ISIL in Syria
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. In Iraq, for a year and three months there have been no reports of civilian casualties related to the strikes that Britain has taken. Our starting point is to avoid civilian casualties altogether, and I have argued, and will indeed do so again today, that our precision weapons and the skill of our pilots make civilian casualties less likely. So Britain being involved in the strikes in Iraq can both be effective in prosecuting the campaign against ISIL and help us to avoid civilian casualties.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Is the Prime Minister aware of press reports that in the recent past 60,000 Syrian troops have been murdered by ISIL and our allies have waited until after those murderous acts have taken place to attack? Therefore, a key part of the motion for many of us is the reference to our action being “exclusively against ISIL”. If ISIL is involved in attacking Syrian Government troops, will we be bombing ISIL in defence of those troops, or will we wait idly by, as our allies have done up to now, for ISIL to kill those troops, and then bomb?
The Prime Minister
What I say to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, is that the motion says “exclusively” ISIL because that was a promise I made in this House in response to points made from both sides of the House. As far as I am concerned, wherever members of ISIL are, wherever they can be properly targeted, that is what we should do. Let me just make this point, because I think it is important when we come to the argument about ground troops. In my discussions with the King of Jordan, he made the point that in the south of Syria there is already not only co-operation among the Jordanian Government, the French and the Americans, and the Free Syrian Army, but a growing ceasefire between the regime troops and the Free Syrian Army so that they can turn their guns on ISIL. That is what I have said: this is an ISIL-first strategy. They are the threat. They are the ones we should be targeting. This is about our national security.
Food Banks
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I want to address one question that arises from the speech made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). There is a sense of anger and shame that, as politicians, we are all almost powerless in the face of the rising tide of poverty and hunger in our constituencies. I want to caution people who think it will be easy to stem that tide. I want to address those on both Front Benches on what I hope, as we go into the election, the electorate will ask of us in alleviating the current position.
I do not believe, as the hon. Gentleman and some academics have suggested, that we are in a world in which we can easily move to the abolition of food banks. I wish that were true. One important thing that I hope we did in the report was to suggest that the situation exists not only in this country, but in similar economies in the western world. In Canada, the United States, France and Germany, as in this country, the number of people reduced to hunger is increasing. That suggests that something very fundamental has happened and is happening to the economy in such western countries, and that protecting the poor—as far as they are concerned, the economy is clearly falling away—will be really difficult.
That does not mean that we should not think about what we are doing, or that we should not ask both Government and Opposition Front Benchers to lessen the number of our constituents who are faced with the horror of not being able to feed their children or, many times, not being able to feed themselves. The Government have an important role in relation to the number of people who are hungry. A number of rip-off merchants in the utilities who charge the poor more than the very rich are accountable. There is the shame of being in a country in which only 2% of the edible waste is recycled to people who are hungry today.
Mr Field
No, I will not give way, because other Members want to speak.
The important point for Government and Opposition Front Benchers is whether we will implement the recommendation that if someone’s benefit is not paid in a reasonable time, they automatically qualify for emergency payments. Will they both introduce a yellow card system to ensure that those who have been sanctioned can seek help, rather than having to face hunger? It is fine for us to get angry, but we have some power, which is to make the two Front-Bench teams respond to our demands, and I have not heard them talk about that tonight.
Recall of MPs Bill
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Recall of MPs Bill fulfils a commitment made by the three main parties in their 2010 manifestos and in the coalition’s programme for government to establish a recall mechanism for MPs who have been found guilty of wrongdoing or misconduct. Allow me to quote from my own party’s manifesto:
“at the moment, there is no way that local constituents can remove an MP found guilty of serious wrongdoing until there is a general election. That is why a Conservative government will introduce a power of ‘recall’ to allow electors to kick out MPs, a power that will be triggered by proven serious wrongdoing.”
That is the manifesto on which I stood at the last election and the one that I stand by today.
The Bill fulfils the commitment that we made in 2010, and, to put it candidly, seeks to reconcile differences within this legislature. Although we are agreed on the principle that MPs must be held to account when they have done something wrong, delivering on the practical detail of a recall mechanism has been more difficult. There is a wide range of views on how and whether it should be done.
Members will concede that we have not rushed into this reform. The Government opened the debate on recall when they published their White Paper and draft Recall of MPs Bill in 2011. I am grateful to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for its work. Its Chairman was in his place—I dare say he will be back.
Greg Clark
I suspect that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) would be robust in the face of such measures. The Committee has done considerable and painstaking work in conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of these proposals. It made some valuable recommendations, particularly on the recall petition process, most of which the Government have accepted and incorporated into the Bill.
As Members who follow this debate know, the Committee also concluded that there was no need for a recall system as it did not see a gap in the disciplinary arrangements for MPs. That view is shared by some Members, but not by the Government.
Greg Clark
My right hon. Friend makes a reasonable point that those Members chose to resign. The fact that it was their choice rather than there being an element of compulsion is the loophole that this Bill seeks to close.
Mr Frank Field
Is the issue not somewhat different? It is about not how we feel, but how our constituents feel. We might be puzzled when people question our behaviour, but we are no longer in the world in which we can behave as we wish and for our constituents to push off. Our constituents will start defining what they think is acceptable behaviour by us. The key thing that we must ensure in this Bill, which I welcome, is that the threshold is such so that pernicious lobbies, such as the gun lobby in America if it were operating here, could not take Members out just because they disagree with their views.
Greg Clark
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) and the right hon. Gentleman make my case for me: there is not agreement across the House. I merely observe that this Bill was a commitment that we made in the manifesto on which we fought the last election, and that is true for the three main parties. It is reasonable to reflect that there is an expectation on parties that stood on such a commitment that they will bring forward such a Bill.
Greg Clark
My right hon. Friend clearly exposes one of the aspects of our debate. The decision would be in the hands of that Member’s constituents in two respects: a petition of 10% of the electorate would be required to occasion a recall by-election; and then that Member could stand in the by-election. My right hon. Friend has experience of standing in a by-election—not caused by any wrongdoing, I hasten to say, but because he was making a point—and he won the support of his constituents for his action, so his experience might provide some reassurance.
Mr Frank Field
It really comes back to the point—many Members have made it—about the threshold needing to be high enough. There are clearly two ways in which people view the electorate. I was under recall by the Trots for 10 years, and it was the electorate who saved me. It is possible to look to one’s voters as a bulwark of freedom, not as a group of people who wish to destroy us.
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. None of us would be here today had we not had the endorsement of our constituents, and none of us should be afraid of that endorsement.
The second trigger is if an MP is suspended from the House for 21 sitting days or more. A suspension of such length indicates that the individual in question has done something seriously wrong, and constituents should be able to have their say about whether their MP deserves to keep his or her seat.
European Council
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I was not aware of that. I will follow the reaction in Southend very closely.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister recall that, at one time, we had a Prime Minister called Harold Wilson, who thought that there should be fundamental reform of the then common market? After much huffing and puffing, he announced to an amazed electorate that he had gained those fundamental changes. Harold, being a clever person, never defined what those changes were. In order to give the electorate a real choice this time, will the Prime Minister set up a red and blue lines committee so that voters will know from where he is batting when it comes to the crucial negotiations?
The Prime Minister
Of course we will set those out very clearly—[Interruption.] I have said that we have got to get Britain out of ever-closer union and end the abuse of free movement and welfare. We have got to have proper safeguards so that we can stay in the single market but not have to join the single currency, proper safeguards so that if we do not want to be in justice and home affairs we should not be in justice and home affairs, and a whole lot more besides. I respect the right hon. Gentleman a great deal, and I would say to him that there is a fundamental difference between the situation he mentioned and what is happening today, because the European Union has changed and developed so much. For those countries that have the euro as their currency, that is driving integration. I believe that, over time, they are going to need not only a banking union but more of a fiscal union and other elements of a transfer union. That will happen to the eurozone, and it is right for the British people to have the opportunity to express their view on a very different position for Britain in that European Union. Those conditions simply did not exist in 1975.
Tributes to Baroness Thatcher
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
David Sheppard was a left-wing Bishop of Liverpool, who was much admired and also loved. In one volume of his autobiography, he recalls his meetings with Mrs Thatcher—or, rather, the lead-up to those meetings. He recalls the state he would be in—the feeling of illness as the dreaded hour approached. On one occasion, I asked her, a year before she would appoint a new archbishop, whether she would appoint David Sheppard if his name was one of the two on the list that came to her from the royal commission. Her reply was immediate: “Yes, of course.” I was slightly staggered by that response, so I asked why. She said, “He always tells me to my face what he thinks and we always have a good argument.” It therefore seems proper that in the tributes we pay to this extraordinary person we should follow her example and not be frightened of argument or even of division—we mock her if we are frightened of that.
The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made powerful speeches about the way in which Mrs Thatcher has shaped the world in which all of us live, and I would just extend that in two ways. The world in which all of us and all of our constituents live has been shaped by Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher. The danger for both those people, who brought an ideology into politics and saw it operated, was that some of their supporters might think that just preaching the ideology was enough, rather than also responding to what the real world was teaching them. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) talked about the sale of council houses—all of us in this debate sometimes give a slant to history. There were people in the Labour party who also wanted to sell council houses, and the record shows that both the Wilson and Callaghan Governments looked at the idea—the problem was that the civil servants told them that it was not doable. So one of the lessons about Mrs Thatcher is that one should not necessarily take the advice of the civil service if one actually wants to see radical politics.
However, Mrs Thatcher was not uncritical of her own record. On one occasion I asked her, “Mrs T, what was your greatest disappointment in government?” Again as though she had thought long and hard beforehand about it, she said, “I cut taxes and I thought we would get a giving society, and we haven’t.” She thought we would, by low taxation, see that extraordinary culture in America whereby people make fortunes and want, perhaps publicly, to declare what they are doing with them. That had not taken root here. I think we should look critically at her record. Of course, it is wrong of us to assume we know what Mrs T would be saying if she were listening to this debate, but I think she would want us to get on to what the differences were and how we take the debate forward.
I want to mention three areas where we are still grappling with her legacy, and with which Members on both Front Benches have not managed to come to terms. First, there is the great question of riches. She was not satisfied with the results of her Government, so should we be? Secondly, despite all the gains that the market economy has given this country, there are clearly some areas—part of my constituency is one of them—that its powers cannot reach. We have not come up with policies that can move those areas back to full employment. How do we raise demand in those areas specifically, and how do we ensure that the supply side, to which most of us are now committed, can also take effect through our schools?
The third big area is a problem in our country that she thought she had solved but that now appears in a different guise. We have mentioned, even quite properly on the Opposition Benches, that one of her great struggles was to bring the trade unions within the law decided by this House—not the law that they thought they would abide by. I have been perplexed by some of the recent newspaper coverage of her stewardship, much of which has stated that the country was previously ungovernable. It was governable all right, but not from here and not by the Government elected by the people.
What would Mrs Thatcher say about a global economy, part of which she was so responsible for creating, in which great world companies can choose whether or not they pay taxes and whether giving a donation to the Treasury might be an adequate performance of their duties instead? I would be very surprised if she did not see that as a challenge to our authority, and one with which we need to grapple. All three areas are part of the current agenda for our politics, and that is part of her legacy. I wonder whether she, if still in power, would not be tackling that in a more resolute way than we are currently.
I would like to end with two comments about Mrs Thatcher. We have talked about the power and force of her personality, but she was also brilliant on detail, and that was part of her power in Whitehall. I once had to see her to discuss a defence order for Cammell Laird. Indeed, my relationship with her began after the second meeting I had as MP for Birkenhead, when the shop stewards said, “Cut out all this old stuff. We want a cross-party group and we want you to lead it. We want all the parties in the Wirral lobbying for orders.” That was the beginning of my friendship with her.
Our discussion took place the day she returned from a meeting with President Bush to decide on the first Gulf war. She had every reason to cancel it, but the meeting took place in her study. I had never seen her in such a state. She was marching around the study saying, “You’ve no idea what a struggle it is putting backbone into him.” I said, “Prime Minister, come and sit next to me because I have some things I would like to discuss with you.” She kept talking about putting backbone into the American President in order to fight this great war. Finally, she took pity on me and asked, “What do you want?” I made the plea for the defence order and she said, “Fine. Anything else?” When I said no, she immediately got up and continued, “You’ve no idea the victory I’ve had today over this.” I was really rather excited to be this very small footnote in history.
Of course, courtesy dictated that whichever of the Wirral MPs had lobbied her would tell the others, but in my excitement I forgot to do so. About 36 hours later I saw David Hunt walking down the corridor and I remembered, so I began apologising. He said, “There’s no need to apologise, Frank. The relevant Secretaries of State have received a prime ministerial minute and it has been copied to their permanent secretaries.” There was a Prime Minister who was making history, for right or wrong—for right, I think—and who was extraordinarily wound up by the events that she had managed to bring about, and she had no staff with her, but before she went to bed that night she wrote that minute to implement what she had agreed. She was wonderful to lobby, because I knew within seconds whether she would do something or whether she thought it was a barmy idea, in which case there was no point discussing it further.
Let me make one last point. Towards the end of her time as Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher was captured by a court on the Government Benches whose members made it difficult not only for many Government Back Benchers but particularly for someone such as me to see her. I wrote to the court and said that if they continued to block my chance of talking to her and lobbying her, I would kidnap her and tell her what they were doing—and would also lobby her. I got a note back late in the debate saying that the Prime Minister would see me at 10 o’clock. This is a good lesson for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. She had a hugely impressive voting record. In my experience, she was one of the last out of the Lobby, and she was there for people to talk to—rather than going in, out and away to do what was thought to be more important business.
As she passed by, I said to her, “Prime Minister, should I follow you?” She said, “People do.” As there was no mirror in front of her, I have never worked out whether she was smiling. I hope she was. Following her is a challenge to us. Do we see her record as though it had been brought down from Mount Sinai on tablets of stone, or would she have recognised, as I have hinted in the few conversations I have had on this specific point, that there is now a new agenda and that whatever principles one has must be applied to it?
The Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister were right: to her, what mattered were ideas and whether one could defend one’s corner. I mourn her passing.
Hillsborough
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of accountability, and there are processes through which that is meant to happen. In this case, the chief constable of South Yorkshire offered his resignation right at the beginning, but it was not accepted by the South Yorkshire police authority. We must think through how we can hold public authorities to account and the processes by which that happens. Even 23 years on, it is completely open for the authorities to look at the new evidence and to draw the conclusions they choose.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
On behalf of my constituents who lost members of their family, I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, the contents of which this House and the country will find chilling and must hold huge lessons for public services, particularly the police.
The Prime Minister rightly says that there is now a huge amount of information that those of us with an interest in this matter can read and think about carefully, and that obviously includes the Government. When the Government have completed that process, and the Prime Minister is clearer in his mind about the next steps to be taken, will he come to Liverpool and meet the families—given the catastrophic effect that this whole event had on Liverpool and the surrounding region—and tell them first what those next steps will be?
The Prime Minister
I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. There is a lot of merit in what he has said so let me consider it. From everything that I have read so far, the most important next step concerns the role of the Attorney-General and consideration of an inquest. The report has identified a huge number of faults along the road, but in a tragedy such as this, the key determinants of the truth should be the public inquiry and the inquest.
Let me repeat that in the view of the families and of what we subsequently know, Lord Justice Taylor came to the right conclusion about the culpability of the police. The inquest is where major question marks arise, and that is where I think families will rightly focus. If we are thinking about next steps, there are lessons for the Government and a debate in the House, but consideration of an inquest is the most important next step to be taken. As I have said, that is a matter for the Attorney-General, and he has to stand aside from Government. In the end, an inquest can be ordered only by the High Court. That is how the processes work, and it is important that everyone, including the families, understands that.
Immigration
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I follow with pleasure my right hon. Friend—in the circumstances of the debate—the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). I underscore his introductory remarks, particularly those addressed to the Backbench Business Committee, which responded so quickly to a request for a debate, and the welcome extended to the new Immigration Minister. It is puzzling why such an effective Immigration Minister should have been moved in the reshuffle to some other task, but we do not need to ponder such questions too much.
My main thanks today go to those voters who quickly seized the opportunity to sign a petition to try to trigger this debate. I believe that the numbers passed 100,000 in record time, and before the authorities could take down the petition, another 38,000 had put their names to it. The huge demand out there is clear, and the House of Commons is correct to respond to it, so my thanks go above all to the voters around the country who wanted the debate to take place.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; he shows a courtesy that the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) did not. This nasty little motion mentions “all necessary steps”. Does he realise how authoritarian that sounds? The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex mentioned four steps, but what other “necessary steps” would the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) propose?
Mr Field
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s introductory remark, but I gave way because I do not have such a carefully crafted speech as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex had. If the hon. Gentleman can bear with me until I reach the end of my contribution, he will know what steps I would like the Government to take.
I want to raise three issues and to pose three questions for the Government, first on the Olympics, secondly on the mountain we must climb, and thirdly on the action that the Government need to take if they are to fulfil a pledge that is supported not merely by Conservative voters, but by Labour voters.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Field
No—not for a moment anyway.
First, on the Olympics, I am probably the last person to confess that I was disappointed when the announcement that we had won the Olympics was made. I feared that we would not perform well in organising the games, and that they were an opportunity for a terrorist outrage that would indelibly mark our country in the eyes of the world. I am pleased to accept that I was wrong on both counts.
I am also delighted that another success was not only our tally of medals, but the fact that people who won them had come to this country with their families to make a new life. They were so committed to us that they wanted not only to participate, but to win for this country. How does the Immigration Minister interpret those events? So many people come here and are so committed, and yet at the same time some second generation people harbour such terrible thoughts in their hearts about us that, as far as we know, they want to take terrible action against us. How can part of immigration be so successful, and part of it result in those thoughts? That is my first question.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Field
No; I have given way on that point.
My second question is on the mountain we must climb. I reiterate the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex made. If the Government are not successful within a 15-year period, if not sooner, our population will go beyond 70 million. As he said, in concrete terms, that means that if we wish to maintain existing living standards rather than see them cut, we must build the equivalent of Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Bristol and Glasgow. That must happen during a period when we will experience a more sustained number of years of cuts in public expenditure than we have ever experienced. With those cities must come roads, utilities and the necessary extra schools and health facilities. Does any hon. Member believe that if we are not successful in meeting the Government’s objective, we will meet the objective of housing people on an equivalent basis to how they are currently housed?
Andrew Percy
I associate myself very much with the right hon. Gentleman’s words. Does he believe that part of the mountain we must climb is opening up the issue of EU immigration, which is completely uncontrollable? There have been massive amounts of such immigration to my constituency, particularly in Goole, which is having a big impact on schooling, health, employment and housing. It is a fallacy for any hon. Member to suggest that we have controlled immigration or could ever have it if we leave EU immigration unaddressed.
Mr Field
The hon. Gentleman makes a point with which many hon. Members will sympathise. During the recession, which will clearly last longer than any since the war, the Government ought to think about what temporary measures they should take to ensure that the country’s labour market is protected for those who, until recently, were working, and for others coming to the labour market who wish to work.
Mr Andrew Smith
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this debate must be balanced and informed by evidence, as well as addressing people’s fears? In that context, and in relation to his remarks on the fiscal situation, what account have he and other hon. Members who support the motion taken of the Office for Budget Responsibility assessment that shows that sharp cuts in immigration will lower economic growth, worsen the fiscal position and bring about greater austerity, which will hit his constituents as well as mine?
Martin Horwood
I am concerned about the tone of some of the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks and those of the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). Does the right hon. Member for Birkenhead agree that immigrants can make a positive contribution to our economy and culture, and that we need to take a balanced, evidence-based approach to the debate and not use language that will inflame fears among minority ethnic communities in this country?
Mr Field
I have always underscored those points, but hon. Members who put them to me also need to look at the evidence. What did the House of Lords Committee say about the contribution overall that immigrants make to our economy? It is minuscule. Of course immigrants earn their way and make a contribution, but to think that we are pounds in is mistaken. If hon. Members want to dispute the figures, they will catch your eye, Mr Speaker. I am saying that unlimited migration on the scale that we have seen is not such an economic advantage to this country as some of the proponents of open doors would wish us to believe.
I wish to pose another question to the new Immigration Minister: if he accepts those projections, what measures will he take that make a target limit of 70 million people possible? My third question is about the sources of the growth in immigration. If one looks at the net figures, one finds three major sources: people who have work permits; people who, under the conditions, bring their families here; and students. We know that the work permits that the Government make available are not all taken up, so it is not as if work permits are a main driver of the stubborn level of net migration. On people who bring their immediate family over, the figures show that families do not account for a net migration figure each year of in excess of 200,000.
On students, my question is whether the attempt to meet the Government’s target will mean looking critically and resolutely at the size of the student population that probably stays. We have only one piece of information about students returning home. It was a Home Office survey, which showed that after five years one could account for 20% of students who came here under certain conditions who were still here legitimately to work. We simply do not know what happened to the other 80%.
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is completely wrong in his analysis of those statistics. Even more importantly, his motion refers to population. According to every piece of work that has been done, the vast majority of students go home. Their whole point is to study here and go home, and then hopefully become ambassadors for doing business with Britain in their home country.
Mr Field
Of course, but it will be noticeable to people watching this debate that I gave way and the point was not answered. There were some generalities on all this information. There is one survey, which the Home Office undertook, that showed that after five years we could account for 20% of students who passed through our universities. They were still in this country and had every right to be here: we do not know whether the others went home or not.
Chris Bryant
The 2010 Home Office study “The Migrant Journey”—I think that is the one to which my right hon. Friend refers—showed that 21% of individuals who entered as students in 2004 remained in the UK, which is exactly the opposite of what he is saying. In actual fact, some of them were staying on to study because their courses lasted for more than five years and some of them had changed to a different migration route. The only evidence of people staying illegally in that study was 3%, not the 80% that my right hon. Friend mentions.
Mr Field
I would be grateful if Front Benchers would listen. What I said was that the one survey that we have shows that after that period of time we could account for 20% of the students who come to our universities. They were still in this country—they had every right to be here—and they were pursuing studies or, more likely, working. We do not know from that Home Office study what happened to the other 80%.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about the scale of net migration, although I do not support the wording of the motion. What is his view of the level of net migration that would be necessary to meet the terms of this motion? According to the research done by the Migration Observatory, even if we had no net migration into this country the population would reach more than 66 million in about 20 years.
Mr Field
We are not talking about 66 million in the motion, but about the rate that would push us over 70 million. One of the points in this debate is to ask the new Minister what steps he has taken to prevent that from occurring and to fulfil the Government’s objective to reduce net migration to tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands.
Gavin Barwell
I support the manifesto on which I stood, but the terms of the motion are very clear that we are seeking to
“stabilise the UK’s population as close as possible to its present level and, certainly, significantly below 70 million.”
To achieve that, we would have to end net migration or even have positive emigration.
Mr Field
We will let the Front Benchers arbitrate on that.
If we wish to prevent the population from rising to more than 70 million, net migration must come down from hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands. That is what the Government have promised, what the motion is about and why I speak in its support. I shall listen with great interest to the Minister’s reply and whether he reads the situation differently, how he reads the Home Office data and, specifically, what new steps the Government should take to ensure that the 70 million barrier is not crossed.
Paul Blomfield
I think that genuine overseas students were left vulnerable by bogus colleges that were recruiting them to fairly bogus courses, but London Metropolitan university is not one of those. There may have been failings in its processes and systems—the situation is still being investigated—but the issue is that bona fide students who are succeeding in their courses are being threatened with deportation at a critical stage of the academic cycle.
We should bear in mind the message that that sends to prospective students around the world who are considering their options. They will say to themselves, “Shall I go to the UK? Thanks, but no thanks. I shall go to the United States”—or Canada, or Australia—“because I shall not be deported from that country on the whim of Government.”
Mr Frank Field
Does my hon. Friend agree that, while it is proper for the system to be policed, the way in which the rules are being applied to students who are here legitimately and have paid their way is appalling? Does he agree that the one thing we want the Government to do is distinguish between how we behave to institutions that break the rules and how we behave to people who have every right to be here pursuing their courses?
Paul Blomfield
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, who has made his point very well.
What worries me is the wider reputational damage to the higher education sector. Losing out in that market is not just about short-term financial loss. Those who study in the UK develop a great affection for the country. When they have returned home and have risen to prominent positions in business and politics, and are making decisions about trade and investment, they often turn first to the country where they studied. Every one of our universities is full of examples of alumni who have contributed to this country on the basis of that relationship.
Mr Harper
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments and look forward to appearing before his Committee—I am sure the invitation will be on its way shortly if it is not already. He was not in the Chamber for all of the debate because he was hearing evidence from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I am grateful for his comments. His concerns about the UKBA are well known—I have heard him describe them on a number of occasions. I have already met the chief executive of the UKBA and the head of the UK Border Force, on which I intend to keep a close eye. I come from a private sector background in which I was involved in managing people and have experience of working in a large, complicated organisation. I mean to get immersed in the details and keep a very close track on the UKBA, as I am sure he would expect.
Things are starting to move in the right direction. Recent data from the Office for National Statistics show that net migration is falling—from 252,000 at the end of 2010 to 216,000 at the end of 2011. Visa indicators for the first half of 2012 show that the downward trend is likely to continue. That is a small step in starting to turn the ship around, but we need patience. We have always said that our policy will take the full course of a Parliament to have effect. There is no quick solution. The system we inherited was broken—even the Labour party has accepted that there was a large number of problems in the system the Government inherited—and we need to take some time to turn it around.
I should address a couple of specific points made in the debate. Several hon. Members commented on students and London Metropolitan university. It is important to say that we have taken tough action against the institution, but we have also set up a taskforce to work closely with and support the genuine students to find another institution where they can continue their studies in the UK. It is absolutely right that we support those legitimate students who are here legally, complying with the terms of the basis on which they are here. However, it is also right that we take firm action against institutions that fail to carry out the steps they are supposed to carry out if they are to be trusted sponsors. The public would expect that.
Mr Frank Field
Is there not a difference between the theory of saying that the taskforce will get students into other universities and what will actually happen? One of the great treasures of our system is that universities are so different. It is inconceivable that university B will do a similar course and allow students to pick up the pieces if they transfer to it from university A. Cannot the Minister grasp that being tough on institutions, on which the House agrees with him, is totally different from being tough on legitimate students? We know full well that the bogus students will have disappeared by now and will not be punished. The current policy will punish the innocent.
House of Lords Reform Bill
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
I shall make a little progress before giving way again.
Under our proposals, 80% of Members would be chosen at the ballot box, with elections taking place every five years, and the remaining 20% would be appointed by an independent statutory commission. There would be no more jobs for life—we propose single, non-renewable, limited terms of about 15 years—and our reforms would guarantee representation for every region of the United Kingdom. At the heart of the Bill is the vision of a House of Lords that is more modern, more representative and more legitimate—a Chamber fit for the 21st century.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
A moment ago, the Deputy Prime Minister said that one of the functions of the House of Lords was to introduce legislation. Can he give us an example—of importance—of a Bill introduced in the other House that has affected this country but that did not have the Government’s permission to be introduced and seen through? Is not the Lords job different from ours? Our job is to initiate and pass legislation on the condition of the Government; the Lords job is to deliberate on that legislation.
The Deputy Prime Minister
All legislation, whether it originates here or in the other place, of course requires the support of the Government of the day to make its way on to the statute book.
The second reason that the reforms will lead to better laws—this may help to answer the right hon. Gentleman—is that the Bill is not just about who legislates, but about how we legislate. Right now in our political system, power is still over-concentrated in the Executive. Governments, quite simply, can be too powerful. During their political lifetime, many Members have seen landslide Administrations able to railroad whichever Bills they like through the Commons, and we have all heard colleagues complain about different Governments trying to ram Bills through the other place when they should have been trying to win the argument in both Houses. Despite its assertiveness, too often Governments believe they can disregard the Lords.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames).
I want to speak against both Second Reading and the timetable motion for the following reasons. We who are elected to this legislature have developed the habit of thinking that politics is about passing legislation—I am as guilty a party to that sin as anyone else—and although we all approach legislation with a good spirit and wishing to improve the public good, we often do not make a very good job of it. Prime Ministers and parties in government change, however, so we have a chance to undo the silliness of a previous House of Commons. We are talking about a different form of legislation, however, when we talk about changing the constitution.
My time in the House has often been spent undoing the silliness of other politicians, but we cannot point to any example of a constitutional measure, passed by this House and—under threats—by the House of Lords, that has actually been changed. We will be changing the constitution for ever—there will be no going back—so it is beholden on us to be satisfied with the Bill on Second Reading and not to be beguiled by the Whips. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), whom I respect, said, “If I don’t like it on Third Reading, I’ll strike it down.” It never works like that. Let me tell her that simple fact.
We also need to lay charge against the Government because of what this Bill is about. The Deputy Prime Minister has an extraordinary view of democracy. He views democracy as being about voting. There are many nations in this world that vote, but which we would not regard as democracies. In this country we have crafted two great constitutional ideas through which we channel our ideas about political freedom. We value the idea that our institutions should be representative and that they should be responsible. The charge I make against the Government this evening when they reply to this debate—or when they care to reply—is this. To what extent does this reform strengthen representative government, and to what extent does it strengthen responsible government? Let me take the responsible side first.
The idea that we will get more responsible government by electing people for 15 years without them ever having to stand to account again is a most extraordinary view. We are responsible in the sense that we stand on a mandate of our party—sometimes rather loosely, but we stand on it—and if we wish to continue our careers, we know that we have to face our electorate. The idea that electing people for 15 years will somehow strengthen the responsible side of our constitution is idiotic.
Now let us face the other issue: whether our system will be more representative. The idea that a list system—prefaced by the word “open”—will give us a different composition from that of the House of Commons, as well as a better one, is equally naive. Those concerned will be people who the Whips have decided are safe. Constituency parties will elect huge lists of people without knowing who the hell they are and they will have little chance of imposing their views, as they try to when they select for single-Member seats.
The reason I am going to vote against the timetable motion is that there are many other ideas that we could put forward to make the House of Lords both responsible and more representative. Since Nolan, we have swallowed the extraordinary view that we should not represent interests. It is totally novel and totally foreign to our constitution. The one place where we should have a view of representation coming forward is the Lords. I want days, if necessary, to discuss how we could make that Chamber—after it has, necessarily, the elements of Government and Opposition—a representative Chamber of the great interests: the great regions of this country; the different interests of men and women; the different interests of both sides of industry; different cultural and industrial interests; and even, perhaps, the interests of political parties.
The idea is that, under a timetabled motion, we will be able to open up the debate where the Joint Committee left it and seriously consider, first, whether the Bill makes our constitution more responsible and, secondly, whether it makes it more representative. Anybody who thinks that the Bill will deliver either of those two simply because we will have an election system—one that will have even lower turnouts than for the European Parliament—needs their head tested.
Mr Frank Field
If we had the time, we could discuss alternatives such as the big interests being represented. Let us consider those interests. All the organisations that the hon. Lady has mentioned had the franchise and elected their leadership long before we had universal franchise for parliamentary elections.
Angie Bray
That is an extremely interesting point, but all those things need much more consultation than they are getting at the moment.
I want to comment finally on the future governance of this country. That may not seem to be a big issue right now, but one day it will be—when a newly elected House of Lords decides that primacy should no longer be hogged by this House. After all, Members of the Lords would be elected too and should be given their due recognition. At that point lies gridlock, when the two Houses come to different views on legislation, just as happens on occasion in the United States.
At that point, too, lies a terrible car crash. The House of Lords would no longer be a revising Chamber with a clear view of its role in the parliamentary process; it would be a House ready to assert its newly acquired status as an alternative elected House and would demand an equal role. As things are, people know that they vote for their Government via electing their MPs. Instead of clarity, the proposed changes would simply create confusion.
I am not against any reform. Every institution needs to be refreshed and reformed from time to time, as does the House of Lords. Even now, there are entirely sensible, reasonable and practical reforms on the table, thanks to the Liberal Democrat Lord Steel, which would reduce numbers, enforce proper attendance and ensure that those who fell foul of the law were excluded. They would answer many of the problems that we all agree exist in the House of Lords, so why are we intent on taking the place completely apart, even as the constitutional arrangements continue to work?
This is very difficult for me. I have always supported the Government, on every vote, and I continue to be proud of their many achievements. I also want to put on record my admiration for the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, who is doing brilliant work in the Cabinet Office on behalf of the taxpayer. I have very much enjoyed being part of his team. It is very disappointing that the other half of the Cabinet Office is in charge of this legislation.
The Bill has the feel of back-of-the-fag-packet legislation, got up in a hurry to meet a timetable. I cannot stop myself thinking that we are being asked to support the dismantling of a crucial part of our constitution for a short-term political fix. I simply cannot do that.
EU Council
Lord Field of Birkenhead Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend, grateful though I am for her support. We have to recognise that we are in a coalition, and that parties in a coalition cannot achieve all the things that they want to achieve. I think that we must praise each other in the coalition when we make sacrifices on behalf of the country.
The Liberal Democrats did agree to the negotiating strategy that we pursued. I can be very clear: I came to the House, I said what I was going to do, and I then did what I had said I was going to do, because I could not achieve the safeguards that I wanted. That was a very straightforward way in which to act, and, I hope, one that every Member on this side of the House can support.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
At what stage of the negotiations did the Prime Minister realise that France and Germany would do their best for us not to sign? As this is a period of Christmas cheer, can he give us an undiplomatic reply?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Well, we often agree. It was obviously a developing situation, but I had a meeting with Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy before the Council began. I had been to see the German Chancellor three weeks before the Council, I had been to see the French President a week before the Council, and I think that there was a good prospect of making an agreement. Conversations were also held with a huge number of Finance Ministers and other Government leaders. Clearly the 27 would rather have a deal at 27. They see the problems and difficulties of what they are proposing, but in the end they were not willing to give the safeguards—rational, moderate, reasonable and sensible though they were—and, as a result, I think I did the right thing.