International Wildlife Crime
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Regrettably, we do not have a lot of time for this important debate. Rather than have a time limit, I will ask Members to do their level best—sit down, Mr Amess, I will not forget you—to take five minutes. If each Member takes approximately five minutes, I think that we will get everyone in, including the wind-ups, by 5 o’clock. The clock is against us.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I will do my best to keep within your five-minute time limit, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for nominating this important debate, particularly as it takes place the week before this most important high-level conference. It is clear that we need to send out a powerful message from this Chamber that we have to take action on illegal wildlife trade, and the conference at Lancaster House next week will be a key part in getting that action. Debating the matter today is just so important.
Today, we have seen the Paris ivory crush, which has sent out a powerful message, and we need to do something equivalent to that. In France, 3.5 tonnes of ivory has been crushed. We need to get it across to everyone involved in decision making that work must be done in this area and that political leadership is needed. We must send Government Ministers to that conference next week with everything at their disposal to ensure that we make progress.
I also want to refer to the Environmental Audit Committee report “Wildlife Crime”. It is the third report of session 2012-13. As many Members will know, we had a debate on that report in the Chamber. Our recommendations were to the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as the detailed evidence we received show that we need a cost-cutting response from Government. I hope that they will be the basis on which some of the work will be taken forward.
If all today’s debate does is solicit the response we have received at long last from DEFRA and the Home Office on the future of the national wildlife crime unit, at least that is a little step forward in the long journey of protecting endangered species and other wildlife. That is welcome, but the funding is still being protected only up until 2016. We need a permanent post with permanent funding that goes well beyond 2016 if we are to take the action that we need.
I desperately want the UK Government to take up the issues of protecting the environment, nature and biodiversity. I want them to do what they say and say what they do about the concerns in Parliament. Parliament has a role in showing how important that leadership will be.
First things first. As we have heard from the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who helped to secure the debate, and as we have seen from the support for early-day motion 773, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)—as I have said in previous debates, if elephants ever need a friend he is the right person to provide protection for them—there is a sad truth here. Although the population of elephants in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, was once more than 100,000 it might now be as low as 2,500. Every 15 minutes, only three times the time we have in which to speak today, an elephant is brutally killed and butchered for its ivory tusks. In 2013 alone, 40,000 died. The global population of tigers numbers between 3,000 and 4,000.
When we deal with wildlife crime, we are dealing not just with endangered species but with international security and an illegal trade worth £19 billion annually that feeds highly organised criminal networks. For all those reasons, urgent action is needed.
The high-level conference will take place at Lancaster House next week is important. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has shown leadership in putting his weight behind the conference. He has shown that he cares, as he did about the flooding down in the south-west, and has been particularly active and involved in ensuring that all possible support is given to next week’s conference. That is why we must ensure that we do not let anybody down and why I feel that the other recommendations of our report must be taken forward.
I am thinking in particular about the new regulations that the Government need to introduce to update the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997, and perhaps the Minister can refer to them when he winds up. Our report highlighted the lack of progress in that regard and I was interested to see that one reason given for not introducing the regulations—at a time when we have a Deregulation Bill, I must add—was the work for and the focus on the conference next week. We should not just have a conference; it should be matched by the work of all Government Departments. We want to hear about the review of the COTES regulations and how the new regulations will be introduced, and it is regrettable that the review has been delayed.
The conference is next week, so let me turn very briefly to the agenda—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I hope that the reference will be brief. I am avoiding setting a time limit, but I asked Members to speak for only five minutes and the clock is very clear.
Joan Walley
I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
When I asked the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee whether he supported the African elephant action plan he said yes. That has eight objectives, and a clear commitment to funding is needed. DFID has contributed £10 million, which will be really important, but the Born Free Foundation says that that amount is required every year for the next 10 years.
We have a clear opportunity next week to make real progress on many of the issues highlighted in the report. The clock, as you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, is ticking, not just for us here, but for these endangered species. I urge the Minister to take on board the many contributions that hon. Members have made today.
Mr Amess
I absolutely acknowledge the work of the hon. Lady’s Committee and I am aware of the point she makes. I am sure my right hon. Friend has heard what she has said.
The review and update of the control of trade in endangered species regulations announced today is a positive step and has been a long time coming. However, from the document the time scale is not clear, so I wonder whether my right hon. Friend might say something on that.
In conclusion, it is clear that we are starting to make some progress in tackling international wildlife crime, and we have come a long way since the ten-minute rule Bill I tried to introduce 12 years ago. However, there is still more that we can do and we need to ensure long-term funding, and tough and effective prosecution. We need to continue to adopt an ever-greater collaborative and joined-up approach to tackle this issue. This conference provides a wonderful opportunity to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before I call the Front Benchers to respond I feel that Members are entitled to an explanation. We have reached the winding-up speeches a little faster than I had anticipated because some Members indicated that they wanted to speak and then left the Chamber. That just shows the difficulty of the Chair trying to be fair to everybody. I am sure that both Front Benchers will be generous with interventions, should further points need to be made.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge of and authority on these matters. He has thrown his own cautionary tale to the winds by continuing to intervene, but he is very welcome to do so. He has made a very good point, and I absolutely agree with him. I know that if my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the shadow Foreign Office Minister, were here now, she would have made some comments about that. She was speaking to me only last night about how the practice of illegal shark-finning needs to be addressed. I wholeheartedly endorse what the hon. Member for Newbury has said.
The Environmental Audit Committee has made a strong case for bringing together existing disparate pieces of law governing the protection of wildlife. What progress do the Government expect to make on the Law Commission review of wildlife law before the election? What is the Government’s view of the specific recommendations in the Law Commission’s interim statement on wildlife crime? There are specific issues involved, including the updating of species listing and the substitution of “deliberate” for “intentionally”. The Law Commission intends to produce draft legislation alongside its final report this summer. Will the Government enable pre-legislative scrutiny of that draft legislation? It would be really helpful if the Minister could answer those questions this afternoon.
There are real concerns that the national wildlife crime unit, set up by the last Government, has been undermined by decisions taken by Ministers. The Environmental Audit Committee specifically warned that the lack of a long-term funding agreement was making it hard for the unit to recruit, retain and develop the specialist staff required to detect and prevent wildlife crime. The Minister should be aware of the claims that the unit has found it difficult to appoint a wildlife crime internet researcher precisely for that reason.
I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), in his place on the Front Bench today. In a Westminster Hall debate in October last year, he agreed that the Government needed to
“reach a decision on the future of the unit as soon as possible.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 145WH.]
I welcome the fact that the Government managed to reach a decision before this debate. I also welcome the fact that they managed to publish the decision before the debate, albeit at 5.30 yesterday evening. Given the Government’s record, a gap of five months between a Minister calling for a decision and a decision being published might be the best we can expect. The decision is welcome, none the less.
This shows the value of Back-Bench debates and the power that the Backbench Business Committee has to get the Government to address an issue. I see the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who sits on that Committee, nodding in agreement. Without the deadline of this debate—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Is the hon. Gentleman about to conclude his remarks? At this rate, we will not hear the Minister.
Barry Gardiner
I am concluding my remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker. You had indicated that the time available had expanded—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I was not indicating that the hon. Gentleman’s time had expanded. I was explaining to Back Benchers, in this Back-Bench debate, that they might have had a little more time if some of their colleagues were courteous and said that they were not going to participate in the debate. The time constraints might then have been different. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could conclude so that we can hear the Minister.
Barry Gardiner
I will indeed. I was simply about to afford the hon. Member for Southend West the opportunity to intervene, as you had suggested.
This important debate follows an excellent report by the Environmental Audit Committee. The Government’s formal response to that report did not provide clear answers to the issues raised, but I hope that the Minister for Government Policy will do that today, as well as answering the clear questions I have asked and addressing the many excellent points made in contributions from both sides of the House during the debate. I again congratulate the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs on initiating the debate, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Deregulation Bill
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah
I have just quoted the FSB, which stands for the Federation of Small Businesses—I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware of that. I talk to business regularly and if he disagrees with the FSB, we would be pleased to hear the evidence on which that is based.
The Government sacked hundreds of staff at great expense several years ago, and they are now seeking to re-employ them through a recruitment firm, hiring at least half of them. I have seen the job advert, and apparently they will work on the Government’s red tape challenge and deregulation programme. [Interruption.] Well, it is certainly true that the Government need all the help that they can get, but I hope that they will succeed—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Mr Maynard, I do not need comments like that. We are listening to a debate. I know that it is not normal for everyone to agree with every word, but we have had enough of comments being shouted across the Chamber.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I made the comments; I would not like my colleague to be accused.
Madam Deputy Speaker
It is very gallant of the hon. Gentleman to offer that information. I will say to him as well that, although his hon. Friend has also been making comments across the Floor of the House, I hope that it will stop now.
Chi Onwurah
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I hope that the new employees will succeed in making the Minister understand that we do not build an economy that works for working people by attacking their rights.
Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Philip Davies
Does my hon. Friend question the arrogance of people who think that they should be able to introduce a Bill and have it nodded through Parliament without any scrutiny whatever? Is that not the type of activity that does disservice to the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. This morning’s debate is not on the process of private Members’ Bills or its merits. There has been an exchange but I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) now wishes to come back to his specific points on the Bill. That would help all of us.
Mr Nuttall
I was being dragged off there by the shadow Minister, but I will come back to the specific points that I wanted to make on the Bill.
The Bill is not new. In many respects, it mirrors the Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill that was introduced in the first Session of this Parliament on 14 September 2010 by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). It is interesting that when that was introduced by way of a ten-minute rule Bill, the hon. Lady prayed in aid the Federation of Small Businesses, which my hon. Friend made clear now has serious concerns about this Bill. It is concerned that the Bill may harm the progress that has been made during the last three years. My hon. Friend made a good point.
I am sure that it was only the large number of hon. Members who wanted to support the hon. Lady’s Bill that stopped the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish being one of its supporters in 2010. But I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing his Bill because it gives me and my hon. Friend an opportunity to make clear what has been, by any measure, one of the great success stories of the present Government.
The coalition programme for government said:
“We will seek ways to support the creation of apprenticeships, internships, work pairings, and college and workplace training places as part of our wider programme to get Britain working”.
It is worth noting at the outset what is meant by an apprenticeship. Basically, it is a paid job that incorporates both on-the-job and off-the-job training. When someone has completed an apprenticeship, they will have a nationally recognised qualification.
In response to the shadow Minister, I said that I had personal experience of this, and I do. Using the definition of an apprentice as someone who learns and earns at the same time, that is precisely what I did for 10 years after I left school. Rather than going to university, I joined a local firm of solicitors as a trainee legal executive, for which I was paid a wage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, in the past being an apprentice often meant starting at the bottom, which is exactly what I did. I was one level up from the office junior, as I used to say at the time.
I then went out on day release to study in the afternoons and evenings for examinations under the auspices of the Institute of Legal Executives. As part and parcel of its training requirements, a person could not become a fellow until they had been employed for eight years, to ensure that they had a thorough and grounded knowledge of the processes. It was a nationally recognised qualification. I used it, along with the degree I studied for at the same time through correspondence from London university, to go on and work for two more years as an articled clerk, which is really just a different term for an apprentice solicitor, before qualifying as a solicitor.
The shadow Minister, having launched his personal attack on me and used a clever way to name my opponent at the next general election, has now left his place on the Front Bench, but I think it is fair to say that I have personal experience of working, learning and earning at the same time.
Public procurement contracts should be awarded on the basis of value for money. Even without the Bill, projects already promote apprenticeships. Crossrail will deliver over 400 new apprenticeships through its supply chain over the lifetime of the contract. All main works contractors will create one new apprenticeship, or the equivalent training opportunities, per £3 million of spend. Crossrail is working in partnership with the National Apprenticeship Service to support contractors in delivering the apprenticeship programme.
The National Apprenticeship Service was established in April 2009, under the previous Government. It has overall responsibility for apprenticeships in England. It promotes apprenticeships to employers and those seeking to take up an apprenticeship by providing support throughout the recruitment and training process. It maintains a national online apprenticeship vacancy system that allows employers to post vacancies and aspiring apprentices to search and apply for them. It is interesting that a requirement to post an apprenticeship through NAS is not included in clause 2.
Apprenticeships have changed considerably in recent decades. There are now over 200 different types of apprenticeship available across a variety of sectors, including: agriculture, horticulture and animal care; arts, media and publishing; business administration and law; construction, planning and the built environment; education and training; engineering and manufacturing technologies; health, public services and care; information and community technology; leisure, travel and tourism; and retail and commercial enterprise. Virtually no aspect of Government procurement does not fall within one of those sectors.
Each apprenticeship is made up of three elements: first, the national vocational qualification, which examines work-based skills; secondly, a technical certificate, which examines theoretical knowledge; and, thirdly, key skills, which examine transferable skills—for example, numeracy and literacy.
Apprenticeships can be studied at different qualification levels, starting with basic, intermediate level 2 apprenticeships, equivalent to A*-to-C GCSEs. Above those are advanced level 3 apprenticeships, equivalent to A-levels. Finally, there are higher level 4 apprenticeships, equivalent to a Business and Technology Educational Council professional diploma or a higher national certificate.
The rationale behind the Bill is well intentioned—to encourage more companies to provide apprenticeships. However, I am not convinced that the way to do that is by passing such legislation as this. The way to create a more skilled, better qualified work force is to have a growing economy in which companies can compete in the global marketplace. When they want a larger work force, they can train people using the apprenticeship route, working with the Government to set nationally recognised standards and with a training provider to which they can send their employees for off-the-job training. The companies themselves train them on the job and give them work.
The latest figures show that there has already been a significant increase in the numbers—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I have been closely following what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. He has made his preliminary remarks and discussed extensively apprenticeships and the different definitions. Now I would like him to relate his comments to the Bill; he has been speaking for 32 minutes. This is not a general discussion about apprenticeships.
Mr Nuttall
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will. The rationale behind the Bill is that there are not enough apprenticeships; that can be the only reason for the Bill. However, official data show that last year more than 500,000 apprenticeships were created, which demonstrates one of my arguments for opposing the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has just put very succinctly his point about the Bill. I am asking him to make sure that all his comments refer to the Bill with the same clarity, rather than referring to every industry that might offer apprenticeships.
Mr Nuttall
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to be as succinct as I can about the points I want to make about each of the clauses.
Clause 1 deals with apprenticeship requirements. It is the key clause because it states that when a public authority, defined as
“any body or person discharging functions of a public nature, including local authorities”,
prepares to issue a relevant contract—that is, one exceeding a total of £1 million—it must
“give due consideration to the relevant guidelines”.
We have not heard much about those relevant guidelines, but they were published by the Office of Government Commerce in 2009 in a document called “Promoting skills through public procurement”. It is a long document, but I want to refer to one particular sentence. The document goes through the process that a public body has to follow in granting a tender. It says of the stage at which the contract is granted:
“It is at this stage that public authorities should”—
I am afraid that the document is not written correctly because there is a word missing; I think it should say “should meet”—
“Regulation 39 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006”,
which states
“that contracting authorities ‘may stipulate conditions relating to the performance of a public contract, provided that those conditions are compatible with Community law and are indicated in the contract notice and the contract documents or the contract documents’.”
Clearly, the 2006 regulations contained in the guidelines mentioned in clause 1 already give local authorities the power that the Bill seeks to give them in order to do all the things the hon. Gentleman would like them to do.
The second part of clause 1 would require that an authority “may specify” that
“a minimum proportion of the apprentices employed by the contractor are higher or advanced”
apprenticeship level. Because of the use of the word “may”, that could equally mean “may not specify”. The provision is therefore completely superfluous, irrelevant and unnecessary.
“Apprentice” is defined in clause 4 as having
“the meaning given in section 32 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009”.
I thought that I would have a look at that to see what the definition is. It gives a definition not of “apprentice” but of “apprenticeship agreement”, which is not what one would expect from reading clause 4. If the Bill receives a Second Reading, that should be looked at, because clearly some clarification is needed regarding the definition of “apprentice”.
Clause 2 deals with the advertising of work force vacancies. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said, “You must be in favour of that”, but it is not as straightforward as that. In some cases, these contracts cover the whole country. Does he intend that, if the contractor needs to take on half a dozen extra workers as a result of getting the contract, they should advertise every single one of those vacancies across the whole country? That is what the clause would mean if taken literally, and of course one has to take it literally, so, if it is a national contract, that is what the contractor would have to do. As the hon. Gentleman himself admitted, this is the one clause that is mandatory, because it
“must require the contractor to…advertise all vacancies”
in local jobcentres.
Another aspect is that many local newspapers rely on job adverts to survive in this day and age. I wonder what they would think of this provision if they suddenly lost their local job adverts as a result. The first thing that many people do when they are looking for a job is to turn to the local paper.
Mr Nuttall
Any employer seeking to take on new apprentices or, indeed, new employees will want to cast their net as widely as possible. When I was an employer, we routinely advertised in the paper and at the jobcentre, because we wanted as many people as possible to see the advertisement, which is what any form of advertising seeks to achieve. This is not the worst clause I have ever seen, but I do not think there is any need for it, because any employer looking for new staff would automatically seek to cast their net widely.
Clause 3 states:
“Skills training provided by the contractor must form part of a nationally accredited scheme.”
Anybody who knows anything about the current form of apprenticeships will be aware that they result, by definition, in a nationally recognised qualification, whether it is at level 2, level 3 or level 4. I am therefore not sure what is added by clause 3.
The Government have done a lot to develop apprenticeships since taking office. They asked Doug Richard, an England-based Californian entrepreneur, to look in great depth at how the apprenticeship system was working. Hon. Members may remember that he came to prominence as a dragon in the first two series of the BBC’s “Dragons’ Den” programme. In 2008, he founded the School for Startups, which is an enterprise that teaches entrepreneurship in partnership with UK universities, the Royal Institution and the British Library.
The Richard review, which was produced in November 2012, is a substantial piece of work. Doug Richard spent months speaking to apprentices, employers and Government organisations. He highlights the problems that have developed in the apprenticeship system. The Government carried out a substantial consultation process for several months over the summer, which involved seven workshops covering assessment, qualifications and—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am afraid, Mr Nuttall, that you are again drifting beyond the purpose of the Bill. Let me be clear that your remarks have to relate to the Bill and its four clauses, which you have already debated rather extensively. We do not need a review of the Richard review. I want you to relate your comments to the Bill and its clauses. I hope that I have made myself clear this time, because I think that I might have failed last time.
Mr Nuttall
The reason the Richard review is enormously relevant is that in such a huge piece of work, nowhere did Doug Richard come up with the solution that is contained in the Bill. He spoke to hundreds of employers and Government organisations—I will not go through them all—but he did not come up with the solution in the Bill, and neither did any of people who responded to the Government’s consultation exercise over the summer. I hope that we hear more from the Minister about that, because he will have all the facts and figures at his fingertips. The Government’s work on the matter is therefore relevant.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley briefly mentioned, this week the Prime Minister himself announced the new trailblazer programme during his visit to the Mini plant in Oxford. That programme will move apprenticeships on to a new level and deal with the problem that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish says he is concerned about, which is the quality of apprenticeships. The Government’s approach is to have employers, rather than the Government themselves, lead the development of apprenticeships, and that is what the trailblazer system will ensure. As the Prime Minister said:
“If you want an apprenticeship, we’re going to make sure you do the best apprenticeship in the world.”
That sums up the trailblazer approach.
House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I was not informed that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman wanted to come in now. Is that the case?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Forgive me, Mr Norman. I will take the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, then I will come straight back to you.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Perhaps we can refrain from discussing individual Members of the other place, or even those who might be individual Members of the other place.
Mr Nuttall
I am grateful for the helpful intervention from my hon. Friend, because I fear that I would not have got very many points for that particular question in the pub quiz.
If I may return to where I was—which was not with the Liberal Democrats—it is perhaps a little unfair to condemn all the Members of the other place as retired politicians, when only about a quarter are former Members of this House. Moreover, they are not retired politicians, because they are still taking part in the political process. That is the crucial point. They may be retired Members of the House of Commons, but it is an entirely noble—I use the word in its fullest sense—calling to be a Member of the other place and to devote one’s working life to the scrutiny of legislation, as they do so admirably.
All too often, certainly when House of Lords reform is being discussed, we look at the problem from the wrong end of the telescope. I am not making that point about this Bill, which is modest in its aims, but generally we look at the mechanics of the Lords rather than whether it is doing a good job in its primary task of scrutinising the legislation that we send to it. The answer is invariably that it is doing a good job.
The 2011 Leader’s group report suggested that it would be worth while investigating whether a modest pension or payment on retirement should be provided. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee took evidence on that point, and the evidence of the Clerk of the Parliaments confirmed that savings could be made. I have some doubts about that, but it is a cause for concern. There is merit in the suggestion that we should have some sort of retirement procedure, whether it is called retirement or resignation—perhaps we could call it a leaving party. If that idea took off, it could mean a boost to the economy with House of Lords retirement parties, and give all hon. Members a new diary engagement at the end of each Session, as various Members of the other place retired or resigned.
We have had considerable discussion about what sort of scheme should be in place, and what use retired Members could make of the facilities. It has been suggested, for example, that the retired or resigned Members could still be entitled to make use of the facilities, and it might be worth looking at that idea. It is not an idea that I would favour, because in my view if someone has left, they have left, but it would perhaps be one way to encourage people to resign or retire.
Clause 2 relates to non-attendance and provides that if someone does not attend during a Session, the Lord Speaker can certify that they
“did not attend at any time during the Session, having regard to attendance records kept by officials of the House, and…did not have leave of absence in respect of the Session, in accordance with Standing Orders of the House.”
My concern about that provision is that it is not entirely clear what “attend” means. For example, if someone attends the building, but does not take part in proceedings on the Floor of the House, does that count as attendance?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I think we are straying a little. We are debating not how people get into the House of Lords but how they might leave it. Perhaps we could return to that.
Dr Coffey
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—you are right. People have to get there before the Bill can even apply, but I will stray no further in response to interventions.
According to the figures available from the House of Lords Journal Office, there are 14 noble Lords who have not attended a single debate, Division or Committee during this Session and are not on the ineligible list of Lords who have a leave of absence. It is difficult to work out the numbers for previous Sessions, but I understand that the figures are between 10 and 20. Perhaps some of those noble Lords would attend more frequently if the Bill were passed, but the numbers are low enough for that not to be much of a problem.
We should make it clear that the Bill is not a step on the road to a professional second Chamber. The threshold for attendance is set deliberately low, so that we do not undermine the important strength of the other place, which is the experience and expertise of noble Lords from many walks of life. Clause 2 would end the situation whereby somebody can remain a Member of the other place and be able to vote on the most serious matters of state without setting foot in the Chamber for months, years or even decades. I understand that the Clerk of the Parliaments now writes to noble Lords who attend infrequently inviting them to take a leave of absence, so they are able to retire informally. That has led to a few more taking that route proactively, and I am sure I read today that by failing to reply to the Clerk of the Parliaments, four peers are now automatically being given a leave of absence.
Two categories of peer are not covered in the Bill, and we might need a bit of clarification—that is for my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire to decide. One is noble Lords who are disqualified from attending the other place because they are members of the judiciary. They includes judges who were appointed Lords of Appeal in Ordinary under the old system prior to the establishment of the Supreme Court. They are currently disqualified from sitting, but only while working as judges. Indeed, the noble Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers has come back.
The other category of peers that is not covered—I am surprised that the other place chose this system—is those who are temporarily suspended because they have chosen to serve in another Parliament with the back-up plan of returning to the mother of Parliaments when elected democracy no longer suits them, or more likely, when the electors think they no longer suit them. If we pass the Bill, it might stimulate a practice of people resigning for good when they choose to leave the other place to serve the electorate directly.
I welcome clause 3, on the expulsion of noble Lords convicted of a serious offence. There is no doubt that it causes consternation for the membership of peers to go unchallenged despite their being sent to prison. No Member of this place or the other place should be above the law, and the view is reasonably held that we as legislators should be held to an even higher standard. The clause would make that happen.
It certainly makes sense to align the rules with those in the Commons, so that those given a sentence of a year or more should be forced to leave the Lords. In this Parliament, a Member of this House voluntary resigned before being convicted of a crime, although they were given a sentence of less than a year. Some noble Lords have been given similar sentences, and clause 1 would provide them with the opportunity to step down rather than perhaps simply not attending again. That is a common-sense, even overdue, measure that will bring the Lords into line with the long-established practices of this House and improve the reputation of Parliament as a whole.
To sum up, the Bill provides several reforming measures that are important, and indeed perhaps even necessary, because of the failures of past attempts at reform. It is important that we do what we can to enhance the reputation of Parliament. Allowing peers to resign or retire, if they wish to do so, with dignity is a common-sense move. The provisions on serious offences are also a way of enhancing the reputation and perception of Parliament. The measures relating to people who do not turn up to share the wisdom for which they were first appointed also take a sensible approach. I hope that there is consensus in the House, and that we make progress with the Bill today.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 2, in line 5, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 76.
Amendment 5, in line 8, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
Amendment 7, in line 12, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
Amendment 48, in clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
‘(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person carries on the business of lobbying if in the course of a business and in return for payment—
(a) the person makes communications within subsection (3), or advises another person on the making of communications within subsection (3), and
(b) none of the exceptions in Part 1 of Schedule 1 applies.’.
Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out ‘on behalf of another person or persons’.
Government amendment 77.
Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
‘(b) in return for payment the person advises others how to make communications within subsection (3).
(c) in return for payment the person arranges or facilitates a formal or informal meeting within subsection (3).’.
Amendment 161, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
‘(1A) A person carries on the business of professional lobbying if—
(a) the person is directly employed by a non-lobbying business to perform the role of making communications within the meaning of subsection (3);
(b) the person is contracted to perform the role of making communications within the meaning of subsection (3) by a non-lobbying business; or
(c) in addition to other duties within their business, they make communication within the meaning of subsection (3).’.
Amendment 52, in schedule 1, page 50, line 18, leave out paragraph 3.
Government amendment 91.
Amendment 17, in schedule 1, page 50, line 18, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
Amendment 18, in schedule 1, page 50, leave out lines 19 to 24 and insert—
‘(a) the person is a constituent contacting or communicating with their Member of Parliament;
(b) the person is making communications solely on his or her own behalf;
(c) the person is responding to a government consultation exercise;
(d) the person is responding to an invitation to submit information or evidence to a Parliamentary Select Committee or Public Bill Committee;
(e) the person is acting in an official capacity on behalf of a government organisation;
(f) a person is making communications without remuneration;
(g) the person is responding to or complying with a court order,’.
Government amendments 92 to 95.
Amendment 19, in schedule 1, page 50, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph 3(2) and insert—
‘A person is carrying on the business of professional lobbying if they are acting—
(a) on behalf of a client, or
(b) on behalf of an employer.’.
Amendment 20, in schedule 1, page 50, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph 3(3) .
Amendment 21, in schedule 1, page 50, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph 3(4) .
Amendment 22, in schedule 1, page 51, line 8, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
Government amendments 96 and 97.
Amendment 24, in schedule 1, page 51, line 21, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
Amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 51, line 43, leave out paragraph (7).
Amendment 26, in schedule 1, page 52, line 10, leave out paragraph (8). Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 52, line 16, leave out paragraph (10).
Amendment 30, in clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
Government amendment 98.
Amendment 32, in clause 4, page 2, line 38, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
Amendment 33, in clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
Amendment 38, in clause 6, page 4, line 25, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
Amendment 39, in clause 9, page 5, line 12, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
Government amendment 81.
Amendment 41, in clause 12, page 6, line 22, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
Government amendments 82 to 85.
New clause 5—Definition of consultant lobbying
‘(1) In section 1 “consultant lobbying” means activities which are carried out in the course of a business for the purpose of—
(a) influencing government; or
(b) advising others how to influence government.
(2) Activities are to be taken as having the purpose specified in subsection (1) if a reasonable person would assume, having regard to all the circumstances, that the activities were intended to have the effect described in subsection (1)(a) or (b).
(3) In this section “government” includes, within the United Kingdom—
(a) central government, devolved government, local government;
(b) members and staff of either House of Parliament or of a devolved legislature;
(c) Ministers and officials; and
(d) public authorities (within the meaning of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998).
(4) Subsection (1) does not include—
(a) anything done in response to or compliance with a court order;
(b) anything done for the purpose of complying with a requirement under an enactment;
(c) a public response to an invitation to submit information or evidence;
(d) a public response to a government consultation exercise;
(e) a formal response to a public invitation to tender;
(f) anything done by a person acting in an official capacity on behalf of a government organisation; or
(g) an individual who makes representations solely on his or her own behalf.
(5) In subsection (1) “influencing” includes informing, but making information or opinions public (for example, by way of advertisements or attributed articles in a newspaper) is not the provision of lobbying services.
(6) In this section—
(a) “business” includes any undertaking, including charitable and not-for-profit undertakings; and
(b) services provided by or on behalf of an undertaking are provided “in the course of a business”, even if the persons providing the services are acting on a pro bono, volunteer or not-for-profit basis.
(7) Subsection (1) applies whether a person is acting—
(a) on behalf of a client;
(b) on behalf of an employer;
(c) as a volunteer on behalf of a charitable or other organisation; or
(d) on the person’s own behalf (subject to subsection (4)(g)); but the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument permit persons who provide lobbying services on behalf of an organisation (in any capacity) to rely on the organisation’s registration.
(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide that a person does not contravene section 1 by providing lobbying services without being registered, provided that the person becomes registered within a specified period beginning with the first date on which those services were provided.’.
Amendment 44, title, line 2l, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.
Jon Trickett
Let me welcome you to the Chair, Ms Primarolo, for the start of this very important Committee stage. We all look forward to your wise advice as we proceed with detailed scrutiny of the first part of this absolutely dreadful Bill—a Bill which no single stakeholder of any importance has endorsed. Part 1 is in need of major change, and it is only as a result of the unfortunate abbreviation of the time available that we shall not be pressing every single one of our amendments to a vote. We will see how far we get. I do not intend to speak for too long, because there are so many important matters to be dealt with this afternoon. I apologise to the Committee for needing to slip out for a few minutes at some stage; I have a long-standing engagement.
I want to make three points. First, there is a need for a universal register of all lobbyists, to which amendment 2 and further consequential amendments refer. Secondly, we strongly object to the Government’s tabling of amendment 76, for reasons that I shall explain shortly. Thirdly, amendment 9 and amendment 48—tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee—widen the definition of “lobbyist” to ensure that all activities are properly registered.
The Government frequently claim to be the most transparent Government in history. That is a large claim. However, when it comes to making a choice between their commitment to transparency and the protection of vested interests, they always come down on the side of vested interests at the cost of transparency. That much is clear from the very first clause of the Bill, which needs to be amended.
Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Havard
I do not disagree. Those responsible should be punished, although I am not sure that sending TLAM missiles is a punishment. People have mentioned the International Criminal Court, and I agree. These people must be held to account for their actions at some point. We do not now have an immediate almost knee-jerk reaction—it was going to be knee-jerk but it is a week late now—to the situation. The strike is apparently “targeted”, but I do not know what that means. It is targeted in the sense that we know where we will throw the missile, but it is hardly a surgical, contained or compartmentalised activity. Will we do that, or will we have a broader constituency of people who can start to prosecute the idea of bringing those people to account at some time or another?
The idea that if we do not do something now for those stated reasons we will not do anything is nonsense. There are lots of other things that can be done that we should probably have been doing for a long time and will have to do now. We must accept one thing: we will not get anywhere towards resolving the problem for the Syrian people unless and until we grapple differently with the question of those terribly difficult Chinese people and them nasty Russkies. We must incentivise the Russians to be involved in a process that caters for some of their needs. Libya has been mentioned several times, and it has often been said that they are smarting from what happened in Libya. Well, I do not know where we will be on Monday—according to certain reports, we might be here on Sunday—and things might have happened that are out of our control. The Americans might have done something. However, unless and until we can say to the Russians, “Okay. We understand some of your concerns,” and incentivise them to be in the plan, we will not resolve the situation. Any American activity now will not resolve the situation. Later, the UN could agree and we might have to take military action. The idea of sending half a dozen aeroplanes to Akrotiri is a good one, because if some of the whizz-bangs go bang at the weekend, we might well be dealing with a situation in the area—
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend, like me, is sickened by the number of times we have voted for war, sometimes to my great shame. What is the hurry? The civil war has been going on for two years. Is it not time that we got on with negotiation and diplomacy?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I know that hon. Members turn away because they think I might not stop them if their intervention is too long. I remind Members that they should address their comments through the Chair so that I can sit them down if they go on too long.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is precisely right: there is nothing in the motion that could not have been debated next week. We should be very concerned about the speed and haste that is indicated beyond this place.
We should remember that conflicts do not take place without context. This conflict will not take place without history, without suspicion of our intentions or outright hostility to our presence. Syrian Government assertions that French, British and American agents launched the chemical attacks to pave the way for intervention might attract ridicule in this Chamber, but let us not be so naive as to think that there will not be many willing subscribers to this conspiracy theory across the middle east. We must never underestimate the cynicism that surrounds our motives and those of our allies. We must never underestimate the fact that even the most humanitarian of objectives can be misconstrued as a nefarious attempt by the west to project its power. We must never underestimate the fact that we must first win the battle of perception above all else.
Any intervention needs to be demonstrably scrupulous, must involve more than just the usual suspects and must be the last resort of a process that has visibly exhausted all diplomatic means. The recent ratcheting up of rhetoric has come at the expense of reason and has eschewed responsibility. The cacophony of tough words and the insidious indication that attacks could take place as early as this weekend have not facilitated diplomacy or the forging of alliances.
We need cooler heads rather than broader shoulders. The Government must abandon the march for “war by the weekend” and assure the House that any military intervention will be countenanced only after the weapon inspectors have been given time to investigate, free from external pressure. The process might be long and arduous but it is necessary and right.
We are holding this debate on the anniversary of the speech that Martin Luther King made, but he made another speech in 1967 against the Vietnam war. We should reread his words.
Mr Howarth
That is the point I am making. I do not think that the machinery of the United Nations is able to enforce decisions, and this is an obvious example. I accept that probably the overwhelming balance of evidence is that it is the regime that is carrying out these attacks, rather than the rebel forces, which probably do not have the capability. There is a further argument that a rogue commander might be carrying out these attacks without the knowledge or consent of the leadership and the President. If that is the case it is even more worrying if the regime works in such a way that random commanders can decide to do such things almost at will rather than be directed from the centre.
So far, so good: the debate has taken us a little further, but it has not taken us all the way. I hope that over the days and weeks to come the Prime Minister can get the narrative a bit clearer, so that those of us—
G8
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Now that the Prime Minister has had some time to reflect on his earlier remarks about the Labour party and the Assad regime, will he consider withdrawing his remarks and apologising? Everyone in this House is united in being opposed to the Assad regime and the brutal killings of thousands of people, but we have genuine questions about his stance on arming the Syrian rebels. The first question is—
Rushanara Ali
Sorry. Can the Prime Minister give a guarantee that humanitarian access will not get worse, and can he explain—
The Prime Minister
As I have said many times, we have made no decision to arm the rebels. The point I was making was simply that, whenever we talk about these issues, we should put out there, front and centre, how much we abhor this form of dictatorship, brutalisation and use of chemical weapons. It cannot be said often enough and it needs to be said by everybody, all the time. That is the point I was making and I certainly will not withdraw it.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need for us to win this global race and to back our exports. At the beginning of Prime Minister’s Question Time, I announced that Ian Livingston, who has run BT so effectively, would join the Government as Trade Minister at the end of the year. Having first secured the services of Stephen Green, who led HSBC, one of the world’s strongest and best banks, we have now secured those of someone who has run a successful business here in the UK, but who also has a presence in about 78 markets overseas. I think that is great for Britain and great for our exports, and I am sure that it will be widely welcomed by Members in all parts of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I thank the Prime Minister very much. Some 70 Back Benchers took part in questions on that important statement.
Justice and Security Bill [Lords]
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Straw
Yes, and using PII certificates in respect of evidence that is central to a case is profoundly unjust to both sets of parties.
Dinah Rose is a leading critic of the proposals in the Bill. I have looked carefully at her response to the consultation document, which was published earlier this year.
She stated,
“PII is not perfect—it does result in some cases being tried without all evidence being available.”
She also stated that in rare cases:
“PII may also result…in a situation in which a party is ordered to disclose a document which it is not prepared to disclose, leaving it no alternative but to settle the claim.”
She is being disingenuous, because in these national security cases we are talking about not a document—her word—but bundles of documents that are central to the adjudication of the action.
I, like the Minister, dealt with lots of PII cases and had to work through them very carefully. If there were thousands of documents, as there would be in these cases, a Minister would have to take a month or so off to operate that and, at the end, if the court accepted the PII application, there would be evidence that could not be used in the case.
Ms Rose concludes her summary by referring to the need for “potential misconduct” by the agencies to
“see the light of day”.
I absolutely agree with her sentiment. The problem is that in the absence of CMPs, there is no way of determining misconduct by members of the agencies in a civil action. The most that can happen is a settlement out of court with a payment into court but no admission of liability. That is profoundly unjust to both sides. It is unjust to the complainant, who might well have right on their side but who is denied the means to have the court find in their favour, and equally unjust to the agencies and their staff, who might also have right on their side but no means of making their defence.
In the other place, various amendments were made that were designed to strengthen the role of the courts in determining whether and, if so, how CMPs should be used. They will be examined upstairs and I look forward to the result of the Committee. I am in no doubt about the necessity of the Bill and if the sceptics want to make the agencies more accountable, they should have this Bill—
House of Lords Reform Bill
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys). I agree that reform and an elected House of Lords are essential. It is a basic principle of democracy that those who legislate for everybody else are voted for by the other citizens of the country.
Whatever their positions on the Bill, hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the House of Lords should complement and not duplicate the House of Commons in both its function and its make-up. Unfortunately, the Bill is weak on both counts. Clause 2 is inadequate in setting out the functions of the reformed House. I agree with the letter written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) to the Deputy Prime Minister. We must see a new draft of clause 2 early in the passage of the Bill. We cannot be expected to agree to a measure if we do not know what the functions will be until some distant time in future, after the Bill has been to the Lords.
Furthermore, the Bill reveals one of the weaknesses of our unwritten constitution. It would be helpful if Ministers considered not only how to preserve the primacy of the Commons but what special responsibilities the other House should have. At one point, giving the other House special responsibility for human rights was considered.
On the make-up of the second House, many noble Lords are going around saying that the Lords is more reflective of the population than the Commons. That is not true. Only a fifth of Members of both Houses are women and 5% or fewer are from ethnic minorities. However, more than 96% of Members of the other House are over 50. The Government’s proposals in the Bill are extremely weak on that. The proposed 15-year terms are weak not just on accountability; they will add to that age bias.
The objective is surely to widen involvement in our political institutions—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. You have made your speech, Ms Sandys. Turning round and having a private conversation, along with many other Members, is not fair and does not show due respect to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). Given the importance that hon. Members have attached to this Bill, perhaps they can ensure they listen to the debate on it.
Helen Goodman
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am obviously so boring that other hon. Members cannot be bothered to listen—[Hon. Members: “No!”]
Our politics and our democracy are not exactly in a crisis, but confidence in them is beginning to look rather tattered round the edges. If we are to restore that confidence, we need both institutional reform and higher levels of participation. Today is an opportunity to discuss the institutional reform—we can talk about participation on another occasion.
For many, the heyday of our popular democracy was the early 1950s, when voting participation under universal suffrage was at its highest, and when the two-party system seemed to provide a reasonable reflection of the choices for the country. However, in 1997, at the end of 20 years of Tory rule, the overwhelming sense one had was of anachronistic institutions that were completely unrepresentative of who we are and what we expect from our democracy. Institutional reforms redressed the balance between citizens and the state. They were significant and welcome, but they did not address some of the key failings. Why are so few Members of Parliament in either House women? Why is it right that the second Chamber should reserve places for Anglican bishops but none for other denominations and religions? Those are failings of the institutional arrangements, but they reflect a deeper failure: a failure to make sense of our new British identity.
To tackle that malaise, we need institutions that provide equal rights within their arrangements. This is an extremely unusual country, because it is both a multinational state built over more than 500 years from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, and a multi-ethnic country, which in the past 50 years has had a huge change in its constitution. Such significant cultural diversity can make the task of building inclusive citizenship seem huge, and we do it against a background of growing globalisation, which seems to be reducing the importance of the nation state. It is vital, however, if we are to get the levels of participation that we need.
Dan Byles
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am here today to speak about this extremely important issue, but I speak regularly in this Chamber about key events and intervene in others. I am not one of those Members who chalks up short speeches on TheyWorkForYou and then judges themselves by the number of speeches they have made rather than their quality.
As I said, our constituents are blinking in bewilderment at the amount of time we are spending discussing this issue, but discuss it we must—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Mr MacNeil, I have had enough. You keep interrupting everybody. This debate has been going on all day. I ask you to sit there quietly and stop trying to disrupt other people’s speeches.
Dan Byles
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Discuss this issue we must. Most Conservative Members are of the view that we would rather not, but if we have to it must be discussed fully and properly. This is a fundamental and irreversible constitutional change. It is not normal Government business. The idea that such a change should be rammed through with the routine whipping and programming is unthinkable.
The Bill is not about democracy. Too many people who support it seem to think that simply using the word “democracy” shuts down the debate. That is not the case. I was a soldier for nine years. I took the Queen’s commission and served Her Majesty. I was taught at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and the Royal Military College at Shrivenham to uphold and preserve democracy and the rule of law, which I do. I challenge anybody in this Chamber to tell me that I do not support democracy. That I support it does not mean that I must support the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) described eloquently our complex and ancient constitution. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) made a passionate speech on the nature of the upper House and its specific and unique role in our constitution, which does not automatically require that its Members be elected. I was rather hoping that I would be called to speak immediately after him, because I would have been tempted to say, “What he said,” and sit down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) ran through a list of other parts of our system that are elected. Interestingly, I have the same list in my speech in order to make the opposite point. My constituents already have the opportunity to elect every level of government. They elect parish councillors, borough councillors, county councillors, Members of Parliament and MEPs. They elect their Government when they elect their MP. That is our system. If we move, in an ill-thought-out way, to a system in which they also elect, in a manner of speaking—I am not a fan of this system of proportional representation—Members of the other place, which House will form the Government? That system will result in confusion and chaos.
This change is being imposed. There is no suggestion that it will go to the people in a referendum, unlike the question of whether the people of Coventry want an elected mayor, as numerous colleagues have pointed out. Apparently, this fundamental change to the constitution of our country is not suitable for a referendum. The people who want to impose this fundamental change should at least come to the House to explain what the upper Chamber is supposed to do, what it is about the current system that is failing to achieve that end and how the proposals will achieve that end better.
It seems to me that the Bill fails in what it sets out to achieve. It will not make the upper House more accountable. I will not repeat the arguments involving the party list system and the 15-year terms, but the new Members will not be accountable. The Bill will not end the Prime Minister’s right of patronage. Ministerial Members will be appointed by the Prime Minister, not by an independent appointments commission, and he will be able to appoint as many of them as he wants. As long as fewer than eight of them are serving as Ministers at the time, he can appoint more. He can appoint eight on day one. If they all resign on day two, he can appoint eight more. He can do that every day. The power of parliamentary patronage is therefore still there. That means that it will not be an 80% elected Chamber. If each Prime Minister appoints only eight ministerial Members in each Parliament and they stay for three Parliaments, it will be a 74% elected Chamber. Let us call it what it is. And that is ignoring the Lords Spiritual.
Regional Pay
Baroness Primarolo Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I advise the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Mr Maude
I am going to make progress now.
That policy was introduced at a time when those who are now on the Opposition Front Bench were intimately involved, so it is worth the House asking itself what happened. Did devilish civil servants somehow slide this wicked measure through, as the attention of the current shadow Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition was elsewhere, no doubt overly occupied in trashing the then Prime Minister?
Why is the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury taking up valuable parliamentary time attacking in opposition a policy that her own leaders actively promoted in government? It is not as if the Labour party immediately abandoned the idea in opposition that local and regional variations in the cost of living are important. In January, The Guardian reported that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne)—another previous holder of my post—told a private meeting of Labour MPs that housing benefit
“varies locally and so should a benefit cap”.
In fact, he was reported to have said:
“It makes much more sense to have localised caps…in different parts of the country”.
That revealed that the Labour party still recognises in private the very principle that it is today seeking to oppose. It is humbug, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yet again, the Opposition oppose policies that they introduced in government and that they still support in private.
We know what is behind this. It is the Labour party’s union paymasters who are calling the tune. We know that the Labour party ask their union backers which amendments to vote for and which to oppose. We know that under the current Labour party leader more than 80% of Labour’s donations come directly from trade unions—even more than under the last Prime Minister. No wonder Charlie Whelan boasted that it was Unite that won the current Labour party leadership. Yet again, it is Unison and Unite that are calling the tunes. But even the unions are confused on this matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) said, Unison itself has made the case for local variations.
There is a serious case to be made for local market-facing pay. While private sector pay is typically set according to local markets, public sector pay is usually set on a one-size-fits-all basis at national level. As a result, public sector workers are often paid more than private sector workers in similar jobs in the same area. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the overall gap between public and private sector pay averages 8.3%. However, the gap can be as low as virtually minimal in some places and as high as nearly 20% in others.
Academic research also shows that public sector pay is only 40% as responsive to local labour markets as private sector pay. That has potentially damaging consequences for the public sector and the economy. A one-size-fits-all system for public sector pay could limit the number of public sector jobs that could be supported in lower-cost areas. It militates directly against the relocation of public sector jobs to more deprived parts of the country. Private employers looking for staff to set up or grow their businesses might need to compete with much higher public sector wages. The evidence has yet to be examined, but the public sector could be crowding out the private sector in that way, and holding back the private sector-led recovery that the economy needs. Arguably, this makes private sector job creation less attractive. Importantly, it also makes it less attractive to move public sector jobs out of London and the south-east because, without any differential in pay rates to reflect the differential in living costs, it is much less easy to justify the relocation costs and loss of continuity that relocating inevitably involves.
So this approach is about investigating whether this could be another way of supporting local economies, by helping to provide more public sector jobs for the same level of spending and by helping the local private sector to become more competitive and to expand. This could help poorer areas to grow—[Interruption.] Exactly that point was recognised explicitly by the previous Prime Minister. He made exactly that argument. The hon. Member for Leeds West might want to argue with him, but we think that this is one of the few things on which he was right.
More broadly, this Government are determined to support regional private sector growth. Since the last election and the formation of the coalition Government, 843,000 private sector jobs have been created, and promoting regional growth—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sorry, Minister. It is not necessary for Members on either side of the House, especially those on the Front Benches, continually to shout across the Floor. This is an important and heated debate—[Interruption.] I do not know why you are tut-tutting, Ms Bray; you have been doing a fair bit of shouting as well.
Mr Maude
We would have made better progress if, every time anyone stood up, the hon. Member for Leeds West had not recited the number of public sector workers in their constituency. She could just have laid the document before the House and we could have taken it all as read. It was a pretty poor substitute for an argument, but I suppose it was the best that she could do.
We are committed to supporting regional private sector growth. As I was saying, 843,000 private sector jobs have been created since the general election, and promoting regional jobs is at the very heart of our growth strategy. In the autumn statement, we announced an additional £30 billion of investment—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. A large number of Members wish to participate in the debate, so it is necessary to change the time limit to a maximum of five minutes for all Back-Bench contributions. It might be necessary to review that before the end of the debate and to reduce it further.
Grahame M. Morris
I agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis.
The other likely negative impact of the Government’s policy is a brain drain from the regions with lower pay to those with higher pay. In my opinion, the Tory party has never understood the values and principles of our public services, which were founded on fairness and equity. What is truly outrageous is that Ministers waste their time targeting low-paid public servants when the real crisis is in the private sector. I believe that those are diversionary tactics, and that, if implemented, they would take more money out of the northern regions, which are already suffering from a lack of demand throughout our economies.
The United Kingdom is crying out for a serious new industrial policy that would reduce regional inequalities and close the north-south divide. A regional pay policy of the sort that the Government propose would only make the position worse, and it lacks an evidence base. Any comparison between public and private sector pay is a very crude measure. There are far more highly qualified workers in the public sector, there is a smaller gap between the top and bottom levels of pay, and there is a smaller gender pay gap. The majority of low-paid work in catering or cleaning, for example, is in the private sector. Similar roles in the public sector are often outsourced, which skews the figures still further.
The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) asked about figures relating to growth rates and relative performance. Under the last Labour Government, the rate of growth in my region, the north-east, went from being the lowest in any region during the 1990s to being the second highest during the last decade. Between the mid-1990s and the global economic downturn of 2008, employment growth increased by 11.2% in the north-east and by 9.2% nationally. Between 2002 and 2008, private sector employment in the north-east rose by 9.2% while public sector employment grew by 4.1%, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson). Between 1999 and 2007, the number of businesses in the north-east rose by 18.7%, which compares favourably with London’s business growth of 19.6% during the same period.
Mr Burley
I am sure we will hear from my hon. Friend in due course, and I will let him make his own arguments, but in the very short time I have left I want to focus on the principle behind this debate, which is whether there are different costs of living in different parts of the country and, if so, whether that should be reflected in state pay. The simple answer to both those questions is yes.
Someone commented in response to the ConservativeHome article to which I have referred:
“Perhaps an experiment over a 2 year period to prove Regional Salaries are such a great idea? Begin with MPs and their staff. No doubt they will jump at the chance to lead by example?”
I propose to do exactly that. I have to hand the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority bandings for accommodation expenditure—the amount that can be claimed by MPs to live in their constituency. Guess what? Yes, they vary by constituency. As MP for Cannock Chase I could claim £10,950 a year to pay my rent and bills, if I were to claim expenses for living locally, which I do not. The Member for Cambridge can claim £15,150—nearly 50% more than I can claim. The Members for North Somerset and North West Hampshire can claim £13,750, whereas the Member of North Swindon can claim just £12,350. So there we have it: there is regional variation in what MPs can claim to live, based on the cost of living in their area. If it is good enough for MPs, why should it not be reflected in the pay packets of other public sector workers?
Let us examine the arrangements for employing our staff. If I employ a senior caseworker in the London area, I have to pay him £23,000 to £31,000. If I employ him in my constituency, I have to pay him only £19,000 to £28,000. A senior parliamentary assistant can be paid up to £42,000 in London, whereas they can start on just £30,000 in my constituency. So the answer to the blogger is that MPs and their staff are already subject to regional variations in pay and allowances, and are living proof of the established principle of regional pay born out of different regional costs of living.
Let us put it the other way round: if the Opposition truly believe in national pay bargaining and public sector salaries being set nationally, will they intervene on me now to say that my staff in London should have their salaries reduced to match those of my staff in Cannock? Or should I be able to claim as much to live in a house in Cannock as to live a house in Cambridge? Of course not. Today’s debate is about whether public sector pay should be relative to private sector wages, and the simple truth is that it must.
The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said that regional pay will
“prove costly to the public purse and exacerbate regional inequalities”.
On the contrary, crowding out the private sector in the regions of our country is what will exacerbate regional inequalities, and setting a higher than locally appropriate wage bill means that public sector money is not allocated as effectively as it could be within local areas. I noted that she did not reply to the quote in my intervention, so I will repeat it to her now. Unison has said in its location-based pay differentiation paper of September 2011 that
“location-based pay systems offer increased flexibility and a systematic approach to addressing recruitment and retention issues at a local level.”
Government Members agree with Unison in that analysis, and I shall be interested to hear whether any Labour Members, many of whom will doubtless be taking donations from Unison to their constituency Labour parties, also do.
The Government are right to look at more local, market-facing pay and to end the anomaly of national pay bargaining—