Westminster Hall
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Elections and Returning Officers
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring this matter to the House’s attention yet again, and to see that more than one or two colleagues are here. There is some interest in the matter. That is not a great surprise; if there is one thing that we can be sure Members of Parliament know at least a little about, it is elections and the conduct of elections.
There was much publicity after the general election in May this year, when we saw dreadful scenes that looked as though they came from some third-world country whose democracy was not very well developed. People queued to vote in the general election but were unable to do so after 10 o’clock due to rules made there and then—or, rather, interpreted on the spot—by returning officers.
My interest in the matter did not begin on the night of the general election. For the record, the electoral registration officer in my constituency, who is the acting returning officer, ran an extremely good and efficient election. It also had the right result. I talked to him about the process throughout the build-up to the election, because I was interested in such matters, and I saw how things were conducted in Epping Forest. It was an example of how an election ought to be run.
Although the vast majority of returning officers and electoral registration officers do their jobs impeccably and are never open to criticism, others are unfortunately not quite up to the mark. We discovered before the general election that returning officers are responsible to almost no one. A debate took place in this Chamber on 3 February 2010 in which such matters were examined in relation to election counts. At that point, there was a lot of fuss in the media about whether the result of the general election would become clear the day after or not until later. As it happens—hindsight is a wonderful thing—the true result of that particular general election did not become clear for several days. However, that cannot be blamed on the conduct of returning officers; it was a direct result of the decision of the electorate, which is another matter, and one that we are not here to debate.
The question that arose before the general election was whether the votes ought to be counted at 10 o’clock, immediately on the close of polls, or—as many returning officers decided—on the following day. Some of us got rather exercised about the decisions to wait and said that it was unacceptable behaviour on the part of returning officers. We brought the matter to this Chamber, where it was well debated. However, I was extremely surprised on doing serious research into the role and duties of returning officers to discover that their power and authority extends from a 19th-century statute and has been little modified in more than 100 years.
Parliament dealt with the difficulty in relation to whether returning officers should count votes at 10 o’clock somewhat unusually, by amending primary legislation. I tabled an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. As an Opposition amendment, it looked as though it would be a talking point only, but fortunately, the then Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), decided that the matter needed to be dealt with there and then. He put his name to my amendment, which then became part of the Bill. By a last-minute amendment to primary legislation, returning officers, unless they could demonstrate extenuating circumstances for doing otherwise, were required to start counting votes immediately on the close of poll. That gave us the right results for the last general election, but surely it cannot be right that the law on such a matter should be made ad hoc, in primary legislation, just a few weeks before a general election.
My purpose in asking for this debate was to allow the issues to be aired once again and to begin a general discussion now, I hope, to help the Minister, who I know is intent on improving matters in that area of the law. I also hope that we can begin a discussion that considers what the duties of returning officers are and who undertakes the duty of electoral registration officer and then acting returning officer.
Returning officers, as I am sure hon. Members are aware, are usually not paid officials but the high sheriff of a county, for example: another leftover from 19th-century legislation that has never been properly updated. The person with the official duty and responsibility of returning officer is the titular head of the returning officer’s organisation but takes no actual part whatever in the running of elections, whether day to day, annually or every four or five years. That work is done by the acting returning officer. When one goes back into statute to examine where the acting returning officer’s power derives from, one finds that it is a grey area. Those matters must be updated. In most cases, although the returning officer is, perhaps, the high sheriff or lord lieutenant, the acting returning officer is usually the electoral registration officer, often a high-ranking official in a local authority.
After the debacle during the general election in May, when a significant number of voters were left standing outside polling stations, denied their right to vote due to administrative upheaval and a lack of administrative control and planning, we discovered that acting returning officers are paid a considerable fee for their work in organising a general election. I make no complaint about the structure of that system because, of course, the duties associated with organising a general election only occur once every four or five years. Happily, the general election is now likely to be on a certain date every five years. That will perhaps aid the ability to plan because we will have far more certainty about the date of an election. Indeed, we should all be happy about that.
If someone undertakes to do a job every four or five years, of course, it should not be a permanent position—the job should be paid, and the duties allocated and required only for that time. However, on further examination of the situation, we discovered that very large sums were being paid to returning officers. That has been well documented so I will not read out the sums, because it does not help the debate to put a particular person on the spot, give a particular name and say how much he or she was paid to do a job.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
But that is what the hon. Lady’s Government have just done in relation to everyone earning more than £80,000. I do not know why she is being so coy about the matter.
Mrs Laing
I accept the shadow Minister’s comment. I understand what he is saying, but he is making a different point on a different matter. I have a list of returning officers who allegedly did not do their jobs very well and yet were paid sums in excess of £12,000 or £15,000 to do that particular job for a few weeks. I am not the kind of politician who embarrasses individual members of society by announcing their names to be recorded in Hansard. We will leave that sort of thing to the tabloid press. The point is that there is no chain of accountability. That is where the problem lies, and that is where the problem lay when we examined how returning officers could be required or even just encouraged to start the election count upon the close of poll. That is also what we discovered when inquiries where carried out correctly by the Electoral Commission into how administration was taken forward for the election in May this year.
It is appalling that senior people in local authorities who have a position of responsibility and normally command salaries well in excess of £100,000—usually far more than that, as far as I can see from the statistics—have not properly planned for a general election and have got things so badly wrong that people were deprived of their vote. In the instances that occurred in May, it is fortunate that there were no cases in which the number of electors who allegedly were unable to vote because of returning officers’ maladministration was greater than the majority in that particular seat. Therefore, there was no reason for an appeal to the courts on the election result. In one way, that is fortunate because it would have meant uncertainty about the results of the election. In another way, however, it is unfortunate, because the matter has not been properly examined, which is another reason for my initiating this debate.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
The hon. Lady is right: there is no evidence to suggest that any outcome would be different as a result of people being unable to vote on election day. However, we can never be sure about how many people turned up at polling stations, saw the enormously long queues that resulted from all sorts of chaos, went away again and did not bother coming back. That was a big disincentive in some areas, where people saw big queues and thought, “Well, I can’t really be bothered. I’ll just go home and won’t bother voting.”
Mrs Laing
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct; I am glad he made that point. We have spoken a lot lately about the need to encourage people to be involved in the democratic process and to encourage all age groups and people across the social and economic spectrum to register and use their vote. I mentioned earlier the number of people who allegedly turned up at the polling station and were denied their right to vote. That number may even be far greater than we estimate, because of the situation that he has described.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
It is also important to note that the problems arose when the turnout was not particularly high. Turnout increased marginally in 2010 compared with the previous general election, but it was nowhere near the turnout figures of 75% or 80% that we used to have in the elections of the 1970s and 1980s. If we return to that level of turnout, I suspect that the problems that occurred will be magnified many times over.
Mrs Laing
My hon. Friend is, as ever, absolutely right. That is one of the problems we can foresee. We are all working hard—I know that the Minister in particular is doing so—to bring in individual voter registration as soon as possible. We all hope that individual voter registration will encourage more people to be involved, to register and to use their vote. We also find that where the media tell people that the outcome of an election is a foregone conclusion, many people think that there is no need to go and vote. If we have closer elections and it appears that there could, again, be a change of Government—let us hope not, but I suppose that it will happen one day—people are more likely to vote and there will be higher turnouts.
If the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which is currently before the House of Commons, succeeds in going through Parliament, we will have a referendum next May and it is likely there will be a high turnout—although I have argued that that is not likely. However, in any case, there will be a national plebiscite where everyone will be given the opportunity to vote. That is not very far away. So although we will not have a general election for another four and a half years, we will have a full national election of sorts next May. Therefore, by securing this debate, I hope that I am helping to begin the discussion on matters that need to be taken into consideration before next May and the next set of elections.
One of the subjects that has not yet been fully explored is the role of the Electoral Commission, which is still a fairly new body. In many ways, it has been very successful. However, in some ways, it is still settling into its role. When taking the advice of the Electoral Commission on how to deal with the issue of returning officers and the timing of the count, we discovered that it has no power to require returning officers to act in a particular manner. The Electoral Commission only has the power to issue guidance.
As a matter for consideration, I suggest that such a situation is not fair. The Electoral Commission and its chairman were given the blame for what went wrong at 10 o’clock on election day, but it is not fair that they should take the blame when they had no power beforehand to put matters right. At 10 o’clock on election night, the Electoral Commission had no power to say to individual returning officers, “No, you can’t do this. You must allow people to vote. You must keep the doors open.” It had no power to tell people to act in a particular way. Nobody had any power. The Minister had no power; the Electoral Commission had no power; the local authorities had no power. There is no line of reporting or of authority for electoral registration officers and acting returning officers. In a modern democracy, where we spend hour upon hour in the Chamber discussing the minutiae of elections and their administration, as we have done over the past few days, it is appalling to discover that there is no line of authority whereby the administration of our elections can be properly decided.
In the run-up to the election, during which I had been fairly vocal about the problem of returning officers and the 10 o’clock vote, I found myself in a live radio debate with a particular returning officer, a lady from the north of England. I made the point during that debate that returning officers ought to be responsible to the electorate and ought to act responsibly. The lady’s retort, which was made live on the radio, was more or less along these lines: “How dare you, a Member of Parliament, try to interfere with how I, a returning officer, do my job. I am responsible to no one and I won’t listen to you, Madam.” Those were not her exact words, but it was clear that her message to me and to the three or four people listening was that returning officers were responsible to no one, and she was outraged that I would even suggest that Parliament should take some action in that respect. I was equally outraged in my response, but I will not repeat what I said. The fact is that the count in that constituency took place, I am glad to say, at 10 o’clock on election night.
The 10 o’clock issue is irrelevant; how our electoral system is administered is what is important. Over the past few years, various complications have arisen in elections, such as having more than one election on the same day, or different kinds of elections under different voting systems on the same day, as happens in Scotland. There is a danger that such complications will arise across the country next May, when a referendum and other elections will take place simultaneously in more than 80% of the UK. Indeed, in some parts of the country, three types of election will take place on the same day. On this occasion I do not object in principle to simultaneous elections, although I have done so on other occasions. The purpose of the debate is to open the discussion on how we ensure that elections are undertaken in a proper, measured and watertight fashion.
My first suggestion to the Minister is that the powers and duties of the Electoral Commission should be reconsidered and that perhaps the way forward is that it ought to be given a power to direct returning officers, electoral registration officers and acting returning officers. My second suggestion, which I am happy for the Minister to knock straight on the head, although I think it ought to be discussed, relates to the hypothecation of public money. The Treasury is implacably opposed to hypothecation, and there are good reasons for that, which I have always supported. However, the additional funds for electoral registration officers setting up and administering elections come directly from the Treasury, rather than local taxpayers. That is absolutely right, because if the money came from local taxpayers, a returning officer would have the excuse of saying, “Well, in this local authority we have had a particular problem with housing this year, and we have spent so much money on that that we simply do not have enough to spend on the proper administration of elections.” That would be the case whatever the current concern in a local authority, whether it is asylum seekers or an influx of Gypsies and Travellers. However, such excuses cannot be made because the money spent on elections comes directly from the centre.
Having come directly from the centre, however, that money is not ring-fenced or earmarked, so there is no hypothecation. I am suggesting, for the sake of argument, that the principle of hypothecation in that instance ought to be revisited. We are talking about money allocated from central Government for a specific purpose over a specific period of time, so that money that comes to returning officers and local authorities for the funding of electoral administration ought to be hypothecated and ring-fenced. I appreciate that the Minister may be bound to say that Treasury rules do not permit hypothecation, which I understand, but this is only the beginning of the argument.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend has raised this matter, as she has been doing for some years in the House through the auspices of the 1922 committee and with the Electoral Commission itself. My fear is that money is being leached across and leached out, as there is great pressure for that to happen in times of economic stress. I sincerely welcome her plea to the Minister and urge him to take the matter on board. Unless the Government do something about it, in these times of stress we will not see an improvement or have proper money spent on the administration of elections or on the training of registration officers and acting returning officers, and therein lies one of the vital points.
Mrs Laing
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes an excellent point. I know that he is rather an expert in those matters, and it is a pleasure to have his wisdom and guidance on them.
The basic principle is one of confidence. As a modern democracy, we must have confidence in how our elections are administered. I would have raised the matter for discussion—I hope that I would have had the opportunity to do so—even if the queues had not formed at polling stations at 10 o’clock on election night. Even before that happened, most of the questions that I have asked this morning were unanswered and are waiting for action. Having seen what happened at the close of the polls, I think that all of us who are involved in any way in the democratic process ought to hear alarm bells ringing. I know that the Minister takes the matter seriously and hope that I am being helpful by giving him one of the first opportunities to examine the matter and assure Members that the Government will take action before we have any serious national election to ensure that we have a proper accountability structure for those administering our electoral system.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton, and to contribute to this timely debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on securing it. She has been a champion for that cause and I was particularly interested in her comments and suggestions on the Electoral Commission, which I will touch on. I agree wholeheartedly with almost everything she said.
I shall briefly draw attention to some of the issues in my constituency, Milton Keynes North, which was one of the 11 constituencies that formed the focus of the Electoral Commission’s initial review, “2010 UK Parliamentary general election,” published on 20 May. Regrettably, the difficulties encountered in my constituency on election day were numerous.
Initially, problems arose early in the day around ballot boxes in one of the polling stations in Newport Pagnell, which was being used for voting in local council elections in two wards as well as the general election. Ballots for the wards were mixed up: ballots for Newport Pagnell North were issued to residents in the south and vice versa. Eventually, amidst the confusion, the police were called to attend and some votes were recalled. It is worth noting, though, that the people who had already voted were not contacted by officials to recast their local council votes in the right ward. Fortunately, there was a clear-cut election in both wards, and the number of ballots cast which were issued incorrectly was significantly lower than the majority of the winning parties, so there was no need to hold a new election. However, that is not the point.
Another issue that we faced in Milton Keynes, which I believe was not shared in many of the other affected areas, was the time it took for the general election ballots to be counted. The Electoral Commission’s guidelines—of course, they are just guidelines, as my hon. Friend made clear—suggest that the vote count should be started by 2 am on the morning after the election takes place. In Milton Keynes, due to the local election taking place on the same evening, the count began at 4.18 am, with the results announced at 8 am. Given the relatively small geographical area covered by Milton Keynes unitary authority, which is coterminous with the two parliamentary seats, the general view was that that was an unnecessarily long period to wait. I should emphasise that Milton Keynes is not a very big place.
Those instances highlight the fact that there are difficulties in holding more than one election on the same day—a view resonated by the returning officer of my constituency. Given the complications experienced in Milton Keynes, I should be grateful to know whether the Minister believes there is reason for concern and the potential for the same problems to occur again next May, when some polling stations may have to deal with three separate elections on the same day.
I would now like to focus my attention on an issue faced by several polling stations in Milton Keynes North and in 10 other constituencies around the country. It became apparent at 8.30 pm that large queues were forming outside three polling stations. The acting returning officer, John Moffoot, did well to follow procedures and was proactive in sending senior council officers to monitor the congested polling stations. He himself went to the Wyvern school polling station, which appeared to be the worst affected. With more than 150 people still queuing to vote after the 10 pm deadline, Mr Moffoot, with some concern for the safety of polling staff, decided to go against Electoral Commission guidelines and allow those in the queue at 10 pm to be issued with ballot papers after the 10 pm cut-off point.
It is my understanding that, at present, returning officers must follow strict guidelines on closing polling stations at 10 pm unless issued ballot papers are still being marked. That is the only circumstance in which ballots should be submitted after the deadline. It is interesting, though, that following the review carried out by the Electoral Commission, the returning officer for Milton Keynes North did not receive the same amount of criticism for allowing polling to continue as returning officers who closed polling stations at 10 pm received for disallowing voting by approximately 1,200 of the electorate around the country. I supported Mr Moffoot’s actions and, indeed, the Electoral Commission’s conclusions, but I believe that this case highlights a key area for concern, and a need for clarification or review of the law. To that end, I ask the Minister whether he believes that there should be a review so that Mr Moffoot would not again be put in a position where he is required to turn people away from polling stations even though they were queuing to vote before the 10 pm deadline.
The perception is that turnout at this year’s general election was higher than in previous elections, but the reality in Milton Keynes is that it was not. Indeed, this year’s turnout of 62.8% was relatively low compared with some previous elections; for example, in 1983 it was 74%, in 1987 it was 73%, in 1992 it was 81%—an all-time high for Milton Keynes—in 1997 it was 73%, in 2001 it was 63%, and in 2005 it was 64%. Given that, I fear similar occurrences in future elections if the problem is not addressed.
It is clear that some of the issues can be addressed without the need for legislation by ensuring careful choice of polling stations, although I understand that there are restrictions on which buildings may be used. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) made a good intervention. He said that we simply cannot estimate how many people decided not to vote when they saw long queues at polling stations. On the basis of contacts that I had after the election, I would estimate that several hundred people in my constituency chose not to queue and vote. Once again, I am pleased to say that the result in Milton Keynes North was decisive, and I do not think that that factor affected the election result.
Mr Leech
There is certainly anecdotal evidence from constituents. One told me that there was a big queue when they turned up at the polling station at 6 o’clock. They went away and came back at 7, but there was still a big queue. When they came back at 9 the queue was even bigger, so they simply gave up.
Mark Lancaster
The hon. Gentleman makes the point that I wanted to make. It is clear that the problems faced in my constituency were not isolated incidents. Praise should be given to the Electoral Commission for its swift publication of the interim report on the problems faced in a few constituencies, but I believe that we should address the confusion and difficulties regarding the 10 pm cut-off to guarantee that those who wish to vote are able to do so. I would suggest to the Minister that the actions taken by Mr Moffoot in Milton Keynes to alleviate the problem were right, even though, in the eyes of the law, they were wrong.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on securing this debate on such an important issue. I also congratulate her on eloquent and passionate speeches on the topic on the Floor of the House yesterday and in this Chamber this morning. I concur with her when she says that elections are always well run in Epping Forest. I know that at first hand, as my researcher was an election agent in her borough prior to working for me.
The public must have confidence in our democratic process. Over the past 12 months, several issues have been raised regarding the conduct of elections. I would like to deal them in two parts: those that are election offences and those that are not. Election offences including impersonation, fraud, bribery and misuse of campaign expenditure are covered by several Acts of Parliament, and the Government are taking steps to help to protect against fraud by improving the accuracy of the electoral register. However, matters such as polling station failures and incorrect ballot papers are, in themselves, not election offences.
The Representation of the People Act 1983 states that it is the returning officer’s duty
“to do all such acts and things as may be necessary for effectually conducting the election in the manner provided by those parliamentary elections rules.”
That clearly covers both points.
Returning officers have considerable authority in their work. Although they take instruction from the Electoral Commission, they are under no obligation to follow its advice and are subject to little scrutiny. Returning officers are independent statutory office holders and are therefore accountable only to the courts. Action against returning officers can be taken only by means of a complaint to the police or by means of an election petition. The 1983 Act sets out the penalty for those, including returning officers, who are in breach of their official duties in parliamentary elections: a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, currently £5,000.
Key players in the political process are often reluctant to take action against returning officers for the following reasons. First, the returning officer is usually a community leader—for example, the chief executive of a council. Politicians and election agents are often reluctant to take action against such a person, particularly if the outcome is not guaranteed. Secondly, poor performance by a returning officer does not necessarily constitute a criminal or an election offence, and it is difficult to prove that someone has been in breach of their official duties. Thirdly, an election petition is expensive. It costs £5,000 to issue a writ, which can be issued only against one’s opponent, not the returning officer. Fourthly, if an election petition is successful and the election is void, the electorate may feel that the candidate responsible for the petition is a bad loser, and the resulting by-election may see massive swings against them. The 1997 Winchester by-election is an example of that.
Returning officers should be more accountable for their performance. Introducing senior returning officers with enforcement powers, responsible for a geographical area, is a possible solution. It is important to remember that many issues have a simple solution. For example, on polling station failures, a risk assessment would foresee many problems, and procedures should be in place to deal with high volumes of electors and shortages of ballot papers. On incorrect ballot papers, showing a copy of the ballot paper to candidates or election agents before issue would reduce mistakes.
To sum up, existing legislation is sufficient to deal with the process of elections but returning officers should be more accountable. Action to prevent mistakes is far more productive than dealing with their consequences afterwards.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on her thoughtful speech this morning about returning officers and the conduct of elections? I am delighted to have the chance to speak this morning, mainly because, disappointingly, Manchester, Withington was one of those constituencies that was the scene of chaos on election night in May. The polling station at Ladybarn community centre was constantly on the news for days because someone had filmed the events there on a mobile phone. There were angry scenes, with more than 200 people questioning why they were not being allowed to vote even though they had been waiting at the polling station, for up to an hour in some cases, to exercise their right to vote.
In Manchester, Withington there were three main reasons for the chaos on election night. The first was an increased turnout, which was expected—but it was an increased turnout of those who were more likely to vote later in the day. If they had turned up earlier, they might have waited longer than they would normally but there would not have been the scenes of chaos that there were later in the day. That needs to be taken into consideration when we look at ensuring that everyone who is in the queue at 10 o’clock has the right to cast their vote. Obviously many people are unable to vote during the day, and if they have to vote late at night, even if they have to queue, they must have the opportunity to do so if they are at the polling station before 10 o’clock.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. If, as we learned in yesterday’s debate, there is to be a drive for higher registration and it is successful, as I hope it will be, and more people are registered who previously did not vote because they were not registered and, therefore, are less likely to be disposed to vote earlier, the problem that he is outlining will probably increase in future elections. There will be not only people queuing to vote who are normally registered and have gone late because of social problems or work commitments, but an additional issue of previously non-registered voters turning up to vote late. Therefore, the problem that the hon. Gentleman has outlined will be much worse next time.
Mr Leech
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The reality is that we do not know what will happen to people who have not been previously registered and we do not know whether, having been registered, they will be likely to vote, and if so, at what time. The issue needs to be considered. We must be ready for potential additional chaos late at night.
The second reason why we had chaos in Manchester, Withington was that some polling stations were expected to deal with too many people turning up to vote—way above the limit recommended by the Electoral Commission. That issue is being addressed in Manchester and, I am pleased to say, the council is acting on extending the number of polling stations to improve the situation.
The third reason why there was a problem in Manchester, Withington was the dual election—one being a general election. In some parts of the country, people are used to general elections on the same day as local elections, but that has not happened in Manchester for a very long time. Considerable confusion and delay resulted. Some people were told, “Oh, actually, you’ve got two votes. You can vote in the local and general elections,” but a significant number of people were entitled to vote in the local elections but not the general election, and that had to be explained to them because there was confusion. That number of people was probably significantly bigger in Manchester and other city areas.
From previous exchanges with the Minister, I know that I have not won the argument about the general election date being set in stone and separate from any other elections. I still firmly believe that the general election should not be held on a day when other elections or referendums are held, but the Minister does not accept that point. I am on to a loser there.
I wanted to speak in the debate today, not necessarily about the chaos on election night, but mainly about payments awarded to chief executives who act as returning officers at general elections. I confess that I was stunned to find out that running the general election as a returning officer was not in the job description of the chief executives of big councils. I do not want to target Sir Howard Bernstein, the chief executive of Manchester city council but, my constituency being within the boundaries of Manchester city council, he is the example I have. Sir Howard is an excellent chief executive and has done a great job for Manchester, but chief executives are well paid for the jobs that they do—the chief executive of Manchester city council earns significantly more than the Prime Minister—and yet a £20,000 bonus was payable to him for running the general election.
Given that at least 200 or 300 people missed out on voting in Manchester, Withington, I question whether any bonus was deserved. To his credit, Sir Howard returned 20% of his bonus, due to there being five constituencies in Manchester and the Manchester, Withington election not running smoothly—he returned the whole 20% for that constituency. However, I question whether any sort of bonus was justified if a single person in Manchester was unable to vote on general election day through no fault of their own, and there were clearly a significant number of people in that position. The chief executive in Sheffield forwent his entire bonus due to the chaos there.
Finally, there ought to be an assumption that the chief executive of a large council is the returning officer, and that should be part of their job description. There should never be additional payments simply for running an election and ensuring that we have democracy in our constituencies and our local authorities.
Iain Stewart
I have had examples in my constituency of people who have applied to reside permanently in the United Kingdom but are not yet full citizens using their presence on the electoral register as evidence that they are entitled to be here. I totally accept my hon. Friend’s point that the electoral register’s integrity is far from perfect.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
Is not part of the problem, as I found during the election, that if someone wishes to challenge a household’s electoral registration there are only 21 days in which the returning officer can do so? In the heat of the work in the run-up to an election, that is effectively impossible.
Mr Binley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Minister should consider, and I hope that he noted it.
With postal voting we have created a frightening potential for corruption in our election system. If it were not so important, the inability to ensure good and proper elections through the postal vote would be laughable. There was a time when the whole construct of postal voting was carefully created and checked, and its efficacy was understood and known to be absolutely within the prescribed limits. That time has gone because of the machinations of the previous Government, who did not understand what they were doing in that respect. We must all recognise the faults because the issue is more important than party politics. It is about the very basis of our electoral and democratic system—[Interruption.] I am happy to give way if the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) wishes to intervene.
Those two matters are vital, and there are many others. I want to describe from my experience the reasons for the decline. The business of electoral registration officers used to be a profession. People in local government offices did the job for years and years, and they had assistants who followed them and who had learned to do the job properly. We had the money to check whether a registration was valid by visiting the home of people seeking registration. The whole process was efficient, but that efficiency no longer exists because electoral registration has been downgraded dramatically in most council office structures, and the attitude seems to be, “Who will do the register this year, Fred?” It seems to be a last resort, and that is simply not good enough.
What can we do? My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest said that the Electoral Commission must be a more robust policing body. First, we must ring-fence the money that we allocate from national Government for the conduct of elections and registration. Money is being leached, and there is every reason why local authorities should so do. They are in trouble with money, but we must ensure that our money is used for the reasons for which it was designated. That means ring-fencing, and the Electoral Commission must be responsible for monitoring that money and ensuring that it is properly used for the purposes for which it was allocated. Secondly, we must spend money on training electoral registration staff and returning officers because the quality of their work has fallen, largely because the learning thread that goes from one officer to another no longer exists.
We must bring the law to bear much more. We must make criminal actions a higher priority in society. When someone cheats the electoral system, they cheat my vote and me. If we truly believe in a democratic process, we must ensure that the systems to undertake that democratic process are as viable and credible as possible, and they are not at the moment.
We have a good voting system, and I have made that clear in the House. It does not need to be tampered with for any reason, least of all for those that apply at the moment. The voting system is not broken, but the conduct of elections and electoral registration is a total mess, and if the Government had any sense they would recognise that democracy is in danger through those processes and not through the process of our electoral system.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton, and yet again to gather together this group of hon. Members who take an interest in electoral matters. No doubt we shall gather again this afternoon for the next round of discussions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing). There are many things I do not understand about the Government, one of which is why she is not a Minister. She is extremely efficient, capable and competent, and she always makes her argument very well. Yesterday she got a little cross with me. I do not take any offence at that, although a lot of people do.
The basic message from the debate, which I hope returning officers will understand, is that many of us who are involved in politics as elected politicians worry that we are taking democracy somewhat for granted. We all worry about the fact that turnout has fallen, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) mentioned. Turnout rose slightly at the last general election, but it is still lower than it was in the 1980s and earlier. Now is not the time to rehearse those arguments, but in Wales turnout was consistently above 75% or 80%. Wales often had the highest levels of turnout, but lately they have been some of the lowest. That is a worry to us all.
It is all too easy for local authorities, which often make the decisions about funding for the democratic process, to take democracy for granted. A local authority might have to choose between keeping a swimming pool open, which will cost £100,000 a year, or doing a full canvass of every house to ensure that everybody who is entitled to vote is on the register, and that everybody who is not entitled to vote is not on it. Elected politicians at local level sometimes choose to protect the swimming pool rather than the democratic process.
I suspect that over the past few years, the whole anti-politics movement—to give it a name—has added to that problem. Too many people felt that all politicians of whatever political party were in it just for themselves, and that there was no point in voting because, in terms used by many comedians, “If voting made any difference, they’d abolish it.” The issue of Members’ expenses also fed into that, and that cynicism has weighed heavily on the political system over the past few years. That has fed into the presumption that money spent on the electoral register or on electoral processes was not money well spent. That is a mistake.
I am sure that we can all remember watching the first time that people voted in South Africa. There were queues not only down the street but round the block for days. People were camping out and waiting to vote. Watching people vote in countries such as Iraq or Afghanistan, where they might have been running terrible risks to do so, fills a lot of us with admiration. In the Balkans, boycotts of elections have sometimes been organised by one ethnic grouping, and it has been great to see turnouts that were significantly higher than many had anticipated. That is why the scenes that we saw in May were sad. It is fortunate—and only fortunate—that there was no constituency in which the number of people who we know were not able to vote was higher than the majority of the candidate who won. Therefore, we can be confident that that issue may not have affected the result.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) makes an extremely good point: we have no way of knowing how many people went to the polling station, saw a long queue and thought that they would come back later. Perhaps they came back later but still saw a queue and gave up.
Mr Leech
There is also the fact that there were local elections on the same day. I guess that in some constituencies, the result of the local election in a particular area was very close. It may be that some people were elected to local councils who would not have been elected if everyone had had the chance to vote.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman makes his point, and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer him on it. I will speak about combined polls a little later.
The Opposition tried to provide an answer to the issue of 10 o’clock voting with an amendment that was discussed last Monday. Unfortunately, not enough hon. Members felt able to vote for it. The Minister said that the problem with our amendment was that it introduced the concept of a queue into British legislation, and that that might be difficult to define. If the British Parliament cannot define a queue, I do not know which Parliament in the world would be able to do so. Many other places in the world have a system in which, for example, a person’s finger is dabbed with indelible ink the moment that they present themselves, and that is the moment at which they are entitled to receive a vote. I am sure that many other ways could be devised. I hope that the Minister will look specifically at a way of ensuring consistency across the country.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes North made the point tellingly: in some constituencies, the returning officer decided to be generous and to stretch the regulations in one direction, but in other constituencies they decided to be extremely strict about how they operated the system. That inconsistency around the country does not inspire confidence in voters. In subsequent elections, people might think that if it is 9.30 pm or 9.45 pm there is no point going to vote because there are always queues at the polling stations.
I do not want to be nasty to the Minister this morning—
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
Keep it for this afternoon.
Chris Bryant
I cannot keep it for this afternoon because I do not think that the Minister will be responding to the debate then. However, I thought that he was a little complacent about that element last Monday afternoon. He said that the issue was not an enormous problem and that there was not an enormous number of instances in which it had happened. The figure of 1,200 was suggested, but I suspect that many more people were affected. I suspect that in Hackney North and Stoke Newington alone more than 1,500 people ended up not being able to vote because of the situation. I hope that the Minister will return to the issue with some means of providing consistency around the country.
The inconsistency around the country applies not only to what happens at 10 o’clock but to a whole series of different issues. In part, that is precisely because of the reason adduced by the hon. Member for Epping Forest: although the responsibilities and powers are laid down in statute, a wide amount of freedom is given to the returning officers and there is little accountability. I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington that it is ludicrous that such a job is thought of as additional to the job of electoral registration officer, and that somehow people have to be additionally recompensed in order to perform their function when there is a general election. I think that it should be part of the standard job description and that no additional fees should be payable. It should be run of the mill and part of doing the job. Frankly, if someone does not do the job well, they should not remain in it. It should not be a question of getting extra payments.
Mrs Laing
It is worth going over that point again. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: not only is it not part of the job description of a local authority employee, but there is also a lack of accountability. The fee for doing the job comes from central funds, but there is no line of accountability to that. As we have seen, some people were paid perhaps £15,000 for administering matters this year. They got it wrong and were not required to pay a penny back.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady makes her point extremely well. I hope that the Minister will think about whether we need to look at the structure of how returning officers—in most cases, broadly speaking, an honorific title—and those beneath them are appointed.
In my constituency in 2001, the returning officer appointed himself because he wanted to announce the election result. Unfortunately, he could not speak Welsh. He decided that he had to make the announcement in Welsh first, despite the fact that remarkably few people in the Rhondda speak Welsh, and very few people in the hall spoke it. He certainly did not speak Welsh, so what he announced was virtually incomprehensible. The BBC immediately switched off and went somewhere else. We would be better off with the electoral registration officer, who is the person who knows the law best, being the returning officer. I am sorry if that means that we will be sacking all the high sheriffs and lord lieutenants of the land. I mean no disservice to them but it is a professional job that must be done on a professional basis.
Another point raised was about when the count should take place. I think that people like the drama of election night. It is fascinating that people are watching the BBC’s 1970 and 1974 election programmes, which are now being re-shown. It is quite exciting thinking “I can’t remember who won Plymouth, Devonport” or wherever. I had an Australian friend who was my lodger. This was a few years ago. He was fascinated by Australian politics and refused to watch any news for a week until his mother had sent him the five DVDs with the election television programme from Australia. It took even longer than it might have because the count takes a long time in Australia.
My point is that the drama of election night is very important and, as we saw in our election, all the more important because sometimes it can determine the feeling, when there is to be a hung Parliament, about how Governments may or may not be formed. That is why there should be consistency across the land. If there are combined elections, the general election votes should be counted first, and the count should not start at 4.19 in the morning and finish at 8 o’clock in the morning. That explains why the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North looked just a little weary by the time his election result came out. We should be moving to greater consistency in that regard.
That leaves us with the problem in relation to combining polls. If we are to go to a fixed-term Parliament when we already have fixed-term council elections and fixed-term Assembly elections in Wales and Northern Ireland and for the Parliament in Scotland, we either decide that they will all coincide always, so that that is a fixed part of the programme as it is in the United States of America, where there are elections every two years, or we decide that we will not combine polls at all, because that is better. I think that it is a bit odd that we have elections on the first Thursday in May, because April is a pretty rubbish month to go campaigning. Chaucer got it right when he talked about April with its showers. Perhaps we should think about another month. I say that as someone who was first elected in June rather than May.
Obviously, it is more important that we hear from the Minister than that we hear further expatiations from me. I just hope that the issues of consistency around the country can be addressed, as well as the finance and the accountability of returning officers.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on securing the debate. As she correctly said, this is an area in which she has taken great interest over a considerable period, and she has spoken very well on it for our party. She slightly underplayed her role in her mini-triumph earlier this year when she persuaded the then Lord Chancellor to adopt her amendment, which brought considerable consistency—to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—about counting. Those of us who were up for election and whose result was perhaps not as assured as that of the hon. Gentleman were grateful that the counts took place promptly and we had early results so that we knew our fate. My hon. Friend played a considerable part in that and has taken a great deal of interest in the issue, and we thank her for the opportunity to discuss these matters today.
It is worth saying, so that it is clear, that the administration of elections takes place at local level, as my hon. Friend set out. The acting returning officer is often, although not always, the local authority chief executive or another senior officer. They are responsible for all aspects of the election, including publication of the notice of the election and dealing with the nominations of candidates, ballot papers, polling stations, the counting, the arrangements for the count and the declaration of the result. Part of the tension when we are talking about accountability is about making it impossible for the people running elections also to have a stake in the outcome. The difficulty is about who is accountable.
That highlights one of the issues with the solution that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) highlighted. If the task was made part of the local authority chief executive’s day job, for which he is accountable to elected members of a local authority, there would be a risk in some places of political pressure and influence being exerted on the returning officer. That post is separate from the role of chief executive is so that political pressure is not put on that person. We do not want to lose that if we make any changes. My hon. Friend made a good point, but I am not sure that that is the right solution.
Mr Binley
There is a distinction between the returning officer and the acting returning officer, which we must not lose sight of. The returning officer is normally a volunteer, not a local government professional, and is guided immensely and totally by the acting returning officer, who is normally the chief executive and does the work. We need to make that distinction.
Mr Harper
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest paid tribute to the way in which the acting returning officer conducted the election in her constituency. It would be remiss of me not to mention that I was also fortunate that the acting returning officer in my constituency ensured that the polls ran very smoothly. Indeed, unlike at the last general election in 2005, when I had to wait until about 6 am for the result—albeit perhaps not as long as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster)—this time, the acting returning officer and her team made a declaration almost three hours earlier and I was the first Member of Parliament in Gloucestershire to be elected. I have told them that I shall expect that level of service from now on.
What I am describing can be done. It is worth saying that, across the country, with the exceptions that we have discussed, most of the general election counts and the process were very well conducted. The standard is very high. However, that is not to take away from the fact that there were difficulties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest and other hon. Members drew attention to the problems that occurred on election day. I am referring to the queues at 10 o’clock. The Electoral Commission, in its report, made the point that that was largely to do with poor planning and poor contingency arrangements on the day. It is worth putting it in context. I am not being complacent or underplaying it, but there are 40,000 polling stations in the United Kingdom and there were issues at 27 of them. The reason why the Government hesitate before we rush off and legislate is that we want to see whether legislating would solve the problem and not create further problems. We want to see whether that is the right way to go. Without wishing to understate the problem, I just think that before we legislate, it is worth thinking about whether that is the right solution.
I will not go into the issue at length. As the hon. Member for Rhondda said, the House had the opportunity earlier this week, because of the amendment that he and his hon. Friends proposed, to debate the matter. The House did debate it and decided not to make the change to the law at this time, but we are considering the Electoral Commission’s report and looking at the right way of solving the problem.
It is worth saying, though, that the law is clear. It has not changed; it has been the law for a considerable time. It is clear that a ballot paper should not be issued after 10 pm, so there is no reason why acting returning officers should be confused about that, and I know that the Electoral Commission will ensure that that guidance is clearly established before the next set of elections.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Has the number of polling stations, particularly in urban areas, reduced and have they become larger?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend puts his finger on a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington raised. In Manchester, there were polling stations that covered too great a geographical area, or far too many electors were expected to vote in them. It is good to hear that Manchester city council has taken steps to address that. It is one of the issues set out in the guidance from the Electoral Commission. It lays out broadly how many electors should be going to a particular polling station, precisely so that if there is a high turnout, that number of electors can be processed smoothly. It is good to hear that in places where we know that there were issues, they are being dealt with. I do not know overall across the country whether there has been a reduction in the number of polling stations.
I suspect that one problem was that given that turnout was lower at the last few general elections and at other elections, as the hon. Member for Rhondda highlighted, some acting returning officers made assumptions that turnout would continue at a low level and were caught unawares when, perhaps because people were more engaged in the election, they took part in it in greater numbers.
Chris Bryant
I am sure that the Minister is absolutely right, and I think that another assumption the officers made was that many more people would vote by post. That has undoubtedly happened: in my constituency we have lost, I think, eight polling stations since I was first elected in 2001, for all sorts of reasons that are pretty much insurmountable. Virtually everyone in those old polling districts now votes by post, notwithstanding the points made earlier by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart).
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I suspect that in some areas people have made assumptions about postal voting. Because of the problems that we have had with such voting at previous elections, quite a lot of my constituents who had decided to vote by post have now gone back to voting in person, partly because they like doing that but also because they feel that it is more secure. Acting returning officers need to take that into account.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and it comes back to accountability—an issue that has been mentioned by a number of Members. I would say a couple of things about that, and about the payments. The returning officer’s job is separate from and in addition to their normal duties, which ensures that in carrying out those duties they are not accountable to politicians, who might have an interest in the election. Returning officers are not paid for just the one night; a lot of planning and preparation goes into ensuring that elections run smoothly. Indeed, some returning officers appoint deputies to help them, and with whom they share the fees. The Government have issued guidance in relation to national elections, which recommends that that happens.
One of the things that Members have highlighted is the issue of what happens if things go wrong: what is the accountability? In Manchester, the council’s chief executive, who is the acting returning officer, has effectively taken the view that because there were problems in one of the constituencies—Manchester, Withington—he would not take his fee for that. Some other returning officers have also taken that view. Members have suggested that someone should have the ability to make such a judgment, and to not pay the fee. We will be experimenting with that idea, to some extent, in the provisions in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Regarding the referendum, the chief counting officer—the chairman of the Electoral Commission—is responsible for its conduct, and appoints regional counting officers and counting officers. Those officers will be the same people as the returning officers, but we will—if Parliament agrees—give the chief counting officer the ability to withhold the fee for their duties in conducting the referendum, if performance is not adequate. We will consider whether that has the desired effect, and will review the measure after the referendum to see whether we might want to consider it more widely.
Mrs Laing
I thank the Minister for his kind remarks earlier. I have for the first time just seen a good point—a plus point—to having the referendum. The Minister will appreciate that that measure could be a sort of pilot scheme for a system of accountability for returning officers, and that would be very welcome.
Mr Harper
I am very pleased that views, certainly on the Government Benches, are hardening in support of our Bill. I look forward to further progress today.
It is worth noting that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest suggested that the Electoral Commission should have more powers to direct returning officers in their conduct of elections—not referendums—the Electoral Commission itself has called for greater accountability, but not for greater powers of direction, with the exception of the referendum, the outcome of which they are responsible for. We will think further about that, but we will first see how the step of making the Electoral Commission responsible for the fee for the referendum works—the pros and cons—and whether it might be something to bring in more widely for returning officers. The difficulty would be in deciding to whom they would be accountable, and who would make that decision. We will, however, look at that further, and it might be something to debate after the referendum.
In the six minutes that remain, let me just deal with some of the other issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, and other Members, raised. One issue that she raised, which was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), was the hypothecation or ring-fencing of funding. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest made two points. For national parliamentary elections, the funding, as she correctly said, is ring-fenced. It comes directly from the Consolidated Fund and the Government say to returning officers that for properly incurred expenditure to do with the election the money is payable from the centre. That is clear, and my hon. Friend made it clear.
The other point is about the money for electoral registration. At the moment, that money is not ring-fenced; it is part of the revenue support grant. I have heard a number of Members state that the money in that revenue support fund is not used for electoral registration, but there is no evidence of that. If people were to bring forward evidence, we would look at the issue very seriously. The hon. Member for Rhondda mentioned those points as well. Given that the electoral registration officer is a senior member of the local authority officer team, the acting returning officer responsible for delivering the elections is often the chief executive, and the other decision makers in local authorities are councillors who have to get elected, I do not understand why we should think it likely that that set of individuals would de-prioritise spending on elections, since that is something in which we as politicians have a great interest. So, I am not convinced intellectually that there should be a problem, and there is very little, if any, evidence that that is happening—if there is, the Government will look at it. It is not just a Treasury rule; it is the general view of this Government that we should allow local authorities to make judgments about how much money needs to be spent in different areas, although they do have legal duties to ensure that elections are well conducted and that the registration system works well.
As we roll out individual voter registration, I hope that we can tackle both sides of the coin. We can deal with the problem of people who are on the register but should not be—a number of Members mentioned that this morning—and, equally importantly, we can look at people who are eligible to vote but are not on the register. The resources issue is important, and I have written to every local authority chief executive about our data-matching pilots. I encourage Members to encourage their local authorities to participate. We hope to enable local authorities to use other public data sources to identify people who are eligible to vote but not on the register, or the other way around, so that they can target them and use limited resources more effectively, to ensure that the register is both accurate and complete. The funding for the pilots will be met from central Government. I encourage Members, particularly if they feel that there are problems in their areas, either with accuracy or completeness, to encourage their local authorities to participate. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), who raised some of those issues.
I have dealt with some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington. It is good to hear that the issue of the number of polling stations has been dealt with. He raised some very good points about the combination of elections, and about a differential franchise between the local, European and parliamentary franchises. We are alive to that issue, with the combined election and referendum that we hope to see next year, and one reason why we have been working very closely with the Electoral Commission and with those responsible for delivering elections is to ensure that there is clear guidance. In their planning for the referendum and the elections, the Electoral Commission and acting returning officers will take exactly that into account, to ensure that in parts of the country where they are not used to such a combination there is clear guidance and clear planning, to avoid those sorts of problems.
Finally, the issue of combination, which the hon. Member for Rhondda raised, is interesting, and we in the House need to think about that more widely. There is a view that no elections should be combined, but given that the Government are looking at more fixed terms, including a fixed term for this Parliament, and are also considering having more elections—for police commissioners for example—it would be difficult to have all those elections on separate days. It is worth thinking about the argument, “If you’re going to combine them you should go for it big time and make sure it’s well done,” and considering whether we effectively have a big democracy day in the same way as they do in the US, where everything is on the same day. It would be helpful if Members thought about that, and I am sure that we will get the opportunity to debate it in due course.
This has been a good debate. We have touched on a number of issues that are very important to Members, and I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest for enabling us to have the debate. I look forward to debating with, or listening to, her this afternoon, when we continue consideration of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Independent Financial Advisers
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I hope the Minister will forgive me for holding this debate on a day when he probably has quite a few other things on. As he knows, however, such debates are a bit of a lottery, and I was not expecting mine to come up today.
According to the Library, this is the first time that the regulation of independent financial advisers has been debated in a Chamber of the House, and we have to ask why. Colleagues on the Treasury Committee discussed the topic yesterday, and I have put my toe in the water by asking for a 30-minute debate today. Given the interest that I have encountered in the issue—I have had a binder full of correspondence since the debate was announced last Wednesday—I anticipate that this is not the last that we will hear of it.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The interest that I have encountered is certainly unprecedented, and I too have a very large binder. Will my hon. Friend work with me to secure a Back-Bench business debate in which we might have an opportunity to debate the issue for up to three hours on the Floor of the House?
Harriett Baldwin
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion and I would be delighted to support it.
IFAs are regulated by the soon-to-be-abolished Financial Services Authority, the independent statutory regulator set up by the previous Government. Banking supervision is to return to the Bank of England, while many other regulatory functions will go to a new consumer protection body. Thus, this seems an opportune time for the House to debate some of the implications of those policies and some of the functions involved.
Fewer people are benefiting from defined-benefit pension schemes. More individuals are being asked to contact an IFA to obtain advice. Many will receive lump sums from an inheritance or perhaps a redundancy payout, and they will need professional advice to make the most of them. With auto-enrolment beginning in a few years’ time, people will also have to decide whether they need to opt out. Many younger people will leave university with student loans. Many older people will need to buy annuities or to make arrangements to pay for long-term care. All those transactions require some financial advice.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I previously worked as a solicitor and employed an independent financial adviser. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is better to receive advice from an independent financial adviser than a tied agent?
Harriett Baldwin
There are indeed advantages, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. He obviously has a lot of experience of dealing with the sector.
It is estimated that there are about 45,000 IFAs in the country, many of whom are sole traders.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Should those tens of thousands of small traders not be encouraged to use their entrepreneurialism to help people save, rather than being squashed by the dead hand of unthinking regulation?
Harriett Baldwin
I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting intervention. I shall come to precisely that point in a moment.
The market for financial advice suffers from comparatively low consumer trust. Consumers find it difficult to engage with the financial services industry—banks are not exactly the most popular institutions in the country at the moment. Economists would describe buying financial products as a transaction in which consumers have asymmetric information; in plain English, the buyer knows a lot less about the product than the seller. There is therefore a need for proper independent advice.
Along with banks, IFAs have been guilty of selling certain products because they give a better commission. Like banks, IFAs have been found to have mis-sold private pensions to public sector workers. Like banks, they have mis-sold high-income precipice bonds. Often, they have sold products that simply performed badly or carried high charges. There is no doubt that the industry’s reputation could be improved.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned the Treasury Committee, and it may be of interest to note that I was in the Committee yesterday when it talked about this issue. Interestingly, the response from the Association of Independent Financial Advisers and the Association of Private Client Investment Managers and Stockbrokers was that the retail distribution review, having started with high ambitions and high principles, not only ran four times over cost, but conducted a somewhat ineffective consultation. I put the question whether, in that aspect at least, it had become a bit of a fiasco, and the witnesses concurred, very much to my surprise. My hon. Friend might want to bear that in mind in future discussions.
Harriett Baldwin
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour. He is a distinguished practitioner and member of the Treasury Committee. I am very interested to hear about the evidence yesterday.
We should not underestimate the costs of mis-sales to consumers. The FSA’s cost-benefit analysis assesses the cost to consumers of the pensions mis-selling scandal at £45 million per annum. In reaction to such circumstances, the FSA has spent the past several years consulting on how to address the issues involved. I share its goal of improving consumers’ perception of the industry and access to high-quality investment advice.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the new regulations will raise the bar in terms of the standard of advisers, which means that there will be fewer financial advisers in future and that individuals’ ability to seek advice will be restricted, not enhanced?
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I will come to that.
The FSA has come up with proposals to address the issue. They are close to final, and the board is likely to take a decision in December. Under the current plans, the proposals will be implemented by the end of 2012. As they stand, the proposals are known as the retail distribution review. As colleagues have suggested, they raise real questions about the role of regulation and the laws of unintended, and indeed intended, consequences in terms of regulation.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Is it not also true that not only will there be a reduction in the number of IFAs, but many of those who have been in the industry for a long time, who are very experienced and who understand the market and customers very well, will unfortunately inadvertently fall foul of the regulations?
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend, who is also a member of the Treasury Committee, makes an extremely important point, which I will mention in a moment.
The impact of the proposals has been brought to my attention by a range of independent financial advisers, who are also constituents. Acting independently of one another, they all came to see me in my advice surgeries. Under the RDR proposals, each IFA should pass a set of exams and then spend at least 35 hours per annum on continuous professional development. Hon. Members should note that the requirement is 35 hours and that 34 hours would not be acceptable. IFAs also need to obtain a statement of professional standing from an accredited body. Someone who, today, is a qualified and approved IFA but who does not meet those requirements by 31 December 2012, will no longer be able to practise his or her profession, despite many years’ experience.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Is not the problem with the RDR that many of our constituents will be left without appropriate financial advice because of the introduction of the new rules? Often it is the most experienced IFAs, with the most years of experience, who will be forced out of the profession.
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I am about to make myself, so I thank him for his helpful intervention.
Advisers will have to charge explicitly for their services and will not be able to accept commissions. Oxera, the market research firm employed by the FSA to assess the costs and benefits of the changes, expects the net present value of the compliance costs to the industry to reach between £1.4 billion and £1.7 billion. Worryingly, the estimate in 2008 was £600 million. That cost will be passed directly to consumers. The latest estimate represents an astonishing 180% increase.
Oxera expects the increase in compliance costs to be passed on to consumers, so they will pay for the changes. Charges will be higher, so sales of financial products will decline. The majority of adviser firms expect a reduction in turnover. Consumers with smaller amounts to invest are much less likely to seek advice if they have to pay for it explicitly. Smaller firms of IFAs are the most likely to exit the market.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
We all want greater transparency in IFAs’ charges, but I am concerned about the direction in which the RDR is going, because of precisely that point. If we go down that route we shall restrict financial advice to the very wealthy, and do nothing to reverse the appalling savings ratio that we have inherited.
Harriett Baldwin
I agree, because according to Oxera’s survey for the FSA, 25% of firms are very or quite likely to leave the market. That will reduce access to advice for those living in rural constituencies such as mine. It will reduce access to advice for those with smaller amounts of money; the charges for explicit advice will be for those with higher sums of money.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there will be a particular effect on rural areas? I live in a rural area, where nearly all the financial advisers are small, one-person businesses. The imposition in relation to costs and time is particularly onerous for them. Many will simply close and the service in rural areas will disappear.
Harriett Baldwin
Yes, I agree. In London it does not really matter if one person goes out of business—there will be lots more financial advice available; but in rural constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend there will be a significant impact on access.
The IFAs in West Worcestershire who have come to my constituency advice surgeries have also raised concerns about the exam. Most of the advisers I have seen have been—I know we should not mention age—in their late 50s or 60s. Speaking for myself—and obviously I am still very young—I am not as good at taking exams now as I was when I left university. That does not mean that I have not accumulated something else over the years. I hope that I have a little more wisdom and experience than I had then.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I have spoken to many local IFAs in my constituency and elsewhere, who provide localised, personal services to individuals who may not be of great net wealth, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) said. Does my hon. Friend agree that asking them questions about international arbitrage and the derivatives market is hardly relevant to the practice they have carried on for many years?
Harriett Baldwin
Indeed, that is a helpful intervention. I received a letter from someone in the north of England who was concerned about having to learn a lot about non-domiciled investors, which they did not think was very relevant in Sheffield.
In financial markets wisdom and experience are valued. Someone who has lived through a boom and bust cycle in the past is much less likely to believe that the latest investment fad will defy the laws of investment gravity. Someone who has seen a few economic cycles is much more likely to understand the ravages of inflation on savings. Someone who has been to a range of conferences over the years is more likely to know when something is really too good to be true. No exam can test that. Yet it is those experienced IFAs, who are often sole practitioners, who will find it hardest to take the time required to pass the specified exams.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
Is not the situation also exacerbated by accounting rules? Being compelled to write off goodwill in one year, it is very difficult for groups of IFAs to acquire the business of smaller IFAs, which compounds the problem.
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point that I had not even thought of.
The experienced IFAs, who are often sole practitioners, will find it hardest to pass the exams. However, someone who has just graduated from university with a bachelor’s degree in financial markets—and I am not knocking that—will be immediately accredited by certain institutions. In the full file that I have received in the past few days are stories from experienced IFAs with unblemished regulatory track records, years of experience, happy clients and no complaints. Yet as a result of the rules, if they do not pass the exams they will not be able to ply their trade on 1 January 2013.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. I have had many letters from concerned constituents about it. Independent financial advisers feel that they will be put at a substantial commercial disadvantage by the new rules.
Harriett Baldwin
There is an important point to be made about how some of the larger organisations, and indeed some banks and bancassurers, will most readily be able to have their staff trained for the exams. However, that raises the question whether the exams will really test the skills needed by a good financial adviser. In the investment world, experience is valued and the FSA is imposing on the market a one-size-fits-all, prescriptive approach to education, at great cost to consumers, in return for a modest benefit.
I have written to the chief executive of the FSA and to date have received a letter, beginning, “Dear Mr Baldwin”, simply reiterating the FSA’s consultation paper conclusions. I would like to ask the Minister to answer a few questions. The FSA is the independent statutory regulator. However, it is answerable ultimately to the Treasury. Does the Minister believe that it is proportionate in the present case to impose a regulatory burden of £1.7 billion on consumers? Is the Minister concerned that up to 25% of smaller advisers are likely to leave the industry, handing a competitive advantage to banks and bancassurers? Is he convinced that the banks will not be able to find a way to reward employees for pushing certain products? Does he share my concern that the FSA’s own impact assessment suggests that those who get reduced access to advice are likely to be the smaller, poorer consumers in more remote areas?
Does the Minister think that there might be a more proportionate way for the FSA to achieve its objectives? For example, IFAs who have passed exams could add the letters of qualification to their business cards. Consumers could then be educated and could choose an unqualified adviser if they preferred, but would come to know over time that there was a brand to the qualification.
Jesse Norman
There is also a simple solution for firms of more than one person, which is that the senior member can sign off on the work or qualification of the person who has not received formal accreditation. That allows for the sharing of liability, the preservation of standards within the firm and the guarantee of good quality to the customer.
Harriett Baldwin
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful suggestion.
I would also like to ask the Minister how changing from commissions, which are currently exempt from VAT, to advice, which will attract VAT, will not add a further cost for consumers.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
On the subject of commissions, the IFAs in High Peak who have spoken to me are concerned that removing the option of commission and replacing it with up-front charges will prevent people from getting the independent financial advice they need. Conversely it will prevent IFAs from taking the exams, because of the downturn in work. That means many people will not get the independent financial advice they will need.
Harriett Baldwin
Yes, that is a question to be considered as well.
Does the Minister really believe that consumers should not be allowed to choose whether they pay explicitly for advice or whether they pay through commission? Does he believe that it is consistent with UK legislation retrospectively to change the qualification regime for a whole class of practitioners? Finally, does he agree with one commentator, who described the RDR as
“a sledgehammer to miss a nut”?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
I think that that commentator was my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood).
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on securing the debate. She said that it is the first debate we have had on IFAs for some time, which surprises me given the amount of interest it has generated and the volume of correspondence that hon. Members received during the previous Parliament about the RDR.
The structure of regulation in the UK means that regulation is the responsibility of the FSA, not the Treasury. Treasury Ministers cannot dictate to the FSA how it should do its job. That might seem to my hon. Friends an attractive idea in the present circumstance, but they may be able to think of other circumstances where it would be less attractive. Today of course we are announcing the settlement in relation to Equitable Life. Those losses arose when the Government were responsible for the regulation of financial services, so do not be tempted down the route of suggesting that the Treasury should do all financial regulation.
Access to high-quality and independent financial advice is vital to increasing confidence in the financial sector and to ensuring that people are encouraged to save, plan for the future and make appropriate choices. As my hon. Friend said in her speech, the impact of receiving poor adviser advice can be financially disastrous for the consumer. We do not need to go far to find evidence of that—look at cases of widespread mis-selling of products such as pensions and endowments and, more recently, of structured products.
The Financial Services Authority’s view is that the regulation of independent financial advisers, in particular through the retail distribution review, is essential in rebuilding trust in the industry when confidence in financial services is at an all-time low.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Minister is clearly outlining that risks are involved in the advice given by independent financial advisers. Does he agree that a risk-based approach, which is responding to complaints and which might require longer-standing financial advisers to undergo retraining, could be a better way of tackling the issue?
Mr Hoban
That is an interesting point, but my hon. Friend should bear in mind that with some products, which might be long term, it can be some time before an issue emerges. If people buy a product in their 30s—a pension product, for example—they might only find out in their 60s that they had been mis-sold something. There is a real issue about looking at complaints records in that way.
The retail distribution review aims to address the structural problems in the distribution of retail financial products, such as conflicts of interest, transparency and professional standards. Although the RDR is the responsibility of the FSA, I fully support its aims—all colleagues should support those objectives. I hope that the RDR will lead to increased confidence, simplicity and clarity in the financial advice sector.
On professionalism, hon. Members are familiar with the fact that the rules seek to ensure that all financial advisers adhere to common professional standards, including an increased minimum qualification level, effective maintenance of knowledge and subscription to a code of ethics. The current minimum financial adviser qualification is at the same level as a diploma in shift management offered by McDonald’s. We should all reflect on that for a moment: the products being sold by IFAs are infinitely more complex and more long-lasting in their effect than a Big Mac.
The rules aim to improve trust and the service offered to consumers. Consumers will have confidence that their financial adviser is up to the job. Investment advice will be seen as a professional activity, financial advisers will have a new status and fresh talent will be attracted to the industry. The FSA reports that, rather than being put off by studying, many financial advisers are going on to obtain more advanced qualifications than those required by the RDR. One of my constituents, who is an IFA, has said that when the FSA raised the minimum bar he wanted to go even further, to demonstrate that his qualifications, knowledge and technical expertise went beyond those of his peers. The FSA also noted that take-up for financial planning degree courses has increased.
I know that many financial advisers have concerns about meeting the increased qualification standards required by the RDR, but almost half of advisers already meet the required level, with two years to go before the RDR is introduced.
Many financial advisers feel that the new rules should be “grandfathered,” so that those advisers with experience are exempt. However, how do we know how good those advisers are? Someone might have been in the industry for some time, but is that necessarily a guarantee of the technical expertise and quality of advice?
Mr Hoban
I only have seven minutes left and my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire gave way quite a lot, so I would like to make some progress.
The existing qualification requirements for advisers focus mainly on knowledge, whereas the new higher level is primarily about understanding and applying that knowledge, which are core skills for every adviser to demonstrate. The result is a level playing field where consumers can have confidence that their adviser meets a required standard.
IFAs are not the only people who have an interest in this debate. The consumer group Which? welcomes the FSA’s increased standard, as it does not feel that the current qualification level is sufficient.
Advisers are required to maintain competence under the FSA’s current rules as part of their approval conditions, and so those advisers that have actively engaged in maintaining competence by keeping up to date with market developments should not have to commit a significant amount of time to study. Continuing professional development can be used to fill any gaps between existing and revised examination standards, and financial advisers can opt to undertake an alternative basis of assessment, instead of a traditional written qualification. That addresses one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire, about how someone who is slightly long in the tooth, as I am, might not be as exam-ready as someone straight out of university. The alternative assessment might well help advisers in such a situation.
On adviser charging, at present financial advisers earn different amounts of money as commission payments, depending on which particular firm they recommend a product from and on what product they recommend. That creates a potential conflict of interest which can be damaging to consumers and undermines trust in the investment industry. The RDR rules on adviser charging are designed to tackle the risk, as well as the perception that commission paid by product providers might bias advice.
FSA consumer research also found that only half of respondents understood how the value of their product would be affected by commission. To add to that, in October 2007, Which? conducted a survey of IFAs and found that 82% of advisers failed to explain the document on the key facts about the costs or to have a meaningful discussion with their client about how advice would be paid for. There is a big issue to be addressed—getting people to understand how they are paying for advice at the moment—and IFAs have a role to play.
It should be noted that consumers already pay for advice, through the commission structure in their product. We are not doing anything new by ensuring that consumers know how much advice costs. It is important that consumers understand the value that good financial advice can add and that we create a much more transparent market in which advisers compete on cost and quality. That is a good outcome for consumers.
My hon. Friend mentioned how banks reward employees for pushing certain products—I understand her point—and the FSA is to look into how the reward structures of in-house sales staff in banks affect their performance.
On ability to pay for advice, we need to bear in mind that not enough people are in receipt of financial advice. That is one of the reasons why our party, in opposition and now as part of the coalition Government, has been able to support the Consumer Financial Education Body, the introduction of a social responsibility levy on the financial services sector and the funding of a free national advice service, which will help people review their financial affairs regularly, plan ahead and ensure that they hold appropriate products. Such measures will help to tackle some of the advice gap. I hope that the industry will work in partnership with the CFEB and the Government to ensure access to financial advice.
A number of my hon. Friends raised the issue of the disproportionate impact of RDR on small firms. I appreciate that concern. Smaller IFA firms, in remote areas in particular, will feel the impact, and they are more likely to struggle to meet the challenges of the RDR proposal, unlike the larger IFA firms and the banks, and instead might decide to exit the market. However, the RDR will apply to all advisers in the retail investment market, not just to IFAs.
Although the change will bring challenges in the short term, it is important that we see the advice sector grow and strengthen in the long term. New and existing firms can increase supply in the long term to meet that demand, and indeed the FSA has found that a larger proportion of the costs of the RDR will be borne by larger firms.
In respect of the costs being passed on to the consumer, it is true that with the RDR come implementation costs. The Oxera research commissioned by the FSA found that such costs could translate into higher prices placed on consumers in the short term. However, over the longer term, it concluded that the higher prices could be competed away through increased transparency of prices, encouraging consumers to shop around.
I could respond to many more issues. I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire on RDR and tax issues.
We all want to ensure that consumers have access to good-quality advice, delivered in a transparent and professional way, so that people understand what they are buying and have paid for. I believe that that will be taking a major step forward in improving the financial outcomes for our constituents.
Ahmadiyya Community
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Let me start by apologising for any words that I may pronounce incorrectly. No insult is intended, and I stand to be corrected on my pronunciation. For someone with a name like Siobhain McDonagh, that is quite a thing.
Britain’s Ahmadiyya Muslims work hard and contribute greatly to this country. Their belief in peace and religious tolerance is an example to us all, and is to be expected from a community whose motto is, “Love for all and hatred for none.” Their fifth spiritual head, Mirza Masroor Ahmad, lives in the United Kingdom, and their headquarters are in south London. Indeed, one of the world’s biggest Ahmadi mosques is in Morden. It has capacity for 10,000 people, which means that I have many Ahmadi constituents, as do many neighbouring seats. I am pleased to say that we now have the backing of enough parliamentarians to start up an all-party parliamentary group for the Ahmadiyyan community, and we will hold our first ever meeting in the next few weeks.
In my experience, my Ahmadi constituents are well-educated, cultured and have a sophisticated and peace-loving approach. I am therefore delighted to be granted this opportunity to talk about the Ahmadiyyan community. I understand that this is the first ever parliamentary debate specifically to discuss the Ahmadiyya faith, and it is a great honour to be leading it. However, I am extremely sorry to bring this community’s concerns to the House at this particular time. The circumstances that led me to ask for a debate are extremely sad. On 28 May, nearly 100 Ahmadiyya Muslim worshippers were brutally murdered in two separate attacks in Lahore. However, what makes the story especially poignant is not just the fact that the Ahmadi are so peaceful but that their murderers were also Muslim. What I hope to do today is to examine why the attacks took place, then ask whether there is anything that we in Britain and the wider community can do to prevent such atrocities happening again in the future. Finally, I want to assess what the implications are for Britain of how the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan is treated and what we can do about it.
To begin, I need to say a few words of introduction about the Ahmadiyyans. Despite the fact that they have translated the holy Koran into more than 60 languages, span 195 countries and have more than 15,000 mosques and a membership exceeding tens of millions, theirs is a faith that is little known outside their community. The Ahmadiyya Muslim community was founded in 1889 and arose out of the belief that the long-awaited Messiah had come in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. Ahmad claimed to be the metaphorical second coming whose advent was foretold by Mohammed. Obviously, that contradicts the view of mainstream Muslims who believe that Mohammed is the last prophet. Nevertheless, the Ahmadiyya Muslim community is a very peaceful religion. They believe that there are parallels between Ahmad and Jesus, as God sent both to end religious wars, contend bloodshed and bring peace. For instance, they reject terrorism in any form. Ahmad declared that jihad by the sword had no place in Islam. Instead, he wanted his followers to wage a bloodless, intellectual jihad of the pen to defend Islam.
In a similar vein, Ahmadis believe that theirs is the only Islamic organisation to endorse a separation of mosque and state and to champion the empowerment and education of women. Ahmad also warned his followers not to engage in irrational interpretations of the Koran or to misapply Islamic law. In Britain today, we regard such attributes as modern and tolerant. However, those values are not shared by some other Muslim traditions, particularly those with a more fundamentalist viewpoint. For such fundamentalists, belief in a false prophet is heretical enough, but for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community also to follow teachings that fundamentalists believe are wrong is adding insult to injury. Consequently, Ahmadis have long faced persecution. Their first martyr was killed in custody in 1901, and it is estimated that there have been about 200 deaths in total. Of course, religious disagreements have cost countless lives over the years throughout the world. Religions have a long and very unhappy history of attacking each other for worshipping the wrong prophet, even much closer to home than in Pakistan.
I am a Catholic and we are as guilty as anyone. A Catholic pope promised heaven to mediaeval thugs who took part in murderous crusades against followers of a prophet whom they believed was false—Mohammed. That period of history continues to haunt us. This country is not immune to using discrimination against religions we have not liked, with Catholics on this occasion often being the victims. It is only a few years ago that I helped to change the law to allow former Catholic priests to become MPs. Although that law was a throwback to a much earlier time, there are, even in our more recent history, examples of discrimination of which we should not be proud, particularly in Northern Ireland. It is hard therefore to stand here and lecture other countries about their practices, and we need to remain humble. The fact that religions have been persecuting each other for centuries does not make it right, especially in Pakistan where extreme groups such as the Taliban are already very active in creating a lot of volatility.
We are lucky in this country in that, on the whole, our religions can carry on side by side without conflict, respecting each other’s right to worship. In Pakistan, most mainstream Muslims are horrified that anything could happen to their fellow countrymen just because they have a different religion. They are as shocked as we are by attacks such as those in Lahore. However, discrimination is an everyday reality for many Ahmadis living in Pakistan, and it is embedded in the Pakistani constitution.
Pakistan’s founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, may have said that the country should be a secular state in which all were equal and religion was no business of the state, but today’s Ahmadis do not enjoy equality. Pakistan was created in 1947. In 1948, Major Dr Mahmood Ahmed was lynched by a mob at Quetta. In 1950, Ahmadis were murdered in Charsadda, Okara, Rawalpindi and Mansehra. By 1974, riots and killings, attacks on mosques, assaults, arson and looting were widespread, and the organs of the state were not neutral. The police arrested victims and not perpetrators. In September 1974, Prime Minister Bhutto amended the constitution and declared that Ahmadis were officially non-Muslim. That was followed in the 1980s by measures introduced by Zia ul-Haq’s Government to Islamicise Pakistan’s laws.
In 1984, Ordinance 20 significantly restricted Ahmadi freedom of religion or expression, threatening up to three years in jail for any Ahmadi who, for example, called themselves a Muslim. Since then, thousands of Ahmadis have been arrested. In 1989 and again in 2008, the entire 50,000 population of the Rabwah was charged with practising Islamic worship. Ahmadis are prevented from holding public meetings and are not even able to vote or to register to vote because registering to vote would require them to deny their faith. Ahmadis are barred from entry to public office except at the lowest level. In order to claim to be a Muslim on the Pakistani passport, they are forced to sign a declaration that says:
“I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be an imposter.”
Persecution by the state is at times systematic. My fear is that such discrimination helps to feed the ideology of groups such as the Taliban and offers them a justification for some of their worst excesses. It does not legitimise what they do, but it might make them feel, wrongly, that they have some kind of legitimacy. Even if there was no violence, it makes Ahmadis feel threatened. Therefore, the Pakistan constitution poses a problem, as it gives some perverse encouragement to extremists and belittles the Ahmadi community.
Non-state persecution of Ahmadis is very worrying and appears to be growing. According to Pakistan’s Human Rights Commission, Ahmadis face the worst treatment of anyone in Pakistan. The media there are often virulently anti-Ahmadi, broadcasting phrases such as, “Ahmadis deserve to die.” In particular, the Khatme Nabuwwat movement carries out regular activities to oppose Ahmadi Muslims. It calls for the banning of Ahmadiyyat and for the killing of Ahmadis. It incites attacks against Ahmadis in speech and broadcast, and is credited with introducing the widely used phrase, “wajibul qatl” which means “those who deserve to be killed”.
In the past decade, there has been an increasing number of murders and attacks of Ahmadis, and an increase in the number of pre-planned and targeted attacks on Ahmadi mosques by Islamist militants. As we know, those attacks culminated in the Lahore attacks, when two mosques were stormed in a well-planned assault that lasted for about four hours. At one stage, more than 1,000 worshippers were trapped in the Darul Zikr mosque, trying to escape militants armed with guns and grenades. The Baitun Noor mosque was also stormed in a co-ordinated attack. The multiple suicide attacks by the Punjabi Taliban took place slowly, with terrorists methodically throwing hand-grenades among their hostages and climbing the minarets to fire at them from above. When the attackers started to run out of ammunition, they began detonating their explosive vests. Although the police came, they arrived late—even after the media arrived—and the only attackers who were caught were captured by unarmed Ahmadis.
The loss of life and the prolonged and bloody siege prompted widespread condemnation and global media coverage, and it is the reason why we have asked for this debate today. Many people have been in touch with me about the outrage in Lahore. Shortly after the murders, I spoke personally with Rafiq Hayat, the head of the UK’s Ahmadi community. I wanted him to know that I was very concerned about what had happened and I wanted to see if I could do anything more to help.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
In my constituency, the attacks in Lahore in May sent a shockwave through the local Ahmadi community. However, I was very impressed that, despite that sense of shock, several months later the community displayed its altruistic and inclusive nature when it invited representatives of many different faiths in my constituency—Christian, Hindu, Sikh and Muslim—to come together for a celebration at the end of Ramadan. Is that not a great example of the way forward and of how we can include all communities together, with respect for all different faiths and religions?
Siobhain McDonagh
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman and, as I have been arguing, such inclusiveness is the hallmark of the Ahmadi faith.
We thought that it was important that Britain send a strong message to Pakistan after the attacks in Lahore, saying that we were appalled by what had happened and that more must be done to support Ahmadi worshippers in that country. At the time of the attacks in Lahore, we were concerned that the British Government should highlight both Pakistan’s duty to protect Ahmadis and the poor treatment that Ahmadis receive in Pakistan. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) said when he was my party’s foreign affairs spokesperson:
“It is when the international community has taken its eye off the ball in Pakistan that instability has increased…Internally, Pakistan has a duty to protect minority groups and needs the support of its allies to do so.”
Rafiq Hayat told me that he agreed with that sentiment and I hope that the Minister can join us in expressing the Government’s views to the Pakistan Government in his speech later in the debate.
I am concerned that the discrimination against Ahmadis that is embedded in the Pakistani constitution can be construed by militants as giving them legitimacy. The Pakistani Government are already facing many difficulties with al-Qaeda and other militant groups, and the British Government need to work hard to convince them to help to fight global Islamic terrorism. As the June issue of Terrorism Monitor notes:
“As the Pakistani Taliban are trying to spread their war on the Pakistani state, they are likely to continue to target minorities like the Ahmadis in their efforts to create instability.”
If we do not persuade mainstream politicians in Pakistan to stand up for the Ahmadi Muslim community, we risk further Islamicist militancy. Moreover, if the militancy continues in Pakistan, it not only threatens Ahmadis but the whole international community. After all, any increase in Islamicist activities also affects us here in the UK, so it is in our own interests for the Government to seek to persuade Pakistan’s Government to show more tolerance to the Ahmadi Muslim community.
I therefore urge the Minister to ask his colleagues to raise this matter with Pakistani Ministers in the course of their regular meetings and to keep the new all-party group informed of any progress. The truth is that the Pakistani extremists’ hatred of Ahmadis is already being exported. In fact, it is here in the UK today.
Last week, south London local newspapers carried front page articles about discrimination against and intimidation of Britain’s Ahmadi community. The police are appealing for information about inflammatory leaflets that have been distributed across south London, apparently by Khatme Nabuwwat, as part of a targeted ideological campaign, and they have said that an investigation into alleged hate crimes is ongoing. They have also said that a teenage Ahmadi girl gave them a statement, claiming that a leaflet that was written in Urdu said:
“Kill a Qadiyani and doors to heaven will open to you”.
Another KN leaflet, entitled “Deception of the Qadiyani”, was recently displayed in the window of the Sabina Hair and Cosmetic shop in Mitcham road, Tooting. When the local Guardian newspaper confronted staff at the shop to ask why they had put up the leaflet, a worker said:
“These people are not Muslims. I did it myself. They don’t believe that prophet Mohammed is the last prophet.”
Many Ahmadi shopkeepers are worried about the future of their businesses after clerics demanded a boycott of their shops. Imam Suliman Gani, of the Tooting Islamic Centre, apparently pleaded with the owner of the Lahore halal meat shop in Tooting not to sell his business to an Ahmadi man, saying:
“Since the Qadiyanis are routinely deceptive about their religion, there was a potential risk of Muslims being offered meat that wasn’t necessarily halal.”
Yet another leaflet that was posted on the wall of the Streatham mosque called for a boycott of the Lahore halal meat store.
The discrimination is increasing. An Ahmadi butcher who came to London in 2001 after fleeing Pakistan has just won an employment tribunal after being sacked by the owner of the Haji halal meat shop in upper Tooting. The owner, Azizur Rahman, had put pressure on his employee to convert to the Sunni Muslim faith. Apparently, Mr Rahman said that pressure was placed on him
“by the head of the Sunni sect who had helped Mr Rahman to gain admission for his daughters to a single sex school for girls.”
Mr Rahman also claimed that he had been influenced by a conference hosted by KN at the Tooting Islamic centre in March, where worshippers were ordered to boycott Ahmadi-run shops. During that conference, the KN’s Abdul Rehman Bawa said:
“I don’t know why our sisters or mothers are talking with these Qadiyani and making friendships...Don’t make friends with them...They are trying to deceive you, they are trying to convert you from Islam to Qadiyanism.”
According to the local Guardian newspaper, the owner of one Tooting halal butchers shop said that his trade had virtually halved in three months, and claimed:
“Some people refuse to come here just because I am Ahmadi. They use words against me like ‘Kafir’, which means I am not Muslim. I’ve lived here for 13 years and lots of people know me in Tooting, but this situation has become so much worse now.”
Furthermore, the Tooting Islamic centre was at the centre of another controversy, when an election hustings in April was disrupted by anti-Ahmadi protests. The Tory candidate was mistaken by a group of fundamentalists for the Liberal Democrat candidate, who is an Ahmadi, and he had to be locked into a room for his own safety.
I appreciate that not everything that appears in the newspapers is the whole truth and that the real story about anti-Ahmadi activities in this country may be more complicated and untypical. I also do not want to focus on Tooting any more than anywhere else, because I have lived in the Tooting area all my life and there is nowhere else in the world that I would prefer to live. My own experience is that the vast majority of mainstream Muslims are wonderful people and respect their local communities in peace.
We are still a long, long way from a Lahore-style attack happening in south London, but the emergence of anti-Ahmadi activity is a great concern. I ask the Minister to address the issue of how groups originating in Pakistan are encouraging illegal discrimination and inciting hatred in this country, and to raise it with colleagues at the Home Office and other agencies, including the police. None of us wants to see the Pakistani attacks repeated anywhere else. The Pakistani Taliban and groups such as KN have no place in a tolerant society and Ministers must exploit all this country’s diplomatic skills to work with the Pakistani Government.
In the UK, most of the time, people from different religions live side by side, even though we each believe that the other worships a false prophet. I include the vast majority of the mainstream Muslim community in that. Muslims are among the most peaceful, tolerant and understanding people in our community, and I say that as a south London MP with a very diverse constituency. However, for the sake of Ahmadis here and in Pakistan we must work towards a greater understanding of the Ahmadi Muslim community.
I hope that the Minister can make a commitment today to raising our concerns with his colleagues in the Home Office and the Foreign Office, with the police, with the Pakistani Government and with the Commonwealth. I also hope that our new all-party group will contribute towards a greater understanding of Ahmadis, because our aim is for the whole world to share and respect the Ahmadi slogan, “Love for all and hatred for none”.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Brooke. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this debate. In spite of our political differences, we often make common cause on issues. I hope that she will therefore welcome the fact that the funding for St Helier hospital has been re-announced in today’s comprehensive spending review; that is a success that she can share with me and, indeed, with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow). I am also pleased to make common cause with the hon. Lady in supporting the Ahmadiyya community. I support her work and welcome the fact that she is setting up an all-party parliamentary group on the issue. I am happy to be a member of that group and to facilitate its establishment.
In her opening remarks, the hon. Lady outlined well the position of the Ahmadiyya community around the world and the difficulties and risks that Ahmadiyyas face in seeking to practise their peaceful religion in various countries. Like her, I have had the pleasure of visiting the mosque in Morden. I went a couple of weeks ago with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, who I know would have wanted to participate in this debate if his ministerial duties had not kept him elsewhere. We talk a lot about the big society at the moment. The building of the mosque is a good example of how a community can work together and draw on the resources at its disposal. It is a mosque of great stature and presence, and it sets an example for the rest of us. Hon. Members who visit can see the library, the TV station and the facilities for both men and women to worship.
I also welcome the fact that in a similar big-society vein, the Ahmadiyya community is working locally with other faiths to secure a large open space immediately opposite the mosque for the widest possible community use. For me, that is the thing that resonates most and comes across most strongly about that community: the willingness to work with other faiths and people of no faith on issues that are important to us all. That is one of the community’s strengths that we should respect, which is why it is particularly depressing that, as the hon. Lady described, Ahmadiyyas face such risks and challenges around the world and, increasingly, in the UK. I will not repeat the examples that she quoted, but I will say one thing about the incident at the Bentall centre in Kingston. Those who know Kingston will know that if people are inciting hatred and potentially putting lives at risk in the Bentall centre, we have a wider problem in the country as a whole. One could not find a more affluent middle-class environment than the Bentall centre.
When the Minister responds, will he clarify what discussions he is having with the Home Office about the issue, particularly in relation to the Prevent agenda? The Prevent agenda—it is currently under review, which I welcome—is about preventing extremism from developing within communities. It seems to me that there is a risk of that at present, and I hope that he has had or will have discussions with the Home Office about how the Prevent agenda can be brought to bear on the issue. He might also be able to comment on the YouTube clips. I do not know whether he has had an opportunity to see them; I recommend that he does so, and that he reads the translations provided. He might then want to reflect, if he has not already done so, on whether there are implications under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 for some of the statements being made.
That is where I shall leave my comments, as many other hon. Members clearly want to speak. What I have seen on YouTube seems to go beyond a discussion about the relative merits of religions, which is what I think we all want to facilitate, and the Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office need to respond to that agenda. I hope that we will hear a forceful response from the Minister shortly.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise for being absent, Mrs Brooke; I will be chairing a meeting at half-past 3, so I will miss the Front-Bench responses. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) not just on securing this debate but on her continued commitment to the Ahmadiyya community over the years and her dedication to a constituency that she clearly loves, although she could relocate to Hayes.
For me, the issue is fairly straightforward. In this debate, we are setting the agenda for our new all-party group. The two issues topmost on that agenda will be the discrimination that might be occurring in this country and attempts to divide our communities, but the attacks in Pakistan are also an issue. Over the years, many of us have signed early-day motions on discrimination, but we are deeply shocked by the attacks in Lahore. I think the head count was 94 dead and at least 100 injured, some very seriously. The severity and scale of the attacks gave us a shock.
All parties have made representations to the Pakistani Government about discrimination against Ahmadiyyas, as did the previous and incoming Foreign Secretaries, but we still have had no movement on some key issues. First, working with Human Rights Watch, we asked for the repeal of the blasphemy laws in order to eradicate them from the Pakistani legal system. Secondly, we mentioned the failure over years to prosecute the perpetrators of attacks on the Ahmadiyya community. I am aware of no prosecution in the past 15 years in Pakistan for a serious attack on members of that community. Thirdly, we attempted to see how we could work with the Pakistani Government to combat persecution and harassment overall and understand in greater depth the motivations for such attacks. In many cases, it is small groups of extremists who perpetrate such attacks, but a culture of victimisation, persecution and discrimination against the Ahmadiyya community has also built up in Pakistan and infiltrated other communities around the world. I will welcome any Ministers who come along to the early meetings of the all-party group to report on the progress that they have made in their representations to the Pakistani Government on those three issues.
We are now encountering problems in this country. My constituency has a relatively small but active Ahmadiyya community. I convene a regular meeting of religious leaders in my community every couple of months. The Ahmadiyyas are active representatives who have involved themselves in every community campaign and every charitable act and target that we have set ourselves, ranging from getting involved in local community groups and festivals to running marathons. They are excellent contributors to the local community.
The Ahmadiyyas in my area have set up a centre in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Mr Randall). It has taken over the old Irish centre, of which I was a member, the Irish community there having moved elsewhere. I will miss having a pint of Guinness there, but I welcome the centre. Immediately the centre was established, it opened its doors to the wider community. We had a session there a few weeks ago on the theme, “Love for all, hatred for none” in which representatives from the local community and all religions were invited in for a genuine discussion of local issues that we should address together. It demonstrated the commitment of the Ahmadiyya community to my local area.
We have also launched an ad campaign in Uxbridge featuring “Love for all, hatred for none” on the sides of buses. In addition, the Ahmadiyya community leafleted every house in my constituency with a similar message of peace. In my area, all that work is establishing the Ahmadiyya community in a very close, warm and encouraging relationship with the wider community. However, there are real fears about what has happened in south London and that the situation will infect the wider community, resulting in further victimisation, discrimination and, indeed, persecution of the Ahmadiyya community in this country.
For that reason, I hope that the second item on our all-party group agenda will be about receiving a report back from Ministers on the issues surrounding liaison, through the Home Office, with the Metropolitan police. What monitoring of these activities is going on, and what intelligence do we have? We then need to consider how to devise a strategy to deal with the matter. The problems under discussion are based on profound ignorance, which some elements within our society are willing to exploit to their advantage. If we can nip that in the bud at the earliest opportunity, combating discrimination against the Ahmadiyya community may shine as an example that could well provide us with lessons we can learn from in relation to Pakistan and elsewhere.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing an important and timely debate. In my constituency of Battersea, like so many London seats, there are communities of people who have come to the UK from all over the world—some many decades ago and some more recently. During the four years that I was a candidate and in the five months that I have been an MP, I have met and visited a number of different faith communities to get to know them and understand their concerns. The Ahmadi are one of those communities.
Although I was previously unfamiliar with the beliefs and traditions of the Ahmadiyyan faith, from my first introduction to the community I have been made very welcome and kept well informed. I am grateful to the Ahmadiyyan national president Mr Rafiq Hayat, my local Battersea president Mr Tariq Uppal and my friend Tariq Ahmed for the efforts they and others have made to keep me briefed about issues of interest and concern. I am also grateful to them for ensuring that I know more about the Ahmadi and the important role that they play in the life of this country and my local community.
The London mosque, a very long established place of worship and the site of the head office of the Ahmadiyyan Muslim Community UK, is in my neighbouring constituency of Putney. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), is currently in the main Chamber, but she has a long-standing and positive relationship with the Ahmadi community and is taking a close interest in this afternoon’s debate.
I was aware of the long-standing tension that exists between some other Muslim faith groups and the Ahmadi Muslim community, especially in Pakistan where—as has been mentioned—persecution of the Ahmadis is, sadly, written into the constitution. However, it was still a huge shock and very distressing to hear of the Lahore massacres in May. They have been described already. Those worshippers were murdered with grenades, suicide vests and automatic weapons. As we heard, many people were killed and injured. Tragically, a local Putney resident—a much-loved husband and father, Mr Muhammad Bilal—was one of those people murdered.
Although one of our fellow citizens was caught up in the dreadful events in Lahore, it is always tempting to look at bad things happening in a foreign land and hope that we might somehow be insulated from them. We might be tempted to think that such events spring from a tradition very different from our own and that it could not happen here. However, this country has long-standing and very close political and diplomatic ties with Pakistan, which have been reinforced through the bonds of friendship and family over many decades. That has been manifested in many positive ways. Most recently, there has been a hugely generous response from the British people to the devastating floods that affected millions of people in Pakistan.
However, there have also been some less welcome developments that have resulted in part from the ongoing close ties of culture and religion between Pakistan and its diaspora. The Ahmadi Muslim community in the UK has noticed that disturbing trend in the months since the Lahore massacres. As has been alluded to, the persecution of Ahmadis has intensified in tone and frequency around our country, particularly in south-west London. There have been the incidents described today of intimidation during the general election, and posters and leaflets with aggressive and derogatory messages have appeared around the area. I have been shown images of posters put up in Scotland that denounce Ahmadis as infidels and publish their place of worship. That leaves those observing the poster to read between the lines.
As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has said, many local newspapers, including the Wandsworth Guardian, have reported on organised boycotts of Ahmadi- owned businesses. Much of the written material that has appeared treads a conscious line between what is illegal and what is merely very unpleasant. A recent Ofcom investigation into provocative broadcasts by faith-based satellite TV channels was hampered by uncertainty about where some programmes had been shown. Translation has also sometimes proved a problem, with the exact nuances of some terms often disputed, even though the intent is obvious. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to keep a close liaison with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport with regard to broadcasting guidelines to ensure that loopholes are not exploited in such a way. I am certainly confident that we are not talking about restricting the right of free speech; we are talking about ensuring that people do not exploit loopholes to do the very opposite of the notion of free speech.
Whatever the details of individual events, we do not have to read too far between the lines to see that a deeply worrying trend is developing. Throughout history, we have seen where such trends have led. Indeed, we are reminded by the origins of the word “boycott” of the sectarian divisions that have scarred Ireland for many centuries. We must speak out now against persecution at home and abroad. Rather than keep our silence or let things be too low key, we must speak out before it is too late and further tragedies take place abroad or here.
I do not know, and actually I do not care, about the doctrinal differences that underpin so much of this unpleasant activity. I care about this country’s tradition of religious tolerance, which we were rightly reminded earlier is still evolving and is not perfect. Nevertheless, we can take some pride in it. That tradition must embrace and protect the Ahmadi community, as it has protected other religious groups before. It is a tradition of religious tolerance that we urge Governments around the world to adopt and that our own Government should encourage at all times. I am sure the Minister will touch on that.
In the UK, I welcome the measures already taken by the borough commander of Wandsworth police to investigate what is happening in my local community. That investigation was urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and others, and is supported by Wandsworth council, as well as many councillors and community leaders. There is more that can and should be done by all Members of Parliament to give leadership to attempts to combat rising intolerance. I will certainly be playing my part, and I am glad that this debate has offered us all the opportunity to draw attention to this very grave matter.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I will contribute briefly to the debate, because most of the points have already been very well made by other hon. Members. I represent Scunthorpe county constituency. Picking up the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made in initiating the debate, prejudice is unfortunately something that we must live and work with in all our communities and get the better of through tolerance.
A few years ago, an Ahmadi community came to Scunthorpe and applied for planning permission for a mosque. That drew huge objections from the local community. However, the planning application was perfectly correct and went through. The mosque was built and those who lived in the community got on with their lives. A few months after the mosque had been established and opened, the neighbour who had led the series of objections knocked on the door of the mosque. They said to the person who answered the door, “I just wanted to apologise for having led that process of objection because you have been fantastic neighbours. You contribute to the community and we are proud to have you as our neighbour.”
That little story demonstrates the way in which prejudice is often overcome by people living together and becoming more knowledgeable about each other. The sadness of the situation in Pakistan is that that does not appear to be the case. I agree with the comments already made: whatever the British Government can do in working with the Pakistani authorities to try to address the concerns about intolerance and violence towards the Ahmadi community in Pakistan would be very welcome. We must be ever-vigilant in this country to ensure that our tradition of religious tolerance is protected and celebrated. We must also ensure that the incidents that we have sadly heard about this afternoon and that have been reported more recently in the press do not increase. We must ensure that such incidents lessen, so that there is an increased growth in tolerance. Thank you for letting me contribute to the debate, Mrs Brooke.
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
Would any other hon. Member like to make a contribution? If not, I call John Spellar.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to address Westminster Hall for the first time from the Front Bench as a deputy member of the Labour party’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office team. It is also a pleasure to face the Minister, who strikes the right balance between being properly partisan—I heard him shouting and bawling from the Back Benches when he was in opposition—and always being seen as competent and, even more significantly, fair-minded. Perhaps I can compromise him further with his Whips Office by saying that there is a compromising picture of him and me opening Paula Radcliffe way in his constituency. I can assure him, however, that normal service will resume in later exchanges on the Floor of the House.
It is also a pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who once again showed her qualities as a tenacious campaigner. She has turned a marginal seat, which was previously not held by the Labour party, into a safe seat, and that is based on the enormous service that she has given her constituents. She has demonstrated again today her engagement with them and the battles that she has fought on their behalf.
My hon. Friend has not only raised an important issue, but paid proper tribute to members of the Ahmadi faith, their contribution to community life in her constituency and their success in founding businesses and being part of economic life in her constituency and the country. My hon. Friend is right to be proud of that success, but as I often tell groups and individuals in my constituency, we can also be proud of the fact that we live in a country where such success is possible. There are a whole number of reasons for that, and we must fight to defend our values and customs so that such things remain possible and groups can succeed.
People of different faiths, beliefs and races can live peacefully side by side in this country. I was very much taken by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who spoke of a group that had led a campaign against a mosque. Its members recognised that they had been wrong, but more importantly, they felt that it was right to convey that to the Ahmadi community. I am not sure how many other countries that would happen in. It is particularly telling that even those who have sometimes had prejudices and strong views can recognise when they have made a mistake. That is not true of everyone by any means, and there will always be a minority in society who are bigoted and driven by hatred, but the great majority of people in all communities want to live peacefully. We must work to ensure that we maintain such values and maintain that sort of country. At the same time, it strongly behoves us as individuals, political parties and state authorities to react vigorously against those, from whichever community, who would disrupt society and seek to divide it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) rightly said that there are two aspects to the debate. One clearly involves the situation and relations in this country, and I will return to that in a minute. The other is the situation in Pakistan. There is also the issue of how we handle the relationship between the two.
Obviously, it was disturbing to hear the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and other colleagues, who told us how certain groups are trying to disrupt peaceful relations, stir up hatred, damage people’s businesses and even move towards physical violence. From the examples that we have been given, that seems to be a problem mainly in the Metropolitan police area, and I certainly hope that the Metropolitan police will take it up fairly urgently. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, it is important to nip these things in the bud—to deal with things at an early stage, to establish norms and isolate those who are trying to cause the difficulty.
I remind the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that, leaving aside newer legislation, the concept of actions liable to cause a breach of the peace is long established in legal principle. In that respect, the proprietors of a shopping centre, who may have rights within it, can work in collaboration with the Metropolitan police and/or the local council’s antisocial behaviour unit. There is an excellent case for joint action to send the message, “This is not the sort of behaviour that we will tolerate in the public space in our borough or in London.” We should have a strong attitude of zero tolerance towards those who would seek to stir up sectarian strife.
The second aspect that has been raised is the situation in Pakistan. I associate my party’s Front-Bench team with the comments that the Minister has made in answer to questions over the past few months, and specifically in response to the horrific attacks on 28 May and 3 September. They were very much echoed in comments made by the previous Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), when he was shadow Foreign Secretary. In a quote that has been previously raised, he rightly said:
“Pakistan’s security is paramount to stability in the region. It is when the international community has taken its eye off the ball in Pakistan that instability has increased.
The European Union needs to increase its support for Pakistan. It currently spends just half a euro per person compared to five to ten times as much in other parts of the world that are not only more developed, but less crucial to global security.
The Pakistani Government’s efforts to stabilise its western provinces has seen its military stretched.
That Friday’s attacks on the Ahmadi mosques originated in North Waziristan, and were carried out by suspected Pakistani Taliban militants, are areas of particular ongoing concern.
Internally, Pakistan has a duty to protect minority groups and needs the support of its allies to do so. This is the worst attack on the Ahmadis in Pakistan’s history, and it is deeply saddening that 93 innocent people have lost their lives.”
That clearly reflected the previous Government’s ongoing policy in March 2009, when the previous Member for Harlow, who was a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, clearly laid out the then Government’s position, which the subsequent coalition Government have followed very well. He said that his ministerial colleague had raised
“concerns about the difficulties faced by religious minorities in Pakistan, including the Christian and Ahmadi communities and the mis-use of blasphemy legislation…With EU partners we have also made a series of demarches”—
he was referring to contacts and notes—
“to the government of Pakistan on protecting religious minorities.”
He said that the UK had pressed
“the government of Pakistan to promote tolerance, and take measures to protect freedom of religion or belief”
and
“called for the reform of discriminatory legislation”,
which has been mentioned in the debate. He said that the UK had
“urged the Minister for Minority Affairs to raise awareness about abuses against minorities and to increase their political representation at all levels.”
He added that in July 2008—this was not just a response to immediate events, but part of an understanding of the ongoing problems—the UK and its EU partners had called
“on the government of Pakistan to specifically protect religious freedoms and human rights of the Ahmadis.”—[Official Report, 24 March 2009; Vol. 490, c. 192W.]
I want to press the Minister a little with regard to the specific event, and the occasion in May when he described the attack on the mosques in Lahore as
“a tragic example of the discrimination faced by the Ahmadiyya community”
and added:
“Our high commissioner in Islamabad has raised the attacks and the discrimination suffered by the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan with the Chief Minister of Punjab along with his EU colleagues, and the issue has also been raised by our high commission with the Pakistani Ministries of Interior and Minorities.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 301W.]
It is not just a matter of getting agreement at national level in Pakistan; it is also a matter of recognising the significant role of provincial and local governments in protecting minorities in Pakistan. Therefore, national agreement and understanding is important, but things must go deeper, through the structures of the Pakistan Government.
John McDonnell
The most disappointing aspect of the attack this year was the fact that according to the Human Rights Watch report, the Ahmadi community and others in Pakistan had approached the Chief Minister of Punjab in advance to seek enhanced security for Ahmadi mosques. That was not provided and the mosques were vulnerable as a result, with the attack resulting in so many deaths. I concur with my right hon. Friend in trying to ensure that the message should be given not just to the Pakistani Government, but should be implemented at provincial level.
Mr Spellar
My hon. Friend ably reinforces my point. I am sure that the Minister will take that on board. I hope that the steps that have been suggested will be taken, so that the message will get across at different levels in Pakistan.
The debate rightly touches on relations with Pakistan, a country with which we have long and deep links, which is a major player in an important region and a partner in responding to terrorism. Furthermore, as has been obvious during the debate, many of our citizens take a deep and informed interest in its affairs. That is shown by the huge response in the UK—not just from the community that originates in Pakistan—to the floods in Pakistan. As far as I am aware, the UK has been the second biggest donor, both in the response of individuals and in the Government response to the distress caused by the floods. That has been so throughout the country.
I was at an event a few weeks ago in my constituency and there were some major figures there from the Pakistani community—as well as from the other communities: Hindu, Sikh, Christian and probably a considerable number of non-believers in any faith. They made major donations to assist those whose lives have been so disrupted. It is clear that the bonds between our countries are strong, but I stress that is not to do with recreating a position based on a colonial past. Even so, we should not be averse to raising human rights issues. Nor should we make the perhaps slightly lazy assumption that in a vibrant, dynamic country such as Pakistan there is monolithic uniformity of opinion. It is undoubtedly far more nuanced and sophisticated.
It is interesting to note that an independent survey showed that about 90% of Pakistanis believe that religious extremism is the greatest single threat to the country. It seems a shame that, as someone commented, the extremist 3% seem to be holding the other 97% to ransom. It is important, therefore, that Pakistan should not be isolated from the mainstream of international community, and very important that ordinary Pakistanis should remain in contact with the outside world, and should understand that we do not believe they all follow the views of a rabid, vociferous minority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden rightly stressed the efforts of the Taliban to destabilise Pakistan by inciting hatred and violence towards minorities, and the Ahmadi minority in particular. However, we should recognise that the Taliban are not very concerned, either, about their fellow Sunni Muslims. In fact, they probably hold them in greater disregard than they do other groups. They are an extremist group and are prepared to use extreme violence to impose a backward view. They are a threat to the stability of the country as well as to minorities, with the present case being the worst example of that at the moment. We should remember in this and other contexts that intolerance of others’ beliefs and sectarian violence rarely stay within the bounds of a country; they spread across frontiers. That is what is happening and that is why we need to respond in Britain.
The Minister has a number of questions to respond to from hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, but I ask him also to outline what steps are being taken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to convey our strong concern to the authorities in Pakistan at national, provincial and local level. I assure him of our support in getting that message across.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I thank you for presiding over the debate, and I thank colleagues who have taken part. I begin, of course, by thanking the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for her contribution and for raising this important subject. As the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) said, her commitment to her community—both the section of it to which the debate relates, and all others—is noted in the House, and brings her recognition wherever she goes. It is another part of her work that she does commendably in the House, and we thank her for bringing it to the House’s attention.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Warley for his kind remarks. We do indeed go way back. We are both members of the Whips’ brotherhood, albeit on opposing sides of the House. We have both been around for a while. I appreciated the right hon. Gentleman’s work in Government. He was a good Minister and easy to talk to. Coming to open a road in my constituency of course marks him out as a special colleague, and I thank him for that. If I remember rightly, I think that I ran the 10 km race on that occasion—
Alistair Burt
I was going to say that ministerial engagements prevented him from running; but it was a good occasion and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, which I reciprocate. Although properly partisan we are able, we hope, to put such things to one side when we need to. This is one of those occasions.
In foreign policy there are many areas in which a change in Government makes little difference to what are conceived to be British interests. As to human rights and related matters I think the House can be assured that the view of the House, the Government and the country is reflected in Government. There may be nuances from time to time, but the things that we hold valuable are shared between us. The House will find the Minister and the Opposition speaking together in our condemnation of the attacks that are the subject of the debate and in our concerns about what can be done in the future.
Human rights and the treatment of minorities are obviously of major concern to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden in seeking the debate, and they are important to us all. She made a powerful and at times distressing case when she discussed circumstances affecting her constituents, and events in Pakistan. Her concerns for her constituents were echoed by the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and by other hon. Members who spoke.
The United Kingdom Government are concerned about the ongoing discrimination against the Ahmadi Muslim community in Pakistan and around the world. I am grateful for the opportunity to talk to hon. Members about it. We welcome the news about the all-party group and will keep in touch with that. The hon. Lady and her fellow officers will know that they need only make contact with us and we shall respond. She recognises, through the establishment of the group, the importance of the community to many hon. Members in the House of Commons who have relevant constituency interests. I will certainly draw the Home Secretary’s attention to the remarks have been made today concerning events that take place in the UK. I will move on to the matters affecting home affairs later, but there is no doubt that the matter has resonance both for our foreign relations responsibilities and for what happens in the UK.
I would like to put our relationship with Pakistan in perspective before dealing with the hon. Lady’s specific points, because it is important, and the right hon. Member for Warley referred to that, too. The Government are committed to a long-term, productive and friendly partnership with Pakistan. Our two countries share many strong ties: our history, the deep familial roots in our 1 million-strong British Pakistani diaspora, extensive business links and close cultural connections.
As we have heard, Pakistan is currently dealing with major domestic challenges. The recent devastating floods have caused an immense amount of damage and misery for more than 20 million people—misery on a scale that is difficult to contemplate in the UK, as the area affected is the size of our country. It is one of the worst disasters the world has ever seen. The UK has been at the forefront of the international response to the crisis, committing £134 million for urgent humanitarian relief and to help people rebuild their lives.
Siobhain McDonagh
Several Members have mentioned the amount of money that the British population have contributed to the relief effort in Pakistan, but we should also put on the record the work of the Ahmadis’ own charity, Humanity First, in raising funds and providing services in Pakistan during the floods.
Alistair Burt
The hon. Lady anticipated my next point, which is about the voluntary contributions, but I would not have mentioned that charity specifically, so I thank her for mentioning it. In addition to what the Government have spent, as the right hon. Member for Warley has said, the response from the community across the UK generally, whether or not they have relationships with Pakistan, has been remarkable— £60 million from different communities up and down the country—and those with family connections have been especially involved. We will continue to do that work. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the European Union, and it is important that we work closely with it. Recently, my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister attended a European summit at which they took the lead in pressing the European Community to do still more to improve trade agreements to enable the Pakistani Government not only to get over the immediate hurdle of the floods, but to look forward to re-establishing their economy and to have the right infrastructure to be able to do so. The EU was able to take our lead and produce more trade concessions, which will give significant assistance to Pakistan in the future.
Pakistan is also suffering from the scourge of terrorism. More than 3,000 Pakistanis died last year as a result of terrorist attacks. Those attacks and the groups that perpetrate them pose a grave threat to Pakistan and to the stability of the region and beyond, including the UK. I would like to repeat the words of the Prime Minister when he paid tribute in August to the resilience of the people in Pakistan in facing that threat. We are committed to working with Pakistan to defeat this threat. It threatens both our countries.
Human rights are at the core of our foreign policy. We raise our concerns about human rights wherever and whenever they occur, without compromise and will continue to do so. As the Foreign Secretary made clear in a recent speech, we will improve and strengthen the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on human rights. That will be underpinned by British values and by our support for democratic freedoms, universal human rights and the rule of law. That approach will be based on realism; we will never overlook human rights abuses and will always strive for progress, but we will be practical in our approach and flexible about what might work best in different contexts, which is only sensible.
The multiplicity of links between the UK and Pakistan means that we engage with each other on all subjects—counter-terrorism, security policy, immigration, trade, development, education, the rule of law and human rights. As I have outlined, that last subject is critical to the conduct of UK foreign policy. It is as relevant to our relationship with Pakistan as it is to our relations with the rest of the world. We do not shirk from our responsibilities in highlighting our concerns about human rights, including to our friends.
Pakistan has made important progress in improving human rights. The ratification of the international covenant on civil and political rights and the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment is an important step in enshrining inherent rights in law, although we hope that the Government will look to remove or redraft the current reservations that they have lodged against both treaties. It is important that those instruments are fully implemented to help to ensure the human rights of all Pakistanis.
However, Pakistan continues to face significant challenges in those areas, and we remain committed to working with the Government of Pakistan to address them. One of the most important challenges is discrimination against, and persecution of, those of a particular religious belief, whether Christians or Sikhs, as is sectarian violence between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims. It is vital that the Government of Pakistan uphold the fundamental rights of all Pakistani citizens, regardless of their faith or belief. Pakistan can only benefit if all its citizens are able to play a central role in society. We regularly reinforce that point for our colleagues in the Government of Pakistan at all levels, and they have now established a Ministry for Minorities, which has active leadership and has brought about some positive changes. A remaining critical challenge, as has been mentioned today, is the reform of Pakistan’s blasphemy legislation to ensure that it is properly implemented. Misuse of those laws is the basis for much of the discrimination suffered by religious groups in Pakistan, as the hon. Lady made clear.
Alistair Burt
The short answer is yes, and I know that because the point has come up before. If I may, I will deal with that towards the end of my remarks.
The Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan is 4 million strong. Following the creation of Pakistan in 1947, the community played an important role in the development of the new country; Pakistan’s first Foreign Minister was an Ahmadi, and many prominent members of both the army and the civil service followed their faith. However, since the mid-1950s Ahmadis have faced increasing levels of discrimination, culminating in the passage of constitutional restrictions on their way of life: in 1974 the Pakistan Parliament adopted a law declaring Ahmadis to be non-Muslims, and in 1984 a further ordinance was passed, forbidding Ahmadis to refer to themselves as Muslims or to “pose as Muslims.” Pakistanis themselves must take the lead in legal reform of the constitutional and legislative constraints on Ahmadis. The Government of Pakistan have a responsibility to protect all their citizens, regardless of religion or belief. The structural nature of that discrimination helps to create an environment of intolerance that manifests itself in horrific attacks.
I turn now to the attack on Lahore that was the subject of many of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden. The attacks against the two Ahmadiyya mosques in Lahore on 28 May, which killed 93 people and injured more than 100, prompted a worldwide response and rightly generated widespread indignation in the UK, both from parliamentarians and the general public. The attacks, unfortunately, were among many that violent extremists have carried out against both minority and majority Muslims over the past few years.
The Foreign Secretary, as has been acknowledged this afternoon, was swift in his denunciation of the attacks. Shortly after, the British high commissioner in Islamabad raised both the attacks and the wider discrimination against the Ahmadiyya with the chief Minister of Punjab, Shahbaz Sharif. I echo the point, made by the right hon. Member for Warley, that it is important that we engage at both federal and provincial level, which we do, in order to make our points on human rights. It is essential that the message gets though everywhere.
Senior officials from the British high commission in Islamabad had regular contact with officials from the Ministry for Minorities on the matter long before the attacks took place, and continue to do so. What more, then, can we do to help end the difficulties faced by Ahmadis in Pakistan and elsewhere? Most importantly, we must engage robustly and regularly with the Government of Pakistan, and we do. Following the attacks, I met with members of the Ahmadiyya community from the UK. I had the honour of meeting the national president, Rafiq Hayat, and members of the community in my office, and I am grateful for his insights on the issue at the time. He was able to give me at first instance evidence of discrimination and attacks on the community. As a result of that, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), I contacted the Home Secretary and briefed her about the matter so that she was able to take it into her calculations and her concerns about extremism in the United Kingdom. I shall ensure that a copy of today’s debate goes to her, with emphasis on the remarks that have been made.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend agree that MPs are best placed to show leadership on this issue in our local communities, and to speak out against any persecution of Ahmadis?
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On such issues, it is clear that those of us in leadership positions have a responsibility to speak out. She put that clearly.
Indeed, I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) also got it right when she said that, for most of us, differences in doctrine between those of different faiths, including majority faiths, are never a justification for violence or discrimination. We all have different views on many things. None of us should be able to use those differences of view as an excuse, for that is what it is, to discriminate or commit violence against others—or, if not physical violence, to use the language of abuse which all too quickly can be turned against a group of people. We have seen that in our own society and community and, sadly, worldwide.
As my hon. Friend said, we do not really care about those differences. What we care about are tolerance and the principles of respect for different views, protection under the law and freedom from fear. Those are the things that matter to people in the UK, and within that we allow people to hold their different views. If those principles are transgressed, we are all violated to some degree, and that is why we will continue to speak out so clearly.
I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the matters raised here that affect the UK, because they indicate a degree of fear and concern in the Ahmadiyya community that must be recognised and discussed in those places where that community might be under threat. This debate has done a valuable job in bringing forward the issues affecting people in this country as well as abroad.
I conclude by going back to the Pakistan side of things and saying a little more about the matters raised by the right hon. Member for Warley. Together with our EU colleagues, we have a regular human rights dialogue with the Government of Pakistan in which the continuing mistreatment of religious groups features strongly. I have been disturbed to hear about reports from the leadership of the Ahmadiyya community of discrimination which continues to be suffered both here and abroad, and we mention them when speaking to those we deal with from Pakistan. They are aware of the knock-on effects in the UK of comments and discrimination in Pakistan.
I speak regularly to Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan’s Federal Minister for Minorities—most recently, just last week. The work that he is doing to reform the blasphemy laws is incredibly important, and we support him wholeheartedly in it, but I do not think that any of us have any false expectations. We recognise just how difficult it is to deal with such laws in a culture that has been turned against minorities and against the Ahmadiyya community. Despite the strenuous efforts of many in that Government to say and do the right things, it is hard to get such things through.
Trying to change the blasphemy laws provides perhaps the best opportunity for a change in attitude. I have raised the treatment of Ahmadis in Pakistan with the Pakistani Minister and, through him, have been monitoring the progress of the case against those accused of the Lahore bombings. The Government of Pakistan must ensure that the investigation and legal process are open, transparent and credible.
I spoke to the high commissioner for Pakistan at lunch time, to inform him of this debate and to get an assurance from him that he takes these matters extremely seriously. He wanted to communicate to me just how seriously his Government take these issues and this case, and I put that before the House.
I commend the recent report by the all-party group on human rights on their recent investigation into the treatment of Ahmadis in Pakistan, and I note its recommendations. The members of that group will be pleased to learn that the British high commission in Islamabad has been funding a project to increase the capacity of law enforcement officials, Government representatives and civil society to implement and monitor proper procedure in blasphemy cases. That is a way in which we can use the Foreign Office budget directly and practically to build capacity, and to assist those who would like to see change to achieve it.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington discussed media reports that aid for the victims of the flooding in Pakistan is being denied to some religious groups. That is very disturbing. The UK is committed to ensuring that the aid that we provide reaches those who need it most. Access to aid should not be predicated on religious or political belief, which is a principle to which all humanitarian organisations and non-governmental organisations delivering UK aid subscribe. The Department for International Development closely monitors how our aid is distributed and undertakes strict checks on the organisations that we fund, to ensure that our aid is spent properly and delivers the intended results. I welcome the commitment by the Government of Pakistan to ensure the equitable distribution of aid to those in need, and look forward to their adhering to that principle.
Discrimination against or marginalisation of any group because of their religion or belief is not acceptable. The UK is consistent in condemning all such instances when they occur, and I know that hon. colleagues on both sides of the House support that. The Government are aware of and critical of the discrimination faced by the Ahmadiyya in Pakistan. We are committed to working with the Ahmadiyya community, NGOs and the Government of Pakistan on the issue in a spirit of openness and understanding. Accordingly, I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden for bringing the matter to the House, and assure her that she will have our support in taking it forward in the future.
Mutual and Co-operative Rail Franchise Bids
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to undertake this debate today. I thank the Minister of State for the communication that I have had with her office in the past few days. We are talking about an important subject. We all like to grumble about the railways. Hon. Members are not exempt from that; indeed, I could tell the story of my last disrupted journey, which was this morning. However, the very difficult privatisation of the early 1990s, brought about by the Minister’s predecessors, sought to privatise a network in 40 weeks. That meant severe growing pains and a sharp learning curve. Other countries are travelling down that path over several decades, which is perhaps a salutary lesson to the present Government about the path and speed of change. However, we all accept that a new order is emerging, and it is right to accept that aspects of the industry today are the envy of Europe.
In the past 10 years, the combined measure of reliability and punctuality has risen from 78 to 91.5% and satisfaction has risen from 72 to 83%, with more passenger journeys now undertaken than at any point since the second world war. Yet, as we come into the constrained spending context of the comprehensive spending review, as the Department closes its consultation on rail franchising, and as customer expectation will rise in light of the massive fair increases of RPI plus 3 proposed by the coalition Government, a re-examination of provision on the UK’s passenger railways must surely be prioritised.
So, how do we improve rail? It is my assertion today that co-operative and mutual ventures across the industry can raise the bar. They can model accountability and effective public engagement, and improve services. When looking at franchising, which is the bedrock of the passenger network, it is necessary to set it within the context of the industry, which means briefly discussing the infrastructure manager—Network Rail.
Network Rail’s board structure, with about 100 members, is perceived as clunky and ineffectual in providing effective control. In 2004, the then Transport Committee stated:
“Network Rail did not convince us that members of the company were exercising an effective control of the company”.
In July 2008, the Committee returned to the theme of Network Rail, and found its governance “inadequate”. Network Rail provides a vital public service and was created as a public interest company, limited by Government guarantee, but genuine accountability, which is essential for driving up standards across the railways, is vital and should be expected in return for the large sums of money that the body receives from the taxpayer.
The Co-operative party has been key in developing a mutual model for Network Rail through “The People’s Rail” campaign, and as a Co-operative MP I welcome that contribution. The campaign contests the assertion that true accountability could be ensured by our all having the right to become individual members of Network Rail. As a genuine mutual venture, Network Rail could be structured in such a way that we all had a voice. A democratically elected members’ council with power over the appointment and pay of Network Rail’s board could drive up performance and accountability and, dare I say it, tackle a culture of excessive bonuses.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing the very first part of his contribution. Is there not a similarity between what he proposes for Network Rail and the model that the coalition Government have endorsed as the way forward for something that was introduced by us—foundation hospitals? Exactly that type of structure has been designed to help to hold to account the senior management of our hospitals.
Gavin Shuker
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, with which I completely agree, and I associate myself with his comments. What we have seen from the coalition Government is a desire to look at innovative models across public services, and I believe that railways should not be exempt.
As I was saying, a democratically elected members’ council with the power of appointment and pay over Network Rail’s board could drive up performance. Co-operative and mutual structures deliver organisations that act in our interests. Who would be a better boss of the rail network than the passengers and the British public themselves?
Moving on to the bulk of my remarks on rail franchising, in a reply to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) in the House on 22 July, the Minister said:
“There would be no barriers to mutuals and co-operatives bidding for franchises if they fulfilled the criteria.”—[Official Report, 22 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 541.]
However, it is clear that there are still some barriers to entry, despite the stated desire of the coalition to explore innovative models of public service delivery. We in the Co-operative party would like to see those models given all the opportunities that are before them.
The system as it stands does not make allowance for the arrival of mutual and co-operative ventures. First, bidders are required to pass a number of detailed financial tests during the bidding process. ASLEF has said that a mutual bid would not be able to meet the performance bond requirement, and has called on the Department for Transport to review the performance bond criteria. Surely that is an area for examination. Secondly, bidders are understandably required to show experience of operating transportation systems. Can the Minister provide an assurance that the interpretation of that requirement is wide enough to ensure that mutual models in which individual members have extensive experience of running transport services—even the ones that they currently work on—but in which there is a new team coming together, perhaps under a new brand, are able to bid on a level playing field? Thirdly, the fact that no franchise has yet been awarded to a mutual ownership model on the railways itself serves as a barrier to entry.
To bring about the innovation that could drive up levels of service and accountability across the industry, will the Minister carefully consider the arguments for awarding the first mutual franchise during her time as Minister? Perhaps she could start by meeting representatives of ASLEF. The union has been preparing a mutual bid to run the east coast main line rail franchise when invitations to tender are announced in 2011. It believes that the co-operative principles of sustainability and accountability should be brought front and centre in the provision of passenger rail in the UK.
A common perception is that co-operatives are small and therefore unable to step up to the financial requirements of such a large franchise. However, the Co-operative Group has a turnover of more than £10 billion, and the east coast franchise turnover is only £550 million. The Go! Co-operative is one of the most recently established train operating companies, and down the track, as it were, it seeks to run open-access train services. That co-operative has already been authorised by the Financial Services Authority to raise the required funds, and I am sure that the Minister will want to welcome that initiative. I encourage her to take the time to talk to representatives of Go! Co-operative and to understand, in real time, both the challenges and the opportunities that are presented to people who enter the franchise system.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the strength of mutuals is that they can represent the interests both of those working in the organisation and those who use its services?
Gavin Shuker
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I would like to associate myself with her comments. It is true that when different stakeholders, including the people who work on the railways, are brought together, that always results in a much better service. Rail franchising is a key aspect of mutuals’ activity on the railways, but there are other ventures, too, to consider.
Enterprises that are owned and controlled by those who have a vested interest in their success should not be confined to the running of the railway itself. Many services that work alongside the main business add value to the traveller experience. Services such as cleaning, catering, customer service and training would be greatly improved by local accountability that allowed the services to respond flexibly to changing needs. The Cleaning Co-op based in Bristol has already won contracts to work with Birse Rail, CrossCountry and Virgin Trains. It provides cleaning services to Oxford and Bristol universities, local schools and the NHS. As a result of its unique structure, it not only provides a highly professional service but has a high staff retention rate and a motivated work force. It is highly valued by its clients, who are also its partners. The Cleaning Co-op is one example, but there are many successful retail, catering and training co-operatives, all of which could add to the traveller experience in a mutualisation of rail franchising.
Mutualism has much to offer in the governance of Network Rail, the system of rail franchising and the services that enable a decent passenger experience. I hope that the Minister will speak about the positive contribution of these talented, professional and visionary co-operatives. As we all recognise, UK rail faces significant challenges in the years to come. There is a requirement to show that passengers are getting a fair deal. There is a desire to see profits reinvested in better services. What better way to reassure passengers that the railways have their interests are at heart and that the staff who serve them truly have a seat at the table, than to see mutual operators on our railways?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Brooke.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) on securing the debate and providing us with the opportunity to discuss an important issue, namely the potential involvement of mutuals and co-operatives in the rail franchising process. The issue is of concern to a number of hon. Members and has been the subject of a range of parliamentary questions.
I would like to make it clear that the coalition Government support the creation and expansion of mutuals, co-operatives, charities and social enterprise. We fully appreciate and recognise the brilliant work done by the co-operative, mutual and not-for-profit sector in many areas of policy and public life. In fact, we want to see such groups playing a bigger role in delivering public services and in helping us to tackle the key social problems that we face in modern Britain.
I want to be clear: the Government would treat a rail franchise bid from a mutual or a co-operative in exactly the same way as they would treat a bid from a competitor in the commercial sector. If a mutual, co-op or any other not-for-profit organisation can meet the accreditation criteria, it may bid for a franchise. If it offers the best deal for the passenger and the taxpayer, it can win the franchise. I cannot promise to bend the rules for mutuals and co-operatives, but I can promise to treat them fairly and objectively, judging their proposals on the same basis as those of their commercial competitors.
Before I deal with how the accreditation and procurement process works, I will respond briefly to the points made by the hon. Member for Luton South on Network Rail—not obviously the subject of today’s debate, but important none the less. I hope, Mrs Brooke, that you will allow me the latitude to respond.
The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to reform Network Rail. I am glad that there is growing consensus around that—before the previous general election, the Government seemed to think that there was no justification for reform, so I welcome his voice joining those of us who think that we need mechanisms to make Network Rail more accountable. He is right that we need to take care to get any reform right—we want not to rush into it, but to think carefully about the best way to deliver results for passengers and taxpayers.
I recognise and, to an extent, share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the Network Rail decisions on bonuses in recent months. I am pleased that the company has suspended its management incentive plan, which I hope we see reformed in the future. We are determined to make Network Rail more accountable and more efficient. Our work is informed by that of Sir Roy McNulty, and I have no doubt that our discussion today and the speech by the hon. Member for Luton South will also form an interesting part of the McNulty review.
In order to address the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman about mutuals, one first needs to consider the general rules on rail franchising. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, rail franchises deliver an essential service. There are 1.2 billion passenger journeys made every year. The train operating companies are, at the moment, substantial businesses—they each have a turnover in excess of £100 million per annum and they provide employment to hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of people.
The Government have a twofold interest in rail franchises. First, we need to protect the passengers’ interests and to hold train operators to the demanding obligations of service delivery placed on them by their franchise contracts. Secondly, we need to protect taxpayers’ interests, by obtaining value for money from the franchise contracts and for the considerable sums spent on the railways.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, while some franchises pay a premium and others receive a direct subsidy, all operators benefit from the Government grant made to Network Rail to maintain and renew the infrastructure. He will appreciate that considerable sums are at stake when a franchise is let and that, in letting a franchise, we trust the operator with serious and important responsibilities in relation to our economy and transport system. Therefore, the greatest care is needed to ensure that we do the best that we can to make the right decisions on whom we award a franchise to.
A key issue for the hon. Gentleman was clearly the accreditation process used to assess whether a bidder can qualify to take part in a franchise competition. The Department for Transport has recently completed a consultation on rail franchising—it closed on Monday—and I take the opportunity to thank all those who took part. Until the consultation responses have been properly considered, I cannot say with certainty whether the reforms that we will undertake will involve changes to the accreditation process. Although this is not the primary focus of the consultation, we are happy to consider whether ways can be found to make the process of letting franchises less complex and expensive to carry out. Whatever reform we adopt, however, it must still ensure that the process is fully compatible with objective public procurement principles and regulations. I am sure that the debate will provide useful input for the decisions on whether reform to the accreditation process is needed, to be considered alongside the consultation responses.
The procurement process has two main elements: first, accreditation; and, secondly, the formal bid stage. The appropriateness of potential bidders is considered at the first stage. The accreditation process is designed to achieve a manageable field of bidders, which can be expected to submit attractive, competitive and realistic proposals. Keeping the number of operators that can proceed to the formal bid stage to a manageable number reduces cost for Government and industry. The winning bidder must be capable of delivering a high-quality service at the price it has undertaken to pay. The procurement methodology needs to comply with European Union procurement law and treaty principles, including equal treatment, proportionality and transparency.
The legal entity signing the franchise agreement is required to be a limited company formed for that purpose, but the accreditation process assesses the financial standing and technical capability of the parent organisation, so it would be open to a mutual or co-operative to establish a special purpose vehicle in order to run a franchise in the same way as commercial parent groups do now. Bidders are assessed to ensure that they have a level of financial standing proportionate to the size of the franchise concerned, in order to provide assurance as to the stability of the potential operator. The Government need to be confident that each bidder will have sufficient financial capacity to meet the working capital needs of the franchise business. We need to assess with great care whether the bidder will be able to absorb the risks that we seek to transfer to it, which at the moment means obtaining the performance bonds that the Department needs as security in the event of a franchise default.
The hon. Gentleman has made a passionate plea on behalf of co-operatives and mutuals. I value their work, but I would be very reluctant to compromise on rules that require us to make a careful assessment of the financial capacity of those that bid for rail franchises, because of the accompanying potential risks. Having said that, we are looking at the whole process of the franchising system as part of our response to the consultation. A key aim of the franchising process must be to protect the interests of passengers and taxpayers, so it is essential that we have safeguards in place to avoid letting the contract to an organisation that, ultimately, finds that it cannot cope. The most recent example of franchise collapse, that of National Express East Coast, shows that it is possible to deal with that situation without disruption to services. However, such collapses are clearly unsettling for passengers and the work force, and leave the taxpayer with the considerable cost of stepping in to run the railways as the operator of last resort.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but financial credibility checks and standards are important, and likely to become even more so in the future as we move to longer franchises, as proposed in our consultation. We will need to make longer-term judgments on the credibility of bids and on the capacity of the potential franchisee to deliver major investment, which we hope will make a considerable difference to the quality of experience for passengers under the proposed new franchise model.
I turn now to the hon. Gentleman’s questions about the experience assessed when looking at franchise bids. The current rules require bidders to demonstrate a track record of operating transport systems, not necessarily in rail. Recent competitions have said that it should cover a period of at least two years. However, a completely new organisation might be able to meet that requirement by showing that its management team and work force have such a record. The issues discussed by the hon. Gentleman could be taken on board in the assessment of whether the potential bidder had the right track record to give us confidence to take their bid seriously.
A new and small organisation may have less experience than other bidders and will, therefore, find it harder to get through this stage, especially if it is interested in one of the larger, more complex franchise opportunities. My officials have an open door policy for people who want to get into the rail franchise market. I am happy to meet the delegation from ASLEF that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It is useful to put it on the record here that if there are others—whether they are commercial operators, mutuals or not-for-profit organisations—that are interested in bidding for a rail franchise, we are willing to talk to them, and my officials are happy to advise them on how to grapple with what everyone accepts is not an easy process.
The hon. Gentleman advocated waiving or reforming some of the requirements in the case of a bid by a mutual. Removing the financial standing and technical capability factors or compromising them would import some real risk to franchisee financial resilience. That is my anxiety about what he advocates. If we were to waive the experience requirements in relation to a mutual, we would have to make the change for all potential bidders. That would reduce our ability to consider the track record of the major franchise operators that are currently in the market. The EU rules on equal treatment and non-discrimination mean that we have to treat all bidders the same and assess them against the same criteria. Therefore, anything that we do to help a mutual or co-op would also have to be offered to a commercial operator. If we were to relax the requirement on a track record, we would not be able to assess the previous experience and performance of the only groups that currently hold franchises. There would be public anxiety if the track record of train operators could not be considered in the award of new franchises. Moreover, the existing process is a further incentive and addition to the other regulatory mechanisms. We must keep performance levels high. To get through this difficult process, I encourage any mutual or co-operative that is considering bidding to approach my officials to get further advice.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Go! Co-operative. I am delighted that we have that as an example of a co-operative that has expressed interest in running open access services. I gather that it would like to operate services linking main lines to some smaller market towns. I am told that it has identified a route from Yeovil Junction to Oxford for its first proposed services and that it hopes to commence operation during 2011. That is a welcome initiative. It is not for me to say whether it will get its paths or even get the operation off the ground. None the less, I very much welcome its involvement in the rail industry. There are also examples of small community-based companies running services, such as the Wensleydale railway in North Yorkshire, which has taken on a branch line from Northallerton to Redmire and is running passenger services.
I want to touch briefly on one last area. The voluntary and not-for-profit groups are already successfully engaged with the UK’s railways: I refer to community rail partnerships. The Government are very supportive of such partnerships and the work that they do. They have successfully brought additional passengers to many lines and helped to build up services and make better use of redundant property. For example, the Devon and Cornwall rail partnership works with the train operator in selling tickets at a number of locations. It encourages rail use by making it easier for the public to buy tickets. Partnerships such as South Fylde, Leeds to Morecambe and the Clitheroe line have produced impressive promotional material. Others such as the Bittern line in Norfolk have run successful promotional events. Almost all partnerships see the voluntary sector involved in improving and maintaining station facilities. There are numerous examples of local enthusiasts devoting huge care and attention to station gardens and floral displays. Right across the country, from Penmere in Cornwall to West Runton in Norfolk and Green Road in Cumbria, we see the visual evidence of the value of the work done by the voluntary and not-for-profit sector on our railways.
To conclude, the Government fully recognise and value the contribution made to the rail industry by the community-based and not-for-profit sector. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s example of co-operative cleaning services. I have no doubt that there are other areas in which mutuals and co-operatives will get involved in rail supply services. Rail franchise procurement processes can present a daunting challenge to any organisation, particularly those that have not operated a similar contract before. That is why my officials offer an open door policy for potential bidders. If a mutual or co-op expresses an interest in running a rail franchise, we will not place extra barriers in their path. They will be subject to the same rules and requirements as commercial operators. If they can meet the accreditation criteria, they can bid for a franchise. If they offer the best deal, they can win a franchise. It is as simple as that.
S4C
(13 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
When I requested this debate on the future funding of S4C, I had not anticipated that events would move so quickly. It is fair to say that for many in Wales, the future funding arrangements for S4C have been a very visible and easily understood example of the hard choices that we as a country now face in dealing with the deficit and the debt problems. This coalition must get to grips with those issues and the mess that the previous Labour Government left us with.
No one can deny that S4C has an important place in the cultural landscape of Wales. It is important to be aware that the way in which the channel came into being is a key reason why its future funding arrangements are extremely important for many people in Wales. After all, it is the only Welsh language broadcaster in the world. Let me give a bit of historical context. The channel was launched in 1982 following a long and very public campaign, which was supported by all strands of Welsh society. It is worth noting that the decision to establish S4C was taken by a Conservative Government back in 1980.
Despite all the doubts that were expressed about the viability of a Welsh television channel, it is important to note that initially S4C proved to be a great success. The success of the channel in the early years was very much a reflection of the fact that there was a mix of Welsh programmes during the peak hours and Channel 4 programming that also attracted non-Welsh speakers. There is no doubt that the initial few years of S4C were very successful. There was a period in the 1980s and 1990s in which audience figures were often in excess of 150,000 for peak-time viewing.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
On a point of order, Mrs Brooke. May we adjourn the debate for a moment because there is a Division in the main Chamber?
Guto Bebb
As I was saying, Mrs Brooke, S4C’s initial period was successful, but it is important to note that it was more than just a television channel. The establishment of S4C unleashed creativity across Wales that led to the creation of a Welsh independent television sector, which prospered not only in Cardiff but in west Wales and Caernarfon in north Wales. That was undoubtedly a successful period for the channel, and that sustained period of success resulted in changes to S4C’s funding arrangements in 1991 that established a link with the retail prices index. That link has been questioned recently, and has been in the news.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the document that S4C presented to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the request for budget savings said that the link with RPI went back to 1982? Is he not surprised that the document contained such a factual inaccuracy? Is it not indicative of the quality of the document submitted to the Department?
Guto Bebb
That might be surprising. The point that I want to make is that I believe that the RPI link has been a double-edged sword for the channel in many ways. In my view, the RPI link was crucial to giving S4C operational independence, because it created a feeling that the broadcaster would be independent of Government intervention. Anybody who believes that a public broadcaster should be free to broadcast whatever it desires would obviously welcome that link and the freedom that it gave S4C to pursue its own requirements. In many ways, therefore, the RPI link was a positive thing.
However, S4C had to pay a price for that link. The problem with a funding arrangement allowing for year-on-year increases was that it created a growing feeling that the channel and its management were becoming divorced from the people whom they served. When S4C’s viewing figures fell, the channel felt that there was no need for S4C to respond, because regardless of whether it was successful and getting the required audience figures—although in many cases it was—it was almost immune to the realities of falling audience share, because year on year its budget would increase.
Although I believe that the RPI link gave S4C a degree of independence from Government, which is crucial, it also created a comfort zone for the channel, so I do not mourn the loss of the RPI link in determining how the channel is funded. However, little did I know when I was putting together my notes that the RPI link would be the least of the issues that we would discuss today.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s history lesson about S4C’s funding, but as he said, we have been overtaken by events today. There are more pressing matters of funding that need to be addressed, and that is what my intervention is about. Is it not true that regarding S4C, today’s announcement was a shambles in terms of detail? A rather more interesting and important problem with the documentation is that two versions of the comprehensive spending review are currently available, one of which includes figures about S4C and how much funding it will receive from DCMS and the licence fee. There is a suggestion that £70 million will come from the licence fee—
Owen Smith
It is a question for the Minister, in that case. Can he tell us what the figures are?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
You cannot question me.
Owen Smith
Well, then, it is a question for the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). Would he like to answer a question about the figures?
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
Order. I think that this intervention has been long enough.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on this important day, although I know that he did not plan it to coincide with the announcement. He said that independence was important and allowed diversity in Welsh media broadcasting. Does he therefore agree that giving ownership to the BBC will diminish S4C’s independence in future? Before the general election, the then shadow Secretary of State, now the Secretary of State, said that plurality was the most important thing. Will the developments harm or increase plurality?
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
May I point out that interventions should be short? Mr Guto Bebb, you must watch how much time you are leaving for the Minister to respond when accepting interventions.
Hywel Williams
On a point of order, Mrs Brooke. This debate is hugely important for Wales, and for once Welsh MPs have the opportunity to say something of significance at a time when doing so will have some effect. Is there any way it is within your powers to award us double injury time, given that we have had so much disruption?
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mrs Brooke. This is a very important debate because one of Mrs Thatcher’s great reforms was to try to ensure that the Welsh language was not a party political matter and that it was put in a place where we could all agree consensually on the subject. Now that the Government have decided to play fast and loose with the Welsh language in this way, is it not appropriate that we should have a longer period to debate the subject? That would allow all hon. Members who have come along to show an interest in the issue the opportunity to contribute their thoughts.
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
Order. I am sure that hon. Members who have been in the House for some time are aware of the limitations of the Chair. Of course, any hon. Member here could have applied for an hour and a half Adjournment debate and they could still do so in the future—a course of action I would recommend. Obviously, all the time lost from the Divisions will be added to the end of the debate. I call Mr Guto Bebb.
Guto Bebb
I shall just finish responding to the intervention by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). Yes, the plurality and the independence of S4C are important; I will ask a question on that subject at the end of my speech.
The fact that the RPI link has gone means that we are in a much more serious situation. I would like to point out that the issue of the audience figures became very important during the review of funding for S4C. The RPI issue contributed to a lack of regard for the audience figures, but we still need to clarify the fact that some of the S4C audience figures that have been bandied around are not particularly accurate. I have my own concerns about the fact that the Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board viewing panel in Wales is possibly not sufficient to provide a proper audience figure.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on initiating this important and timely debate. On the point about viewing figures, would he acknowledge that one of the great successes of S4C that should be recognised—this is not borne out by the viewing figures—is the work that is being done in relation to young people’s and children’s television? That work is very important to the Welsh-speaking communities that many of us represent, and it is not acknowledged in the figures.
Guto Bebb
The hon. Gentleman jumps ahead of me. That is exactly the point I was going to make. In addition to the question marks we have over the BARB panel in Wales, my family are a very good example of why there are problems with the viewing figures. It is true to say that S4C has made an important decision to invest in the content of children’s television, and I think all hon. Members in the Chamber would welcome that. In my family, seven people live at home; five watch a lot of S4C and two unfortunately do not watch a lot of S4C. The two people who do not watch a lot of S4C are counted in the figures, whereas the five people who do are not included because they are children. My twin boys, who are six years old, would certainly be very annoyed that their viewing habits, which involve Cyw, are not included in the figures. So there are question marks over the S4C audience figures—specifically, the serial viewing figures. In addition, we should not deny that there are serious question marks over the audience figures at peak times.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend not acknowledge that if the figures are as large as S4C sometimes makes out, it should be raising more than £3 million from advertising, which is roughly just 3% of its total budget—as of today, anyway?
Guto Bebb
That is an interesting contribution. The viewing figures are a cause for concern in many ways. There are good reasons to defend some of them, but we have a situation in which occasionally as few as 19% of programmes manage a figure of more than 10,000 during peak time viewing. That is a real concern. As a result, there has been a serious discussion about whether S4C can justify the funding that it receives. I believe passionately that S4C can justify that funding.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in accepting interventions. Whatever we might think about the viewing figures or the funding formulae that have been used in the past, today’s announcement has been made without any consultation whatsoever with S4C. He surely must agree that that is reprehensible and possibly leaves the matter open for a judicial review.
Guto Bebb
My view is obviously that any decision of this nature should involve a degree of consultation. We need to be aware of the fact that there is a question mark over the matter, when the viewing figures indicate that the contribution of the channel to the Welsh language is not as important as it should be. So, we are where we are and we need to think carefully about the way forward.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Although the hon. Gentleman’s points are fascinating, we should go back to why S4C was set up. I was very much involved in the matter at the time because I was chairman of the Broadcasting Council for Wales. S4C was set up by Mrs Thatcher as a volte-face. She was reading Irish history at the time, and there was a very strong reason why she decided that S4C should be put in place: it was to avoid linguistic divisions in Wales. S4C was established to provide a full service for both communities in Wales—those who speak English predominantly and those who speak Welsh. We cannot judge the value of S4C purely on the basis of the number of viewers it has; there is a much deeper reason why it exists.
Guto Bebb
I acknowledge that there were deeper reasons for establishing S4C, but we must also recognise that the channel needs to serve the people of Wales, whether they are Welsh speakers, Welsh learners or non-Welsh speakers. There are question marks over whether the viewing figures are disappointing at times and whether the channel is doing what it should be doing. The feeling that the channel has moved away from the people it is supposed to serve is demonstrated, I believe, in the campaign that we have seen during the past few weeks in response to the potential threat to the channel. Even the Welsh Language Society, which no one could doubt is committed to the channel, is arguing for fair funding and a new S4C, because it believes that the current channel is perhaps not performing as it should.
When we talk about S4C, we often mention the wider cultural and economic implications, but it is interesting to note that the channel’s economic contribution has changed considerably over the past 20 years. The way that it once created new industries in parts of west and north-west Wales has certainly changed dramatically, and the loss of the Barcud studios in Caernarfon is an indication of that change and shows that the economic argument needs to be looked at again.
It is crucial that we move on and consider the future challenges that we face. Last night it was announced that the BBC would be taking over the funding of the channel, so there is now a need for clarity on the nature of the proposed settlement. We should acknowledge that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has accepted the argument for having S4C, which I appreciate. It is likely that the channel’s funding will be transferred to the BBC from 2014, so I would like to ask the Minister a few questions on what we have heard in the media and from the Chancellor this afternoon.
Will the funding for S4C be safeguarded within the BBC, and by what mechanism? It is all very well saying that the money will be forthcoming from the BBC licence payer, but by what mechanism will the S4C budget be protected within that licence fee? We are all aware that during the past four months the BBC has announced a 17% cut in its programming for S4C, with very little consultation, so I would like some clarification on that point. With regard to my earlier point on plurality and editorial independence, if there is a change in the funding mechanism for the channel, it is imperative that there is clarity about editorial and programming independence. I am sure that the Department can respond to that point.
Despite what I have said about S4C’s economic contribution, the channel does play a key role in supporting the cultural industries in Wales, especially independent television producers. If a pot of money from the BBC licence fee is to be made available for S4C, would the Minister clarify whether it will be ring-fenced for the independent producers, rather than swallowed by the BBC? Finally, we need assurances on the future funding for the channel, because if the decision for the BBC to take responsibility for that funding is to go ahead, I would like to know where we will stand not only in 2014, but in 2016 and beyond.
Hywel Williams
Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks, would he tell Members whether he agrees with the scale of the cuts—25%—that have been reported? What is his opinion on that matter?
Guto Bebb
I have made it fairly clear to many constituents that I believe that a cut in S4C’s funding can be justified, as long as it is in keeping with the general cuts that the Department is facing. Having spoken with numerous television companies in Wales, I believe that the feeling is that, with greater efficiency, a cut of around 20% is manageable, but that anything more would be problematic. I hope that the cut will be about 20%, and no more than 25%.
I could ask the Minister many more questions, but I think that he has probably realised from the debate that there is a degree of concern about the transparency of the announcements, which I believe is no fault of the Department—the BBC got hold of the story. However, we need some clarity on the announcement. I have asked several questions, but I should be delighted if he would expand on those and comment on the critical issues that have been raised by other Members. Ultimately, we need to remember that we are all here because we are convinced of the need for a television channel broadcasting in Welsh and feel that, whatever settlement is made as a result of today’s announcements, it should be a long-term settlement, not a short-term response to a current fiscal crisis.
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
Before calling the Minister, I remind Members that the debate will finish at 5.47 pm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is an honour and a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing this timely debate, which has allowed Members to consider the future not only of S4C, but of Welsh language programming and its funding levels. I want to put on the record the Government’s support for Welsh language programming and S4C’s continuing role in it.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
On that point, I point out to the Minister that S4C’s headquarters are based in my constituency and that I have met its executives to discuss the situation on a number of occasions. I have advised them to engage with him. I have a copy of a statement made by S4C’s chair:
“I am astounded at the contempt that the London government has shown not just towards S4C, but also towards the Welsh people and indeed the language itself.”
Would the Minister like to deal with that statement?
Mr Vaizey
I will use my hon. Friend’s intervention to make it absolutely clear that my hon. Friends have been assiduous in putting the case for S4C, and they have been not a little successful in doing so. If anyone is to be accused of contempt for S4C, it is certainly not Conservative Members in Wales; as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy noted, S4C was established by a Conservative Government. I do not want to make the debate any more heated, so I will not comment on the chair’s specific remarks—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North will have to forgive me, but discretion is the better part of valour. I will point out, however, that we are not a “London Government” but the Government of the United Kingdom, and we have to make decisions with the interests not only of the Welsh people at heart, but of the people of the whole United Kingdom.
Hywel Williams
Would the Minister tell Members when the chairman of S4C and the Welsh Assembly Government’s Minister for Heritage were informed of the Government’s decision?
Paul Flynn
Before the Minister rewrites history, I remind him that the Conservative Government turned down the idea of a fourth channel in 1979. Mrs Thatcher changed her mind under duress because Gwynfor Evans was touring Wales and claimed that he would starve himself to death if there was no fourth channel. She had been reading Irish history at the time and did not want a martyr in Wales, which could have caused all kinds of problems. It was not an act of generosity or good sense on the part of the Conservatives.
Mr Vaizey
We can spend the debate looking backwards or forwards. I want to look forward, as I believe that S4C has a bright future under the Government’s proposals. As so much of our discussions come down to funding, I will make it clear that in the financial year 2011-12, S4C will receive £90 million, which is a substantial sum of money. By 2014-15, the channel will receive a total of £83 million, which is still a substantial sum of money. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy referred to S4C’s £3 million of commercial income, which he felt was a low sum of money. Nevertheless, it is £3 million, and S4C has £27 million in reserve, which is available to spend on its statutory duty. To my mind, that is a substantial sum of money for securing the future of Welsh programming.
Alun Cairns
I congratulate the Minister on the figures that he just announced, because they are a significant pledge of support to S4C. How do they compare with the cuts that the Department and the Government have had to make as a result of the financial position that we inherited? Will all of that money be output-focused and spent on independent production companies? Will the BBC in any way be able to siphon it away under the suggested arrangement?
Mr Vaizey
My hon. Friend makes very important points. Overall, the Department agreed with the Treasury a 24% to 25% cut, so S4C is not being singled out. In fact, in mentioning the BBC, he reminded me that if we take the £90 million, the £3 million of commercial income and the £27 million of reserves, we still have not counted the equivalent of £20 million of free programming that is already available from the BBC for S4C. That is a substantial sum.
Given the important representations made by my hon. Friends over the past few weeks on the future of S4C, and the interest that the people of Wales take in the future of S4C, I know that parts of this debate will play on the news tonight in Wales. People in Wales will be watching this debate, perhaps on BBC Parliament, and I want them to know about the £90 million next year, the equivalent of £20 million in programming from the BBC, £3 million in commercial income and £27 million in reserves. I have enough faith in the people of Wales to believe that they will look at the funding figures for S4C and think that they are generous, so for the Opposition to depict this move as an attempt to undermine S4C is an outrageous travesty of the truth. [Interruption.]
Annette Brooke (in the Chair)
Order. If the Minister is not taking interventions, he is not taking interventions.
Hywel Williams
May I point out that the Chancellor today announced that the funding for the London Olympics of £9.3 billion will be maintained, that there will be capital spending on Tate Modern, the British Museum and the British Library—all in London—and that the Arts Council England and Sport England budgets will be reduced, but only by 15%? Those institutions are of huge cultural significance to the United Kingdom in general and specifically to England, yet a similar institution in Wales, S4C, is being cut by 25%. How can the Minister defend that position?
Mr Vaizey
The hon. Gentleman knows that the 25% cut is the same as the Department’s cut, and he will no doubt be delighted, given how he wants to portray the situation, that culture is a devolved matter for Wales. However, let us also discuss future arrangements. [Interruption.] I want to move on to a new point.
People have talked about a lack of consultation. The BBC will not take over responsibility for S4C until 2013-14. The Welsh Affairs Committee has announced an inquiry into S4C, so there will be plenty of time for people to make representations about the situation. [Interruption.] Let me set out a few markers so that when interventions are made by the Opposition they can be made in a timely and forensic fashion.
First, the editorial independence of S4C will be guaranteed, regardless of the fact that it will be funded by the BBC. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), absolutely 100% of the content budget will be spent on independent production, as it is at present. That, of course, is the content budget, and S4C obviously has an administration budget as well. The BBC will not be in a position to siphon off money for promotion on BBC channels. It will be for the BBC and S4C, in the two years that they have to put the arrangement in place, to talk through the exact details of how the money will be used.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
On a point of clarity, will the changes that the Minister is rattling through at the moment require legislation?
Mr Vaizey
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the public bodies Bill will include a clause to break the retail prices index link. I have no doubt that he and his colleagues will be able to get on their feet during its passage and state what the Labour party’s position is. Will Labour Members table an amendment to retain the link with inflation, and to insulate S4C from the difficult financial decisions that many other bodies are planning to take? If not, what is the Labour party’s position? Is it to restore the funding of S4C to 2010-11 levels and take it up to what it might have been in 2014-15? Does it not support the BBC taking responsibility for the funding of S4C, although it remains independent?
Mr Vaizey
The hon. Gentleman calls that sophistry. I call it simple, direct questions. Opposition Members are playing politics when they know full well that S4C has a very generous funding settlement, has substantial reserves, has a place in the heart of the Welsh people, and has huge support from Conservative Members of Parliament in Wales who have lobbied Ministers assiduously on behalf of S4C. If that is sophistry, I would like to know what is not.
Mr Vaizey
We are introducing a public bodies Bill, and under the coalition Government, Parliament has plenty of time to debate Bills in a way that was impossible under the previous Government, who seemed to find the guillotine almost as attractive as Robespierre.
I look forward to hearing Labour Members making their points, and I leave the debate with this reassurance for hon. Members. The Government are committed to Welsh language programming, we are committed to the future of S4C, and we have put in place a generous settlement for S4C. I have been bowled over by the energy and enthusiasm of my Welsh colleagues and their defence of S4C. It will be interesting to hear the Select Committee inquiry under the excellent stewardship of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). We are moving forward with a bright future for S4C.
Question put and agreed to.