UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to support the motion. The Prime Minister said earlier that the first duty of a Government is to protect their citizens. I would add that the first duty of an Opposition, if they hope to become a Government, is to convince the electorate and the public at large that they will, and above all that they can, do the same. The Opposition cannot be ambiguous on that commitment. I fully understand those in our party who feel that their ethical values and the values of the Labour party are incompatible with that stance, but the public—the electorate—do not feel that our values and ethics are an adequate defence in the face of military aggression from countries that might threaten us.

I am old enough to remember campaigning in the days when Labour’s policy was unilateralism. I remember the cruel caricature of Labour’s defence policy, which was somebody standing with their hands up, labelled “Labour’s defence policy.” Regrettably, it resonated with many of Labour’s traditional voters. The feeling that, above all, people are entitled to security transcends voting behaviour, social class and income. It goes right across the piece, and Labour paid a very high price for failing to recognise that in the 1980s.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) talked about how we succeeded in changing Labour’s former policy. Change it we did, and since then, whatever disagreements the electorate have had with Labour, they have not been about defence. We have won three general elections with a multilateral defence policy. In fact, multilateral defence and an independent nuclear deterrent have been our policy for the last six general elections and were a manifesto commitment in the last general election. That is backed by trade unions, which recognise that any removal of Trident would have a huge impact on levels of employment and skills, which are absolutely essential to people’s welfare.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Bailey]

I am sorry, I will not give way, because too many others want to speak.

Above all, the policy is backed by the public. For that policy to be overturned, four thresholds have to be met. The first is that there must be a huge improvement in international relations. That has quite clearly not happened—things have deteriorated. Russia’s lowering of the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, its activities in Ukraine, the situation in North Korea and the ability of terrorists to take over a country and possibly acquire nuclear technology mean that the world is much more dangerous.

The second threshold is that there must a compelling change of technology that would render nuclear submarines irrelevant. That has not happened. The third is a financial capacity that renders us unable to build them. That has not happened. The last is overwhelming evidence of public support shifting against the deterrent. That clearly has not happened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I believe we should oppose the maintenance of the continuous at-sea deterrent. For me, the arguments are both moral and practical. I will take the moral argument first. I believe it is important that we all give full consideration to the scale of destruction that modern nuclear weapons can deliver. I want to read out a message from the mayor of Hiroshima in a recent statement:

“On August 6, 1945, a single atomic bomb rendered Hiroshima a scorched plain and tens of thousands were burned in flames. By year’s end, 140,000…lives had been taken. Those who managed to survive, their lives grotesquely distorted, were left to suffer serious physical and emotional after effects compounded by discrimination and prejudice. Nuclear weapons are an absolute evil and ultimate inhumanity.”

[Louise Haigh]

In the same statement, the mayor of Hiroshima called on us all to share the sincere message of their hibakusha:

“No one else should ever suffer as we have”.

Does my hon. Friend not share my concern that this latest round of renewal makes it difficult to ignore the fact that we are moving against our international duty into an era of permanent armament?

[Margaret Greenwood]

My hon. Friend makes a good case, and I agree with her.

Contemporary nuclear weapons are capable of delivering much greater levels of devastation, and they are eight to 10 pounds heavier than those that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One modern missile with 12 warheads could wipe out a city of 10 million people and leave it uninhabitable. As the International Court of Justice put it back in 1996:

“The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet.”

That is chilling, and it is important to keep hold of that vision of horror when considering Trident renewal.

I recently visited Woodchurch high school in my constituency, where I met the school council, which comprises pupils from each of the different year groups aged between 11 and 16. I asked them who felt that we should renew Trident. There was a slight sense of agitation in the room, and I wondered whether they were just a little shy on the topic. I then asked if anyone was definitely opposed to the renewal, and every hand shot up in the air without hesitation. The decisions that we make about nuclear deterrence today will have an impact on our children for decades, and it is important to remember that we are making a decision for the next generation.

The defence challenges that we now face are different from those in the post-1945 era when the world seemed divided into ideological blocs and the threat came primarily from other states, principally the Soviet Union. An attack was thought of in terms of a conventional military attack or a nuclear strike. Yes, there are concerns over the intentions of President Putin’s Russia. The annexation of Crimea and Russian involvement in the civil war in Ukraine has had a destabilising effect on security in central and eastern Europe, but we must also counter the threat from non-state actors such as terrorist groups. Nuclear weapons will not enable us to meet that threat, and money allocated to Trident could mean that the defence budget is not focused on the most serious challenges that we face. Trident’s replacement is projected to be operational for 30 years from the early 2030s. Is it possible to be sure that it will be an effective deterrent in 2060? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it will not.

I recently attended a meeting addressed by Lord Browne, the Labour Defence Secretary in 2006-07. He made a compelling argument against the renewal of Trident, focusing particularly on two practical issues: cyber-security and the detection of submarines by enemy forces. He warned that NATO countries cannot be confident that their nuclear defence systems would be able to survive an attack from a sophisticated and well-resourced opponent that was utilising cyber-capabilities in combination with its military and intelligence capabilities.

The Prime Minister spoke about the value of nuclear submarines patrolling our seas unseen and undetected. That may well be the case today, but it is not a given for the future. There is a real threat that with the increase in under-sea detection technology, the location of submarines is more likely to be compromised, thus undermining the fundamental rationale of continuous at-sea deterrence, which relies on submarines remaining undetected. There is also a real risk that advancement in detection technology will outpace any advancement in counter-measures.

It is important to take into account all the jobs that are reliant on Trident, and that a credible industrial strategy is created and a cogent plan signed off before any action is taken to not renew it. Jobs, skills, and incomes should be protected. I believe, however, that there is a real risk that these expensive weapons may become obsolete over the period of their lives, and we would be better off investing in a defence strategy that addresses the real dangers that we face from current strategic threats.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Letwin]

The hon. Lady is right. As a matter of fact, the situation is even slightly worse than she suggests. The percentage of disabled senior civil servants—or, at any rate, of senior civil servants who have registered themselves as disabled in staff surveys—is only 3.4%. That is much too low, and it reflects the fact that we have not yet been able to remove all the barriers that we need to remove. I am sitting next to the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who has shown that it is perfectly possible for someone who suffers from a significant disability to reach the highest level in politics, but we need that to be true throughout our public administration because we need to draw on talent from wherever it comes.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

As the Minister confirmed, since the Prime Minister gave himself the power to appoint, 80% of permanent secretaries are men. In the spirit of open government, will the Minister commit to publish the shortlists from which the Prime Minister has made appointments?

[Mr Letwin]

I will go back and talk to colleagues about the methods by which we publish what happens under that procedure. I would like to point out to the Opposition spokesman—[Laughter.] I would like to point out to the Opposition spokesperson that we draw permanent secretaries from the pool of directors general. If we are to draw on that talent, we have to encourage more women to be directors general. As I have said, I am glad that the percentage of women directors general is now up to 37%. We would like to get up to 50% or beyond, and as we do so we will have the talent from which to draw into the permanent secretary ranks, which is obviously where we want women of talent to end up.

Voter Registration

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

That is an incredibly important question. The eligibility requirements were debated extensively in this House. After someone applies to register online, the application is not taken at face value but is checked against Government data to make sure that that person meets the eligibility rules set by this House. That is one reason why there needs to be time between the deadline and polling day—to make sure that exactly the concerns that my hon. Friend raises are met.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

The Minister keeps saying that yesterday’s significantly higher numbers were unprecedented. There were 525,000 applications yesterday and 485,000 on deadline day in 2015. Why then was the system not prepared and able to cope, and is it not now time for automatic registration?

[Matthew Hancock]

The spike was much bigger than the hon. Lady’s figures, which are accurate for the whole day, I suggest, because there was an intense spike after 9 pm. The question for the system is how many people are trying to apply at once, and that figure was three times higher than in the peak before the 2015 general election.

Debate on the Address

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

On this occasion—and on the day Plaid Cymru supported the Labour First Minister in Wales—I am grateful for Plaid Cymru’s support. The issue jumps out of the Gracious Speech as one that will cause political controversy. The voice of the right hon. and learned Member for Harborough is therefore valuable because it sends a signal to the Government that the Bill will not have an easy passage.

The Gracious Speech also covers strengthening the economy to deliver security for working people, increasing the life chances of the most disadvantaged and supporting the development of the northern powerhouse. The Government have support on all three issues, but I ask them to consider what they mean in practice. In my part of the world, we have a claimant count of 2.8% of the population; 23.6% of the population are deemed as being incapacitated, and unemployment is 4.8%. We have major challenges in the steel industry, and with zero-hours contracts and second bedroom occupancy—the so-called bedroom tax. We still have 690,000 people living in poverty in Wales. If the Government are serious about some of the issues that they claim to be serious about in the Gracious Speech, they need to consider some real policy changes to support business and industry, work with the National Assembly and tackle poverty, which is partly caused by current Government policy. In my constituency and elsewhere, poverty is increasing because of Government policy on benefits and unemployment, while taxes for some of the richest people in our society are cut.

If the Government are serious about the northern powerhouse, they need to work closely with the Mersey Dee Alliance in north-east Wales and north-west England to ensure that we get the benefits from whatever the northern powerhouse means. I am pleased to see the Minister for Children and Families in his place. He knows the importance of Crewe and HS2 to north-east Wales. He knows the importance of electrification of the line from Crewe to Chester and onwards to north Wales. He will also know the importance of direct links to Manchester airport to ensure that not only Cheshire but north Wales benefits from the northern powerhouse, and he knows that it is important to reopen the Halton curve quickly to link north Wales to Liverpool airport and Liverpool. Those are all infrastructure projects that are technically badged “the northern powerhouse”. I am still not sure what the northern powerhouse means to the people of Cheshire and north Wales, particularly Flintshire in my constituency, but if it is to mean something, the Government need to flesh out carefully the finances and the long-term infrastructure projects that benefit Cheshire and north-east Wales and contribute to supporting the cities of Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds and others that are critical to the economic success of the north.

If the decision goes wrong on 23 June and we leave the European Union, the north will be particularly hit by that loss of European influence. I am pleased that the referendum is mentioned in the Gracious Speech and I hope that there will be a yes vote on 23 June.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

The decision to close the BIS office in Sheffield and move it to central London has already been mentioned, and my right hon. Friend talks about the infrastructure projects necessary for the northern powerhouse to succeed. Does he agree that senior civil servant and policy-making jobs must be in the north and across the regions, so that they can be the eyes and ears of the northern powerhouse and deliver those vital projects?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, and it is important that the northern powerhouse is not just about the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Tatton. That appears to be the northern powerhouse, but in my view it must be backed up and supported by civil servants, and I support my hon. Friend’s wish to maintain a strong presence in Sheffield and the north. North-east Wales looks to Liverpool and Manchester as much as it does to Cardiff for economic growth and activity, and we need cross-regional support on infra- structure projects, and people on hand to work with that.

Those are my initial observations on important issues, but I wish to focus on the points about prisons that were raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Harborough. He was gracious enough to acknowledge that for two years and one month I was prisons Minister when he was the shadow Minister, so I hope that I speak with some experience of dealing with what are difficult challenges in the prison system.

In the Gracious Speech the Justice Secretary indicated that there will be a prisons Bill, and I look forward to that—perhaps I may even make a bid for pre-legislative scrutiny by the Justice Committee, on which I sit. The Bill as trailed so far suggests that there will be a lot of discussion about the autonomy of prison governors to consider a range of issues, and six prisons have been identified by the Government to pilot and trail those reforms. We have prisons with “potential for reform”—whatever that might mean—and the potential for new-build prisons. That comes on a day when the Coates review has announced two statistics that put into context the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Harborough. For example, today’s review shows that 42% of adult prisoners were excluded from school, and 24% of adult prisoners currently in the prison estate spent some or all of their time as young people in care before they reached the prison system.

Long-term, deep-seated issues have been highlighted by the Coates review and need to be examined by the Prison Service as part of the prisons Bill, but that raises some questions. I will not rule out support for the Bill—I do not yet know what my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will think about it—but we must test what it will mean in practice, and now is as good a time as any to do that. What real autonomies will prison governors have at a local level? Will they have autonomy over pay and conditions? If so, that would be a matter of great concern. Will they have autonomy over procurement, education and employment practices? What autonomies will they have, and how will they exercise them in the Prison Service when the Ministry of Justice in central London is managing the prison population and sector as a whole—the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned many of the pressures on prison population movements.

Who will judge prison governors and monitor their activity? What benchmarks will we set on that prison service, and how will we judge and monitor them? What will be the relationship with the chief inspector of prisons? What outcomes are expected from the six potential reform prisons? How will we judge whether prison governors have made a difference, particularly given that many prisoners in many prisons—I will speak about Wandsworth prison in a moment—have mental health problems or long-standing drug or alcohol problems. Many prisoners had long-standing unemployment problems before being imprisoned, and perhaps do not spend sufficient time in prison to benefit from schemes such as the Timpson scheme in Liverpool, which I had the pleasure of opening in 2006 or 2007 with the brother of the Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Edward Timpson). It is a great scheme—I cannot walk past a Timpson establishment without wondering whether the person working there has been trained and supported by the family and firm. [Interruption.] I do go in sometimes as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

May I first—one of my many unforced errors in the past 24 hours—apologise to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss)? I should of course have welcomed her to the House of Commons and congratulated her on her by-election victory. She has lost no time in speaking up for her constituents in a very powerful and very accomplished way.

Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) that, as we announced earlier this year, there are air quality issues that need to be resolved. We are on our way to working out how to resolve them, and when we do, we can come back to the House and announce what will happen next.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

My constituent’s mother was killed in 1981. At the time, it was covered up as a suicide pact, but 18 years later it was uncovered that she had actually been murdered by my constituent’s father and his mistress. I do not think that anyone in this House will be able to imagine the pain and suffering that she and her family have had to endure. They are now having to relive that pain, because ITV is dramatising their whole ordeal, completely against her wishes, using not only the real names of her family but her own real name. I have raised this with ITV and with Ofcom, and, as far as I can see, no rules have been broken, but does the Prime Minister agree that victims’ voices should have a far greater role in any account of their tragedy? Will he meet me and my constituent to discuss what more could have been done in this case and how we can strengthen regulation in future to protect victims?

[The Prime Minister]

I was not aware of the case that the hon. Lady rightly raises. I remember from my time working in the television industry that there are occasions when decisions are made that can cause a huge amount of hurt and upset to families. I will discuss this case with the Culture Secretary to bring it to his attention and see whether there is anything more—apart from the conversations that she has had with ITV and with Ofcom, which is a powerful regulator—that can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Halfon]

I could not have put it better myself. As I have said, there are 800 civil service buildings outside London. We have important targets for developing important strategic hubs for the civil service all over the country, and more people who get out of the Westminster bubble, the better.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

We know that the Minister’s friend the Paymaster General is very close to the Chancellor, and that he therefore likes to insert the words “northern” and “powerhouse” into every speech he makes. However, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), 98% of senior jobs in the northern powerhouse department are now based in London, and—with no sense of irony—Sheffield policy-making jobs in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have been moved to Whitehall. The test for the Minister, when he finally gets the promotion that he has been seeking and that he so richly deserves, will be whether he has more senior and policy-making civil servants in London or fewer. Does he have it within him to live up to our expectations?

[Robert Halfon]

I genuinely cannot understand the premise of the hon. Lady’s question. She should be proud, as are councils in the north of England, that the northern powerhouse is devolving powers right across the region. We are one of the most radical Governments when it comes to devolution. Her councils in the north support it, and I am sad that she does not.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening, but I said that much information is in the public domain, and it is in the public interest that it is public, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act. That is my position. I look forward to hearing what the commission has to say about the operational working of the Act to ensure that it is working in the way Parliament intended.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

It is confusing to hear the Minister claim to be such a fan of transparency, given that the Cabinet Office has set up a commission designed to weaken FOI—an ex-coalition Minister has described that as a “rigged jury”—botched the release of Cabinet papers, watered down consultation rules, and is now being investigated by the Information Commissioner for withholding thousands of items of spending data. If sunlight really is the best disinfectant, why has the Minister now abolished every single senior civil service post with responsibility for transparency?

[Matthew Hancock]

As a matter of fact, we are the most transparent Government ever. What is more, the hon. Lady will be delighted to know that only this morning the Cabinet Office published further spending information to ensure that we keep that mantle.

Historical Cabinet Papers

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate, given that Ministers have so far failed to come and give a statement to the House on why the Cabinet Office papers have been delayed. Does he agree that it is particularly important that the Government are open and transparent about the documents they retain and release because, as of December 2015, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport now has the responsibility to approve the retention of documents on advice from the Advisory Council on National Records and Archives? Therefore, two advisers to the then Thatcher Government—the right hon. Members for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) and for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale)—are now responsible for both the release and the potential retention of information relating to matters pertaining to that Government.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is exactly right: these questions matter because the period covered was one of profound political sensitivity and because Ministers responsible for the release of these files were in the thick of it at that time as advisers to senior politicians.

In 2014—the last time there was a comprehensive release of Cabinet papers—we learned that the former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, had lied to the public about the extent of the pit closure plan, her attempt to influence police tactics, and the involvement of MI5 in spying on officials of the National Union of Mineworkers. That information demonstrated the extent to which the Government can use the institutions of the state against ordinary people. It is good for our democracy that the information was released, and it helps the ongoing fight for justice in the coalfield communities. This year, however, with such a small selection of files released, issues of political importance such as the discussions on the poll tax and the black Monday stock market crash have remained secret. Those were decisions that senior Ministers in the current Government were directly involved in.

Thanks to previous releases covering 1985-86, we know that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) advised the then Thatcher Government to use Scotland as a testing bed for the hated poll tax, but there the information, sadly, dries up. We do not know how this young adviser, in the teeth of powerful Cabinet opposition, managed to force through one of the most politically catastrophic and socially toxic policies in post-war history. Not only is that of historical interest, but it gives us an insight into the ideology and motives of the Prime Minister’s senior policy chief. We see a clear progression from the right hon. Gentleman’s policy formulation in the 1980s to policy implementation under the current Government.

[Louise Haigh]

On that point, is my hon. Friend aware that in the 1980s the right hon. Member for West Dorset authored an extreme pamphlet for a think-tank that offered suggestions on exactly how to privatise the NHS? Two of those suggestions have now been implemented by this Conservative Government. Does that not prove the direct link between policy formulation under that Government and the policy being implemented by this one, and further emphasise the need for transparency?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this debate. I start by saying, as he did, that this Government are committed to being the most transparent ever and take their commitment under the Public Records Act seriously.

A key plank of our commitment to transparency is our work on releasing files after 20 years, rather than 30 years as was previously the case. I acknowledge openly that this is a really big, major challenge for the Government, which unfortunately we fell short of in December 2015. I hope it will be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and others here today if I respond to their points by setting out first how the Cabinet Office is working to meet its obligations under the Public Records Act, which sets out how and when Government records should be transferred to the National Archives, and explaining why some may sometimes need to be retained.

The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 shortened the period before which files are released from 30 years to 20 years. This means that for a transitional period, two years of files are being reviewed each year, a doubling of the information in scope. In this process, each file undergoes a series of detailed checks to protect, for example, national security and sensitive personal data. This in no way lessens our commitment to transparency but takes time to do properly. This is a significant challenge for all involved. For Departments, it is a doubling of the workload, and the same considerations need to be made before papers are sent to the National Archives.

The National Archives are meeting these challenges head-on, which means extra papers coming through to them with high public demand as the subjects covered are relatively recent. By 2023, this process of reviewing two years of records in one year will be complete.

In December, we transferred a number of 1987 and 1988 files and this formed part of a press event arranged by the National Archives. We will be transferring more shortly, with the aim of completing the transfer of our 1987 and 1988 files as soon as possible. Files up to 1990 will be released throughout the year.

[Louise Haigh]

I am a little confused. The Paymaster General wrote to me a couple of weeks ago saying the delay in the release of Cabinet papers was due to a change in policy by releasing some earlier in 2015, some in December 2015 and some at an unspecified date later this year. Now the Minister is saying that it was due to lack of resources or an increased challenge. Will he confirm whether it is due to a specific change in policy that will occur next year, or lack of resources?

[Mr Wilson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. If she will bear with me, all will become clear because I will set out in painstaking detail the process by which we are handling the matter.

The Cabinet Office was due to transfer all information from 1987 and 1988 by the end of 2015 but, as is clear, we did not manage to do so. Both 1987 and 1988 were eventful years, as we have heard from the hon Gentleman, and this impacted on the Department’s ability to get these files reviewed as quickly as we wanted. Each file is painstakingly checked before transfer, which is not about withholding secrets and covering up inconvenient facts, as the hon. Gentleman alleged. Let me inform hon. Members about the sort of information that must be checked.

Files emanating from No. 10 will cover the whole range of issues that the Government deal with, from benefits to defence spending, overseas trade, support for community groups and a whole host of other things. They will include things like personal information relating to individuals involved, even home addresses, and everything to do with relationships with other countries and national security. On every appearance of such information a careful consultation process takes place, which may result in documents being redacted or retained.

The transfers that have already taken place mean that nearly 70,000 Cabinet Office files or volumes are held by the National Archives, an amazing repository holding over 1,000 years of iconic national documents, which the public can access free. Its online catalogue is the single point of access to 32 million descriptions of records. In 2014-15, there were approaching a quarter of a billion downloads from its collection.

When files reach the National Archives, a number of processes are involved to make information available to as many people as possible—for example, through digitisation. This means an inevitable time lag between the Cabinet Office transferring files to the National Archives and their appearance in the collection. This is why the Cabinet papers for 1987 and 1988 have not yet appeared in the public catalogue although they have been transferred to the National Archives. Another factor is that files are not always transferred in the year that one might expect as they are not assessed for transfer until the date of the last paper on the file. This explains why papers sometimes appear in the National Archives later than expected.

We are aware of the changing landscape of records management. The National Archives, as trusted experts in information and records management, will help to ensure that in an age when more and more of the Government’s records are born-digital, we open more records to the public as soon as possible. To that end, our intention is now to release files more frequently throughout the year, rather than in a single annual event. This means that, from later this year, we will start to release records from 1989 and 1990 in advance of the traditional release at the end of December. Cabinet Office officials are working closely with the National Archives to strengthen the entire process of how and when Cabinet Office files are released to the public.

Throughout 2016, there will be a number of releases from the Cabinet Office to the National Archives, catching up on the 1987 and 1988 records and then working through the 1989 and 1990 papers. I believe this is consistent with our overall transparency objectives, and that the regular releases will be a more effective way to work, particularly in the context of a doubling of the amount of information in scope.

The hon. Member for Leeds East asked several questions about the Cabinet minutes for 1987 and 1988, and papers from the Prime Minister’s Office for the same period. The Cabinet Office has transferred the Cabinet papers and minutes for the period 1987-88 to the National Archives. Some of the Prime Minister’s papers are already with the National Archives, including those made available at the press event in December. Our aim is for the remainder of those that can be transferred to be with the National Archives as soon as possible.

The hon. Gentleman asked about freedom of information, and he mentioned Hillsborough in his opening comments. No Government have done more than this one to shine a light on the truth, after 13 years of a Labour Government who failed to do what was necessary to open up the facts of Hillsborough to the public in the Merseyside area who were demanding access to them. He said that the Government were pushing for a review of freedom of information. Actually, I think the first person to push for such a review was Tony Blair, who mentioned in his autobiography that he was keen to change freedom of information.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the series of statements that appeared at the end of the last Session. I have to remind him that it was a Labour special adviser who, when the party was in government, described a particular day as

“a good day to bury bad news”.

I hope he remembers that phrase; it certainly did not come from the Conservative Government. I know that there is a new Mulder and Scully “X-Files” series out, and I do wonder about the conspiracy theories that sometimes run riot around this place, because in this case, there are no conspiracy theories to be had.

[Louise Haigh]

The Minister has mentioned conspiracy theories. One of our main conspiracy theories is about the advisers that have been involved in both Conservative Governments, whom the Minister has not mentioned. He mentioned a consultation process. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for West Dorset is involved in that consultation process, and whether he has any say over the documents that are retained or released.

[Mr Wilson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The consultation process is one that officials handle. As far as I am aware—I think I am as aware as I can be on these matters—I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) has vetoed any of the files that I think the hon. Lady is referring to in her question. But if there is more information that we can provide her with, obviously I would be very happy to write to her to update her.

I will move on to some comments about freedom of information. Freedom of information remains at the heart of transparency and accountability, and it goes hand in hand with the Public Records Act. The Government fully support freedom of information, but after more than a decade of the process in operation, we think it is time that it was reviewed to make sure that it is working effectively for hard-working taxpayers while allowing free and frank advice to be given to decision makers. That is why we have appointed an independent panel to look at the issue and assess how the practical processes of freedom of information can be improved. The commission will publish a report, as the hon. Gentleman knows, as soon as possible after its oral evidence sessions have been conducted. It would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt its work by getting into discussions today about the relative merits of the different parts of the Act.

I will end by making a few comments on the broader question of transparency. The Government take great pride in the fact that the UK leads the world in transparency and open government. I am not the only one who says so. The World Wide Web Foundation’s open data barometer and Open Knowledge’s global open data index ranked the UK No. 1. Over the past five years we have opened up more than 20,000 Government datasets to the public. We publish an unprecedented amount of data about everything from procurement to the gifts received by Ministers, and we continually strive to go even further.

Releasing open data makes the Government more accountable to citizens, helps to improve the efficiency of public services and drives social and economic growth. We have made expenditure data covering more than £188 billion of Government spending available for public scrutiny, and through our renewed Government data programme and our leading role in the international Open Government Partnership we will continue to be one of the most open and transparent Governments in the world. Those are not insignificant achievements, and we want to go even further. In our next Open Government Partnership national action plan, which is due to be published in the summer, we will develop an offer on transparency—including freedom of information—that strengthens the Government’s commitment to open government overall.

In conclusion, this Government are the most transparent Government ever, and we are a world leader in the quantity of information available from a range of sources. I acknowledge that, in common with other Departments, the performance of the Cabinet Office in transferring papers from 1987 and 1988 has not been perfect, as I said at the outset. I am, however, confident that more of that historical information will be available to the public shortly, including the Cabinet Office papers that have already been transferred to the National Archives and will be available very soon. The aim is to complete the transfer of the 1987-88 papers as soon as possible. In future, we will move to release files more frequently throughout the year rather than in a single annual event. That means that before the end of the year, there will be 1989 and 1990 papers in the National Archives.

Question put and agreed to.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Wilson]

I think we are straying into the realms of electoral law rather than charity law, and I am sure you do not want us to stray too far in that direction. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 applies to all third-party organisations campaigning for a particular electoral outcome. It does not specifically target charities or prevent them from campaigning to further their charitable purposes. The Charity Commission’s guidance CC9 makes that absolutely clear.

The Hodgson review, which is under way and will report in the next couple of months, will look at all those issues and consider in detail all the representations that are made to it. I think the Opposition should have waited for the review to see the detail of the representations made and whether there is evidence that things are going wrong and that the so-called chilling effect is taking place.

There is no bar to charities or student unions holding husting events, provided they do so in a balanced, even-handed way that furthers the charity’s purposes. Like many other Members, I am sure, I attended the student union debate in my constituency. I am very surprised that any student union was worried about putting on an even-handed debate, open to all parties.

The Charity Commission’s guidance is clear and comprehensive. Unlike primary legislation, guidance can be relatively easily updated, with proper consultation to ensure that it reflects current case law and other developments, such as the rise of social media. In recent years, there have been cases where charities, inevitably, have strayed on to the edges in what they are doing in social media. The guidance on that is obviously fairly new, and it is important that it is there.

I would say simply that the new clause is unnecessary, unless the hon. Member for Redcar and her colleagues are arguing that charities should be able to engage in party politics, in which case I very strongly object. What we heard about the Badger Trust emailing its members asking them to go to a single party political event and sort of supporting the manifesto elements that had been introduced would fall into the category of party political activity. We should keep charities and party politics completely separate. Where charities engage in non-party political activity, they should take extra care to protect their independence and to ensure that they do not give the impression of being politically partisan in any way, and that is the category that would apply with regard to the Badger Trust.

It is right that we have an independent regulator in the form of the Charity Commission to investigate concerns where charities may have overstepped the mark of what is acceptable, and some have done that in social media in the last couple of years. Where the dividing line between charitable and political becomes blurred and charities come to be seen as politically biased or aligned with a particular party, there is a real risk of public trust and confidence in charities being degraded. One of the charities’ strengths is their independence and their ability to stand outside politics, and I would really hate to see that undermined by the new clause.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

In the last Parliament, before I was an MP, I had a little back and forth with a charity known as the New Schools Network, which was set up by a former special adviser to the present Secretary of State for Justice deliberately to implement Government education policy on free schools. To me, there is a clear clash there between charitable status and implementing a particular political party’s policy stance, but this Government have made no effort to address that. Given that that was a clear breach and that the Charity Commission actually had to investigate the charity in question, I do not feel that the Minister’s point about making sure that charities are separate from party political activity stands.

[Mr Wilson]

As far as I am aware, there was no finding of any inappropriate party political activity against the New Schools Network. People can make complaints about all sorts of things, but whether those are found to have any evidential base is quite another thing. There are lots of examples of think-thanks and other organisations that are charities that want to put forward new ideas in the educational sphere, and as long as they have an educational purpose and they stay outside party politics, there is absolutely no reason why they should not do that. Just because, in the early days of the new free school network, the Labour party opposed free schools, that does not mean that that particular organisation did not have the right to exist. The fact that the Labour party did not like what it was saying is neither here nor there; it had a right to express its views freely, as I and others here—[Interruption.] As long as they are not party political—I have made that absolutely clear.

[Louise Haigh]

But it is party political.

[Mr Wilson]

The New Schools Network is not a party political organisation. I think that that is best left there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I gave examples during my speech. I will be happy to resurrect them on Third reading and to submit them. Going back to the point about the independence of student unions, a university in my area cancelled a hustings because it was extremely cautious. It had sought expensive legal advice and did not proceed because it was not sure that it was sufficiently meeting its charitable status in the number of people and different parties it was inviting. That is a clear example from my constituency.

The 2014 Act is a classic incumbency piece of legislation from a political party that has gone far from its roots and become immersed and entrenched in Government, pulling up the drawbridge and becoming separate from the ideals that drive politicians and the sector. I believe that it is incumbent on all political parties, but particularly in Opposition, to listen right through to the day of a general election to the challenges that civil society sets out to us, its problems with the policies we make and how it exposes to us the challenges facing society. We do not have all the answers, but it is important that, as I said, right up to the day of a general election we continue to listen. That Act had, as the sector has identified, a clear effect on its ability to do that.

[Louise Haigh]

The indignation of Conservative Members that this would not apply if charities were acting in this way toward their own party is a little hard to swallow when, as my hon. Friend said, the Government are attempting to weaken FOI. I note that the Minister did not respond to that point. I hope he will intervene and correct me. This year, the Government, including his own Department, failed for the first time in 50 years to publish Cabinet papers due to the National Archives and failed to come to the House and explain why. I hope the Minister will intervene and correct me on both points, or provide a timetable for action.

[Anna Turley]

I thank my hon. Friend because she is absolutely right. Every political party comes into Government with the best ideals—we heard from the coalition that they would be the most open, transparent and accountable Government ever. Suddenly the fear sets in, and when they start to hear from the public things they do not like it is easy to pull up the drawbridge. We are seeing that with a range of measures from the Government.

Turning briefly to badgers—we have heard a lot about them today; I am very fond of them. I have not seen the email, but despite what Government Members have said, I am still struggling to understand the issue—[Interruption.] The Minister sighs in despair. I will try to explain and perhaps he will show some tolerance for those of us who are struggling to keep up.

If a charity has aims and objectives such as saving badgers, it might write to all political parties setting out what it would like to see in their manifestos, setting out its aims, ambitions and aspirations. One of those political parties might write back saying, “Fantastic; we love badgers too. We want to put that in our manifesto and to have an event to launch it. We want it to be part of our rural ambitions.” Would it not be understandable if that charity engaged with that political party, attended events, and discussed, debated and challenged that manifesto to promote its cause?

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

This is my first time at the Dispatch Box responding to a Bill, so may I say that it has been a pleasure listening to learned contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House? I would have liked a few more hon. Friends to be behind me today, but I assure the House that the fact there are not is not a signal of our disinterest but one of our wholehearted support of the Government’s objectives in the Bill.

This has been an important and helpful debate, and I congratulate all Members who have participated in it and everyone who has been involved in getting the Bill to this place, particularly our colleagues in the other place. We have had a small number of contributions, but fortunately this debate has been defined by its quality, not its quantity.

The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who brings extensive experience in the sector, spoke about the difficulties in encouraging trustees to charities. She also discussed concerns about giving the Charity Commission the power to judge whether a potential trustee had committed misconduct and about powers to publish a warning notice, risking enormous damage to a potential trustee’s reputation.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) spoke about how the Bill cannot be viewed in a vacuum and should be viewed in the context that charities in our communities are increasingly being asked to do more with less, as the cuts, particularly those to our local authorities, bite further.

The hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) paid tribute to the many volunteers across her own community who respond to vital need, just as they do across all our communities. All of us will have fantastic charities that fill sadly much-needed demand in our constituencies, but I will not put your patience to the test by listing all the ones in my constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) praised the charitable sector for developing the fundraising preference service, demonstrating the willingness of the sector to tackle issues highlighted by the Bill.

The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) spoke passionately about her experience of volunteering, the impact of small charities in her constituency and her own private Member’s Bill on supporting the renowned, fantastic work done by the Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity.

The hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), a fellow former corporate governance practitioner, spoke about how we must ensure that small charities do not pay the price for the mistakes of larger, misbehaving charities. He made reference to Kids Company, whose case has had ripple effects across the whole sector. I am glad that that charity has not dominated our debate today, because, as he said, it is an outlier, at best.

Today's debate has provided a platform to debate the much-needed powers that will allow the Charity Commission to regulate the sector better, but first I wish to echo the feelings of Members on both sides of the House by saying that we know the special role charities play in our constituencies and in the country as a whole. As the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General rightly said, “the work charities do transcends politics and unites” this House. Britons donate billions of pounds per year, and very often it is those without a great deal donating what they can to the causes close to their heart or to those in need in the community around them.

Charities are also the vehicle by which many of us can try to make a difference for the communities in which we live. Figures vary, but the latest estimate is that nearly three quarters of us of do some form of volunteering for charities at least once a year. To put it simply, the values and ethos of those nearly 1 million trustees who give their time to make our country a kinder and more interesting place are the best of Britain.

We know, therefore, that charities have a great deal of good will and public support. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) rightly said in opening for our side, they support our vulnerable and our sick and elderly, and give people the chance to change lives. With that in mind, it is vital that charities and their regulator have the appropriate powers to act in the extremely rare event that misconduct occurs.

As we have heard, deliberate wrongdoing in charities is extremely rare, but it is important that the regulator has the power to take robust action where it does occur. We know that the measures in the Bill to prevent trustees who are not fit to hold the position from serving as trustees are widely supported by both the public and charities themselves—this is simply common sense.

We therefore support Government moves to close the loopholes and strengthen the Charity Commission in this important aspect. As Members across the House will know, the Charity Commission already has a wide range of compliance and enabling powers, but there are underlying weaknesses, including a limit on the commission’s ability to prevent and/or tackle abuse in charities. The powers the Charity Commission did have were not powers that we would expect a modern regulator to hold—they did not go far enough—so we welcome the strengthening of its powers.

In securing these new powers, we will enable the Charity Commission to regulate more effectively. We know that it is of the utmost importance that we are able to find the right balance between having good governance that gives people the confidence to support the sector and ensuring that charities have the freedom to be able to do what they do best—being brave in their determination to build a better society, innovating, responding to the challenge of today and tomorrow, and delivering effectively and with value for money.

As we have heard, the vast majority of charities and trustees act in the interest of their beneficiaries, but the poor governance and unscrupulous fundraising activities of a few undermines confidence in the whole sector. We therefore welcome this Bill, and we very much welcome the new social investment powers and powers to disqualify trustees. But we would not be an effective Opposition if we did not point out areas of room for improvement.

We are disappointed that the Government will seek to overrule the other place by removing clause 9, a vital amendment that protects charities from arbitrary rulings requiring them to dispose of their assets in contravention of their charitable purpose. I hope we can revisit that matter in Committee and that we can do so in the same cross-party manner of this debate.

A number of hon. Members have made good points on fundraising, on the very important protection of minority views, which we in this House should hold so dear, and on ensuring the balance between regulation and enabling charities to do good in their communities. I know that the Minister will have been listening closely to this debate. I hope that we can work together on a cross-party basis to improve this Bill at Committee stage. With that, I can assure the House that we are happy to support this Bill on Second Reading.