment 4. On Amendment 5, I do not necessarily agree with the points he made but I do not think we should detain the Committee now. We can come back to it if we have the opportunity on Report. I am certainly willing to reconsider. For the moment, I do not plan to move Amendment 5.
I am grateful for what I think was the noble Lord’s acceptance of the other amendments, with the exception of Amendment 9, on the trade unions. I am not sure whether he was willing to let go—
Lord Lansley
Very good. On that basis, I will not move Amendment 5 but will move the other amendments in due course.
Lord Lansley
“( ) For the purposes of subsection (8), payment does not include any sums payable to a member of either House of Parliament—(a) under section 4 (determination of MPs’ salaries) or 5 (MPs' allowances scheme) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009,(b) pursuant to a resolution of the House of Lords, or(c) otherwise out of money provided by Parliament or out of the Consolidated Fund.”
Lord Lansley
“( ) any communication which is required to be made by, or under, any statutory provision or other rule of law;”
Lord Lansley
Lord Lansley
“Duty to monitor
The Registrar must monitor compliance with the obligations imposed by or under sections (Notice to supply information), (Limitations on duty to supply information and use of information supplied) and (Right to appeal against information notice).”
Lord Lansley
We have happily arrived at the point where we would be by virtue of this group, which appears forbidding in its extent but is actually very straightforward. These amendments give the registrar the duties and powers that she has currently. They cover a range of things, including the issuing of information notices and the duty to monitor compliance with the register. The ability to issue information notices is in Amendment 16. Giving safeguards to those people to whom notices are issued is in Amendment 17 and a right of appeal for those people is in Amendment 18. The power to issue guidance on compliance with the register is in Amendment 27 and the ability to charge is covered by Amendment 28. A regulation-making power for the Minister in relation to the powers in the Bill is in Amendment 29. In so far as these amendments are re-incorporating powers that the registrar would need, I hope that they will find support from your Lordships.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 16A is in this group and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Brooke will speak to it.
I want to be clear on one point on Amendment 28, which we will come to in due course and is about the ability to charge. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, may not like it but I think he is absolutely right—that is the end of his political career, but all our political careers are behind us—in that the regulators of virtually every sector, other than the Charity Commission, are funded by the sectors that they regulate. We have had an unhappy position with the Charity Commission when the Government were able to cut its funding, for understandable financial reasons. However, it leaves a regulator in some jeopardy if its running costs are, as in this case, in the hands of the Government—the very people who are being lobbied while we are trying to get a register of who is lobbying them. Amendment 28 is very important and I hope very much that my noble friend Lord Brooke will find it possible to accept this one.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, I have some difficulties with this amendment. I declared at the beginning that I had no interests but I have been helped very considerably by a couple of NGOs, Spinwatch and Unlock Democracy. They have been very big parties to the preparation of the Bill and, in fairness to them, they are very unhappy indeed about any movement on my part on the charges side. They make the fundamental point of principle that it is open to anyone to lobby. It should be free, and there should not be any charge for anybody who engages in it, whether they be the highest in the land or the lowest. In particular, they are concerned that if charges are introduced charities may find it difficult, as might small businesses which might like to play a part in lobbying in one form or another and would have to register and pay, and that would be an imposition on them. They are strongly in favour of resisting any attempt to move away from what the Bill proposes, which is that the Government should bear the cost. They point out that in virtually every country in the world where there is a lobbying or transparency Act, the funding is from the Government. Scotland put a Bill through last year. It is coming into place, and the cost will be met by the Scottish Government. If we continue with charges, we will have a different approach within the UK, assuming this Bill becomes an Act.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, I think I am probably beginning to sound a bit repetitive, I am afraid, but there we are. These amendments would largely repeat a number of sections of existing legislation. The Government believe that existing legislation is effective as it stands and does not need to be supplemented.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
This is a slight aside, but I am sorry that the Government are taking this view. We know that they do not want the Bill, but it seems a shame that they are not engaging with how to make it as good as it can be—which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is doing—so that, should it become an Act, it can be made to work. I am sorry that the Government are taking the view that, because they do not like the whole Bill, they will not engage on its content. That is a small comment. There seems to be a slight loss of the expertise of the Cabinet Office and the Government to make this Bill as good as possible, even if, at the end of the day, we do not manage to get it on the statute book.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
As the noble Baroness obviously realises, the Government feel that the Act we already have is the right one. Our aim was for lobbying regulation to avoid unnecessary burdens, not to establish top-to-bottom regulation of all who lobby. That is why we set up an appropriate way to ensure high levels of transparency, but only in the specific areas of the lobbying industry where that was needed, and that is the Government’s position.
Lord Lansley
Perhaps I may defend my noble friend on the Front Bench in this respect. She was aware that I was going through the Bill with the benefit of having been responsible for the original legislation. I think she did not feel that the work was not being done—it was just not being done by the Government, which would give the misleading impression that the Government were seeking to make this legislation in a form that they felt was worthy of enactment. It is okay for me to do that from the Back Benches, but I do not think it is quite the same thing for the Government to try to do it—so I do see a difference.
On this group, I am very grateful for the support for a number of the amendments. On Amendment 28, relating to charging, I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, by persisting—but I shall say two things that might comfort him. First, the structure of the amendment, which obviously reflects what is in the current Act, enables the registrar to impose charges but does not require them to impose charges in any particular form. The form in which those charges are to be imposed would be the subject of regulations under the Act, which would have to come here and be approved by this House. It is perfectly open to the Minister, in making those regulations, to clarify where there may be exemptions. It would not require everybody to pay the same charges for the same register entry or for the same service, so there may be the ability to modulate the charging. If the Government were considering regulations, they could look at this and at whether it would be appropriate to modulate charges for the organisations that would otherwise find there was some chilling effect resulting from that.
So I will persist with this, and I hope the noble Lord might let us reflect the fact that it is necessary for regulators—in this case the registrar—to meet the cost of their activity through charging. On this group, I will move Amendment 15, and I hope to persist with the others, while accepting Amendment 16A, which is a helpful addition.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, as your Lordships probably recognise, I am in a little difficulty here, particularly with my noble friend, with whom I have worked very closely on this. I hear the explanation which has been given and see a chink of light on the degree of elbow room which already exists. I am particularly anxious that we try to proceed with the Bill and hope that the Minister may be persuaded that there are elements in here which the Government should be concerned about. I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has, I think, accepted an extension of the requirement to register and to open it to in-house lobbyists as well as the professional lobbyists.
I am keen that the Bill moves forward. I can understand the Minister’s difficulty, but she could redeem herself if she could see a way to arrange a meeting with the responsible Minister for us to talk about the fundamentals in the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, might wish to join that meeting, along with at least two noble Lords who I know are very keen indeed to see this Bill, which is well supported across the House, move forward. If the Minister is not giving much today, perhaps she might be willing to try to facilitate that for us in the future. On that basis, I am prepared to accept the amendments.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I will quickly say that of course I would be more than happy to facilitate a meeting. I always think that meetings are an enormous help in this House, and I will make sure that the office goes ahead and organises that meeting.
Lord Lansley
“Notice to supply information
(1) In connection with the duty under section (Duty to monitor), the Registrar may serve a notice (an “information notice”) on a person mentioned in subsection (2) requiring the person to supply information specified in the notice.(2) The persons are—(a) any registered person;(b) any person who is not entered in the register but whom the Registrar has reasonable grounds for believing to be a consultant lobbyist.(3) Regulations may specify descriptions of information which the Registrar may not require a person to supply under this section.(4) An information notice must—(a) specify the form in which the information must be supplied,(b) specify the date by which the information must be supplied, and(c) contain particulars of the right to appeal under section (Right to appeal against information notice).(5) The date specified under subsection (4)(b) must not be before the end of the period within which an appeal under section (Right to appeal against information notice) can be brought.(6) Section (Limitations on duty to supply information and use of information supplied) sets out limitations on—(a) what information is required to be supplied under a notice, and(b) how information which is supplied may be used.(7) Where an information notice has been served on a person, the Registrar may cancel it by serving written notice to that effect on the person.”
Lord Lansley
“Limitations on duty to supply information and use of information supplied
(1) An information notice does not require a person to supply information if—(a) doing so would disclose evidence of the commission of an offence, other than an offence excluded by subsection (2), and(b) the disclosure would expose the person to proceedings for that offence.(2) The following offences are excluded from subsection (1)—(a) an offence under section 9 of this Act;(b) an offence under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 (false statements made otherwise than on oath);(c) an offence under section 44 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (false statements made otherwise than on oath);(d) an offence under Article 10 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (SI 1979/1714 (NI 19)) (false statutory declarations etc).(3) Any relevant statement made by a person (“P”) in response to a requirement in an information notice may not be used in evidence against P on a prosecution for an offence under section 9 unless the conditions in subsection (4) are met.(4) The conditions are that in the proceedings—(a) in giving evidence P provides information inconsistent with the relevant statement, and(b) evidence relating to the statement is adduced, or a question relating to it is asked, by P or on P's behalf.(5) In subsection (3) “relevant statement”, in relation to a requirement in an information notice, means—(a) an oral statement, or(b) a written statement made for the purposes of the requirement.”
“Right to appeal against information notice
(1) A person on whom an information notice has been served may appeal to the Tribunal against the notice.(2) If an appeal is brought under this section, the person is not required to supply the information until the date on which the appeal is finally determined or withdrawn.(3) Regulations may make provision for and in connection with the determination of appeals under this section.”
Lord Lansley
“(2A) It is a defence for a person charged under this section to show that the person exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence.”
Lord Lansley
Your Lordships will be pleased to know we have arrived at the final group, in which the amendments all relate to the question of offences. The structure of the Bill as it stands is such that if there was a breach of the requirements of the register, the registrar would be able to proceed only by way of seeking to impose a criminal penalty in respect of the breach, whereas the current legislation enables the registrar to act in other—and in my view more proportionate—ways by seeking a civil penalty.
The purpose of most of these amendments is therefore to introduce the option of a civil penalty and the various requirements that go with that: a civil penalty regime in Amendment 20; a requirement to notify someone who is believed to be in breach and the civil penalty that would be imposed under Amendment 21; the character of the notice under Amendment 22; the right of appeal against that under Amendment 23; the relationship of the civil penalty to any criminal offence so as not to create double jeopardy under Amendment 24; the enforcement if a civil penalty is imposed as a civil debt under Amendment 25; and further details relating to the civil penalty under Amendment 26.
Amendment 19, the lead amendment that I am moving now, is about due diligence. It illustrates the difference between a criminal offence and the civil penalty since, if someone was guilty of an administrative oversight in relation to the requirement to register, essentially the registrar observing this breach would be inclined to go down the route of a civil penalty if it was sufficiently serious. One would be very unlikely to want to create a criminal offence for those kinds of administrative oversights. If someone has failed to comply with the register but has applied due diligence, it is important that they have a defence of due diligence against a criminal offence; however, where a civil penalty is concerned with something like an administrative oversight, there should not really be that kind of defence. So this replicates the existing structure of penalties, I think it is more proportionate and I hope it will commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley
“Civil penalties
(1) The Registrar may impose a civil penalty on a person (in accordance with sections (Notice of intention to impose civil penalty), (Imposition of penalty), (Right to appeal against imposition of civil penalty) and (Civil penalties and criminal proceedings)) if the Registrar is satisfied that the person's conduct amounts to an offence under section 9.(2) For this purpose—(a) section 9(2A) is to be ignored, and(b) a person's conduct includes a failure to act.”
“Notice of intention to impose civil penalty
(1) Before imposing a civil penalty on a person, the Registrar must serve on that person a notice stating that the Registrar proposes to impose the penalty. (2) The notice must—(a) set out the conduct on which the proposal to impose the penalty is based,(b) set out the reasons why the Registrar is satisfied that the person has engaged in that conduct,(c) state the amount of the proposed penalty, and (d) inform the person that the person may, within a period specified in the notice, make written representations in relation to the proposal.(3) The Registrar must not impose the penalty before the end of the period specified under subsection (2)(d).(4) The Registrar must consider any written representations received before the end of that period.”
“Imposition of penalty
(1) If the Registrar decides to impose a civil penalty, the Registrar must serve on the person a notice to that effect (a “penalty notice”).(2) The notice must—(a) set out the conduct on which the decision to impose the penalty is based,(b) set out the reasons why the Registrar is satisfied that the person has engaged in that conduct,(c) state the amount of the penalty,(d) specify the period within which and the form in which the penalty must be paid, and(e) contain particulars of the right to appeal under section (Right to appeal against imposition of civil penalty).(3) The amount specified in a penalty notice must not exceed £7,500.(4) Regulations may amend subsection (3) by substituting a different maximum figure.(5) The period specified under subsection (2)(d) must not end before the end of the period within which an appeal under section (Right to appeal against imposition of civil penalty) can be brought.(6) The person must pay the amount before the end of that period (but this is subject to section (Right to appeal against imposition of civil penalty)(2)).(7) Where a penalty notice has been served on a person, the Registrar may vary or cancel it by serving written notice to that effect on the person.”
“Right to appeal against imposition of civil penalty
(1) A person on whom a penalty notice has been served may appeal to the Tribunal against—(a) the decision to impose the penalty;(b) if the penalty notice has been varied, the decision to vary it;(c) the amount of the penalty.(2) If an appeal is brought under this section, the person is not required to pay the penalty until the date on which the appeal is finally determined or withdrawn.(3) Regulations may make provision for and in connection with the determination of appeals under this section.”
“Civil penalties and criminal proceedings
(1) The Registrar may not impose a civil penalty on a person in respect of any conduct—(a) at any time after criminal proceedings for an offence under section 9 have been instituted against the person in respect of that conduct and before those proceedings have been concluded, or (b) after the person has been convicted of an offence under section 9 in respect of that conduct.(2) If the Registrar has imposed a civil penalty on a person in respect of any conduct, the person may not be convicted of an offence under section 9 in respect of that conduct.”
“Enforcement
(1) An amount payable to the Registrar as a civil penalty may be recovered by the Registrar as a debt.(2) In proceedings for the enforcement of a civil penalty no question may be raised as to—(a) liability to the imposition of the penalty, or(b) the amount of the penalty.(3) The Registrar must pay into the Consolidated Fund any sums received by virtue of a penalty notice.”
“Further provision about civil penalties
Regulations may make further provision about civil penalties; and in particular may—(a) specify circumstances in which a penalty may not be imposed;(b) specify steps that the Registrar must take before imposing a penalty;(c) set a minimum for the period which must be specified under section (Notice of intention to impose civil penalty)(2)(d) or (Imposition of penalty)(2)(d);(d) require other matters to be specified in a notice under either of those sections;(e) specify a maximum period that may elapse between the service of a notice under section (Notice of intention to impose civil penalty) and the service of a penalty notice under section (Imposition of penalty);(f) provide for the reviewing of a decision to impose a penalty;(g) make provision about the variation or cancellation under section (Imposition of penalty)(7) of penalty notices;(h) impose duties on the Registrar about the keeping of accounts and other records in relation to penalties;(i) allow for the charging of interest, or an additional penalty, if a penalty is paid late.”
Lord Lansley
“Guidance
(1) The Registrar may give guidance about how the Registrar proposes to exercise the functions under this Act.(2) The Registrar may do so, in particular, by publishing guidance—(a) as to the circumstances in which the Registrar would, or would not, consider that a person is carrying on the business of consultant lobbying;(b) as to the circumstances in which the Registrar would remove a person's entry from the register;(c) as to the circumstances in which the Registrar would consider it appropriate to impose a civil penalty;(d) about how the amount of a civil penalty will be determined.(3) The Registrar may publish—(a) revisions to any guidance published under this section;(b) replacement guidance.(4) Publication under this section is to be—(a) on a website, and(b) in such other form or forms as the Registrar considers appropriate.”
“Charges
(1) The Registrar may impose charges for or in connection with the making, updating and maintenance of entries in the register.(2) The charges are to be determined by or in accordance with regulations.(3) In making the regulations, the Minister must seek to ensure that the total paid to the Registrar in charges is sufficient to offset the total of the costs incurred by the Registrar in exercising the functions under this Part (whether or not those costs are directly connected with the keeping of the register).(4) If a charge imposed for making an application or a return to the Registrar is not paid, the Registrar may treat the application or return as not having been made.(5) The Registrar must pay into the Consolidated Fund any sums received in respect of charges under this section.”
“Regulations
(1) Any reference in this Act to regulations is to regulations made by the Minister.(2) Regulations under this Act may make such consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision as the Minister considers appropriate, including provision amending or modifying the provisions of this Act.(3) Regulations under this Act may make different provision for different purposes or cases.(4) Regulations under this Act are to be made by statutory instrument.(5) A statutory instrument containing any of the following regulations may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament—(a) the first regulations to be made under sections (Right to appeal against information notice) (3) and (Right to appeal against imposition of civil penalty) (3);(b) regulations under this section or section (Charges) which amend or modify the provisions of this section or that section.(6) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act is to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Lord Lansley
“SCHEDULETHE REGISTRAR OF LOBBYISTSStatus1_ The Registrar is a corporation sole.2_ The Registrar exercises the functions of that office on behalf of the Crown.Appointment3_(1) The Registrar is to be appointed by the Minister.(2) The Registrar holds office in accordance with the terms and conditions of that appointment; but this is subject to sub-paragraphs (3) to (6).(3) The term of office for which the Registrar is appointed must not be more than 4 years.(4) A person may be appointed for a second or third term; but the term for which a person is re-appointed must not be more than 3 years. (5) The Registrar may resign by giving written notice to the Minister.(6) The Minister may dismiss the Registrar if the Minister is satisfied that the Registrar is unable, unwilling or unfit to perform the functions of the office.4_(1) A person is ineligible for appointment as the Registrar if, at any time in the previous 5 years, the person—(a) was a Minister of the Crown or a permanent secretary, or(b) carried on the business of consultant lobbying or was an employee of a person who carried on that business.(2) For the purposes of this paragraph—“Minister of the Crown” means the holder of an office in the government, and includes the Treasury;“permanent secretary” means a person serving the government in—(a) the position of permanent secretary or second permanent secretary in the civil service of the State, or(b) one of the following positions—(i) Cabinet Secretary;(ii) Chief Executive of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs;(iii) Chief Medical Officer;(iv) Director of Public Prosecutions;(v) First Parliamentary Counsel;(vi) Government Chief Scientific Adviser;(vii) Head of the Civil Service;(viii) Prime Minister's Adviser for Europe and Global Issues.(3) Regulations may amend the positions in the list above by adding or removing a position.5_ A defect in the Registrar's appointment does not affect the validity of anything done by the Registrar.Remuneration and staffing6_ Service as the Registrar is not service in the civil service of the State.7_(1) The Registrar may make arrangements for sums in respect of the following to be paid to or in respect of the person holding office as the Registrar—(a) remuneration;(b) allowances;(c) pension.(2) The sums paid under sub-paragraph (1) are to be determined by the Minister.8_(1) The Registrar may make arrangements with the Minister or other persons—(a) for staff to be seconded to the Registrar;(b) for accommodation or services to be provided to the Registrar.(2) The payments that may be made under arrangements under sub-paragraph (1)(a) include payments to the staff in addition to, or instead of, payments to the person with whom the arrangements are made. Accounts9_(1) The Registrar must keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts.(2) The Registrar must prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year.(3) The Registrar must send a copy of the statement, within a period specified by the Minister, to the Comptroller and Auditor General.(4) After the Registrar has sent a copy of a statement of accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Comptroller and Auditor General must—(a) examine, certify and report on the statement, and(b) arrange for a copy of the certified statement and the report to be laid before Parliament as soon as possible.(5) In this paragraph “financial year” means—(a) the period beginning on the day on which section 1comes into force and ending on the following 31 March, and(b) each successive period of 12 months.Funding
10_(1) The Minister may make grants or loans to the Registrar.(2) The grants or loans may be subject to conditions (including conditions as to repayment with or without interest).Amendment of other enactments11_ In Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records) at the appropriate place in Part 2 of the Table at the end of paragraph 3 insert—“The Registrar of Lobbyists”.12_ In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (departments and authorities subject to investigation) before the entry for the “Registrar General for England and Wales” insert—“The Registrar of Lobbyists”.13_ In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (other public bodies and offices which are public authorities) at the appropriate place insert—“The Registrar of Lobbyists”.”