International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Friday 27th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, I give my full support to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has just moved. He pointed to the names of noble Lords who have put their names to this amendment, all of them former Permanent Secretaries to the Treasury, Cabinet Secretaries or, in some cases, both. In all my 23 years as a Member of your Lordships’ House, I cannot remember this ever occurring before, and it may well be that it is unprecedented. There is a reason for that.

I pay tribute personally to the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I have known him for many years. When I first became Chancellor, he was Permanent Secretary in charge of public expenditure at the Treasury, a duty that he fulfilled impeccably and has done over the years. We are very lucky in our senior Civil Service. He has been an outstanding public servant in a number of ways over a large number of years, and we ignore what he says at our peril.

The amendment is fundamentally about good government. I do not know whether this is still the case, but in my day the Treasury used to be known as “the central department”. It was called that because it had a responsibility that went beyond the question of the management of the economy, in so far as one is capable of doing so; it also had a responsibility for good government. We in this House also have an overarching and overriding responsibility for good government. However well intentioned, the Bill, for the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is the antithesis of good government. It is gesture politics. Good government really matters, and the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Butler, goes to the heart of that issue. I warmly support it.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in his normal way, spoke extremely powerfully. His arguments are extremely strong, his logic is irrefutable and his experience is something that no one would wish to challenge.

The trouble is that I think he has missed the essential point of the Bill, which is that it is a quite exceptional measure designed to send an exceptional message to the world. First, it says to the developing world, the poor countries containing the 4 billion or 5 billion people in this world who live on less than $1,000 a year per capita income, that we care about inequality and are making a fundamental qualitative change in order to demonstrate the authenticity, the reality, of that commitment and a desire to make a new move in that direction. The second reason is of course to send an equally unmistakable signal to other developed countries and to set an example that we hope they may follow.

The trouble with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for all the quite sincere compliments that I have just paid it, is that it undermines completely that sense of authenticity. If it is clear that at any time the Treasury can decide in a given year that our obligation to spend 0.7% of GDP on international development no longer applies, then the whole commitment that we are trying to make will simply be emptied of its content. The message will not have any strength at all for either the developing world or the rest of the developed world, and that is the basis on which, very sadly, I feel I have to oppose the amendment.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I know that the mere appearance on the Marshalled List of the dread words “the Treasury” will send a shiver through most of my former colleagues and a very large part of the House. None the less, I feel that this amendment might be more persuasive if people unconnected with the Treasury supported it. I feel an obligation to support the proposal of my noble friend Lord Butler, and I strongly disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, which was that this amendment is incompatible with the 0.7%.

There is no reason, as I shall explain in a minute—I shall speak very briefly— why the 0.7% should not be compatible with rigorous examination by the Treasury of the budget of the department. One of the fears that have been expressed by those who are sceptical about this Bill is that it creates a perverse incentive to spend money so that the whole focus is on the quantity, not the quality, of expenditure. There is a risk that we may be jet-hosing the programme with money, with the only objective being to meet the 0.7%.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, quite rightly reminded us of our obligations to the poor, and he made the point that there are huge numbers of people in this world who survive on tiny incomes. There are 2.8 billion people surviving on less than $2 a day, and 20% of those people survive on less than $1 a day. That fact makes it very important that we see that this expenditure is economically and properly spent, because every bit that is saved, every bit that is not wasted, can be the difference between life and death for people living on the poverty line.

Exempting overseas aid from the public expenditure process is the removal of the process. The process of the public expenditure round is that departments have to make a case for spending money, not just for the global total. There is examination in advance of the major items that make up the totality of the programme. Getting rid of that entirely removes the discipline that a spending department, or in this case DfID, has to make for the money that it wishes to spend.

There a provision in the Bill for examining the expenditure retrospectively, but that is not the same as examining it in advance. Surely the department would benefit from having the effectiveness of its programme examined not just retrospectively, when nothing can be done about it, but in advance, when people can be warned and when projects can be examined by people outside the department. It is a great pity that there is no single body in the Bill, as far as we can see. At previous stages, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, made the point that they did not want to have one department looking at this, but that re-emphasises the need for the Treasury to have a look at this in advance. That is compatible with the 0.7%, because all that would be involved would be the Treasury examining it and saying, “We would like you to look at this project”, and, “We think this project is better than that project”.

Incidentally, Clause 2(3)(b) refers to how, if the Government fail to meet the target of 0.7%, they have to explain how it may be due to fiscal circumstances. If you are going to have fiscal circumstances involved in the calculation of the 0.7%, it seems very sensible that the Treasury should be involved. Who else would know about the likely fiscal circumstances? Indeed, it is implied in the Bill that the Treasury would have to be involved because nobody else can talk very persuasively about the fiscal circumstances.

I believe that in order to make the Bill effective and to make sure that expenditure reaches the poorest of the world, this amendment ought to be supported.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will recall that at Second Reading and in Committee I stressed my support for the aid programme and that I have also supported the 0.7% target. The points made by my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, are central to the debate we are having. Although I and other colleagues doubt the wisdom of guaranteeing a particular share of the national budget to one particular spending programme for exactly the reasons that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, emphasised, the Government are arguing that that is the right thing to do in the case of this programme, as distinct from any other, partly because of its international nature, partly because of the commitments we have entered into, partly because of their belief that we would be setting an example to other people and partly because of their belief that others will follow that example.

Given that that is the Government’s position, the Minister owes it to the House to explain why what is sauce for the development goose is not sauce for the defence gander. I recognise that she is not a member of the Conservative Party, but she is speaking on behalf of the Government in this House and the Prime Minister, who leads the Government of which she is a member, has been emphasising very strongly in recent days the importance of other nations following our example in relation to the 2% target set for NATO. We have recently received evidence that the British Government may not be able to meet that target next year. If this idea of setting targets and guaranteeing a share of national expenditure is so important in one field, the Minister must be able to argue, for the reasons set out so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, why they should not apply in the case of defence.

I hope she will also be able to accept that while the problems of the developing world are of a continuing nature, problems in the case of defence wax and wane, and at the moment, when we look at what is happening in Ukraine and the Middle East, problems in the defence sphere are certainly waxing. Therefore, if the Government are going to be able to defend on a rational basis the reasons why they are privileging the development budget in his way, it is essential that they are able to explain why they do not wish to do so for defence. I know defence is not the Minister’s department, but she is proposing this Bill and doing so on a particular set of grounds which apply to the defence area, where we are also committed to a particular target.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, invited me to be consistent in my attitude towards this amendment and the first amendment we debated this morning. I think it might have been a slightly rhetorical invitation, so I will probably surprise him when I say that I propose to be exactly that. The way in which the amendment is worded, making public expenditure in one department a function of public expenditure in another, is a rather peculiar way to go about managing public expenditure. I rather doubt whether the noble Lord and his colleagues, including my noble friend, plan to put this amendment to the vote, but I certainly share the aspirations and inspiration behind this initiative.

Earlier, I said, and I stand by it, that one of the two major points of this Bill is to set an example in the world and therefore to achieve something of a leverage effect so that, where we spend more money, we may succeed in persuading others to spend more money in the same way and the same direction and thereby greatly promote the cause we have in mind. That applies, in my view, to the 0.7% target in international aid. It would also apply in the case of the 2% of GDP defence spending target that NATO has formally adopted. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, just said, that is the only other field in which such an international target exists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

I have just given the Government’s commitment. Interestingly, I also have here the figures for defence spending year on year—which I am assured the noble Lord is extremely well aware of—from 1990 up to the present. One of the things that strikes me, coming out of DfID, is how steady it is. Yes, it went up, in particular between 2007 and 2011, but generally speaking it has been remarkably steady over that period from 1990 to the present, in contrast to the aid budget. Noble Lords can look at those figures. That brings me back to my point.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

May I give the noble Baroness another chance to answer the question from my noble friend Lord West, which she did not do? Did she or did she not say that the Government are committed to maintaining defence spending at more than 2% of GDP after the next financial year?

[Baroness Northover]

I remind the noble Lord that we have a general election between now and then, and although we are not standing for election many of our colleagues are. The new Government will no doubt take a decision as to what they say their spending should be. However, I set that in the context of a continuity here, as regards defence spending, which you do not see in the DfID budget.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Friday 23rd January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I endorse the very fine tributes given by the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Tugendhat, to Leon Brittan. Being from a slightly different generation, I was not as close to him as they were, but I always regarded him as a friend and I have, and will always have, the greatest affection and admiration for him.

The last thing that I want to do today is to make a party-political point. However, and I put it no more strongly than this, I am genuinely mystified that this measure—the Government support it, I believe, with complete sincerity—was not only in their manifesto, as it was in all our manifestos, but in their first Queen’s Speech and they have done nothing about it at all until the last few months of the Parliament. Even then, it came forward not as a government measure but as a Private Member’s Bill, with all the constraints that that entails. I am just mystified to know why that has happened and, when the Minister sums up, I would love her to explain to us why we find ourselves in that position today.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Lipsey and to the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, for having had the courage to go somewhat against the current this morning in arguing against the Bill. There is no question at all but that it presents some remarkable anomalies and some problematic aspects and I think that we would be failing in our duty if we did not engage with them thoroughly.

It is not normal practice to decide arbitrarily to spend a certain amount of money in a certain area without knowing what you are going to purchase. That is not the way that budgeting or financial governance is taught in any business school or, indeed, in any graduate school of public administration. As has been said, there is a real danger of distortion when you hypothecate certain elements in public spending. I might add to that a point that has already been made this morning: if you do that often enough, it becomes impossible to pursue any stabilisation policy. If the economy grows above trend, you suddenly find that, because GDP goes up, you are required to increase government spending and may be adding to overheating in the economy. That would be very perverse.

What worries me most about the Bill is almost the inevitability that if you place on a bureaucracy and on a Minister the obligation to spend a certain amount of money by a certain deadline, you will induce the operation of the law of diminishing returns and the productivity of that spending will fall. That worries me considerably.

However, unlike my noble friend Lord Lipsey and the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, and despite all those reservations and very genuine concerns, I support the Bill. It is essential to do something. First and foremost is the need to make a contribution to relieve the appalling human suffering that exists in the third world today. Some of the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, were deeply moving. Secondly, as an earnest of our sincerity, we need to do something about the worrying levels of inequality in the world today. Thirdly, as a subsidiary consideration, we need to take action for the sake of the credibility of the British political system. If all three major parties have committed themselves to doing something and they do not do it by the end of the Parliament, that will undermine public credibility in our whole system. Therefore, I support the Bill, despite all the reservations that I have set out.

However, I want to propose three safeguards. First, we must strengthen the audit controls that we have in place, particularly because there will almost certainly be a greater degree of mis-spending than in the past. I have no confidence at all—indeed, I think that the Economic Affairs Committee had no confidence at all; it said as much—in the DfID statement that in the last year for which it had figures, which I think was 2011-12, only £1 million of its budget was mis-spent or wasted, having been subject to fraud, corruption or what have you. That is completely non-credible and I think that DfID is deceiving itself. Whether by strengthening Clause 5, if we have the opportunity to do that, or by some other means, we need greatly to improve our financial controls.

Secondly, I am concerned about budget support. It inevitably increases the power and influence of the existing Government and bureaucracy in the country that receives it. Where you have a democratic, incorrupt Government and state pursuing rational economic policies, budgetary support is a thoroughly good thing—the Government are part of the solution, not part of the problem. All too often, however, as noble Lords know, that is not the case. We should make it a principle that we will not provide budget support to states that are single-party dictatorships. We are supplying budget support to Vietnam, which is a colossal mistake, and we should not be doing that. There are other examples that we should look at carefully. I should like a much more critical view to be taken of the candidates eligible in this world for budgetary support.

Thirdly, if we are to enhance the productivity of our spending on aid and to secure the achievement of the aims that we all hold so dear in spending this money in what is admittedly a very anomalous way—a salient exception to our normal way of doing things—it is essential to have regular audit review meetings with the recipients of the aid under budget support, those who are taking the decisions in the country concerned as to the allocation of funds in the sector that we are supporting.

No decision-takers in any bureaucracy in the world have the time to get involved in detailed discussions of that kind with 10, 12 or 15 separate people. In practice, they can at best manage with three. The three who will be chosen will be the EU, the biggest provider of aid in the world, USAID and the World Bank. If we are to have any influence we need to remain fully committed to the EU programmes and, even when we have national programmes in addition to the EU programme, to concert with our EU partners in having those review meetings. Otherwise, we shall not have the leverage and influence that we need and shall need increasingly as the sums that the British taxpayer expends on this thoroughly worthwhile cause increase.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Northover) (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of DfID and the Government, I am delighted to speak in support of the Private Member’s Bill sponsored by my noble friend Lord Purvis. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, put it, he introduced it with a passionate, comprehensive and evidence-based speech. I pay tribute to my right honourable friend Michael Moore for having the vision, grasp and commitment to introduce and then pilot this vital Bill through the other place. I also pay tribute to all those who have supported the Bill there and here, and for the cross-party agreement here.

I pay tribute to those who have helped to develop the UK’s outstanding record in development, including the right honourable Clare Short and my noble friend Lady Chalker, whose speech showed her long and deep commitment to this area and her understanding of how underpinning economic growth brings the relief of poverty. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for pledging the Opposition’s support for the Bill, which is exceedingly welcome.

As other noble Lords have, I pay tribute to the NGOs for doing all that they have to explain, from their own work, why the Bill and the commitment of better-off countries is so important. It is transformational to those in extreme poverty and at the very margins of life around the world. I also pay tribute to DfID staff working in-country—for example, those on rolling shifts in Sierra Leone and those currently locked down in the DRC—and to others from the United Kingdom whose work in humanitarian crises or in longer-term development is so important.

To hear praise from my noble friend Lady Tonge as she crows, as she put it, particularly warms my heart as we do not always please her. I also note the pride expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and she is right.

I am delighted to be part of the United Kingdom Government who have, for the first time, met the 0.7% target of GNI going to support worldwide development. I thank noble Lords for their tributes to that and, from the Government Front Bench, I make it crystal clear that we support the Bill, which will enshrine this commitment in legislation. This was in the coalition agreement and I am delighted that we are so close to ensuring that the legislation is agreed.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Is the Minister going to be able, in the course of her remarks, to respond to my question: why did the Government, who are so evidently in support of this measure, do nothing about it for nearly five years? Even now, it has not been brought forward as a government Bill although the Government appear to be in the process of taking credit for it.

[Baroness Northover]

I have in my notes an answer to the noble Lord, which was slightly lower down in what I was seeking to address. He said that he was mystified as to why we were dealing with this now. What occurred to me was that I was somewhat mystified that the previous Government had not legislated for this, despite their commitment. What we should welcome—and that is true across this House—is that we have finally ensured that we have met that 0.7% commitment, and that we are now seeking to legislate. That is the important thing and I welcome the cross-party support for it.

The House of Commons has passed the Bill overwhelmingly and handed it to us. It is now our responsibility to help ensure that my noble friend Lord Purvis is able to carry this through and into law. We have heard outstanding and compelling speeches and even those who feel that this is not the right move—

Afghanistan: Quarterly Statement

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord speaks from a great deal of experience. As he will know, there has been tremendous engagement with the Government of Pakistan and there is a trilateral relationship between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United Kingdom. Pakistan has made a number of commitments. It is very clear from what is being said by both Afghanistan and Pakistan that they recognise that their long-term prosperity and security depends on the stability in each other’s country. That is also true for India, China and Iran. Stability and prosperity in Afghanistan have a beneficial effect on all the countries around, and we will be engaging with all those countries in that hope.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

I very much support the comments and suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and I express the hope that the Whip on the Bench will pass those comments and suggestions on to the Leader of the House and that they may be taken further. It has always been a great strength of this country that we have been able to adopt a bipartisan approach to a crisis situation such as we did at the time of 9/11 and the then necessary operation in Afghanistan. The whole House will undoubtedly be entirely with the Minister today and her expressions of tribute to the military who have died there, and in her expression of hope for the future, economic and political, of Afghanistan.

Can the Minister be a bit more specific than she was able to be in answer to my noble friend on the Front Bench about DfID? Does she now believe that conditions are such that it is possible for DfID personnel, whether UK-based or Afghan, to deploy in the Pashtun provinces such as Kandahar and Helmand to oversee and monitor projects? As she well knows, if you cannot monitor those projects, it is very difficult to avoid the kind of abuses and perversities that often arise, and then the money is really wasted, which is a very great shame. If she does not think that those conditions exist now, does she hope that in the near future we will be in a position whereby DfID personnel can deploy effectively in those difficult provinces for that important purpose?

[Baroness Northover]

DfID remains very committed in terms of its financial contribution, which is based on the fact that we believe that we can deliver that. A question similar to that was put to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place, and she was very reassuring about what we can do. She is keeping a very close eye on exactly what we can do to ensure that DfID staff are not, for example, office-based back in the capital but actually able to monitor projects as the noble Lord seeks.

Gaza

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord is right: there is a lot of communication all the time. There have been some shifts—some of the restrictions on crossings have been lifted to some extent—but it is nowhere near what is required. Therefore, constant pressure is needed. However, I come back to one of my original points. It is necessary for both sides to see that it is in their long-term interest to find a political solution. It is only when we get people on to that path that we will start to crack some of the other problems.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, is there not a ready solution available to hand? All that needs to happen in order for the remaining restrictions to be lifted is for the Hamas regime in Gaza to accept and adopt the quartet conditions; to accept existing agreements, including the Oslo accords; to recognise the state of Israel, and to abjure violence. Do the Government think that any of those suggestions are unreasonable; and if not, even though we do not have any relations with the Hamas regime directly, will they find a way of communicating that thought to it?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord’s premise of a simple route rather defies the current situation. We welcome the reconciliation between the Palestinians, Hamas and Fatah, which we are monitoring very closely, and we welcome the moves towards elections. However, as the noble Lord and others will know, you have to take a balanced approach and recognise that one side will feel that you are not being fair if you demand X of them, and the other side likewise. That is why it is extremely important to try to bring the parties together and to seek a political solution which is in everybody’s best interests.

Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, there is no provision on the Order Paper for debates on Clauses 8 or 9 to stand part. Rather than risk taking up the time of the House by necessarily opening such a debate, I wanted to make a few general remarks under the heading of this group of amendments because it touches on Clauses 8 and 9.

All of us in this Committee are very concerned about public health. It is a priority for anybody in public life and really must be. Some telling points have been made both this morning and this afternoon, and I particularly retain the remarks about the importance of addressing the threat of obesity, which we know causes an awful lot of medical conditions, and the very important issue of tobacco smoking. We have made tremendous progress in public health by bringing down smoking. The results are already clear in the reduction of the incidence of some of the cancers. It is also important to address the threat of sexually transmitted diseases, and some very good and sensible things have been said about AIDS and hepatitis B and C. To that list I would add chlamydia, which does not normally have fatal consequences but has very sad consequences for infertility. It is far too widespread at the present time.

There are a number of other areas about which we should all be concerned. One that concerns me is the introduction into this country of tropical diseases by airline passengers and the great importance of making sure that clinicians are properly trained to identify the symptoms as rapidly as possible and to deal with them. The facilities are there to quarantine where necessary people who have highly infectious tropical diseases.

Another public health risk that we ought to be aware of is the danger of strains of bacteria emerging that are immune to antibiotics, very largely as a result of the excessive and irresponsible prescribing of antibiotics—sometimes quite disgracefully as a placebo—and a lack of discipline on the part of patients in completing a course of antibiotics. That is a serious issue that has not been addressed by any public campaign, as far as I know.

All of us are concerned about the danger of a viral epidemic in the form of some new strain of flu or something of that kind. We are very much aware of it because the media talk about it a lot. That has not gone away; we must not get complacent about that. I am glad that in the area of the protection of public health, the Government have made it clear that, unlike in the area of the provision of clinical treatment, the Secretary of State has a clear responsibility stated explicitly and unambiguously in the Bill.

However, the Government have missed an opportunity to simplify and rationalise the bureaucratic structures and lines of accountability. That would have been very desirable. What is emerging here is an extremely complex structure of responsibility. The Secretary of State uniquely has responsibility for taking necessary measures for the protection of public health but shares that responsibility with local authorities in the area of improvements to public health. The Bill makes it clear that the Secretary of State “may” and local authorities “must” take measures in this area, so there is the prospect of a highly undesirable situation in which the Secretary of State takes such action but that duplicates what local authorities are doing. I do not think we have heard in the course of the debate exactly how the Minister envisages the relationship between Public Health England, the Secretary of State and local authorities with their new medical officers developing. I almost called them “medical officers for health” because I think this is a revival of that old concept, and they did a wonderful job in their time. However, I believe that they are going to be called “directors of public health” and are to be established under Clause 9 by all local authorities.

We need to understand what the relationship between these bodies is going to be. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said earlier that the Health Protection Agency is to be abolished. That is what it states in the Bill, but I understand that actually it is going to be subsumed more or less in toto into Public Health England. We need some transparency on that. I would like to know how many people are going to be involved in the agency because these bodies can be extremely expensive. We want to make sure that we are getting proper value for public money.

I am particularly concerned about the suggestion in Clause 19 that the Secretary of State may devolve on to clinical commissioning groups or the National Commissioning Board his responsibilities in the public health area. So there we have another bureaucracy that has the potential to become involved without being clearly defined. There is a frightening element in that clause which provides that any liabilities arising as a result of the involvement of the National Commissioning Board or clinical commissioning groups in the public health area will accrue to those bodies and to no one else; in other words, not to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is not delegating his authority; he is not using the National Commissioning Board or clinical commissioning groups as his agent under his direction, which would be an appropriate thing for him to do; but rather he is abandoning his responsibility to this completely different set of bodies whose main job is in the area of diagnosis and treatment. Again, that is a very confusing picture.

The proliferation of bodies and lack of clarity about bureaucratic responsibilities should be a matter of concern to us all for at least three reasons. The first is that it makes it very difficult for the general public. I find it difficult to understand exactly what the hierarchy of responsibility is. Human beings never give of their best unless their responsibilities are clearly defined and demarcated so that they can be held responsible for those areas for which they really are responsible. They are simply hopeless if other people might be equally responsible. We have not talked about the health and well-being boards. What have they got to do with public health? It is quite unclear to me, but presumably they have some role in this area. It is very confusing and I think that that is very undesirable.

The second reason is the matter of cost. Anybody who has dealt with the NHS as a Member of Parliament, as a business or in any other context knows that one of the great troubles with the NHS is that whenever a decision needs to be taken, there are around 26 people in the room from at least 12 different departments and agencies. That is extremely bad from the point of view of clear decision-making. It means that all decisions take a long time and the costs go up indefinitely. It seems that we have a formula in the area of public health for the replication or even the aggravation of that problem.

The third reason why we should have clarity of responsibility in this area is because people do not perform if they can simply get out of any kind of sense of responsibility by saying that it is someone else’s fault. We are providing endless opportunities for excuses to be made and for people to avoid their responsibilities. I would be very relieved if the Minister could reassure me that these fears are groundless and give clear reasons why that is so.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly about the importance of information in an early diagnosis. I have two areas to focus on. First, people with learning disabilities often get a late diagnosis and suffer terribly because of it, with an earlier death as a consequence for many. Often that is because of a lack of accessible information. I speak as the executive chair of a social enterprise, called Beyond Words, which designs pictorial information to try to bring health and social care information to people who cannot read. Any public health information campaigns need to remember that not everybody can read information easily; it has to be designed to be inclusive.

Secondly, I have a question about how the accessibility of information about the bureaucratic structures of the NHS will help with early diagnosis. This is to do with the current “choose and book” system. Something that has happened to a close relative of mind in the past few weeks made me realise that I do not know how the Bill is addressing the whole issue of better choice for patients. I will briefly tell noble Lords the story. It is about somebody who needs an early diagnosis for what seems like a serious, rare, long-term condition and who has been referred through the choose and book system to four different hospitals to see four different specialists in different areas, where those specialists cannot easily communicate with each other because their hospital systems do not speak to each other. The person concerned chose the hospitals that offered the earliest appointments, which is what most people do and what choose and book offers you. You take the first appointment because you are worried, but the hospital consultant is unable to refer to a consultant in the same hospital with whom they would be able to consult. The patient has to go back to the GP and back through the choose and book system. It is not working.

There is something about information and early diagnosis here as well. I could not see where, apart from under information, I could raise this issue. I look forward to hearing a response from the Minister.

European Union Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, before I get on to the points I wanted to make this evening, I must deal with the speech we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, because it was such a good example of the classic Eurosceptic speech. It had an absolute maximum of sloganising and an absolute minimum of thought, reflection or familiarity with the facts. I shall take three points on which the noble Lord seemed to be making an egregious error.

First of all, the noble Lord said that the European Court of Auditors has qualified the accounts of the European Union. The Court of Auditors has not qualified the accounts of the institutions of the European Union, the Commission, the Parliament or the Court of Justice. The court has qualified, because it has been unable to certify, the accounts of certain member states in the administration of European Union programmes. If he is consistent, perhaps the noble Lord would be in favour of the Commission taking over the administration of all EU programmes, for example, the structure and agricultural funds within the member states concerned. That is an enormously federalist proposal and I do not think the noble Lord really meant that. He should think about this a little more and perhaps look at the actual statements of the auditors in question.

The noble Lord then started referring to tariffs, saying that 90 per cent of tariffs have been abolished anyway. He has clearly not understood the distinction between tariff barriers being reduced and the creation of an internal market. The whole point of an internal market is that it deals with the non-tariff barriers, the really difficult obstacles to trade. Those problems have been dealt with very successfully by the creation of the single market. That seems to me to be a significant point.

Thirdly, he said that we have been forced to bail out Ireland because of our membership of the EU. Obviously he does not listen to his own Government. Ministers made it absolutely clear the other day that the reason we are contributing to Ireland has nothing to do with our membership of the EU, but is simply because it is in the national interest to help a neighbouring country with which we have a close economic relationship and a lot of ties, and indeed we hold a number of Ireland’s assets that we do not want to write off. The noble Lord needs to think about all these things and perhaps take some advice on some aspects before he addresses the House again on EU-related matters.

The Bill before us has already been described several times as a “bad Bill”. It is worse than that: it is a disreputable Bill and the most cynical Bill that I have ever read—and I say that coolly, reflectively and seriously. I shall explain exactly what I mean in saying that. As has already been pointed out, of course, the Bill was born in cynicism. It has nothing to do with trying to increase democratic accountability in this country or with advancing the interests of this nation. As we all know, it was a decision by the Prime Minister to give a sop to the extreme Eurosceptics in the Tory party to get them off his back, and no doubt to make an attempt at getting some UKIP voters back into the Tory fold. The Lib Dems went along with this and thus have swallowed a lot of their own principles—just as they are swallowing their principles in supporting the Government on their excessively rapid spending cuts, on a Bill to restructure and privatise large tracts of the National Health Service and on the abandonment of their electoral promises on tuition fees and so forth. It is not a very edifying spectacle.

I pay tribute to the brave dissenting voices of a number of distinguished Lib Dems that we have heard in the course of the debate, and I hope that we hear more from them in the course of the Committee stage. But the fact is that the Liberal Democrat Front Bench has completely sold out. That is particularly sad because—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

The noble Lord waxes on about principles, but perhaps I may respectfully suggest to him that he would know a thing or two about them, and indeed the Conservative Party, given where he is today and where he was for many years.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Baroness may have better things to do with her time, but if she feels like going over my track record in public life and indeed before, I have to tell the noble Baroness that it is a matter of fact that my first political campaign was conducted on the 1975 referendum. That shows how old I am. I have been absolutely consistent on the matter, as indeed I have on other matters. When I joined the Tory party in 1974, it was actually the pro-European party. The noble Baroness would not have been born or thought of then, so perhaps she has forgotten that fact. I have been extraordinarily consistent.

Neither the Tory party nor, I have to say in all honesty, the Labour Party has been consistent on this matter, but until this moment, the Liberal Party was. We can go back to the 1950s when the treaty of Rome was first conceived and signed. The Liberal Party was the one political force in this country that was in favour of our joining the European Community as it then was, and has been committed to its principles and spirit ever since. Those were the days of Jo Grimond and Lady Violet Bonham Carter. There is thus a personal as well as an intellectual tradition that goes straight back to the internationalism of Sir John Simon to Asquith and Gladstone. What would all those figures be thinking today if they saw the Liberal Front Bench subscribing to a measure like this? It is a very sad day for all of us. I have been happy to pay tribute to the consistency of the Liberal Party and its successor the Liberal Democrat Party until this moment, and precisely because that history has been so honourable up to the present time, today’s picture is a squalid and sad one for the country as a whole.

I said that this Bill was born in cynicism, but unfortunately the cynicism does not end there. The very fabric of this Bill is hypocrisy. The Government state that what they want to do is bring about a situation where there is direct public involvement through referenda and accountability to the electorate as a whole. All I can say, using reasonably parliamentary language, is tell that to the marines. There is no intention to have a referendum on anything at all; there could not possibly be. We know already that this Government are not going to have a referendum in this Parliament while they are still the Government because they have committed themselves not to on any grounds. Horrible thought that it is, let us suppose that the Tory party wins the next election and this Bill remains on the statute book—I take it as axiomatic that a future Labour or indeed a future Labour/Lib Dem coalition Government would immediately rescind this nasty piece of work—so can the House imagine for one second that there would be a referendum on any of this?

Let me remind noble Lords of the sort of subjects that would call for a referendum listed in Schedule 1. They include:

“Article 17(5) (number of, and system for appointing, Commissioners)”.

Are we going to go to the public, spending tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of pounds—I have no idea what it costs to run a referendum—with a referendum on the number of and system for appointing Commissioners? The list goes on:

“Article 19(2) (appointment of Judges and Advocates-General of European Court of Justice)”.

Are we going to have a referendum on that? Possibly we might do so on,

“(specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy)”,

but what about,

“(decision of European Council extending time during which treaties apply to state withdrawing from EU)”?

The scenario there is that a country wants to withdraw from the EU. It is a complicated negotiation, so the suggestion is that we should agree timetables and negotiate with that state on a qualified majority voting basis so that we do not take a month of Sundays agreeing everything or failing to agree anything at all. Are we going to have a referendum on that? Does anyone in the House seriously think that the Government are going to go to the public and say, “Can we please have consent to have qualified majority voting to resolve this particular issue?”.

The list in the schedule goes on and on and includes:

“Article 192(2) (adoption of certain environmental measures)”.

Is the idea of introducing QMV on environmental protection really so shocking that we are going to go to the public with a referendum on it? There is also:

“Article 127(6) (conferral on European Central Bank of specific tasks relating to prudential supervision)”.

Unless the Government have gone completely mad, Members on both sides of the House are in favour of good banking supervision, which probably does not involve 27 people all having to agree unanimously and then going back to their Governments to pass referenda and so forth. Is that a sensible thing to have a referendum on?

Again, I could go on and on. The list includes:

“Article 115 (approximation of national laws affecting internal market)”—

that is hardly shocking, because we have had that for many years—and,

“Article 89 (cross-border operation by competent authorities)”.

What is wrong with that? The most extraordinarily minor things are covered, such as anything to do with the “European Public Prosecutor’s Office”. All of these might be resolved by QMV, but they have to have a referendum. Are we going to the wonderful electors of the Grantham and Stamford constituency and say, “We want you to take the time to look at all these documents about the Public Prosecutor’s Office and then we want you to go to the polls”? I thought that we were all worried about excessive public cynicism about politics and low participation rates in elections. If we start having referenda on this kind of stuff, how can we expect those participation rates to be at all respectable? We cannot, of course.

Anyone who reads this thing will see more of the same. I shall draw attention to something which is the absolute killer argument. It arises in Clause 3(2):

“The referendum condition is that—

“(a) the Act providing for the approval of the decision”—

it is a decision, not a treaty change—

“provides that the provision approving the decision is not to come into force until a referendum about whether the decision should be approved has been held throughout the United Kingdom or, where the decision affects Gibraltar, throughout the United Kingdom and Gibraltar”.

Are we going to ask the British public to go to the polls to determine something that does not affect us but merely affects Gibraltar? Who in this country has ever heard of such lunacy? Cynicism understates the matter. I am looking for a stronger word than cynicism or hypocrisy to describe a situation in which the Government seriously suggest that we will have referendums on these kinds of subjects taking up the time of the British people. Are we going to have dozens of referendums on this kind of nonsense? Of course we are not. This is absolutely through and through false; there is not the slightest intention to have a referendum on any of this.

There is, however, an intention to initiate a freeze—and, if possible, create a crisis—in relations between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union which would make it absolutely impossible for us to give even the sensible, pragmatic and reasonable responses required by the evolution of events, which we all know to be necessary. The British Minister there will be completely paralysed and he will become Monsieur Non or Mr Niet, whatever it may be; that will be his role.

That can lead to only two things. Eurosceptics dream that what will happen is that the whole of the European Union, which they hate so much—the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, is a good example of that—will come to a juddering halt or pack up and go home and that this nasty European Union will dissolve itself or throw in the sponge and give up trying to do a serious day’s work in making sure that the interests and the futures of the peoples of Europe are properly looked after and defended. They may dream that that is going to happen, but of course it is not. The alternative will happen. The EU will proceed under the enhanced co-operation programme, the framework for which has already been created in the Treaty of Lisbon, and we shall be left behind. So that is the real agenda. It is so far from the declared agenda that I stand by my words—cynical and hypocritical.

Insurance: Gender Discrimination

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

My noble friend raises another very important issue. We cannot dictate to insurance companies how they should make judgments on how their premiums should be costed. However, we are working closely with insurance companies and the financial services sector to ensure that they do not roll out unfair premiums on the back of this ruling.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, it is a pretty remarkable day when an insurance market is instructed to operate contrary to actuarial principles. Are there not two things that could flow from this? Either everybody will be forced to buy their insurance within the EU by some means or other, which would surely be contrary to both the spirit and the letter of our WTO commitments; or those categories of people disadvantaged under the new ruling will simply buy their annuities or motor cover offshore, outside the EU, in the United States, Canada, Bermuda, the Channel Islands or wherever. In those circumstances, a substantial industry will develop offshore to supply those important segments of the EU market at the expense of the EU economy.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises a question that I posed to civil servants. The response I received was that any insurance sold in the EU, whether or not it is from outside the EU, will be applicable under these rules.