House of Commons
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
1. What recent discussions he has had on the likely effects on mental health patients of changes to health care provision arising from the comprehensive spending review.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
The Government confirmed their determination to protect the most vulnerable in our society by protecting both the NHS and social care in the recent spending review. The Chancellor also announced funding to expand access to talking therapies.
Ian Swales
Can the Minister give assurances that the Department of Health is having full discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions about the problems that those with mental health problems experience in returning to work?
Paul Burstow
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I can certainly assure him that those discussions are ongoing and regular, and that we work very closely with colleagues, both ministerial and official, in the DWP. Indeed, we are evaluating two of the Department’s collaborative projects on employment advisers working with people recovering from depression and anxiety disorders.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
The Rokerfield mental health day care centre in my constituency is under threat of closure. Does the Minister share my disappointment that the county council cabinet members responsible for making that decision have all ignored my invitation to speak to service users before coming to their decision? Will he urge them to visit users first?
Paul Burstow
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I am sure she would agree that it is important that we ensure that there is adequate funding in social care so that it is possible to continue to support services of this sort. That is why I am sure she would join me in thanking the Chancellor for the statement he made two weeks ago, when he confirmed that an additional £2 billion will be invested in social care. On her specific question, I will look at the matter in closer detail and write to her.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware of the number of people in the criminal justice system with severe mental health problems—they make up some 15%, according to the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. In my area of Dudley and Walsall, almost 2,000 people are on probation or in prison, yet only 40—just 2.5%—are in contact with mental health services. Will he discuss with his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice what we can do to improve that situation?
Paul Burstow
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, which underscores the legacy that the Government have been left in terms of the paucity of these services as they are now and why we need to work closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, as indeed we are doing, to ensure that we provide good quality mental health support for offenders, both in prison and when they leave it.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Can the Minister assure us that he will encourage his departmental colleagues to ensure that, despite the influence of the comprehensive spending review, the confidential inquiry and the learning disabilities public health observatory will go beyond March and until the work is concluded?
Paul Burstow
The right hon. Gentleman does a lot of work in the area of learning disability. Indeed, we had a good debate in Westminster Hall earlier this year on this matter, in which I indicated the Government’s support for those observatories. We believe they play a very important role in our understanding of the issues.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
2. What progress his Department has made in the provision of specialist neuromuscular care in Bristol; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Of course, it is important that the commissioning of services, which is about getting the right treatment and services for people, is a decision that is made locally. The south west specialised commissioning group—SWSCG—has responsibility for commissioning specialised services for neuromuscular conditions in Bristol. I know that there have been some problems in the past, but since the Walton report the group has reviewed its provision of neuromuscular services and appointed both an additional paediatric neuromuscular consultant and a new adult neuromuscular consultant in Bristol, as part of the £l million investment for the south-west, which I am sure she will welcome.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response. Families who live with muscle disease, such as the Arshad family, in Brislington, in my constituency, have welcomed the work of the SWSCG but are very worried about the impact that the introduction of GP-led commissioning will have on these services. They really feel that families like them will be left by the wayside. What reassurances can she give them?
Anne Milton
May I point out to the hon. Lady that, in fact, GPs are often very aware of the services that are needed? The neuromuscular team attached to the SWSCG has worked with the South West Muscle Group on the development of a provider register for hydrotherapy services, for example. Such things are best decided by GPs, who know exactly what people need, what treatment is needed and what care services are needed to ensure the best possible outcomes and the best possible quality of life.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The national service framework for long-term conditions such as multiple sclerosis, in which I am very interested, was much praised at the time it was launched. Does the Minister feel that it was properly funded and that it has been run properly since? Has it lived up to the expectations that we all had of it three or four years ago when it was launched?
Anne Milton
With particular reference to the care provided in Bristol, the one thing that I would say is that commissioning is not something that has done well. There is never any room for complacency in the provision of services or in the provision of treatment. We always need to strive to do better.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
3. What steps his Department is taking to increase the provision of preventative health care.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
We are committed to protecting and improving the nation’s health and well-being. Since the election, we have already announced our commitment to preventative action on cancer, including improved bowel cancer screening and a campaign on signs and symptoms to promote early diagnosis; investment in a programme of reablement for those leaving hospital; and £70 million of investment this year to increase access to talking therapies.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Does my right hon. Friend agree that dedicated health spending focused on the poorest areas in most need is urgently required to narrow the health inequalities that, as a recent National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee report show, actually widened under the Labour party?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because it enables us to point out that over the period of the previous Labour Government health inequalities in this country widened—life expectancy, for example, widened by 7% for men and 12.5% for women between the richest and the poorest areas of this country. We are very clear. Our public health White Paper, which will be published shortly, will focus on how we can not only deliver a more effective public health strategy, improving health outcomes for all, but improve health outcomes for the poorest fastest.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
There is an area of the country where public health inequalities have not widened, and it is the borough of Slough. Will the Secretary of State come to Slough and look at the work of health advocates, who are ordinary citizens who help to engage people with their health and avoid some of the conditions that have led to early deaths in Slough?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady might not recall, but about five and a half years ago I visited Slough to meet the health trainers, particularly in the Asian community, who were going to help people. Their focus was on diabetes. It has been a very effective pilot and we will need to work—we will do so—with local authorities and the NHS. We should work together, using dedicated public health resources of precisely that kind, to identify the risk of diabetes and to tackle it at source.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
On the Isle of Wight, the local NHS has decided that contraceptive pills may be given to girls as young as 13. Their parents and even their GPs are not involved. Nowhere else, I am told, shares that approach. Many of my constituents are horrified. What is the Secretary of State’s view?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will know that these decisions were made locally. Indeed, we support local decision making. We will ensure that such decisions are taken not only in the health service but alongside local authorities as part of their public health function. It is important that one is clear that a young person is competent to make such decisions. Subject to that, however, we are always clear that patients have a right to access health care on their own cognisance if they are competent to do so.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State accept that good preventative care walks hand in hand with good social care? Does he further accept that even if all efficiencies were made and every single pound of the so-called additional £2 billion for social care was to be spent, there will, as the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services warn, nevertheless be a shortfall of at least another £2 billion before the end of the comprehensive spending review? In those circumstances, why does the Treasury’s own document say:
“In social care, the Spending Review has provided additional funding needed to maintain current levels of care”?
Who is the public to trust and what are they to make of it?
Mr Lansley
First, may I welcome the hon. Lady to her position in the shadow health team? I do not accept her proposition. We are very clear about the nature of the efficiencies that can be made in social care, and we have established an efficiency group that is advising on how that can be done. In addition, in the spending review the Chancellor was able to announce that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has made £1 billion extra available, and we have made £1 billion available through the NHS. On that basis, there is no need for local authorities to have to reduce eligibility to social care.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
4. What recent assessment he has made of the potential contribution of StartHere to his Department’s programmes to reduce the digital divide in respect of health services.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
Access to information is a key pillar of our plans to empower patients and service users. We want to open up access to trusted health and care information to everyone, including through digital channels. Independent organisations have an important role to play in helping to ensure that health and care information reaches everyone. StartHere is a good example of how such organisations can help. I am very keen to see StartHere’s response to our consultation, “An Information Revolution”.
Alun Michael
I welcome the Minister’s positive response. Does he agree with me and, by the way, with Citizens Advice and the Royal British Legion that StartHere has the unique benefit of starting from the point of view of the person who needs information? It therefore increases efficiency and has the potential to save the health service money. Will he meet me to discuss how to realise those potential benefits?
Mr Burns
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those comments. I pay tribute to him because he has been a champion of StartHere ever since its existence. He and I agree that it is crucial that information is provided to empower patients and citizens, not all of whom have access to websites and the internet. I am more than happy to meet him to discuss this further.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
5. What plans he has for future funding of specialist children’s hospitals.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Specialist children's hospitals will continue to be funded through local commissioning and specialised commissioning based on payment by results and local contracting while also recognising the specific additional costs of specialist paediatric services.
Tony Lloyd
The Secretary of State will know that his Department has written to specialist children’s hospitals threatening to withdraw the top-up moneys that are recognised as important in treating the most critically ill children. That is outrageous and seems to run counter to the Government’s commitment not to cut funding. Will he go back to his Department and tell his officials that he will not go ahead with the reduction in top-up fees?
Mr Lansley
I am afraid that I have to correct the hon. Gentleman. We are not withdrawing specialist top-up payments; the Department has acted on the basis of a review conducted by the university of York which was initiated by the Opposition Front Bench team’s predecessors when they were in government. They set up a review on specialist top-ups which said that the payments should go down from 78% to 25%, not that they should be withdrawn completely. We are reviewing that outcome with the specialist children’s hospitals and a meeting is taking place today to consider whether the review’s conclusions were accurate and applicable.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Does the Minister agree with me and the 1999 Shields report that children’s accident and emergency, paediatrics and maternity units should be kept together in one hospital? Will he postpone the move of the Burnley children’s ward to Blackburn until the new GP commissioners are installed and can make an informed decision?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point and we have discussed this at Burnley. I feel strongly—indeed, I know—that we must continue to apply the tests that I have set out for such issues of configuration, including that they will deliver improving clinical outcomes, be safe for patients and, as he rightly says, reflect the commissioning intentions of local GPs representing local patients.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
How can it possibly be right that the world-renowned staff at Great Ormond Street hospital in my constituency face, under this proposition, a reduction of £16 million in the funding of that hospital? NHS funding is supposed to be ring-fenced, but from the point of view of people at Great Ormond Street, it seems to be rather more ringed than fenced.
Mr Lansley
The right hon. Gentleman must realise that if we had listened to the Labour party in the comprehensive spending review, we would have cut the NHS budget, but we did not. We resisted the Labour party’s proposal, and resources for the NHS will increase in real terms, but there is then the matter of how those resources should be deployed to best effect. The application of the proposal—we have still to agree with children’s hospitals on how it will be applied—would have the overall effect of reducing Great Ormond Street’s total income by less than 2%.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s answer simply will not do. He is in government now, not us. He is making decisions to make deep cuts to our specialist children’s hospitals. He is trying to keep the NHS out of the public spotlight, and we will make sure that the public know what his plans for the NHS are.
I have the Secretary of State’s letter. He has not answered my questions and I ask him again to tell the House why, before today, no Minister has made any statement in public or in the House about these big stealth cuts to our children’s hospitals, and how much each one of the 35 specialist children’s hospitals will lose next year in funding to treat some of the most critically ill children in our country.
Mr Lansley
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place. I hope he enjoys being shadow Secretary of State as much as I did, and that he enjoys an even longer tenure. I explained to his right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) the impact on Great Ormond Street. I do not discount its importance to the hospital, and it is being discussed today with specialist children’s hospitals by a group chaired by the national clinical director, but it represents less than 2% of Great Ormond Street’s total income. This is about specialist top-ups to the tariff where the new tariff has been introduced, which in itself makes differences to the income and the accuracy of costs of services provided by those hospitals. It was all set up by the previous Government. They started the review. They published it on 16 December 2009. It was not our doing; it was their doing.
John Healey
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome to me in my job. I have no intention of being in the job for six years, as he was before he came into government. We will have won an election before the end of that period.
Big stealth cuts to our children’s hospitals are not what the public expected to see when they heard the Prime Minister promise to protect the NHS budget. Will the Secretary of State admit that he is double-counting £1 billion a year in the spending review as both money for the NHS and money to paper over the cracks in social care? Will he accept the new House of Commons Library research report, which confirms:
“Including the (social care) funding is critical to the description of the settlement as a ‘real terms increase’; without it, funding for the NHS falls by £500 million—0.54% in real terms.”
When did the Secretary of State tell the Prime Minister that the Government are breaking his promise to protect the NHS budget?
Mr Lansley
I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. Even if we did not treat up to £1 billion to support social care through the NHS as NHS money—we should treat it as NHS money, but even if we did not—there would still be an increase in the resources available to the NHS in real terms each year. It is NHS money. The right hon. Gentleman must accept that this year we are spending £70 million on reablement, which has the effect of mitigating need in social care and reducing emergency readmissions to hospital. We will provide NHS money, which in itself supports health gain and social care support.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
6. What assessment he has made of the likely effect on cancer survival rates of the implementation of his proposed reforms of the NHS.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
Our health spending now matches European levels, but our cancer survival rates do not match European levels. If we brought survival rates up to the best in Europe, we could save up to 10,000 lives a year. Our updated cancer strategy will set out how our NHS reforms will improve cancer survival rates.
Julian Sturdy
Does my hon. Friend agree that local charity groups, such as York Against Cancer in my constituency, play a vital role in the fight against that disease? Can he assure me that the Government will continue to support and work with the voluntary sector to provide the very best cancer care?
Paul Burstow
The Government certainly work closely with the voluntary sector in many ways to promote and develop our approach to cancer services. We value the work of organisations such as York Against Cancer because of the support that they provide through information and support for people diagnosed with cancer and their families. It is very important that we continue to support such activities.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that cancer survival outcomes are very closely linked to poverty and inequality? Although I concede that inequality widened under the previous Government, how can the present Government hope to bear down on poverty and inequality in the context of an overall policy framework that envisages a steep rise in unemployment, with all the poor health outcomes associated with that, and a commitment to protecting health spending, which is unravelling by the day?
Paul Burstow
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, and particularly her acknowledgement of the previous Government’s failure to close the health inequality gap. The Office for Budget Responsibility identified that there will be growth in employment during the spending review period, and this Government are determined to make sure that we see that growth take place. When it comes to cancer survival, what we need to do most, and most importantly, is make sure that people are aware of the signs and symptoms of cancer, because if they are, they present earlier, they get a diagnosis earlier and their survival chances are greatly improved.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
7. What mechanisms he plans to introduce for public access to financial information about general practices under his Department’s proposals for GP commissioning.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
Under our proposals, commissioning budgets will be held by GP-led consortiums, which will be established as statutory bodies, rather than by individual GP practices. The commissioning budgets will be distinct from the income that GP practices earn under their contracts for providing primary medical care. GP consortiums will have to make their accounts available to the public.
Sir Alan Beith
I welcome the Minister’s reply. As GP practices have always been treated as private partnerships and are not open to financial scrutiny or freedom of information requests, it is important that £80 billion of public spending is, in the way he describes, subject to scrutiny, including by this House.
Mr Burns
May I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the NHS commissioning board will not allocate commissioning budgets directly to GP practices? Neither will they be included in either partnership or individual GP accounts. As is the situation now, those GP accounts will remain entirely separate. Our proposals set out clear lines of accountability in respect of commissioning resources. Each GP consortium must prepare a set of annual accounts, which the NHS commissioning board will include in its consolidated account. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Gentleman.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that patients and councillors will sit on consortium boards, and that the boards will meet in public, so that there will be real transparency and accountability at the point of decision making, and accountability will not be sidelined to health and well-being boards?
Mr Burns
May I explain to the hon. Lady that, no, councillors will not be on the GP consortiums? They will have a full and active role to play on the health and well-being boards, so that they can take a full part in determining the local needs of the local health economy. That is the right venue for them.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that as those commissioning consortiums are established, it will be important to ensure that they are subject to proper financial assurance, in the same way as Monitor applies such principles to foundation trusts? Can he assure the House that that will be one of the responsibilities of the NHS commissioning board?
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The Government want to create about 500 new GP commissioning groups and scrap 150 primary care trusts, which the King’s Fund says will cost £3 billion. Yet, last year the current Prime Minister promised that
“there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures… The disruption is terrible, the demoralisation worse—and the waste of money inexcusable.”
Can the Minister tell us when the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) changed his mind?
Mr Burns
May I begin by congratulating the hon. Lady on her elevation to this position? I know that in the past she has worked at the Department of Health, so her experience will no doubt help her Front-Bench colleagues who do not share such a background. However, she is factually wrong, although no doubt she will not be wrong in the future, because we have never said that there will be 500 consortiums. It will up to local decision making to determine how many consortiums there will be. The hon. Lady can believe what she reads in the newspapers, but if I were her I would wait to see what actually happens.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
8. What mechanisms he plans to put in place to provide for GP revalidation after the ending of primary care trusts.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The General Medical Council is responsible for the revalidation of doctors, rather than primary care trusts. In the current structures, subject to parliamentary approval, responsible officers in primary care trusts will make recommendations to the GMC on the fitness to practice of doctors in primary care. Before the dissolution of primary care trusts, we will consult on options for responsible officers in primary care.
Henry Smith
I am very grateful for that answer from my right hon. Friend. I welcome the commissioning role that GPs are to have. Does he believe, however, that there needs to be a distance between revalidation and local GP practices, and that that would best sit at a county or metropolitan borough level?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Indeed, we will take account of precisely the point that he makes when we consult on how responsible officers in primary care will be established in future following primary care trusts. It is important to recognise that revalidation should be a process very like the normal appraisal of staff. However, when it comes to investigation of fitness to practise, it will be important for there to be proper independence.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
This is a very important issue affecting patient safety. The Secretary of State will know that the British Medical Association has raised significant concerns about the revalidation proposals, referring specifically to the implications of the reorganisation. Does he recall criticising NHS reorganisations and their cost in his conference speech on 5 October 2009? Why, then, has he embarked on a reorganisation that will cost an estimated £3 billion at a time when the NHS will also face deep cuts because of his broken promises over funding?
Mr Lansley
May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities?
We are doing this because it is absolutely essential for the NHS to use resources better to deliver improving outcomes for patients. A combination of the ability for general practice-led consortiums to combine the management of care for patients with the management of resources is instrumental to achieving that. It will deliver substantial reductions in management costs. We will achieve a £1.9 billion-a-year reduction in management costs by 2015.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
9. What progress he has made on increasing the provision of specialist neuromuscular care in (a) the north-west and (b) England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I pay tribute to the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and a number of other organisations that have been so successful in raising these issues. A review of specialist neuromuscular services in the north-west was completed in September 2010. I understand that the focus of the review was the particular pressure areas of service provision highlighted by Muscular Dystrophy Campaign reports and corroborated locally by key stakeholders.
Graham Evans
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Muscular dystrophy is a particularly terrible muscle-wasting disease that afflicts many constituents of mine. Will the Minister agree to meet me and the NHS north-west specialised commissioning group to discuss the action required to reduce the £13.6 million spent on unplanned emergency admissions for neuromuscular conditions in the region?
Anne Milton
I know that I speak for all the ministerial team in saying that we are always very happy to meet groups to go through some of the situations. I would also urge continuing to campaign locally. If services are not provided adequately and properly, the unnecessary admissions due to that poor provision are considerable, as are the costs associated with them.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
10. What assessment his Department has made of the effect on cancer patients of changes to the maximum waiting period for cancer treatment.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, because it allows me to make it absolutely clear that the Government have not changed the waiting times standards for cancer services. The revision to the NHS operating framework for this year confirmed that the NHS is expected to continue to ensure that people with suspected cancers are seen within the agreed waiting times standards.
Jim McGovern
I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure that he agrees with me that the policy brought in by the previous Government to ensure guaranteed minimum waiting times for cancer patients made great strides forward, not only for patients but for their families. May I urge him to ensure that this is not changed by any Government policy changes and that guaranteed minimum waiting times remain at the forefront of treatment for cancer patients?
Paul Burstow
I am grateful for the question. The answer, of course, is yes, we are determined to maintain these targets because we believe they make a difference.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Will the Minister ensure that patients who currently do not have access to a clinical nurse specialist will have such access? Research suggests that it considerably improves experiences and outputs.
Paul Burstow
The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to ensure that we invest in cancer specialists, and in the past six months the coalition Government have set out a number of steps that we will take, and are taking now, to improve cancer survival rates and cancer services. Raising awareness of signs and symptoms, new screening methods for bowel cancer and improving the number of specialist staff are just some of the things into which the Government have already started putting additional resources, in order to make a difference.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
11. What steps he is taking to reduce administrative costs in the NHS.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
We are cutting management costs in the NHS by 45%. We will cut total administrative costs as well, and in total that will save £1.9 billion a year by 2015.
Mr Raab
I thank the Secretary of State. I recently spent a morning in my constituency with local paramedics and was shocked to learn that the very best paramedic can earn just one tenth of that earned by the highest-paid NHS manager. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to address those skewed priorities?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will be aware that we in the Department and across government have invited Will Hutton to examine pay differentials in public services, and we have talked to him about precisely that. In my hon. Friend’s area, the earnings of a qualified member of ambulance staff would be about £37,000 on average, which of course is only about a sixth of the highest pay of an NHS manager.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Past reorganisations of the national health service have taken years to embed and affected performance negatively, and history suggests that, given the scale of the reorganisations in the White Paper, they will be no exception. Can the Secretary of State tell us how much the administrative costs of the changes will be?
Mr Lansley
Perhaps I can remind the right hon. Gentleman that the major part of the reorganisation is to eliminate strategic health authorities and primary care trusts, to focus resources on the front line, to get them into the hands of those who are responsible for delivering care and, in the process, to deliver £1.9 billion a year of savings on administration costs.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
12. What steps he is taking to prioritise funding for dementia research from his Department’s research budget.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
Dementia is a terrible disease that devastates the lives of thousands of people in this country, and research is clearly key. The coalition programme signalled the Government’s intention to prioritise funding for dementia research. The spending review confirmed that and committed to real-terms increases in spending on health research.
Heather Wheeler
Will the Minister expand on the future funding of mental health trusts? We all know the statistic that one in four people suffers from mental health problems in their lifetime, and it is a great problem in South Derbyshire.
Paul Burstow
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is important that we are clear about that. Currently, funding for mental health services comes via primary care trusts, and from 2013-14 onwards allocations will be provided via GP commissioning consortiums.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s first answer, but may I ask him to go further and place in the Library a list of all the areas of principal research that the Government are to fund, both directly and through research charities? It would be incredibly helpful for the public to understand exactly how the Government intend to handle the research programme for dementia and all other areas of health.
Paul Burstow
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, because I chair the ministerial group that is considering how we can improve and increase the supply of research. It is examining a number of matters, including how we can ensure that there is an increase in the volume of research, how we can engage the public—he is absolutely right about that—and how we can translate research into practice quickly. Next year we will set out more detailed proposals and publish the details of all the research programmes that are under way.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
13. What plans he has for future public funding for the hereditary breast cancer helpline.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I congratulate Wendy Watson on starting the helpline in 1996. I also congratulate the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Mr McLoughlin) on the support that they have given it. I know that it has experienced difficulties in gaining funding from primary care trusts, with only 36 of the 152 PCTs providing it, but the cancer networks are working on an interim solution to fund the helpline through the transition period prior to the NHS commissioning board and GP commissioning coming online.
Natascha Engel
I thank the Minister, but what I am most concerned about is the fact that Wendy Watson is running the helpline on a shoestring from her home in Derbyshire. She is getting small grants from PCTs, but once PCTs are abolished, where will the money come from? Can the Minister commit to funding the national helpline, which is the only one of its kind, directly from the Department of Health?
Anne Milton
I point out to the hon. Lady that with the new commissioning consortiums, those decisions will be made at a much more local level. Only 36 of 152 PCTs are currently contributing to the helpline, which is nonsense when one considers that they are being asked for only £422 each. It is right that such decisions should be made locally, particularly in view of the sort of emotional support that the helpline can give.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
14. What steps his Department is taking to increase the provision of preventative health care.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
In addition to what I said in reply to Question 3, I can tell my hon. Friend that we will shortly be publishing a public health White Paper, which for the first time will not only demonstrate a commitment across Government to improving public health and reducing health inequalities, but introduce a strategy and implementation programme to achieve precisely that.
Caroline Nokes
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is responsible for 30,000 deaths a year, and it is the second largest cause of emergency hospital admissions in the UK. In response to the consultations that have been received from, among others, groups in my constituency, will the Secretary of State please tell me when the Government plan to publish the clinical strategy on COPD?
Mr Lansley
We need to continue our work with the British Lung Foundation, because that has been extremely helpful. We are in the process—through the consultation on the White Paper and other such consultations—of putting in place an outcomes framework, which will enable us to see how outcomes can be achieved for people with respiratory diseases. In the meantime, I hope that we will push forward with the commissioning guidelines, clinical guidelines and quality standards that will help to support some of the COPD initiatives that I have seen, including a successful community COPD service in Somerset.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that 6,000 women a year die from ovarian cancer. Will he welcome the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines that were published this year, and, in so doing, will he tell us why he has decided to neuter NICE? The independent assessment that it provides was established in 1999 to ensure that, where we have a finite pool of resources, money is spent properly. Are not the pharmaceutical companies now rubbing their hands in glee?
Mr Lansley
The right hon. Gentleman has it completely wrong. We are not neutralising NICE. On the contrary, we will focus NICE on what its real job always was and should be, which is to provide independent advice to the NHS about the relative clinical and cost-effectiveness of treatments so as to achieve the best outcomes. The point that he may be misunderstanding is that by 2014 we intend to ensure that we are no longer denying access to the new medicines that patients need, because we will have a new and more effective value-based pricing system of reimbursement to pharmaceutical companies.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
15. What advice his Department provides to NHS trusts seeking to renegotiate private finance initiative contracts.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
This Department and the Treasury provide guidance and advice to NHS schemes to maximise the savings and best value for money they can achieve when making variations to their PFI contracts for additional services or facilities, conducting market testing exercises for support services or when assessing refinancing requests from their private sector partners.
Penny Mordaunt
What can the Government do to assist the Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth, which is under serious financial pressure because of its PFI contract, a £37 million deficit and, thanks to false planning assumptions, not enough patients to make a super hospital sustainable?
Mr Burns
May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her assiduous work in her constituency? She represents her constituents and looks after their interests regarding the provision of the highest quality health care. From conversations that I have had with her, I fully appreciate her concerns about the financial situation. I understand that South Central strategic health authority is working closely with the trust as it implements a cost-improvement programme to achieve financial balance.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
16. How many diagnostic tests for cancer he expects to be carried out by the NHS in each of the next four years.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
The Department collects waiting times and activity data on 15 key diagnostic tests, but these data do not include the reason for a diagnostic test, such as suspected cancer. The NHS carries out more than 40 million diagnostic tests per year. The cancer reform strategy review is looking at the scope to improve survival rates by increased use of some diagnostic tests.
Angela Smith
I thank the Minister for that answer, although it was not quite as precise as I would have liked. How will those numbers be impacted by the Government’s decision to abandon the one-week guarantee for cancer tests and their decision not to performance-manage the abandonment of the 18-week diagnostic target?
Mr Burns
I say in the politest way possible to the hon. Lady that we cannot abandon a target that has never been imposed in the first place. May I remind her that, as a sop to the Labour party conference more than a year ago, the former Prime Minister merely announced an aspiration? He never provided any funding or said where the funding should go, and he never provided any clinical evidence for the viability of the proposal. Saying that the Government have abandoned a target when it never existed is sheer poppycock.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The all-party cancer group’s report last year found that those with rarer cancers got a bit of a raw deal from the NHS when it came to access to treatment and drugs. How will the new cancer fund put right that wrong?
Mr Burns
I am sure that my hon. Friend, through the tremendous work done by him and his colleagues on the all-party group, will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s initiative—providing £50 million for the rest of this year and £200 million from next year for the cancer fund—is an important step forward in helping those who suffer from cancer. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also welcome the fact that work is ongoing on refining, following the review, the cancer reform strategy, and we are looking at the scope for improving survival rates by the increased use of diagnostic tests and at improving care across the board, so that we raise our standards to the highest in Europe rather than being the poor relation.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
My responsibility is to lead the NHS in delivering improved health outcomes in England, to lead a public health service that improves the health of the nation and reduces health inequalities, and to lead the reform of adult social care, which supports and protects vulnerable people.
Julie Elliott
In the light of the 0.5% real cut in the NHS after the social care switch, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) referred, may I ask when the Secretary of State decided to break his promise on a real-terms funding increase for the NHS? Does he accept that that is not what my constituents expected when they heard the Prime Minister promise real increases for the NHS?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady’s constituents expect the truth, which is that we are providing increased resources for the NHS in real terms, taking it from £104 billion to £114 billion. That is completely contrary to what we were advised to do by the Labour party, which said that we should cut the NHS budget. We did not do that; we increased it.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
T2. The all-party group on multiple sclerosis held an all-day seminar last week on the subject of drug pricing, during which it broadly welcomed the end of the risk-sharing scheme and looked forward to value-based pricing, which will be introduced shortly. That welcome is subject to two important conditions: first, that NICE clinical guidelines should be updated and continued; and secondly, that the NICE risk appraisal should be abandoned. Does the Secretary of State agree with me on those two conditions?
Mr Lansley
Yes; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we implement our plans for the value-based pricing of medicines from 2014, NICE’s role will change. It will focus on advising how best to use treatments and to develop quality standards for the NHS, rather than recommending whether patients should be able to access particular drugs. We want patients to have access to the medicines that their clinicians believe are best for them.
David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Secretary of State can provide some reassurance to residents of Cleadon Park estate in my constituency who are concerned about the consequences of primary care trust abolition for the PCT-owned, PCT-organised and PCT-financed health centre that brings together primary and secondary care, and local authority and community services. Is there not a real danger of the sort of expensive “anarchy” of which Professor Tony Travers of the London School of Economics has warned?
Mr Lansley
Happily, I can offer the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents great reassurance that not only will the relationship between community health care and specialist health care in hospitals be improved by general practice-led commissioning—because clinicians will speak to clinicians—but the services they rely on will be improved, because we will no longer spend so much money on PCT administration. He will know that in 10 years under his Government the number of managers in the NHS increased by more than 60%.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
T4. NHS Warwickshire is consulting on the future of Bramcote hospital, which serves my constituency and the wider north Warwickshire area. That could lead to the closure of the hospital which has provided valuable intermediate care to my constituents over many years. To close the hospital, NHS Warwickshire requires the Department of Health to meet substantial impairment costs. Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents that before any decision is made by the Department to pay any such costs, the views of the local GP consortiums and local people will be taken into account?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
As my hon. Friend says, NHS Warwickshire is consulting on the future of intermediate care at Bramcote hospital. I hope that he will engage with that consultation and that the views of local people will be taken fully into account by NHS Warwickshire in deciding the way forward. As he knows, the Secretary of State has set out various tests and NHS Warwickshire’s decision must have the support of the GP commissioners; must strengthen public-patient engagement; and must be based on sound clinical evidence. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured that those tests will be fully taken into account as part of the consultation process.
Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)
T8. Following the coalition Government’s announcement that the NHS budget was to be protected and, indeed, increased, can the Secretary of State tell me why a ward will be closed at Calderdale Royal hospital? Will he reverse that crazy decision immediately for the safety of my constituents?
Mr Lansley
I cannot tell the hon. Lady precisely why that proposal has been made, but I will investigate and write to her. Increasing resources overall for the NHS does not mean that everything will stay the same in every particular. There will be change, including the redirection of resources towards providing services in the community rather than in hospitals.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
T5. Occupational therapists are crucial in effective rehabilitation. Will the Minister advise me on what role he sees for occupational therapists in using the £70 million investment in reablement announced by the Government?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the Government’s commitment to develop reablement services, especially the win, win, win that they can deliver for the individual who gets back on his feet, gets his confidence back and leads his life independently; for the social services departments, which do not have to provide ongoing support; and for the NHS, which does not have to deal with readmissions. Occupational therapists have a vital role to play in providing good quality support following discharge and are therefore critical players in the development of reablement services around the country.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
T9. Is it appropriate for my constituents in Huddersfield to be lectured about healthy living standards by a Minister who is out of condition, overweight and a chain smoker?
Mr Lansley
I take it that the hon. Gentleman is not referring to me in those respects, although I can probably claim one or two of those epithets. We are none of us looking to lecture anybody: we are trying to lead a public health strategy that enables everybody to make healthier choices and lead healthier lives.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
T6. May I invite the Minister to congratulate my local newspaper, the Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph, on running a successful campaign to encourage people to sign up to become organ donors? Given the success of that campaign, perhaps the Department might like to encourage other local newspapers to do the same.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I would certainly like to join my hon. Friend in extending those congratulations. Local papers can have a huge impact in raising the issue of organ donation. Donor rates have risen in this country by 20% since 2007-08, which happened on the back of the organ donation taskforce, which looked at the system in 2008. The issue is complicated and quite sensitive in some areas, but the most important thing is to raise awareness in local communities. Local papers are an ideal vehicle for that.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Since when has handing over the running of any service to a powerful producer interest been good for the consumer—that is, the public? In the absence of primary care trusts, who will do the difficult but important job of performance-managing underperforming GPs and, where necessary, weeding out incompetent ones?
Mr Lansley
The right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Government who said that they would introduce practice-based commissioning, but who then let primary care trusts override the general practice role in determining not only the proper care of patients, but how resources should best be used to make that happen. If he is defending primary care trusts, he is making a very sad choice, because in reality they know that they simply increased their management but did not succeed when it came to commissioning. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), the former Health Committee Chairman, produced a report showing that, and it is very clear that—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not want to be unkind to the Secretary of State, but I am thirsting to hear the question from Mr David Burrowes.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
T7. My right hon. Friend has shown great interest in the reconfiguration plans for Enfield hospitals, culminating in the moratorium announcement outside Chase Farm hospital in May. Would he expect the outcome of the clinical review to be simply an endorsement of the present clinical strategy, which is based on previous models of care for emergency and maternity services, or should it embrace future health care choices, opening up to GPs, patients and the public?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He knows that the criteria that I set out, which were repeated earlier during questions, must be applied, not only to the strategies that were previously presented, but to potential new strategies that Barnet and Chase Farm hospitals might wish to present, in order to ensure that GP commissioning intentions, future patient choice and public views are properly reflected.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Many of my constituents are being offered the swine flu vaccine in combination with the seasonal flu vaccine. Will the Secretary of State ensure that they have the choice to have those vaccines separately?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady will forgive me, but I do not propose to make that available, as it would be a great deal more expensive. Each year, and on an international basis, the World Health Organisation advises on what the seasonal flu vaccine should consist of, and it almost always consists of the three most likely strains combined together into one vaccine.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Is the Secretary of State prepared to make a statement on the vital work of the co-ordination of organ donation at the hospital level, particularly given that under the current system there is no specified organ donation co-ordinator at the Westmorland general hospital in Kendal?
Anne Milton
Organ donation co-ordinators are a vital part of the team in increasing organ donation rates. The organ donation taskforce recommended 100 extra organ donation co-ordinators, but we must not forget that there are other things. For example, training for staff who are likely to come into contact with potential organ donors is vital. We have got to get those rates up.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
How can the Minister justify the already increasing delay in people having cancer diagnostic tests?
Mr Simon Burns
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was here earlier, but we explained in great detail about the target that never existed. The latest figures show that the median time has gone from 1.7 weeks to 1.9 weeks, but that is because those figures were for the period between June and August—the holiday time—when many people changed their bookings or appointments to fit in with the school holidays or their own holidays. The figures for September are already on course to get us back to the median for that time of the year.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I know that the Secretary of State is aware of the high level of teenage pregnancies in this country, and particularly in Hastings in my constituency. What action are we going to take to support those young women? We all know of the negative health outcomes that come with those young pregnancies.
Mr Lansley
Yes, indeed I do. It is sad to report that we have the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in western Europe. At the heart of this is the fact that we must have community strategies that are geared not least to improving the self-confidence and self-esteem of young people, so that they are able to make better decisions. We must assist them in doing that, but I would also mention the importance of ensuring that we have long-acting reversible contraception available for young people.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
Each year, around 7,000 more people in the UK are diagnosed with HIV, and more people than ever are living with the virus. How will the Government’s new public health White Paper address HIV prevention?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will know that the White Paper is yet to be published, so I will not pre-empt it, but it will be important to ensuring that there is a clear strategy for improving sexual health services. He will share our view that we want to deal with the extent of undiagnosed HIV and the extent to which people coming into contact with health care services are not offered HIV tests.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I recently met a group of Bournemouth and Poole college health and social care students whose research indicated that the average age for repeated sexual activity in the UK is now 16. With that and other information, they have set up a campaign to reduce the age for cervical screening to 20. What action will the Minister take?
Anne Milton
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She is right to raise the issue of the reducing age of sexual activity, and certainly the public health White Paper that we will publish later this year will have a significant impact on that. Cervical screening must be addressed, and it is important to raise the uptake rate to a much higher level to ensure early diagnosis.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Dr Clive Peedell, a consultant oncologist at James Cook university hospital in Middlesbrough, said that the coalition Government’s plans for the NHS
“are a roadmap to privatisation”.
That was his reaction to the King’s Fund report, which argues that the plans to make savings in direct NHS expenditure while dismantling local PCTs has the support of fewer than one in four doctors. What is the Secretary of State’s response to that overwhelming opposition from local doctors to the Government’s plans?
Mr Lansley
We will, of course, respond to the consultation in due course, but support for the principles of the White Paper was widespread and came from local government and the medical and nursing professions. The issues that we will address in the consultation were mainly about implementation of the principles, but support for the principles was widespread.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government’s policy is to ensure that over the next four years we deliver efficiency gains from the health service, valued by the chief executive at between £15 billion and £20 billion? As that target was first set out by the Labour party when it was in government, will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to invite the new shadow Secretary of State to endorse that programme, and to support its specific execution as each change is introduced?
Mr Lansley
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I invite the shadow Secretary of State to respond to it in due course. We will ensure that the NHS uses resources more efficiently to meet increasing demand and costs in the NHS. Savings of that order are required, and the NHS is on track to make them.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I would like to return to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) about the national hereditary breast cancer helpline. The Minister’s response was inept. She said that a national service will be funded by tons of different GP commissioning groups. That just will not happen. She said nice words about Wendy Watson, but her Government’s policies will see the end of that helpline unless she intervenes. Will she please ensure national funding for a national service?
Anne Milton
As I said earlier, the cancer networks are working on an interim solution for funding the helpline through the transition period to the new commissioning arrangements. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party tried to tell people what to do from the centre and micro-managed everything. What happened was that no local decisions were made. I do not doubt the value of the helpline. It is crucial that emotional and practical support for those at high risk of breast cancer is available, and the helpline is one way of doing that. It is extremely important that such decisions are made locally. Telling people what to do from the centre does not work.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry that some colleagues are left disappointed, but on such occasions demand, as in the health service, tends to be greater than supply.
Prisoners’ Right to Vote
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
(Urgent question): To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government’s plans to give prisoners the vote.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
The UK’s blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting was declared unlawful by the grand chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in October 2005, as a result of a successful challenge by a prisoner, John Hirst. The Government accept, as did the previous Government, that as a result of the judgment of the Strasbourg Court in the Hirst case, there is a need to change the law. This is not a choice; it is a legal obligation. Ministers are currently considering how to implement the judgment, and when the Government have made a decision, the House will be the first to know.
Sadiq Khan
Mr Speaker, you have yet again agreed to allow an urgent question so that we can ask the Government to account to the House for decisions that have been preannounced in the media. The news that prisoners are to be given the vote is a matter of great concern to the public. The House will note that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here to answer this important urgent question. I have 10 short questions for the Minister who is here to speak on his behalf.
When the previous Government consulted on this matter, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who was then the shadow Secretary of State for Justice and is now the Attorney-General, described the prospect of giving prisoners the vote as “ludicrous”. Does the Minister share that view? One of the most troubling aspects of the European Court ruling is that it opens the door to the possibility of serious offenders being given the vote. Will he explain how the Government would ensure that serious offenders are not given the vote? Press reports suggest that sentence length will be the key determinant in deciding which prisoners can vote. If that is the case, what length of sentence do the Government have in mind? How will they ensure that prisoners who are guilty of serious offences but serving short sentences are not given the vote? Will the Minister provide details of the precise mechanics that prisoner voting will entail? Can he also tell us whether prisoners will be allowed to vote in referendums as well as elections?
The Prime Minister is reportedly “exasperated” and “furious” at having to agree to votes for prisoners. Does the Minister share that view? There is a strong sense that the decision is being forced on this country against the will both of the Government and of the people’s representatives in this Parliament. For the sake of public trust in British democracy, will the Minister who is standing in for the Deputy Prime Minister therefore agree that any legislation put before the House on this vital issue should be the subject of a free vote?
Mr Harper
No one would have realised, listening to that, that the right hon. Gentleman was ever a member of the previous Government, who also accepted that the law needed to be changed, and accepted the judgment. I have looked carefully at the media reports, and all I can see is an expression by the Government, relating to what they are going to say in a pending legal case, that they must comply with the law. I would not have thought that explaining that the Government had to comply with the law was particularly revelatory. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman shared our view when he was in government. He was quite right to draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Prime Minister is exasperated. I suspect that every Member of the House is exasperated about this, but we have no choice about complying with the law.
The fact that the previous Government failed for five years to do what they knew was necessary has left our country in a much worse position, both because of the possibility of having to pay damages and because case law has moved on. The only thing that would be worse than giving prisoners the vote would be giving them the vote and having to pay them damages as well. That is the position that the previous Government left us in.
I shall now turn to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. I made it clear in my statement that Ministers were considering how to implement the judgment, and when decisions have been taken they will be announced to the House at the Dispatch Box in the usual way. No decisions have been taken, and I am therefore unable to answer any of his questions at this time. The previous Government took five years to do nothing when they knew that something had to be done—in exactly the same way as they behaved in not dealing with the deficit. This Government have been in office for only a matter of months, but yet again our two parties are having to deal with the mess left behind by Labour.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Will the Minister explain how the damages figure of millions of pounds has been arrived at, bearing in mind that nobody has yet had a payment? If ever we are forced into paying out damages, I suggest that we knock them off the payments that we have to make to Brussels.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend should know that the European Court of Human Rights is based in Strasbourg, and that this is nothing to do with the European Union. The two issues are completely separate. We have been a signatory to the European convention on human rights for the best part of 60 years. Indeed, British lawyers helped to draft it after the second world war. There are currently more than 1,000 pending cases, and there is a real risk that judges will award millions of pounds in damages to be paid by our taxpayers to prisoners who have been denied the vote. That risk has been left to us by the inaction of the previous Government.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
What estimate have the Government made of the cost to the honest law-abiding taxpayer of their decision to run up the white flag on this issue?
Mr Harper
As I said, the previous Government and this Government have both accepted that the Government generally have to comply with the law. We are considering how to comply with it, and we will announce our decisions in due course. This is not a choice; it is an obligation. The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that the only way of avoiding this would be if he were prepared to leave the European convention, which his Front Benchers are not prepared to do.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Is my hon. Friend not being a little unfair to the previous Government, who, after all, had done a lot of detailed work on how they would eventually implement this provision? Is it not fairly clear that if the Government are saying to somebody, “You must be in prison, and you must abide by the law and the decision of the court,” they can hardly add, “But we will ignore the decisions of the courts”?
Mr Harper
The right hon. Gentleman is right. The previous Government accepted that the law needed to be changed and brought forward a number of proposals to enfranchise prisoners, but they simply did not have the gumption to do anything. As ever, they left it behind for somebody else to clear up.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I have worked in prison, and I know that there are many hundreds of incarcerated people who should have no role whatever in this country’s democracy, and no say in how it is run. When will we be able to decide for which offences, and for which length of sentences, prisoners will remain excluded from the right to vote?
Mr Harper
As I said in my statement and in my response to the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), Ministers are currently considering how to implement the judgment. When the Government have taken those decisions we will announce them to this House, which is the right thing to do. If we need to make changes in the law, we will bring our proposals before the House in the usual way.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Is this not another case of more legal nonsense from Europe? Is it not about time that we scrapped the Human Rights Act 1998 and introduced a British Bill of Rights—or at the very least repealed the Human Rights Act within a freedom Bill?
Mr Harper
I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not followed this case very closely. If the Human Rights Act disappeared today, that would make no difference. The decision was made by the European Court in Strasbourg. British courts upheld our domestic law, which is why the decision was appealed to the Strasbourg Court. Even if the Human Rights Act disappeared tomorrow, I am afraid that the judgment would still stand.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that the Murdoch scribblers and other tabloid writers are busy writing the headline, “Tories soft on crime, and soft on the perpetrators of crime”?
Mr Harper
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is so focused on what the Murdoch press is doing. The Government are considering how to comply with the law, just as the hon. Gentleman’s Government had to comply with it. The Government whom he supported accepted that the law had to be changed—[Interruption.] Or rather I should say, as has just been pointed out to me, the Government whom he sometimes supported. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and others consulted on detailed proposals to change the law, but they just never got round to doing anything.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Does the Minister recognise that is there a great deal of exasperation on the Conservative Benches not just about the disgraceful change in the law, but about the fact that Labour Members are trying to present themselves as Eurosceptics when they signed up to every bit of European legislation that was put before them?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend has made his point very well. The synthetic outrage expressed by Labour Members whose Government accepted the need to comply with the law, consulted on proposals to do so, and yet again failed to make the necessary decisions—[Interruption.] The shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tooting, is yelling from a sedentary position. His party was in power for five years after the judgment was made, and did nothing about it. We have been in power for only six months, but we are getting on with considering how to implement the judgment, and when we have made our decisions, we will present them to the House.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
It has not been a good couple of days for the Government as far as Europe is concerned. Yesterday we heard the ludicrous announcement of an increase in the EU budget, and today we have heard this announcement. Rather than uttering expressions of exasperation and frustration, will the Minister tell the House what the Government will do to bring powers back to the House on behalf of the British people?
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend please explain, for the edification of the House, what would happen if the Government refused to accept the findings of the European Court of Human Rights, and what would happen if we accepted the findings but refused to make any compensatory payments?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend will know that 60 years ago Britain signed up to the European convention. [Interruption.] The shadow Justice Secretary is yelling again; he clearly needs telling again, so I will tell him again. Because Britain signed up to the European convention 60 years ago, it binds us legally. The Government must act in accordance with the law, as the previous Government accepted. The danger is that compensation payments will be awarded against us to prisoners. As I said earlier, the only thing worse than giving prisoners the vote would be giving them the vote and then having to give them compensation on top of that.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
Before the Minister gets away with this nonsense that we did nothing—in fact, we held not one but two consultations on the issue—will he tell us on what occasion during those five years either he or any other member of his Front Bench, or Conservative Opposition Back Bencher, did anything other than call for us not to make any decisions about prisoner voting rights?
Mr Harper
The right hon. Gentleman has proved the point that I made: he says that the Government consulted on doing something but failed to do anything. Five years passed after the judgment, and the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of whom he was a senior member did nothing in terms of implementing the judgment.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
In the spirit of consensus, does the Minister agree that while there may be a case for allowing those who are guilty of the most minor offences to vote, it is clear that that cannot possibly apply to those who are guilty of the most serious offences?
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate that this is a difficult and sensitive issue, and I know that many of my constituents will be shocked at the notion that murderers, rapists and child molesters should be given the vote, but can the Minister tell us more about how he will ensure that any attempt to determine whether people are given the vote on grounds of length of sentence or type of crime will be ECHR-compliant?
Mr Harper
In respect of what the hon. Lady said in the first part of her question, she is leaping ahead. Ministers are considering how to deal with the judgment in the Hirst case. I should also explain that one of the problems with the previous Government’s inaction is that if they had implemented the judgment based on the decision in the Hirst case, we might well have been in a stronger position. As she will know—I am sure she follows this issue closely—case law has moved on. Ministers are considering these issues and, as I have said, when we have taken the decisions we will come and announce them to the House.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
We in this place have a duty to represent the people who elect us and, almost to a man and woman, they will be saying, “No, no, no.” What is the point of having a sovereign Parliament if we have to bend down to the European Court on this? Surely we can help the Minister by having a vote and sending a strong message that we do not want this, and then he can go and negotiate it away.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend will know that we do have a sovereign Parliament but that about 60 years ago it signed up to the European convention on human rights and effectively made that part of our law and our legal obligations. The Government are following the judgment of the Court in implementing our legal obligations—nothing more and nothing less.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Armley jail in my constituency houses 1,128 prisoners, including 55 lifers. What assurance will the Minister give law-abiding citizens in Armley ward in Leeds West that their electorate will not increase by more than 1,000 and that their votes will not be diluted as a result of these changes?
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I would like my hon. Friend to assure the House how he is going to make sure that rapists, murderers and paedophiles will not have the right to vote in my constituency of South Staffordshire, and across this country.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend can be reassured by what I said earlier, which was that pretty much every Member on the Government Benches, from the Prime Minister down, is unhappy about having to implement this judgment. We are going to have to do it, however, but he can take it from the fact that we are not very happy about having to do that, that when deciding on the judgments we need to reach and in bringing our proposals forward, we will take into account everything that he has said.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Two Durham prisons contain 1,700 prisoners, including Ian Huntley, the Soham murderer. In the Minister’s deliberations, will he consider excluding individuals such as Huntley from getting the vote in Durham? Will he also consider the fact that 1,700 prisoners getting the vote in a marginal seat such as City of Durham could sway the outcome of an election?
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Before the Government make their decision, will my hon. Friend and all his colleagues bear in mind that the ultimate expression of liberty is the right to vote, and that the principle is that it should be surrendered upon conviction and imprisonment?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend will know that that is exactly what our representation of the people legislation currently says, but that has been judged to be unlawful by the European Court, and the Government are in the position of having to implement that judgment—as were the previous Government. That is what we are wrestling with at the moment, and when we have made our decisions we will bring them before the House.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), will the Minister tell the House if the numbers of incarcerated prisoners in the UK will be used to help gerrymander the boundaries that the Government are proposing?
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
In my 16 years at the criminal Bar, not one of my clients facing a custodial sentence has been upset at the prospect of losing his or her right to vote. Will the Minister please look with real care at the allegation that prisoners would receive huge sums in compensation? A report on the BBC says that the amount is some £700 per prisoner. If prisoners were to sue, I would urge the Government to take the view, “Bring it on.”
Mr Harper
If only my hon. Friend had represented everybody who is currently in prison, perhaps they would not be there today. Unfortunately, a significant number of prisoners have brought legal cases against the Government; there are more than 1,000 pending. Even though the amounts payable in individual cases may not seem very high, if such an amount was awarded to a significant number of prisoners the bill would run into millions of pounds of hard-earned taxpayers’ money.
Mr Speaker
Order. It may be tempting—or otherwise—for the Minister to look behind him from time to time, but he must address the House.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
The Minister has my sympathy, because he is on a sticky wicket today—if I may say so, he is doing a good job—and the truth is that the Deputy Prime Minister is on the run. He should be there answering to this House today. His junior is doing a better job than he could, but he should be here. On a specific point, may I ask whether it is the Minister’s personal view that people should have the vote where they are interned, or that they should have the choice of which constituency to vote in?
Mr Harper
I will take the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question in the spirit in which it was intended. On the second part, we are of course considering how to implement the judgment. The sorts of issues that he has raised are ones that we are thinking about. When we have taken those decisions we will, of course, announce them to the House.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State for Justice urged during his question that any legislation that comes forward should be subject to a free vote. I do not really care whether there is a free vote or not, because I shall vote against any such legislation.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Whatever the priorities of the European Court, it is the British Government who decide what the priorities are for this House of Commons. Most people will think it rather bizarre that they are giving priority to a Bill that might give the right to vote to Harry Roberts, who shot three Metropolitan policemen in cold blood, but are paying no attention to and putting no effort whatever into getting the 3.5 million decent citizens who are not on the electoral register on to that register.
Mr Harper
The right hon. Gentleman would know, if he followed proceedings in this House, that that is simply not true. I made a statement at this Dispatch Box in September, when I set out clearly that the Government were as committed to the completeness of the electoral register as to its accuracy. If there are, as there are, citizens missing from the electoral register, some of the responsibility for that falls on the Labour party, which was in power for 13 years and did nothing effective about it.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Does the Minister share my concern that the first response of so many Members here to a court judgment going against them is to refuse to accept the verdict of the court? What does that say about the rule of law? Does he also share my concern at the number of Members who do not understand the difference between the European convention on human rights, the Human Rights Act and the European Union?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman raised two points, and I shall deal with the second one first. I did spell out the difference very clearly earlier, because as soon as things are prefaced with the word “Europe” people do roll them all in together and think that they are the same thing. The European Court is separate from the European Union; they are nothing to do with each other, apart from the fact that they both happen to be based in Europe. On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I think that the general view of those on the Government Benches is that we are not happy or pleased about having to implement the judgment, but we recognise that in a country bound by the rule of law, we have to do it.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Constituents of mine living near the new prison at Maghull will want to know which prisoners will be able to vote and which will not. So far the Minister has not answered the question, so I shall ask it in a slightly different way. In his personal view, who will be able to vote and who will not?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman read that out very well, if I may say so. He will know that the Minister does not have a personal view; the Minister is here to speak on behalf of the Government. I have already set out very clearly the Government’s view. The details about how we are going to implement the decision are still being considered—[Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Front Benchers groaning just because I have said it before. It is still true. We are considering how to implement the judgment. When we have taken those decisions, they will be announced in the House in the proper way.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
Does the Minister recall that the House fully debated this issue and voted on it on 11 January 2006, at which point we on the Opposition Benches were trying to help the then Government to resolve a difficult situation? They took absolutely no action for the following five years. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Court objection is to the blanket ban on prisoners being able to vote and that it is within the power of the Government to resolve the situation by making a decision about which prisoners can vote and which cannot?
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that the House is in rather an excitable state, but I always enjoy listening to the Minister and I particularly want to listen to him now.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend listened to what I said in my statement. The blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting has been ruled to be unlawful. The Government are considering how to implement the judgment to deal with that and, when the Government have made those decisions, the proposals will be brought before the House. Colleagues would do well to listen to how she put her question and to my answer.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Minister’s answers are inadequate and not reassuring. My constituents who live in the Cheetham ward want to know whether the rapists, murderers and paedophiles—and burglars, for that matter—in Strangeways prison will have the vote or not. Surely he can answer such a simple question.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman was not listening carefully to what I said. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) pointed out, I said that the blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting has been ruled to be unlawful and we are currently considering how to implement the judgment. We have made it clear that we are not particularly happy about it and we will bring forward our proposals and announce them in this House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will then be able to ask that specific question again and we will be able to answer it.
Mr Speaker
Order. We must now move on. I know that there are disappointed colleagues, but I feel quite certain that this is a matter to which, in due course, the House will return.
Defence Treaties (France)
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to make a statement about the treaties today between the UK and France on defence.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
First, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Sapper William Blanchard from 101 (City of London) Engineer Regiment (Explosive Ordnance Disposal), who died on operations in Afghanistan on Saturday. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends at this dreadful time for them.
The Prime Minister and President Sarkozy this afternoon signed two treaties that mark a deepening of the UK-France bilateral relationship. The two treaties will next be laid before Parliament, allowing hon. Members the opportunity to consider them as part of the process towards ratification. For the added convenience of Members, I hope that the texts of both treaties will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.
The UK-France relationship is a strategic partnership of sovereign nations, working together to tackle the biggest challenges facing our two countries, at a new level of co-operation. The treaties do not diminish in any way our ability to act independently when the national interest requires, but they do provide us with greater capability when we decide to act together. The UK welcomed the recent French decision to rejoin NATO’s integrated military structure. We believe it is good for NATO, good for the UK and good for France. It makes sense for us now to achieve maximum interoperability, greater commonality of doctrine and more efficient use of equipment. Closer co-operation with France will also provide better value for money for the British taxpayer.
Let me give the House a sense of the scope of both treaties. First, the defence and security co-operation treaty will develop closer co-operation between our armed forces, the sharing and pooling of materials and equipment, the building of joint facilities, mutual access to each other’s defence markets, and industrial and technological co-operation. The treaty provides the framework, and details will emerge over time as more detailed work is done.
The second treaty covers collaboration in the technology associated with nuclear stockpile stewardship in support of our respective independent nuclear deterrent capabilities in full compliance with our international obligations. The treaty provides for the joint construction and operation of a new hydrodynamics facility at Valduc in France and a technology development centre at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston. These facilities will be operational from 2015. This programme, named Teutates, will assist both countries in maintaining the safety and reliability of their respective nuclear stockpiles and will improve expertise in countering nuclear terrorism. The facilities will enable each country to undertake hydrodynamic experiments in a secure environment. The hydrodynamic facilities use radiography to measure the performance of materials at extremes of temperature and pressure. This enables us to model the performance and safety of the nuclear weapons in our stockpile without undertaking nuclear explosive tests.
The UK will maintain its independent nuclear deterrent and will continue to work towards the long-term objective of a world without nuclear weapons. Today’s summit is only the start of a long-term deepening of the UK-France bilateral relationship. France is the UK’s natural partner in Europe for defence co-operation. France and the UK have some of the most capable and experienced armed forces and the largest defence industry. We are by a long way Europe’s two biggest defence spenders. Achieving the envisaged level of co-operation will take time and will require changes to long-established ways of working. We will put in place measures to deliver long-term commitment to joint projects and we expect to announce new areas of work at regular intervals.
A stronger defence relationship with France does not mean a weaker relationship with the United States, our main strategic partner, or with Germany or any other partner—quite the reverse. The increased capability and effectiveness that we will achieve through this co-operation will make us stronger partners. In the multilateral context also, our NATO allies and EU partners want UK and French forces, as well as those of other nations, to be as capable and interoperable as possible—exactly what the new Government programme of co-operation is intended to achieve.
Mr Murphy
The whole House joins the Secretary of State in offering condolences to the family of Sapper William Blanchard who died while showing remarkable bravery in serving our country. All our thoughts and many of our prayers are with his family and friends.
Today is historically important for our nation’s defence: our country is entering into two defence treaties with France. The treaties, which we are told will last for 50 years, cover aircraft carrier capability, shared nuclear infrastructure and joint rapid reaction capability. The UK media, the French media, the French National Assembly, and our allies in the United States and across world capitals have been informed of the contents of the agreement; with the announcements about this strategic shift in defence, it is a very real pity that the House of Commons seems to be the only place kept in the dark. After the summoning of the world’s media to Downing street to witness the signing of the agreements, I am sure that the Secretary of State does not mind being invited to Parliament to explain the Government’s thinking.
For almost 700 years, for historical reasons of the old alliance between Scotland and France, the House of Commons has traditionally had a degree of reticence about a Scot arguing for a military arrangement with France, but on this occasion most of us on both sides of the House support and welcome in principle further steps to improve what is already a very strong relationship. That approach makes sense for two strategic reasons. First, the UK and France face many common threats across the world, including global terrorism, cyber-security and piracy on the high seas. Secondly, as the Secretary of State has mentioned, the UK and France have unique capacities. They are the two largest investors in defence capability in Europe and among the highest in the world, significant players in the EU and the only two EU member states with permanent seats at the UN, as well as our independent nuclear deterrent.
In supporting this general approach of closer co-operation, I want to ask the Secretary of State some specific questions. I seek an absolute guarantee that the agreements that have been entered into today do not place any limitation whatever on the UK’s ability to act independently in all circumstances in the protection of our unique interests across the world, including the defence of our overseas territories and in respect of the deployment of our armed forces or our military assets.
Turning to the specific agreement on aircraft carriers, the Government’s intention is to share capacity when our respective carriers are in refit. The UK is currently building two Queen Elizabeth class carriers. As we understand it, one of our carriers will be placed in extended readiness. The question that many will be asking is what guarantees we have, when it is France’s responsibility to provide carrier capability, if we disagree.
We hope and expect that the UK and France will increasingly find common cause, but there is no guarantee that that will be the case in all circumstances over the next 50 years. Reflection on even the past few years shows that that was not the case on the Falklands, Desert Fox in 1998, Sierra Leone and of course the Iraq war. Can the Secretary of State give some assurances about guarantees of UK capability and support?
Are the treaties legally binding on both the United Kingdom and France? If they are, who adjudicates in the event of a dispute about legal purpose and meaning? The seven-sentence written ministerial statement that the Prime Minister tabled to the House today states:
“The treaties will be laid before Parliament in the usual way.”
May I invite the Secretary of State to say a little more, based on what he has already said, about how that will be handled?
In opposition, the Conservative party tabled motions to amend multilateral European treaties. In the light of that, is it the Government’s view that the treaty is amendable by Parliament now or in the future? In the light of the Government’s commitment to have five-yearly defence and security reviews, will it be necessary to update the treaties as the capabilities of the two nations are adjusted every five years?
I welcome what the Secretary of State said about nuclear co-operation. I welcome the commitment to bring greater efficiencies in infrastructure for our nuclear capabilities, but can the Secretary of State confirm to the House that that does not in any way jeopardise the bilateral arrangement between ourselves and the United States and the 1958 mutual defence agreement?
On employment, the Secretary of State spoke about access to markets. Will he say a few words about sovereign intellectual capability and employment as a consequence of today’s announcement? Will he guarantee, for example, that when the UK carrier goes in for a refit, that will take place in a UK shipyard? Has he been able to persuade the French that their carrier should go into a UK yard as well?
Finally—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extremely grateful to the shadow Secretary of State. May I very gently say that the Secretary of State modestly exceeded his allotted time, and the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) has rather significantly exceeded his allocated time? [Interruption.] No, that is the end of it. In future we must stick to these times, otherwise it is grotesquely unfair on Back-Bench Members. The times are known. The times are communicated both to the Government and to the Opposition, and they must be followed. That is the end of it.
Dr Fox
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. You may be the only person ever to have described me as modest in any way, shape or form.
I welcome the general tone of the shadow Defence Secretary’s remarks. There is much common ground. There are three reasons why we should support the general approach. There is the political approach, to bring France ever more closely into the heart of NATO which, as I think we all agree, is good for NATO, good for France and good for Britain; there is the military reason, for better interoperability and maximising our capability; and there is the economic case for getting value for money for both sets of taxpayers where that is possible. I can confirm to him that the treaty in no way provides any limitation on our ability to deploy forces when either nation believes that it is in its national interest to do so. We are trying to provide for better co-operation when we wish to act together in our mutual interest. Those are two very different concepts.
I shall not be able to get through all the specific points that the right hon. Gentleman made, but I shall write to him on any that, for reasons of time, I am unable to deal with. In terms of the carriers, the question of interoperability was key, and as he knows, when we came through the strategic defence review, the design of our carriers was changed to put in a catapult and trap system to give us better interoperability with our allies—not just France, but the United States. That would not have been possible, given the previous design, and that was a major consideration.
Clearly, if each nation operates a single carrier, when carriers are in for a major refit, a process that accounts for about three years out of every seven or eight, there will be an advantage in being able to train on carriers where we have much greater interoperability. There is also a chance of always having, for NATO purposes, one carrier free. Would that mean that we were able to force the French to do something against their will during that period, or vice versa? Of course it would not. We would hope that we would be able to act together, but there would be no means of coercing them to do so, and that is consistent with us behaving as sovereign, individual nations.
The ratification of the treaty will proceed in the normal way, and on nuclear co-operation, I was very grateful for the question about the 1958 agreement with the United States, which is key to the strength of our relationship. In my discussions with Secretary Gates, ahead of the defence review and afterwards, the agreement was one of the four elements about which the United States was most concerned. Our commitments under the 1958 treaty are in no way jeopardised, and the United States was fully consulted before and after the moves that we are discussing were made.
We must also remember that France itself co-operates very closely on nuclear issues with the United States. The United States, France and the United Kingdom form the nuclear capability of NATO, and, standing one step back, I must say that the fact that we are able to maintain the safety and predictability of our nuclear stockpiles without having to undertake nuclear tests is something for which the whole world should be grateful.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
As I am married to a French woman, I have some experience of the unpredictability of Anglo-French relations, so may I take the Secretary of State back to the run-up to the Iraq war, when President Bush and Mr Tony Blair were hellbent on invading Iraq but President Chirac took a different view—actually, the correct view? If, in the future, there are diversions in British and French policy on military or foreign policy matters, who then gets the helicopters and the fighters on to the aircraft carrier?
Dr Fox
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. For a moment, I thought we were going to hear how “cordiale” in his private life the entente can actually be.
One of the big changes in French politics has been the emergence of President Sarkozy and the willingness of the French Government to put themselves at the heart of NATO.
Dr Fox
But it is surely in the interests of the United Kingdom to welcome a trend that we have been calling for for a very long time. When we can draw the French into greater co-operation with NATO, where they are clearly in a much more transatlantic orbit, and are able to supplement and augment what the United Kingdom can do without interfering in our sovereign capability, we should welcome it. It is not a question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) suggests, of the joint ownership of fleets; it is about our willingness to operate them together when it is in our mutual interest to do so.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
I hugely welcome the signing of these two treaties, but, despite the presentational attempts, I am a little amused at a Conservative-led Government announcing what is a huge integration of European capability. This is not a zero-sum game, and we should not present it as one, but will the Secretary of State explain the balance between investment and cost in respect of the facilities in which there will be investment at Aldermaston and in France? Notwithstanding any desire to work together, we ought to be pretty hard-headed in our relationships with France. They most certainly will be on their side.
Dr Fox
The contracts are currently under discussion, and it is a matter of commercial sensitivity exactly what the numbers are. We do, however, believe that it would save very substantial millions for the United Kingdom to go ahead with the facility in France.
On the question of this being an integrationist measure—far from it, because we are able to understand the difference between geographical Europe and political Europe. What we want to see is a partnership with another sovereign nation on the European continent, not supranational control from the European Union.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
The Secretary of State will be aware from his frequent visits to Washington that there is a sense in the United States, particularly since the end of the cold war, that European nations have not been willing to do enough for their own defence. Are not these treaties, with the purpose of maximising joint capability, an effort to answer that criticism?
Dr Fox
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a useful point. It is very clear that the United States wants Europe—by that, I mean geographical Europe—to do more for its own defence. Where we are able to operate with our biggest ally in Europe to provide greater capability and still provide value for money for our taxpayers, while all the time honouring our commitments to the United States, I cannot see that that is anything that people could object to.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
May I warmly welcome this entente militaire? If President Sarkozy is moving in the direction of America, it is good to see the Secretary of State moving in the direction of Europe. Does he recall that on 5 July I asked him about creating a common drone? I am glad to see that that is in the new agreement. May I ask that real efforts be put into creating a common drone industry between France and England? When we have our first Euro-drone, perhaps it could be baptised “The Flying Fox”.
Dr Fox
In the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman asks his question, I will not use the word “drone” in any pejorative sense in my reply. Suffice it to say that we do believe that looking at co-operation on unmanned air systems makes a great deal of sense. A finite amount of money will be available for research. Where we are able to carry out that sort of co-operation in our industrial base, and where we are not spending taxpayers’ money reinventing the wheel, as has so often happened in the past, in the United States as well as in Europe, it makes a great deal of sense to do so.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the arrangements will in no way affect our operational theatres of war, so that we will in no circumstances find that there is a conflict of any kind between orders that were given by our military or other services as compared to those of the French?
Secondly, if this Anglo-French arrangement—
Mr Speaker
Order. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member to whom I always listen with great interest, that one question is enough—he should not be greedy.
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The nuclear defence of our country is the most significant and important issue to hit the House of Commons, and it is a bit strange that this is an urgent question, not a statement.
Is my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State right when he says that we are both—France and the United Kingdom—nuclear powers, that we both have seats on the Security Council, and that the agreement will strengthen NATO, strengthen the European Union, strengthen our country, strengthen France and be in the national interest?
Dr Fox
I have great pleasure in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman on all those issues. This agreement does strengthen our position on the nuclear deterrent because it makes a considerable investment well into the future, enabling us to carry out the complex physics that are required for the safety of our nuclear stockpile.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about Britain preserving its freedom of action in this bilateral agreement. Will he confirm that this has nothing at all to do with the common foreign and security policy, under which we could well lose our freedom of action?
Dr Fox
The Government have been very clear, as we were throughout today’s statements by the Prime Minister and President Sarkozy, that this is an agreement by two sovereign nations agreeing to co-operate where it is in their mutual interest to do so, but totally retaining the capability to act separately where their respective national interests require it. Many of us feel much more comfortable with that model than the supranational idea of defence mediated by the bureaucrats of the European Union.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
How can the House be assured that amidst co-operation on nuclear matters between us and both the French and Americans at the same time, our independent nuclear deterrent will remain independent for a very long time?
Dr Fox
For a long time there has been a French-American bilateral relationship and an Anglo-American bilateral relationship on the nuclear deterrent. As the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), will know, there has been discussion for some time about whether the relationship should be trilateral, given the cost of the programmes, but the decision has been taken that for the moment the double bilateral relationship will continue. We are strengthening the third, Anglo-French, part of that, because we believe it is in our interests to do so for reasons of both cost-effectiveness and our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister on bringing to birth this long-overdue arrangement. Can the Secretary of State confirm that co-operation on the ground between the British and French armed forces has been very long standing, and will he say something about the number of formations across the armed forces that will co-operate with their French counterparts?
Dr Fox
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. He is entirely correct that there has been long-standing co-operation. Some of the things that I have read and heard today have made it sound as though this was the first time there had been any military co-operation at all between the United Kingdom and France. Beginning with joint exercising next year, we will examine ways in which we can organically take forward co-operation such as we have outlined today. There is no big bang—this is about working out how we can best improve the relationship incrementally and build confidence over a long period, given the complexities of Afghanistan and so on.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on the pro-European, very sensible measure that he has introduced. He mentioned introducing the treaties “in the normal way”. I presume that that is a reference to the Ponsonby rule, which we amended earlier this year. Will he therefore guarantee that, as provided for under that rule, there will be a debate and vote on the treaties in each House, so that we can scrutinise the details line by line?
Dr Fox
The Government business managers, in conjunction with the Opposition, will set out how the process will take place, but my personal choice would certainly be to ensure that both Houses have a full opportunity to debate these measures, not least because it would give them the chance to understand fully the benefits that they will bring the United Kingdom.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that earlier today, the Downing street spokesman described the agreements as being about “our strategic partnership” with France? Does he agree that a little modesty about them would be in order, and that we cannot have a strategic fusion with a country that has historically had, and still has, diametrically different strategic objectives on the world stage? We had better recognise the primacy of the relationship with the United States.
Dr Fox
Fortunately, it is still this country’s Secretaries of State, not Downing street spokesmen, who reply for the Government in the House of Commons. It is very important, however, that we understand the huge overlap with France in our strategic overview. My hon. Friend calls for greater modesty, but on the other hand we should not lack ambition.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Given that the Charles de Gaulle will be out of service for a minimum of 18 months, and that we have no Harriers left in our Fleet Air Arm, will the Secretary of State clarify who would defend the Falkland Islands if there were an unforeseen event?
Dr Fox
The defence of the Falklands depends on our ability to deter any aggression, and that is being done through the increased use of Typhoon aircraft, our increased air defences and the presence of hunter-killer submarines, which is quite sufficient. There are those who ask whether we have a plan to retake the Falkland Islands. No, no more than we have a plan to retake Kent, as we have no intention of losing them.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
As a former member of the Duke of Wellington’s Regiment—that noble Lord had some success in dealing with the French—may I ask the Secretary of State to reassure me that this is not a step towards a European army?
Dr Fox
One hundred per cent. Absolutely. This is not about increasing the defence capabilities of the European Union as an institution. I repeat—this is about two sovereign nations, which, between them, spend 50% of all the defence spending of the NATO members in Europe, and 65% of the research spending. It makes a great deal of sense for us to co-operate, but it is absolutely clear that this is about two sovereign nations that are willing to co-operate when it is in their mutual interest to do so, but keep their ability to act separately when their national interests require it.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
In the Scottish National party, we watch these treaties with France with great interest, echoing as they do, beyond the entente cordiale to 1295 and what became known as the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France. Again, that was about two sovereign nations being prepared for any belligerence from a neighbour. In the modern day, perhaps it is a glimpse of things to come when independent countries work together to keep their sovereignty. Although I hope to see the French in increasing numbers in the Hebrides range, is there any possibility that we might see the French air force providing Nimrod cover?
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
As the Secretary of State has said, co-operation between France and Britain is nothing new. We have co-operated in the Gulf, Bosnia, Afghanistan and, I am pleased to hear, also in Louth and Horncastle. What is new is the decision by France to adopt a more transatlantic defence posture. Does he agree that that is welcome?
Dr Fox
Of course it is welcome. It is extremely good for France to have a more NATO-centric view and to be more Atlanticist. Such a position shows the stark contrast between President Sarkozy and some of his predecessors. It is something that this country has called for consistently, and now that we have it, we should welcome it. We should encourage France into an ever-stronger pro-NATO position.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will know that the Americans being fully consulted on this measure is not the same as their agreeing to it. Will he say whether they believe that this will not damage our nuclear co-operation in future?
Dr Fox
I was personally involved in discussions with the United States on this issue. After we made some of the details available, there was no resistance from either the Administration or the military to this proposal. They were fully satisfied that it met the reservations that they might otherwise have had.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today. Does he agree that this type of co-operation is a strategic model that is vital to Britain’s interests, given that the national security strategy identified global terrorism and cyber-security as the most pressing threats to Britain?
Dr Fox
We live in a world in which our national and overseas interests are likely to be threatened in more places and by more people than at any time in the past. It therefore makes sense for us to have as many levers as possible to deal with that—either through our membership of NATO or through active bilateral relations with those countries that could be strategic partners. On a number of occasions, the Foreign Secretary has set out where we should be looking to augment our international obligations and treaties with those elevated bilateral relations. Today, we have set out what is happening with France. Next week, I shall be attending a summit in Norway, where we will set out the areas where we perceive there could be greater co-operation with some of our Nordic partners.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I am as communautaire as the next man, and I recognise that this country has a long and successful history of military engagement with the French. Will the Secretary of State reassure the Greenford branch of the Royal British Legion and the Royal Naval Association that there will be no mixed-manning in the fleet as they are not enthusiastic about what they describe as “the prospect of garlic in the galley”?
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
The Secretary of State mentioned that the treaties would enhance our relationship with the United States. What assessment has he made of the willingness of the US to share intelligence information with us now that we have signed those treaties?
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Do the treaties specify in what language the two sovereign nations will communicate when they work together?
Dr Fox
An element of some of the coverage today has been to ask what the language of war will be. In the last few years, we have had commanders of the international security assistance force in Afghanistan from Turkey, Germany, Canada, France and Italy, as well as the UK and the US, and we had no linguistic problem.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
Could the Secretary of State give an indication of the value-for-money savings to be achieved over the 50-year life of the treaties, or if that is not possible, over the course of this Parliament?
Dr Fox
We will be looking in that context at some of the projects that we considered in the SDSR, such as A400M support and training. As I said in answer to a previous question, there is no point in us reinventing the wheel at taxpayers’ expense. Where we have common platforms, we should be looking at common support and training. We will also want to look at the future strategic tanker aircraft programme to see whether, within the private finance initiative set out and agreed by the previous Government, we can get better value for money for British taxpayers by having the French use some of that facility.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
When one carrier is in extended readiness and when the second is in for refit, is it true that we would have use of a French carrier only if the French were not using it themselves, and only if they agreed to let us use it for our purposes? Would we not be better combining with France to attack Brussels?
Dr Fox
The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) just said that we are all communautaire, but I suppose there has to be an exception to every rule. If both nations are operating a single carrier, there will be times when both carriers are available as part of our NATO obligations, and times when none is available unless we come to an arrangement that enables us to have a sensible refit policy that ensures that one is always available. That would not mean that either nation can force the other to do something it did not want to do, but it would increase the chance of having some capability as opposed to none.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement on better co-operation with France, which makes military and economic sense. Will he look at the fine print on opening our markets in procurement, because my knowledge of the French is that opening up markets is not their greatest strong point?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
With Russian aircraft and submarines increasingly probing Britain’s airspace and sea approaches, is it envisaged that French air or naval assets will ever be involved in responding to and deflecting such activity?
Dr Fox
When it comes to the different elements of layered protection for our deterrent, we will use not only any UK assets available, but any of our allies’ assets that are available. We should remember that our nuclear deterrent is part of NATO’s nuclear posture, and therefore, NATO has a responsibility. It will help us as we would help it.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am grateful to colleagues for considering this very serious matter in such a good-natured fashion.
Point of Order
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier this afternoon in Health questions, the Secretary of State either misled the House or made a serious mistake—I prefer to believe that it was the latter—when he told the House that I was wrong to say that the Government are breaking their promises on NHS funding. He said that even if the switch in extra funding to social care is excluded, the NHS budget will nevertheless increase in real terms over the next four years. However, the Nuffield Trust and the House of Commons Library both confirm that the budget will be cut. Can the House, through you, Mr Speaker, ensure that the Secretary of State corrects his statement this afternoon, at the earliest opportunity?
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman is, no, not in the immediate term, because I sensed from what he said—and I listened very carefully—that that is a matter of political debate, and there will be argument about who is right or which facts trump others. I therefore cannot offer him the early prospect, or indeed any certain prospect, of a statement.
The right hon. Gentleman and I came into the House together in 1997, so I know him relatively well—he is a very experienced and wily campaigner. He has just put his own verdict on the Government’s position very forcefully on the record in prime time, and I have a feeling that he will share that verdict with others.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is no further point of order to be made. The right hon. Gentleman has done very well out of me. He should be grateful and exultant. He should be saying thank you to me rather than looking for a second go.
If there are no further points of order, we will deal with the ten-minute rule motion, for which the Member concerned has been patiently waiting.
Cheques
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to ensure that cheque facilities continue to be available to customers of financial institutions; and for connected purposes.
Something brings together the Federation of Small Businesses, Age Concern, Help the Aged, the union Unite, Which?, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the Institute of Fundraising and, of course, more than 120 Members of Parliament who have signed an early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter). What do they all have in common? They all have major reservations about the scrapping of cheques.
That preferred method of payment is used by hundreds of thousands of people every single day. In fact, the total number of cheques written out each day is close to 4 million, or more than 1.3 billion a year. Despite this very clear message that cheques are still valued by the customers of the major banks and other payment service providers, last December the Payments Council agreed on their behalf to scrap cheques in 2018. That decision will, I believe, have major ramifications.
Some may ask, “What is the rush? 2018 is a long way away. Why do we have to take action now to head off the threat of cheque abolition in the future?” After all, we are led to believe that the final decision will not be made until 2016. However, if the Payments Council can set its own criteria and targets for scrapping cheques, it also has the power to try to make the abolition of cheques a foregone conclusion. Some will argue that this is simply a business decision to reduce costs, the benefits of which can then be passed on to customers. Well, this is hardly a shining example of the free market at its best, as what is in effect a cartel has collectively agreed to remove from the market a service, knowing that no individual bank can do anything to stop it.
This Bill is borne not out of nostalgia, but out of an acceptance of the present. The Bill does not attack the independence of businesses, but would protect the rights of their customers. The Bill would not condemn customers to an outdated method of carrying out financial transactions, but would give all those carrying out such transactions greater choice in how they do so in the future.
The truth is that setting an end date for cheques will inevitably accelerate the process by which businesses stop accepting cheques and individual banks stop issuing them, making the demise of the cheque a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Payments Council does not have much confidence in its ability to wring this particular chicken’s neck. It has forecast that, whatever it does and whatever we do—including if we are not successful in stopping this action—then even on the cheque’s deathbed in 2018, there will still be 2 million cheque transactions being made every day. Some chicken, some neck.
I have referred to my concerns about what I believe to be the major ramifications of cheque abolition, but I am here to voice the concerns of some of the groups that I have mentioned. The Federation of Small Businesses has strongly argued that the abolition of cheques will have a detrimental effect on smaller firms—not my words, but those of the FSB, which also says that many small businesses rely on cheques, which to them represent the most convenient system. They provide an excellent audit trail, are easy to reconcile and require minimal administration. Far from achieving our stated aim of decreasing the burden on small and medium-sized enterprises, switching away from cheques could increase it for some businesses.
Many clubs, charities and societies receive an overwhelming proportion of their donations in the form of cheques. While larger organisations have the facilities to process other means of payment, it is the small, local organisations, reliant on volunteers, that will suffer. Blind and partially sighted people are particularly reliant on cheques, as was made clear to the Treasury Select Committee. Members of the Royal National Institute of Blind People feel that cheques give them a greater sense of control. They can sign them and check the figures with a magnifying glass, whereas with chip and pin, it is almost impossible for them to read and check the amounts that they are paying.
However, by far the largest group of people who are most reliant on cheques are the elderly. That is partly out of habit and partly out of necessity. The elderly are also the group who will find it hardest to adopt alternatives. The Payments Council’s projections assume that there will never be a time when cash will be substituted for cheques, but the evidence from abroad does not support that. The fewer cheque transactions there are in a country, the more people will use cash and the greater the number of cash transactions there will be. Overall, my concern is that people will move back to cash and start keeping large volumes of money in the house, making them vulnerable to theft. That is not scaremongering; it is simply what will happen. The ability of elderly people to continue to manage their finances independently by using cheques is crucial, and particularly for older people who are housebound, whether it is about paying the paper bill or including a little something in a card to the grandkids. It is about financial independence.
Behind the Payments Council’s proposal is no doubt a belief that—I guess there is no delicate way of saying this—many of the existing elderly cheque users will not be around in 2018. However, the latest edition of Age UK’s political bulletin reveals that 64% of people aged 65 or over have never used the internet—and, let us face it, never will. Despite the inconvenience to the Payments Council, I wish all those who took part in Age UK’s research a long and happy cheque-using life.
So far I have focused on whether it is wise to remove the option of cheque use, but there is a further issue. Who should make the decision? We in this place may agree or disagree with the decision to scrap the cheque, but surely we can find common ground on the view that the decision is too important to be left to the Payments Council, which is essentially a trades association. Eight of its 28 members do not even offer current accounts and cheque books. Many are foreign-owned banks that do not offer current accounts and cheque books, while many are businesses based on alternative methods of payment, such as PayPal or Cash Zone. How on earth can the decision represent an independent and impartial view? Yet those businesses would still have a say in whether the UK should retain its centralised cheque clearing system. Can this be right? I think not.
The subject of my Bill is not a purely financial consideration; I believe that it is a matter of public interest. The consideration of the demise of the cheque should be made by a body that has the independence, the objectivity and the competence to balance the needs of consumers with the savings to the banks; but further, I would argue that any final decision should be made by a body accountable to Parliament. I urge hon. Members to support my Bill, which will bring cheque payments under the consumer protection remit of the Financial Services Authority or its subsequent body.
I am a new arrival in this House, so I am a late arrival to this worthy cause. I pay tribute to my colleagues, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), for providing a lead on this campaign before I arrived here, as well as right hon. and hon. Members of other parties who have supported this campaign in the past. I have joined a campaign that has increasing momentum, and I ask for the support of the whole House to allow us to take it to its next stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr David Ward, John Thurso, Lorely Burt, Stephen Williams, Dr John Pugh, Jim Dobbin, Tom Blenkinsop, Kelvin Hopkins, Dr Julian Lewis, Mr Greg Knight, Robert Halfon and Andrew Stephenson present the Bill.
Mr David Ward accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 June, and to be printed (Bill 101).
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 331 / Noes: 238 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 31 / Noes: 549 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 321 / Noes: 264 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
I beg to move Government amendment 18, page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) The polls for—
(a) the referendum,
(b) the general election of members of the Northern Ireland Assembly to be held on 5 May 2011, and
(c) the Northern Ireland local elections to be held on that date,
are to be taken together.’.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 19 and 44 to 46,
Amendment 222, in schedule 7, page 212, line 36, leave out from ‘combination’ to end of line 38 and insert
‘is to be the sole responsibility of the United Kingdom Government’.
Government amendments 47 to 179 and 22 to 43.
Mr Harper
These amendments update the combination provisions in the Bill to reflect the following draft orders, which were laid before Parliament by the Scotland and Northern Ireland Offices on 25 October: the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010; the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2010; and the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2010.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the combination rules in the Bill work effectively with the rules governing elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and local elections in Northern Ireland, in the event that the draft orders are approved by Parliament, as the Government hope. No amendments have been necessary in relation to the combination provisions for Wales. Although the rules governing elections to the National Assembly for Wales will be updated by the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2010, if approved by Parliament, none of the amendments to be made by this order affects any rules relevant to combination with the referendum. This order was also laid in draft before Parliament on 25 October.
The majority of the Government amendments make technical changes to the Bill to pick up minor consequential amendments that have emerged in relation to the numbering, cross-referencing and terminology following the laying of the draft territorial orders on 25 October.
Amendments 18 and 19 are consequential on the laying of the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2010, which fixes the date for the 2011 local elections in Northern Ireland. There is no intended change in the effect of the provision; rather, the amendment brings the wording of subsection (4) more into line with that of subsections (2) and (3), which is possible now that the date of the elections has been set.
Amendments 22 to 30 and 32 to 41 are not consequential on the draft territorial orders, but are technical changes to ensure that it is clear which set of postal voting provisions applies when polls are combined in Wales and in Scotland. The provisions in schedule 4 to the Bill will not apply, because, following our amendments in Committee, the same job is now done by the combination schedules. Amendment 43 corrects an omission in schedule 4 to the Bill about the marking of postal voters lists and proxy postal voters lists in Northern Ireland.
While the majority of the amendments are minor and technical, the key exceptions are amendment 172 and amendments 177 to 178, which, for the first time in the combination provisions, set out the details of the joint issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in Northern Ireland. The chief electoral officer, with the agreement of the chief counting officer, will be able to decide to take postal ballot proceedings together in the three polls taking place in Northern Ireland. These amendments make the necessary provision for that process to work. If the chief electoral officer decides to deal separately with postal ballot paper proceedings in the three polls, the existing legislation, as amended by the two Northern Ireland Orders, will apply, largely unaffected by the Bill.
The amendments give effect to our agreed policy that when the chief electoral officers decides, with the agreement of the chief counting officer, that the issuing and receipt of postal voting ballot packs is to be combined for the referendum and the relevant elections in Northern Ireland, he can ask the relevant registration officer to produce a combined postal voters list and combined proxy postal voters list. The amendments also make clear who is entitled to be present at proceedings on the joint issue and receipt of postal ballot papers. They provide for all the ballot papers to be sent out and returned in the same envelopes, and they set out the procedure for forwarding and retaining documents related to the joint postal voting process—for example, declarations of identity, the proxy postal voters list and the postal voters list.
The postal voting amendments for Northern Ireland also include the creation of two new forms of declaration of identity that can be used for Northern Ireland Assembly and local elections, when proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers are not combined. Equivalent forms already exist for England, Scotland and Wales.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
When people receive the envelope containing their postal vote, will they therefore need just one person to attest to their signature for all three votes, or will three separate witness signatures be required—one for each ballot paper?
Mr Harper
There are two stages to the process. If the chief electoral officer and the chief counting officer agree to combine the issue of the postal votes, which is a new procedure in Northern Ireland, everything will be sent out in the same envelope, and the same person will then be able to attest on the ballot paper. The whole point is to make the combination of the two elections and the referendum in Northern Ireland work as smoothly as possible. That is the most significant change in these combination provisions, and I hope that it will help the proceedings in Northern Ireland.
Amendments 156 and 157 include revised forms for the postal voting statement for the Scottish Parliament election, when the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers is not combined, and for the statement on the postal ballot papers that have been issued and received in Scotland for the referendum on the voting system. This takes into account the changes that were made to the forms for Scottish parliamentary elections by the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010.
The rules relating to the conduct of the elections next year are governed by the elections orders I have set out, and they will be debated in Parliament, following the usual procedures, in the near future. If Parliament agrees the orders, the relevant changes to the combination provisions enabling the referendum to be combined with them are in these amendments, which I shall ask the House to agree.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Do the amendments take into account the possibility of the Scottish parliamentary general election next year not being held on Thursday 5 May?
Mr Harper
If that election were not held on the same day, we would not be combining the referendum with the Scottish Parliament election. The combination provisions will be required if the elections take place on the scheduled day and if the referendum is also held on that day. The elections can then be combined so that they are more efficiently run and provide a considerable cost saving to the taxpayer.
Mark Lazarowicz
The Bill provides for the polls for the referendum and the Scottish Parliament general election of 2011 to be taken together. If, under the Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Parliament election were to be held in March next year, would the referendum in Scotland be held in March as well?
Mr Harper
The provisions enable the referendum to be combined with the election, if they are taking place on the same day. Given that they are scheduled to take place on the same day, the provision is clearly sensible. If an eventuality arose under the Scotland Act causing the Scottish parliamentary elections not to be held on that day, the two would not be combined. The Bill does not change those provisions in any way. Indeed, the conduct of the elections is to be determined by the elections orders, which this House and the other place will debate in due course. These provisions are about how to combine the referendum with the conduct of those elections. I hope that that is clear.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I notice that the instructions set out in amendment 156 ask voters to complete the ballot paper and form “in black ink”. Is the same instruction in the original Bill, and by building this provision directly into the Bill would we invalidate the ballot papers or forms of voters who chose to use another colour of ink?
Mr Harper
The proposed forms are set out in the Bill, but some changes are necessary to reflect the changes in the election orders. I have the provision in front of me, and it says:
“Please write clearly in black ink.”
We had this debate earlier and I have said that if a clear intention has been set out by the voter, the returning officer—or, in the case of the referendum, the counting officer—will allow the vote. The view is usually taken that voters should be included rather than excluded. Clearly, the instruction is intended to make it as easy as possible to read the votes.
Kevin Brennan
I appreciate that. The Minister might be able to elucidate later whether the requirement for black ink was part of the original instruction. My fear is that when something is written directly on the face of a Bill, it is sometimes open to a more literal interpretation than the Minister has indicated would be the normal practice. If not now, perhaps he could clarify the point later.
Mr Harper
All the forms for elections are usually set out in secondary legislation, but we have set them out in primary legislation. The legal effect, however, would not be different. Another provision we adopted earlier to make the forms more understandable and accessible to disabled people was to allow the Electoral Commission to vary not the ballot paper, but the forms, to make them easier to use. If the Electoral Commission felt at a later stage that any of the forms were difficult for people to use, it would be able to amend them. As I said, however, that does not apply to the ballot paper.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee. Has he any comments on the concerns that were expressed about the possible coincidence of the alternative vote referendum and the Welsh Assembly and parliamentary elections, given that some people might choose to have a postal vote for only one of those? Officials feared that that would generate horrendous administrative problems that would undermine the democratic process on the day.
Mr Harper
I do remember giving evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee and I enjoyed it tremendously. I was sorry only that the experience was too short.
I do not remember whether the hon. Gentleman was present when we debated the postal vote provisions in Committee, but the Government decided that the most sensible arrangement would be for standing postal vote provisions for a United Kingdom parliamentary election to kick in automatically for the referendum, but for that not to apply to people with postal vote provisions for a different election.
When voters receive their polling card, it will helpfully set out for them the elections and the referendum to which their voting entitlement applies—that will deal with the circumstances in which there are different franchises—and will also make clear how their postal vote has been set up. They may not have one set up for the referendum, for instance, but they may have one set up for a local election. That will enable them to take action at that stage and, if they prefer to vote by post, ensure that they can do so in the elections and the referendum.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Form 4, which appears on page 245 of the Bill, results from an amendment that the Minister tabled to the original Bill. There is now a new form, which appears in amendment 156. Why did the Minister not simply table amendment 156 in the first place, given that the forms are very different?
Mr Harper
As I said earlier, the changes that we have tabled today to the combination provisions reflect the changes in the conduct of the election orders that were laid before the House. We wanted to ensure that it was as easy as possible to combine the polls, and that the instructions given to voters for the referendum and the elections were aligned with each other. The original amendments and combination provisions were based on the law as it was before the territorial orders had been laid. I think that that is quite straightforward.
Chris Bryant
Obviously I understand the process—as I am sure the Minister has foreseen, it is one of the matters on which I shall express my disagreement with him—but the requirement for people to write in black ink, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), is not included in the form that appears in the amended version of the Bill, but is included in the form that appears in the amendment. Why was that change made?
Kevin Brennan
I do not want to push the point too far, but it is a serious point. Normally, people are issued with a pencil at polling stations. Given that, as the Minister has confirmed, the “black ink” instruction did not appear in the original version, I am intrigued that it has suddenly found its way into this version. Will people be required, or instructed, to use black ink at polling stations? I fear that that could lead to unnecessary confusion: that is the only point I am making.
Chris Bryant
Let me deal first with the process. The Minister referred to statutory instruments. All the amendments we are discussing, bar the one tabled by members of the Scottish National party, were tabled by the Government, and they cover some 28 pages of the amendment paper. They were not tabled because the House demanded amendments, or because the Government said in Committee that they would consider probing amendments and return with further amendments on Report. They have been introduced because the Government have gone through a process of putting various carts and horses in the wrong order. I fully recognise that I am not as versed in country ways as the Minister, who represents the Forest of Dean, but I recognise when parliamentary procedure is being put in the wrong order, and it would have made far more sense to have proceeded with pre-legislative scrutiny and proper consultation with the devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and then to have proposed legislation in draft form. We should bear it in mind that not a single devolved Administration wants a combination of polls next May, but if the Government’s view is nevertheless that they wish to push forward with that, against the wishes of the three devolved Administrations, they can then introduce statutory instruments to make provision under the Scotland Act 1998, the two Wales Acts of 2000 and 2006 and the Northern Ireland provisions. They would do that first, and the proposals would then be considered in this House and the House of Lords and, if agreed to, the Government would introduce the final version of their Bill. Instead, because the Government are running at an inappropriately fast pace for this kind of legislation, there has been no consultation whatever with any of the devolved Administrations—with either the Assemblies or the Parliament or the Executives or Governments in each of those nations.
There has been no process of consultation on the Bill, but there has also been no process of consultation on the orders. The Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010 is some 205 pages long; it is not a minor tome. It includes measures on election expenses, disputed claims, corruption, entreating, the control of donations to candidates, the appointment of election agents, the requirement of secrecy, the breach of official duty, tampering with nomination papers, and personation and other voting offences. I am sure the Government will say that this entire matter is a reserved responsibility and that it is for the Westminster Government to decide, but it would have showed greater respect for the devolved Administrations if they had consulted them before the orders were laid.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
On the consultation issue, I know from experience that regular meetings used to take place, and presumably still do, between the First Minister in Wales and the Secretary of State for Wales, and I guess that the situation in Scotland is the same. The meetings take place frequently—sometimes once a week, or even more—so there is no reason why there cannot be dialogue and consultation at a relatively early stage. Can my hon. Friend explain why even the most basic communication has not taken place?
Chris Bryant
I cannot give any explanation for that. All I know in relation to the Secretary of State for Wales is that, with regard to another matter, I asked on the Floor of the House in June for a meeting with her on a cross-party basis and she said she was quite happy to have one as soon as possible. The first date that was provided was this afternoon. The Secretary of State did not turn up and her officials had booked the wrong room. It is therefore quite possible that if any consultation on the matter under discussion had been planned, it would not have actually taken place.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that nowhere will he find a requirement that a discussion should be held if the boundaries in Scotland have to change—yet again? There should also have been a discussion with MSPs about the Scottish boundaries, and about local authority areas. That would have made more sense in terms of our working together and coming up with a solution that is not a patchwork quilt.
Chris Bryant
Or, indeed, just a muddle. One of the things that Welsh Members have been trying to say during the discussion of this Bill is that on the combination of polls, lessons need to be learned from the situation in Scotland, where the boundaries for MSPs are no longer coterminous with those of Members of Parliament. In addition, in Scotland but not in England or in Wales, wards are being split between constituencies because of the local government arrangements that have been made as a result of large single transferable vote wards.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
My hon. Friend, like many others on the Opposition Benches, will have sat through proceedings on large Bills with a huge number of clauses and schedules. When a lot of late amendments are tabled, that is, in general, a tribute to the civil service, who are working through the night and burning the midnight oil to draft them. However, we have come to recognise that it is also a symptom—not unique to this Bill—of legislation that is not ready. My concern, which I hope is also the concern of those in the other place, is that this may not be the last we will see of batches and pages upon pages of amendments. I hope that those in the other place will act on that concern, because this is rushed legislation.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend, and near neighbour, is absolutely right about that. Interestingly, the Scottish Executive have made direct representations to the Secretary of State for Scotland about the statutory instruments, as has the convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee in the Scottish Parliament. So it was a bit disappointing to see the reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland , which said:
“I would however like to personally reassure you that Scotland Office officials are working closely with the Cabinet Office; the Electoral Commission; the Interim Electoral Management Board for Scotland; and electoral administrators to ensure that both the referendum and the Scottish Parliament election will run smoothly on 5 May next year.”
I do not think that that represents the respect agenda originally referred to by the Prime Minister, and it does not really represent new politics either. I fully understand that the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) and for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) complained bitterly about the way in which we introduced legislation, but introducing it in a way that does not allow amendments to be properly considered in a timely fashion or in the proper order is a ludicrous way of doing business.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend knows it is unwise not to give way to me, because it might end up in a point of order. I have described this Bill as a Wallace and Gromit Bill because of the way in which, rather like Gromit in “The Wrong Trousers”, the Government are laying down the track as they go along. Indeed it is worse than that, because this group of amendments is consequential on a set of statutory instruments that this House has not yet even considered. If that is not getting things back to front, I do not know what is.
Chris Bryant
I do recall my hon. Friend raising the matter of “The Wrong Trousers” and Wallace and Gromit, but I think his metaphor does not work in this case. Gromit was laying down pieces of track ahead of him, whereas the Government are laying down pieces of track behind them—pieces of track that they have not been over; this is putting the horse before the cart before the horse before the cart. There is a real problem in the process that the Government have adopted, and I very much hope that their lordships will want to examine it carefully.
What is also wrong is that because the Government have tabled 28 pages of amendments that we have to debate on Report, they have had to set aside a chunk of time for us to do so. That has been done not because the House wanted it, or to bring about greater consensus on the Bill, but to meet the Government’s own business needs, and as a result of their own haste. The fact that we have not had a single moment’s debate about the decoupling of seats in the Welsh Assembly and their coterminosity with Westminster seats is a disgrace. If, as we had requested, a knife had not been put in yesterday night’s proceedings, it would have been possible for us to have debated that matter now, rather than the measures that we have to debate at this point.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree when a clause is specific to a constituent part of the United Kingdom, there should be allotted time to debate that clause?
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that I sort of disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is important that there should be time to debate such a clause. We tabled an amendment yesterday that a clause should be deleted from the Bill, just so that we could have that debate. On Report there is no other way of having that debate—but I am not sure that it is always right to put in knives, because that leads to some complexities in the management of time. That is why we argued that we should not have knives.
Mr Harper
While the hon. Gentleman is replying to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), will he explain something to the House? It is true that we did not get to the debate on the decoupling provisions, but he will know that the provisions to decouple the Welsh Assembly constituencies from the Westminster ones are supported by the First Minister of Wales. The First Minister has written to the Secretary of State to state that in terms, so it is surprising that the Labour party in Westminster is taking a different position from the Labour party in Wales.
Chris Bryant
It is surprising that a Government that consists of Conservatives and Liberals is taking a view on the number of seats in Parliament that is different from what was in both parties’ manifestos at the general election. The point is that we should have had time to debate these matters, and we have not had a single moment to debate them. I would merely say that I hope that their lordships will take the opportunity to debate the matters that it has not been possible for us to reach.
Let me swiftly deal with some of the amendments. The Minister is absolutely right that the vast majority of the amendments are relatively technical. However, that does not mean that we should be able to agree them today, because we have not agreed any of the statutory instruments on which they depend—he said “if” the statutory instruments are approved by Parliament. There is an enormous presumption in tabling amendments to meet a piece of legislation that has not yet been agreed. That treats this House with a degree of disrespect that is inappropriate.
Amendment 222, tabled by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), is about the costs of running the polls being met by the UK Government. The Minister is right to say that the costs are all met by the Consolidated Fund, but I presume that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment has been tabled to make the point that he thinks that the responsibility for running the Scottish parliamentary elections should be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament—[Interruption.] He is not nodding; he is looking inscrutable at the moment. That is unusual for him, because he is normally extremely scrutable. Perhaps we will have to wait for his contribution to the debate.
The vast majority of these amendments make changes such as substituting “2010” for “2007”, because of the different statutory instrument that would be referred to. Although I suppose it would in theory be possible for us to vote on all of them, because we think that it would be inappropriate to decide on them until the statutory instruments have been decided on, we will none the less want to press at least one to a vote simply to make the point that the process has not been sensible.
Government amendment 78, however, refers to the abandonment of a poll in Scotland. When the Minister sums up, will he explain precisely why he has moved in that direction? The amendment relates to line 3 of page 226, in schedule 7. The Minister also referred to Government amendment 177, which is, as he says, a quite substantial amendment. It runs to several pages and concerns Northern Ireland. It runs from page 1047 of the amendment paper onwards. Proposed new paragraph 40(2) states:
“The following provisions have effect as if the persons listed in them included persons who would be entitled to be present at the proceedings on the issue or receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum or a relevant election if those proceedings were taken on their own.”
I wonder why the Minister has chosen that precise wording. Likewise, paragraph 42(2) states:
“Otherwise, the provisions listed in sub-paragraph (3) have effect as if the words before ‘the colour’ were omitted.”
It may be that I am very dim, but I simply do not understand that provision in relation to Northern Ireland; it will be for the House’s convenience if the Minister explains it.
Similarly, paragraph 44, on spoilt postal ballot papers—again in relation to Northern Ireland—states at sub-paragraph (2):
“The spoilt postal ballot paper may not be replaced unless all the postal ballot papers issued to the person are returned.”
I do not understand why, if a voter has been given three ballot papers and has spoilt only one of them and therefore wants a replacement only for that one, they have to return the other two as well. Will the Government explain that? I ask about this because some people believe we should make postal balloting more difficult.
In Northern Ireland there has been a tradition of separate rules and regulations for postal voting, because of concerns about corruption. In case the Government are considering substantially restricting the use of postal voting in England and Wales, I must tell the Minister that the current provisions have made it far easier for a large number of my voters to vote in any election. Previously, people had to get a member of the medical profession to sign them off as ill to get a postal ballot. In many cases, my voters were charged £6 a head for the right to vote in an election by post, which I think is completely wrong. Of course we want to ensure that there is no opportunity for corruption in the use of postal ballots, but my experience is that many elderly and other people, particularly those who cannot predict the precise timing of their work commitments, value the current provisions on postal voting.
Finally, I am deeply grateful to the Minister for sending me an e-mail today about the definition of newspapers and periodicals, but unfortunately the parliamentary system would not let me open the attachment, so I do not have the faintest idea what it says. I would be grateful if he could find some means of letting me know what he was trying to communicate.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I hear about amendments that are probing, wrecking and reasoned, but amendment 222, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), is simply protesting. It is protesting about what could have been achieved with a lot less resistance had the Government been reasonable and not tried to usurp Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland’s day of democracy—a day that was set in stone, in legislation anyway, 12 years ago.
The Deputy Prime Minister has stuck his neck out on this—indeed, I wonder whether he is prepared for the consequences as it will be his neck on the block if things go wrong—and the Government have proceeded at breakneck speed, disregarding people’s feelings and beliefs as well as the important issues that will arise in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales next May. That is not a slight against the two Ministers present—the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons—who have been handling a very sticky wicket quite well indeed.
No time has been taken to consult the devolved Governments on the Bill. However, that was also a mistake of the Labour party in government when it delivered devolution to Scotland and Wales almost in direct correlation to the strengths of the nationalist parties in those countries. [Hon. Members: “Rubbish!”] That is not rubbish: it is absolutely right. We in Scotland got our Parliament because the Scottish National party is stronger than Plaid Cymru, which is why Wales got an Assembly. I often wonder why Scotland does not have even the powers of the Isle of Man—population 100,000.
In the past several weeks we have had five days to discuss the Bill in Committee. When the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was not speaking, we even had some time to get the odd word in before the guillotine. The debate was cut off at important points and some very interesting and reasonable amendments were put on to the waste heap of parliamentary time. One of the most interesting amendments came from the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who tried to ensure that all the Bill’s measures, not only those on the voting system but those on the changes to boundaries and the number of Members, would have depended on gaining a positive result in the referendum.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman just slipped in, I hope, a reference to a voting system that will be used only every five years. I hope he will not support a five-year fixed-term Parliament, and that I might be able to entice him towards a four-year fixed-term Parliament, which would be a means of guaranteeing that the UK general election did not fall on the same day as a Scottish or a Welsh general election.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The salient point is not whether the election takes place every four years, five years, three years or whatever, but that the referendum coming up next May is usurping the day of democracy and affecting issues over four years. The Minister said that the UK will be solely responsible for the costs, which implies that the amendment has, in effect, been accepted. I welcome that.
When the referendum comes around, I cannot see parties such as the Scottish National party campaigning very strongly for or against. We will have more important things to do. I would encourage the Liberal Democrats to campaign on the referendum, because we will then go and hoover up their seats. A massive mistake is being made by holding that poll on the same day as the elections in Scotland. That is why I am making the protest, and I hope it is being heard. I do not know what will happen in another place, but it should change the provision.
Gate-crashing Scotland’s day of democracy shows a lack of respect on the part of the Government. They say that they would have respected the devolved Administrations, but when pressed they tell us that the opinions of the governing parties of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not matter—a case of words and actions diverging greatly.
The Government need our input. They need all our voices. We need to present issues to the Government and make sure that they do the right thing.
Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)
Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. We have heard much from the Opposition Benches about respect for the devolution settlement. This is an issue reserved to the Westminster Parliament, so the question of extensive consultation does not arise. This is a Westminster issue for the Westminster Parliament under our settlement.
Mr MacNeil
That is why respect is important. The day has been set in legislation for the Scottish Parliament for more than a decade. All of a sudden, somebody wanders in, gate-crashes the party and takes the media caravan on to the lawn. Hon. Members cannot imagine that people in Scotland will not be upset or annoyed that that is happening.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a disgrace that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government were not consulted? To compound that disgrace, the Government claim that they would pay no attention even if the Scottish Parliament passed a motion in this regard.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady is right. I wish that the status that the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Government should have were enshrined in legislation.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for speaking to the amendment. On the respect agenda, can he explain to me, because I do not understand, why the UK Government are against holding a referendum on further powers for Wales on the same day as the Welsh Assembly elections, yet are in favour of the referendum on AV? Obviously the referendum on further powers is far more relevant in terms of the Welsh Assembly elections.
Mr MacNeil
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, because that is an example of a lack of joined-up thinking, and, if the Government were to undertake this process again, they would not start from here, as it were. They find themselves where they are and have to employ the best arguments, regardless of how sticky the wicket might be.
This Bill, like the spending cuts, has moved fast, and had some respect been shown, we might have supported it to a far greater extent than we have been able to. I shall not push my amendment to a vote, because I am sure that the Government have heard my point. Indeed, I think that the Minister has confirmed that the relevant costs will be the sole responsibility of the UK Government, and that makes me very pleased. However, it is my sincere hope that, until Scotland gains its independence, the Government will give us the respect that we truly deserve—the respect that was shown today to France and on other days to Norway.
Mr Dodds
On the respect agenda, and further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe), there is a question not just about interfering with the date of the elections in the devolved regions, but about the changes to the boundaries in Northern Ireland. They will have a direct impact on the boundaries of Assembly constituencies, on which we were not consulted at all. This legislation has a direct impact on the Northern Ireland Assembly and its membership. It is not just a question of the date; the legislation has a direct impact on Northern Ireland, and for that reason there should have been consultation.
Mr MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point for the north of Ireland.
Mr MacNeil
Northern Ireland. I did notice that the right hon. Gentleman said the regions of the UK—
Mr MacNeil
I’ve got the north to my left; I’ve got Northern Ireland to my right. I’m stuck in the middle with you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Well, not to Wales, but to a UK parliamentarian. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the interesting intervention by the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe), which was—I am not being patronising in any way—very well meaning, shows the difference in understanding on the part of those who are in the devolved nations and have a Parliament or an Assembly about how respect cuts both ways? Although we did not always get it right in government, we certainly tried as Ministers to ensure that there was full dialogue and consultation even if we disagreed with the issue. If this Government should learn one thing from this debacle, it is that from now on they need to consult the devolved institutions properly.
Mr MacNeil
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He makes a very good point and leads me to reflect that perhaps I was a bit harsh on the hon. Lady. Perhaps there is simply a lack of understanding, rather than a lack of respect. If we think back, we find that yesterday was really—I think that I can safely use this term—“all-points Celtic”. It was Cornwall. It was Wales. It was Northern Ireland?
Mr MacNeil
My “all-points Celtic” is checking out. It was also Scotland. It was a Celtic issue, and it hit across the nations and a region of the UK—he says, looking around him! However, there are very serious and important points here, and I hope that the Government will listen. At this late stage, it is not too late.
Kevin Brennan
It might not have been entirely inappropriate for the hon. Lady to intervene, because, as I recall from my visit to Corby as a young man, most of it was populated by Scots and Welsh people, who were there to set up the steelworks at the time.
On the date and the combination of polls, however, is it not also an own goal on behalf of the Government and, particularly, the Deputy Prime Minister? He is demotivating those electoral reformers among us who would have been prepared to go out alongside colleagues from other political parties to campaign for the alternative vote. We will now campaign with our parties to help our Welsh Assembly colleagues get elected, and not devote the energy that we otherwise would have done to the Deputy Prime Minister’s cause?
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman is bang on. The Deputy Prime Minister, not content with having some opposition to his aspirations for a change in the voting system, has moved on to look for even more opponents to changes in the voting system, and he has succeeded in that end, because he has absolutely demotivated those people who will have greater priorities when the day comes in May. Their priority will not be the voting system for elections to the UK Parliament, and that is where the mistake lies.
Again, I ask the Minister to speak to his friends in the other place, because that might make quite a difference. Of course, there are those who might feel that there are elements within the governing coalition who are happy to see a demotivated support force for a change in the voting system. I will leave that question hanging.
Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I am very surprised by the technical amendments that the Government have introduced. I have previously brought to the House’s attention the fact that, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), I am currently still a Member of the Scottish Parliament. In the light of this debate, that is a very useful experience to bring to it. For eight of my 10 years in the Scottish Parliament, I was a Minister, and I introduced a considerable amount of legislation. In my experience, if you had to table such a range of amendments, it meant one of two things: first, that something had gone very badly wrong with your legislation organisationally and it needed immediate rectification, perhaps at crisis level; or secondly, that you were wrong in the fundamentals and having to try to address that fact and clean up the mess.
Mr MacNeil
May I mischievously ask the hon. Lady if that ever happened to her?
Margaret Curran
At the risk of being incorrect on the record, I would like to think that, no, it did not happen to me, and that I was very clear about my legislation.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
May I also mischievously ask my hon. Friend whether, in her experience, it has happened to Ministers in the past three and a half years?
Margaret Curran
I would have to say that the current Administration do not quite have my record and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, who was also a Minister.
It is deeply disappointing that the only way I see this Government engaging with Members of the Scottish Parliament on matters that fundamentally concern them is here in this Chamber. The only way that this Government and this House are going to understand the experience of the Scottish Parliament is by having MSPs in the Chamber. That is deeply disappointing and speaks to the respect agenda.
I am obliged to indicate to the House the widespread concern that exists throughout Scotland, across the political spectrum, about what this Government have done. I sincerely hope that we do not get the tired old argument that somehow we are suggesting that the Scottish people are not up to making two decisions at a time or understanding what is in front of them. That entirely misses the point and entirely misunderstands opinion in Scotland.
The core of this proposal, as seen across the political spectrum in Scotland, is that you are downplaying the significance of the Scottish Parliament elections. You are detracting from it, undermining it, and failing to appreciate how important it is. I would have to say that the Tories have a better record on this, but I will leave others to draw their own conclusions. It is fair to say that across Scotland we believe that you do not recognise the authority and status of the Scottish Parliament. That is what is at risk in these proposals and what is so worrying about them.
Worst of all is the fact that there was no consultation or engagement with Members of the Scottish Parliament or members of the body politic in Scotland. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it has the hallmark of arrogance about it. You significantly altered the arrangements for the Scottish Parliament elections, significantly altered the context in which a debate will be held in which we discuss matters of great significance to the Scottish people, and did so without a word of reference to the institution itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has pointed out many times, there are many means and mechanisms established to have proper discussions between Governments, and the fact that you neglected to use any of them speaks ill of—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady in mid-flow, but she is not correct. She is addressing me in the Chair, not the Minister, so when she uses the word “you” she is accusing me as the Chair. I ask her to bear that in mind and address me directly. As far as I am aware, I have not done any of these things at all, as a Minister or anything else.
Margaret Curran
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that correction. I had to be corrected several times in the Scottish Parliament for the same mistake, so I am clearly a very slow learner. I apologise.
Perhaps I could be so bold as to refer to the two Ministers on the Front Bench. One, I think, will remember what the last Tory Government did to Scotland; the other I am not too sure about. That Government imposed the poll tax on Scotland a year ahead of the rest of the UK. I can tell you that Scottish opinion was deeply offended, and we tried to tell the UK Government, “Don’t do this to Scotland, because we think you’re maltreating us.” The rest of the UK seemed not to listen and dismissed that, and to this day Scottish people are offended by how the UK Government behaved. I am telling you, you are in danger of making the same mistake—[Interruption.] I tell the Minister that the Government are in danger of making the same mistake again.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady mentions the 1980s, the poll tax and Thatcherism. Would she not have preferred to have had an independent Scotland, and not had Margaret Thatcher and the poll tax?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. This is getting a little out of hand. Can we come back to the amendments? I am sure that is what the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) is going to do.
Margaret Curran
I am indeed. I was simply drawing a parallel of the last Tory Government, which occurs to many Scots, between this Government’s approach and the behaviour .
The Bill’s provisions will cut across, and distract attention from, the very important Scottish Parliament election to be held next year. It is clear that they were produced in haste, with no consultation. There has been no persuasion in the Government’s arguments, just assertion. They fly in the face of Scottish experience, learn nothing from the Gould report and take nothing from what has happened in previous Scottish Parliament elections. They bear all the hallmarks of a political fix. Rather than an attempt to deliver genuine democratic progress, they are a mess, and they should be opposed.
Mark Durkan
Amendment 18 provides for the combination of three polls—the referendum, the Northern Ireland Assembly election and the Northern Ireland local elections. It will replace clause 4(4), and it provides that the polls are to be taken together on 5 May. The subsection that it replaces states:
“Where the date of the poll for”
Assembly or Northern Ireland local elections
“is the same as the date of the poll for the referendum, the polls are to be taken together”.
That would provide for the possibility that the Assembly or local elections might not be on the same day.
Clause 4(4) also allows sections 31 or 32 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to apply. Under section 31, even though the due date for the election would be the first Thursday in May 2011, in other words 5 May, it could take place two months either side of that. Section 32 provides for a situation in which there was something of a collapse of the Assembly, with the First or Deputy First Minister resigning and not being replaced. I do not want to speculate on that as a possibility, but it is not an absolute political impossibility. In that instance, it would fall to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to name another date, which would not have to be within two months either way.
It seems to me that amendment 18 flies in the face of that, because it will legislate for the three polls to be on the one day regardless. I wonder whether the Government are creating unnecessary tension with existing legislation, because the amendment removes the possibility left open in the Bill. I would appreciate the Minister addressing that point.
Amendments 158 to 179 to schedule 8, all relate to Northern Ireland. Amendment 162 states:
“The Chief Electoral Officer may not decide that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together unless the Chief Counting Officer agrees.”
The office of the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland is a useful and important one. It normally falls to that officer to arrange Assembly elections, local elections, and—under the guidance and control of statute—any combination arrangements for such polls. Amendment 162 opens up the possibility of the chief electoral officer having the issue and receipt of the ballot papers for all three polls together. However, if for some reason the UK chief counting officer does not agree with that, it does not happen. We seek assurances on the effect of that on the two polls that are in the purview of the chief electoral officer, and that it will not mean that the chief electoral officer is somehow prohibited from going ahead with bespoke combination arrangements for the two Northern Ireland elections.
Mr Dodds
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is arguing that Government amendment 18 in some way supersedes the ability of the Northern Ireland Assembly to move the election within a period of two months if they so wished? My understanding is that the amendment does not do that, but simply says that, if the referendum and the election were to be held on that date, they would be taken together. The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing something different.
Mark Durkan
I raise this because if one compares clause 4(4) with the text of amendment 18, it does seem to make a change. The text in the Bill allows for the possibility that is provided for in sections 31 and 32 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The amendment presumes and requires that the referendum and election happen together. There could be tension there, so I have asked the Minister to clarify or explain that. I am just puzzled by the wording. When one sees such variance in the words, one has to ask whether it is inadvertent or whether there is an intention behind it.
Amendment 162 raises the possibility of the UK chief counting officer disagreeing with the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland in respect of the arrangements for combining the issue and receipt of postal ballots. Hon. Members might say that that is unlikely to happen. If that is the case, why is the amendment legislating for such a possibility and what are the implications for the conduct of the other elections and the issue of the postal ballot? Again, I seek clarification from the Minister. In a UK-wide referendum on the voting system, representations could be made to the chief counting officer through the Electoral Commission and so on. There could be legal challenges and threats of legal challenges from a well-resourced campaign that wants to disrupt or create confusion during the election. The chief counting officer might be minded to say that the referendum postal ballot papers have to be handled separately, or some other pressure could cause disagreement. It could be that the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland does not get agreement from the chief counting officer. In such cases, what is the price of that possibility and how will it impact on the arrangements not just for the referendum postal ballot papers but for the issue and receipt of the postal ballot papers for the local elections and the Assembly?
Finally, amendment 177, to which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) referred, is a big amendment. Proposed new paragraph 44(2) to schedule 8 states:
“The spoilt postal ballot paper may not be replaced unless all the postal ballot papers issued to the person are returned.”
If we are providing for that in law, is it clearly stated in form 2—the form that is to apply in relation to a declaration of identity? The form provides advice on what to do in the case of a spoiled ballot, but it does not clearly state that one cannot return and have a spoiled ballot replaced unless all three forms are returned. There is confusion, so we need to see whether the effect of this amendment is properly covered, addressed and clearly expressed in the information that will be given to voters. It might be that voters reading the form as it is in the Bill will believe that they can have the referendum ballot paper replaced separately. If the Government are to go ahead with this amendment, they will have to make further amendments to the forms that are already in the Bill, or to the amended forms that they have provided for in this group of amendments.
Geraint Davies
As a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which has taken a considerable amount of evidence on this subject, I feel that I can talk about the potential confusion that surrounds the combination of polls that we face. The House may be interested in the testimony of Philip Johnson, the chair of the Welsh branch of the Association of Electoral Administrators. He said:
“The capacity for confusion is immense.”
He said that 2015, when there will be the combination of polls, could be horrendous. He is not talking about voter confusion over policy issues, which will, I think, be a significant problem for our democracy.
In Wales, where we have a Labour Government, various proposals will be made to carry on, revive and enliven the policies in Wales. Alongside that, Labour will put forward a different set of proposals on focus and investment to take to the UK Parliament. Therefore, there will be quite different proposals from the same party for different elections on the same day. What is more, there may be varying views on alternative voting. Furthermore, we will have different constituencies for the Assembly and for the UK parliamentary election. For example, I might be standing as the candidate for Swansea West and, at the same time, voters could be asked to vote Labour for the Assembly Member for Swansea Central. Obviously, that could be confusing to voters. We could have one party making different proposals in the same area.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, which is why we should not have the referendum on the same date as other elections. I say that not because the electorate are not intelligent enough to understand that there are different questions being asked of them, but because the system itself is intrinsically and intentionally confusing.
Geraint Davies
I certainly agree with the hon. Lady. What I have just said is a prelude to what I was going to say about the inherent administrative confusion over the combination of the polls. I only added the issue about confusion in voters’ minds over the policy, where they live and who represents them because the same party will be saying different things to them.
To start with, therefore, people will go into polling stations feeling a bit confused because of that complexity, but there is a further problem. Normally, there will be different turnouts for different elections—traditionally, the UK election turnout is higher than the Assembly election turnout, and it can be expected to be higher than that for the AV referendum. People will go into polling stations without necessarily wanting to vote in all three polls, and without a settled position on them.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will know that Wales has held European Parliament elections on the same day as Assembly elections. He should surely not overdo his point, because on those occasions, people were able to make a choice. It could be argued that the turnout for one election had a positive impact on the turnout for the other.
Geraint Davies
Having more than one poll on the same day is not without precedent. My point is that putting yet more questions in more elections on the same day adds complexity, which can lead to confusion and administrative problems.
Mr MacNeil
May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the real problem that we fear is what happened in the UK general election? The media tried to turn that into a presidential election. They skew what happens on the day by concentrating on one event and missing what is the main event to people who live in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. That is my concern, and I think it is shared on both sides of the House.
Geraint Davies
The hon. Gentleman is right and what he says is fair. Inevitably, the media will focus on the UK election and, to a certain extent, the AV referendum. In Wales or Scotland, there are points of difference between different parties on health and education and so on, but they will be overwhelmed by the background noise of the media, which will focus on health and education in England.
As the Conservative position on health develops, they might take out the strategic centre of the NHS in favour of a more atomised view. That is in complete contrast with the more traditional NHS model in Wales. However, the media will talk about the prospective changes to England’s NHS rather than what happens on the ground in Welsh hospitals. People’s understanding of how their hospital works could be quite different from what is actually happening, and they might vote on a false pretext. The power of the media talking about the UK will overwhelm knowledge of what is actually being delivered in local schools and hospitals, particularly among those who do not use such services.
Mr David
My hon. Friend referred to the excellent report by the Welsh Affairs Committee. Does he agree that the Committee summed things up very well? The report states that
“our concerns are not, first and foremost, about the principles at stake in each of these consultations with the nation. They are about the wisdom and fairness of cramming so much debate and decision into so short a space of time”.
That is the key message. We cannot have proper debates on electoral systems or elections if we cram them together on the same day. It is a question of democracy.
Geraint Davies
My hon. Friend is completely right—obviously, I am privileged to serve on that Committee.
There is a traditional comprehensive schooling system in Wales, but the situation in England has become different from that over the years, both under this Administration and the previous one. The choices faced by Welsh and English voters are therefore different, but again, they will be slightly confused.
Ms Bagshawe
Surely that is to underestimate the sophistication of the Welsh electorate. We have seen that voters in the United States are capable of engaging in multiple elections from multiple positions at state and presidential level, and that at one and the same time, they participate in ballot initiatives and referendums. US voters take a multiplicity of decisions with no discernible effect on their democracy.
Geraint Davies
I appreciate that the electorate is sophisticated and that it is possible to have more than one poll at a time. I am simply saying that given the respect agenda for devolution, there should be space for rational discussion of the choices facing Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland without that being overwhelmed by the media noise from the UK, which will impose a template that is different from what happens in the devolved countries. That is confusing.
The testimony to the Welsh Affairs Committee on potential confusion regarding the mechanics of the polls is very persuasive. I said that voters could be confused by issues—some voters are not quite as in tune as the hon. Lady—but many will not.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Of course, in the US, elections are so complex that they have the concept of punching the ticket. A voter can simply say, “I’m a Democrat,” and vote for all Democrats in one go.
However, my hon. Friend’s question on complexity and confusion could also apply to England, because there will be different types of elections using different voting systems on the same day. Regardless of the principles of voting systems and the big decisions made on them, does he agree that the key democratic principle is that Parliament takes its time and comes up with something that is coherent overall, rather than rushing through a dog’s breakfast of a series of Bills that is inherently incoherent and divisive?
Geraint Davies
My hon. Friend is completely right on the Government’s policy, but there will also be a problem with the situation on the ground. For example, the chair of the Association of Electoral Administrators said that
“there is…capacity for the polling station staff to be confused as to which ballot paper should go to which elector.”
Why is that? The chair told the Committee that in Newport, there were 1,000 European voters, who were not eligible for all of the ballots. In some ballots, some people had postal votes, but in others they did not. Someone would come to the polling station and say, “I want my vote,” but they had already been sent a postal vote.
In Wales, for proportionality, we vote for a list for the Assembly, but we also vote for a local Assembly Member. In addition, we might vote for a UK MP and in the AV referendum. The aggregate turnout will therefore be much higher. People may say, “That’s great. That’s good for democracy,” but if all those people turn up at a facility that is expecting fewer of them, and if the arrangements are as complex as I described, there will be more queuing. People will have to find different boxes of different colours and all the rest of it, so there is quite a lot of scope for major confusion that could undermine the democratic process that we all love.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
May I return the hon. Gentleman to what he said about the confusion on issues? There is a respect issue in relation to holding the AV referendum on the same day as the Assembly elections. However, on holding a UK Parliament election and an Assembly election on the same day, I am sure that he, like me, has received many letters on things such as the Academies Act 2010. Because of the power of the media, many in Wales were genuinely concerned about the implications of that legislation, but of course, it has no bearing whatever on Wales. That power cannot be understated in terms of holding the AV referendum and the election on the same day.
Geraint Davies
I assume that the hon. Gentleman is saying that the elections should not be on the same day. Is that right?
Geraint Davies
I am glad the hon. Gentleman believes that, because he is completely right. People are very influenced by the media—that is how they get information—but there is a lot of confusion. When Labour was in power in the UK Parliament, certain innovations in Wales were not carried out in England and vice versa. There was a slightly different policy on prescriptions, for instance. People would wonder, “What am I voting for? It says here that I’m voting for this, but the competition says that Labour is doing something different,” but they would be comparing literature for different elections. If people are unclear what is being said by different parties, they will be unable to make a rational decision or to say, “I will vote for this party because I prefer its proposals to those of other parties.” That undermines democracy itself.
Mr Williams
The capacity of the Welsh media to respond has been severely hampered, whether we look at the position of Sianel Pedwar Cymru or the loss of pluralism—[Interruption.] It is S4C, the Welsh language media—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. A Member who is making an intervention cannot take an intervention.
Mr Williams
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.
My point is that the Welsh media are in a parlous state, so we cannot take for granted their capacity to respond to the UK media at election time.
Geraint Davies
If we had the traditional Sky debate, with the three leaders—or two leaders, now—and ignoring the nationalists, during Assembly elections, they would be even more annoyed, and they would have reason to be so. Indeed, they might even intervene.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not a question of underestimating the capacity of the electorate to make well-informed decisions on myriad voting papers and through different voting methods on any particular date? It is actually a question of overestimating the capacity of party workers to elucidate two or three different arguments at one time on the doorstep. This will lead to a dumbing down of the message from us to the electorate—
Huw Irranca-Davies
It could happen, unless Ministers have some secret plan and a network of workers who can explain two or three different messages on the doorstep. I do not have such an army of people.
Geraint Davies
The difficulty that we all have, as elected Members, is inspiring people who understand the issues to come out and vote one way or another. If there is general confusion, it will not engender confidence in the whole system.
Mr David
Like my hon. Friend, I do not underestimate the ability of the electorate to understand the complexities before them, but does he agree that it may be difficult to explain to people why they are voting on AV—which is not proportional representation but a version of first past the post—at the same time as they are voting in the Assembly elections with two votes, one for first past the post and the other in a proportional system in which votes will be allocated using a top-up list and the d’Hondt system?
Geraint Davies
It will be very complicated to explain to people in Wales why, when they already have a proportional representation system that is fair, they should opt for the alternative vote, which is not fair. The people in favour of AV will argue—although I do not agree—“Well, AV is better than first past the post. It may not be as good as what you already have in Wales, but we still want you to vote for it. By the way, we also want to talk about parking in hospitals”. People might also want to talk about the fact that Sky Television does not allow the nationalists to speak—although as I am being sponsored by Sky, I will not mention that. That was a joke.
Mr MacNeil
I come from the west of Skye, but that is another story.
Valid points have been made by hon. Members on both sides, but we should bear in mind—if we want a participative democracy—the attention span of voters, who will give only so much of their time to the message from politicians, whether it is dumbed down or quite complicated. They might do the American thing, where they slam down 140 ballots—or however many they are doing on one day—and vote the same way on a slate. We do not want that because, for example, Labour’s plans, and the big holes in its spending, should be scrutinised hard in the coming election.
Geraint Davies
I am certainly grateful that we will have a lot of scrutiny in Scotland. I agree that there is scope for confusion even though, as many hon. Members said, we cannot underestimate the sophistication of the electorate. However, one in five people in Britain are functionally illiterate and find it difficult to fill in forms. If they face four or more ballot papers, and a multiplicity of different questions in different areas and zones, it will be confusing. If we want to increase rather than decrease participation—and for people to vote how they intended to vote, and not vote the wrong way—we should make it easy for them by having a coherent system, with the choices being sequential rather than coincident.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Can my hon. Friend foresee a situation in which two Labour supporters were campaigning for an Assembly candidate and a voter asked, “What do you think about AV?”, and they had totally different viewpoints. They might get into an argument, which would help no one—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) obviously thinks that that is highly unlikely to happen.
Geraint Davies
I wish that we had enough party workers for that to happen. However, theoretically, the people campaigning in elections in an area may not agree on AV. In my city, we have several MPs, and it is possible that one of them—say, me—might not agree with AV, but another Labour MP might agree with it. If it was reported that Labour was in favour of AV, I would say that I was not in favour of it. All those problems will be superimposed on the Assembly and parliamentary votes, alongside shifted boundaries and some people losing their postal votes, leading to mass confusion and excessive cost.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Moving from policy, the mechanics of the proposal and the possible conjunction of elections, we have all been in the homes of elderly people who perhaps have difficulties filling in forms. We have rightly tightened the rules on the ability of politicians such as me to influence those decisions in any way, although we can try to help with guidance. On that basis, does my hon. Friend share my worry that, one way or the other, we could see a lot more spoilt ballot papers in those elections? If so, has he heard anything in any of these discussions about an increase in resources for electoral registration officers?
Geraint Davies
I certainly agree that it is very likely that the number of spoilt ballot papers will increase. We all know that some spoilt ballot papers—a very small proportion—are intentionally spoilt. People write a load of rubbish, which is clearly intentional. However, with the extra complexity, my judgment is that people will think that they have voted one way, but then change their minds and cross something out. Obviously the returning officer will say, “Well, that’s not a valid vote,” but if there are large numbers of such votes in those polls, which might have large or small turnouts—these are difficult things to judge—that will be unfortunate.
I have a concern, in that people have talked about the electorate as if they were a homogenous group, but in certain areas there will be less educational opportunity, inter-generational poverty and a lack of capability to fill in lots of forms, along with under-registration. When those factors are overlaid, it shows a built-in institutionalised discrimination against people who may be poorer or may have had fewer educational opportunities, and who may therefore be more likely either not to participate or to end up spoiling their ballot papers, and democracy would be the poorer for it.
I am sure that the Minister will respond to the point about the financial facilities made available to cope with the extra administration. Clearly there will be an enormous burden on local authorities. I know that the Boundary Commission for Wales has been given £1.9 million for redrawing the boundaries, as opposed to administering the election. Let us remember that only 3 million people live in Wales, yet an extra £1.9 million has been given for starters. When we aggregate that, adding the legal costs and so on, the sum involved will be enormous. Some of these proposals were sold to the media in the name of addressing all these costly MPs buying duck houses, or whatever they are supposed to have done, but the reality is that the cost of change will completely dwarf the savings on MPs. It is completely ridiculous. We are spending millions and millions of pounds setting up administrative complexity. Effective democracy will fall on its face, leading to legal challenges and a fall in confidence in the system, all of which is being railroaded through by a party that does not seem to care.
John Mann
My hon. Friend mentions the cost and expense of MPs. With an independent body setting MPs’ salaries, has he considered the certainty that if the Bill proceeds into law, it will inevitably increase the salary of MPs? The argument will be put—and doubtless accepted—that there is more work per MP, and that there should therefore be a certain rate for the job. Therefore, this Bill will not cut pay; it will in fact increase the pay of MPs.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. We are now clearly straying from the amendments before us.
Geraint Davies
I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. What we are talking about is the combination of polls and the confusion that this could cause. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) suggested in his intervention that combining the polls should require extra money. I completely agree with that, and was simply making the point that the Boundary Commission for Wales has already been given £1.9 million just for redrawing the boundaries, let alone for carrying out the work on the political machinery, which will be enormous. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has simply made the point that those enormous costs will dwarf any prospective saving and that, in fact, there will probably be no saving at all.
I will bring my comments to a close. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Hon. Members should not encourage me, because I might end up reading the whole of the Welsh Affairs Committee report.
Geraint Davies
I know that you have read the report a number of times already for your bedtime reading, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I do not want you to fall asleep again.
In conclusion, a combination of polls will be expensive and confusing, and will undermine democracy and lead to legal challenge. The Bill does not factor in the problems of having postal votes for some votes and not for others, the different systems superimposed on the same day, and the fact that the media might dwell on one election rather than another, thereby undermining the ability of local parties to send discrete messages to discrete audiences. It is a sad day for democracy.
Kevin Brennan
I will attempt to be reasonably concise. It is worth returning to the amendments, which are about the combination of polls, and reminding ourselves—and the literally dozens of people who I am sure are still watching on the BBC Parliament channel, after our deliberations so far—why we are discussing combining the referendum in the Bill with the Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, Scottish Parliament and local government elections.
The only reason we are doing that is down to one man, who has been completely invisible during our deliberations, namely the Deputy Prime Minister. The only reason we are discussing this issue is that the Deputy Prime Minister is convinced that his best chance of winning the referendum on the introduction of the alternative vote will be if it takes place on the same day as the elections to the devolved Assemblies and the local government elections. As the amendments in the group show, this is not a matter of finance, although that argument is sometimes put forward. It is nothing to do with that; rather, it is entirely to do with a belief that the alternative vote is more likely to be supported in a referendum if it is held on the same day as those other elections.
In that sense, this is one of the most surreal debates in which I have ever participated in the House of Commons, because the Deputy Prime Minister will not come here himself to make that point. Instead he sends along the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who comes along to make the case, even though he does not himself believe that the alternative vote should be passed into law. In fact, this is the second time in one day that he has had to come forward to promote Liberal Democrat policy in the House. After the duffing up that he got in the Tea Room after the first time, I hope that he is a bit safer now.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. We are talking about the combination of polls, not the Deputy Prime Minister. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman now directed himself to the amendments before us.
Kevin Brennan
Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point that I was making was that the very reason for the amendments that are before us, about the combination of polls, is to do with the beliefs of one person, who has put up the Minister, as it were, to come along and defend those amendments.
A lot has been made of the potential confusion that could arise. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe), whom I commend for taking a lot of interest in these proceedings. I take her point about American elections; in fact, my wife is an American citizen and still votes in American elections. We get the very lengthy ballot papers that people receive through the post in California, and which do indeed combine polls on many different issues on one day. I am less disturbed by my constituents’ ability to distinguish between different issues on the same day than I am by the contempt that the Government have shown. I am disturbed by the contempt shown for the devolved Administrations by he who must not be named—I am not going to mention his name again, for fear of upsetting you, Mr Deputy Speaker—when, although he represents a party that claims to be a party of devolution, he completely ignores the wishes of the devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Mark Lazarowicz
Like my hon. Friend, I think my constituents will be able to cope with the technical difficulties of dealing with two or three ballot papers on the same day. The problem is not confusion on the part of electors, but that the focus of political debate in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will inevitably be on what will be general elections in those countries. That is what will distort the reality, not the two votes on the same day. Newspapers and the media will focus on the general elections, not on the alternative vote referendums, so that matter will not receive the sort of scrutiny that it should.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is entirely right, and that point has been clearly made during the debate. We know that that is the reality. Debates on national elections in Scotland and Wales, and elections in Northern Ireland, will be swamped in the general UK media by discussion about the referendum on the alternative vote.
The hon. Member for Corby was right constitutionally and technically to say that such matters, with the exception of a couple, are reserved. First, the UK Government have generally agreed through their various protocols with the devolved Administrations to consult on matters directly affecting them, and protocols exist in the civil service to enable those consultations to take place, but they are being abandoned because of the desire of he who shall not be named to meet the deadline to enable the measure to be rushed through.
Kevin Brennan
I will give way in a moment, but first I want to make my second point, about why I think the hon. Lady is wrong. One of the first actions by her leader, when he became Prime Minister—many of us thought it was commendable at the time—was to visit the devolved Administrations and to make it clear that the interaction between the UK Government and those devolved Administrations would be based on respect. In this instance, the Government have fallen far short of the Prime Minister’s aim and his promise at that time.
Ms Bagshawe
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous comments earlier. It is regrettable that the catchphrase—the respect agenda—about which we hear so much from Opposition Members, does not seem to work two ways. The matter is a devolved one for the United Kingdom Government, and Opposition Members have failed to realise how strongly voters in England feel about the democratic deficit to which they are subjected, which the Bill aims to remedy.
Kevin Brennan
We have found out what respect means to the hon. Lady. For me it means having mutual respect, and when the previous Administration offered devolved government to people in England, they turned it down. It is a matter of respect that if people in England do not want devolved government, that is a matter for them. My point is that the Prime Minister took the trouble to visit the capitals of Wales and Scotland, as well as Belfast, to talk to the devolved Administrations. He promised a relationship of respect, despite the fact that the Conservative party was originally vehemently opposed to devolution, and said that things had changed and the relationship was new. However, because of the needs of he who shall not be named, the Government had to abandon that respect agenda and provide for the combination of polls.
Mark Durkan
I thank my hon. Friend for emphasising the principles of the respect agenda concerning the devolved Administrations, but it should also apply to this Chamber. Is it not odd to have a Deputy Prime Minister who relies on deputies to appear in the Chamber more than he does?
Kevin Brennan
I fear that I will test your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I make a further reference to he who shall not be named, but clearly my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. My point, Mr Deputy Prime Minister—I mean Mr Deputy Speaker; that was a Freudian slip, and he shall be named after all. My point, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that many Labour Members are favourably inclined towards electoral reform, but others are not. Many of us would have looked forward to the opportunity—it was in our manifesto—of putting the question to the British people and allowing them to decide in a clean, clear referendum for which that was the sole focus of the discussion. That could easily have happened, and that is exactly what should have happened.
As that did not happen, many of us who are favourably inclined towards electoral reform are severely demotivated in terms of putting our weight behind what seems to be a venture with no respect for those of us who might support that agenda. That may suit many hon. Members on both sides of the House who do not agree with electoral reform, but I think it is a terrible shame, because we will all devote our energy to the important national elections in the devolved Administrations, and the referendum will be ignored during those elections. I shall vote in favour of the alternative vote in the referendum, but I fear that it will be lost. Boy, won’t that be awkward for he who must not be named!
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I want to speak about the complexity, confusion and unfairness that have so often been referred to in this debate, and that comes from the perspective of having suffered the ignominy of a proposition for regional government for the north-east of England, which I vehemently supported, being lost in a referendum, almost six years ago to the day. Part of the reason for that, although not the only one by any stretch of the imagination, was the fact that the question of regional government for the north-east of England was combined on the same ballot paper with a question about what form of unitary local government was wanted.
Although 70% of electors in the north-east of England were not subject to any change in local authority, the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sent out a six-page supplement to every voter in the region, four pages of which were about local government reorganisation. Many of my constituents rang me asking whether the proposal would mean the end of Gateshead council. It had no impact on Gateshead council, other councils in Tyne and Wear, or councils in Teesside, but the six-page document had four pages about local government reform, and of course the whole concept of regional government for England was lost at that stage.
When addressing the issue of complexity, confusion and fairness, we must look at the coalition Government’s stance. They have repeatedly told us that their actions in passing legislation and making ministerial judgments must pass the acid test of fairness. So is the proposed measure fair or is it not? In fact, the junior coalition partners have almost made it their mantra that they will support their senior coalition partners as long as measures are seen to be fair. The Bill clearly fails that test in many ways, yet the “fairness party”, as the Liberal Democrats see themselves, is still voting in the Lobby to support it—with a handful of notable exceptions on some clauses and amendments. Citizens’ capacity to vote in a referendum is vital, and part of the unfairness to which I refer is the fact that the arbitrary nature of the Government’s proposal disregards the geography and natural togetherness of local communities. I envisage that virtually every constituency in the country will be subject to change—with the exception, of course, of the two constituencies exempted because of their peripheral geography, and because they encompass so many islands.
It is difficult to fathom a scenario in which, in order to meet the twin criteria of ending up with exactly 600 constituencies that must all comprise exactly 76,000 electors, plus or minus 5%, there will be knock-on effects across county boundaries and even regional boundaries—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am also a little concerned that the hon. Gentleman is going wide of the subject of the combination of polls. Perhaps he could stick to the confusion that he spoke about earlier. This sounds a bit like a speech for a Third Reading debate.
Ian Mearns
Mr Deputy Speaker, the unfairness to which I want to address my remarks mainly relates to town and city dwellers. I am not for one moment implying that the people whom I speak of do not exist in the countryside; they do, of course, but not in anywhere near the same kind of numbers as in our towns and cities. The calculations that the Government have made in drawing up their criteria totally disregard the 3.5 million people who are not registered to vote or to take part in the referendum—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Yet again, I think that the hon. Gentleman has not really paid due attention to the amendments before him. He is entering into a much wider debate. I ask him to look again at the subject of the combination of polls, please.
Ian Mearns
Not only will those people be unable to vote in the elections; they will also be unable to vote in the referendum on our voting system. There are many reasons why people will be unable to enfranchise themselves, and it is important to have regard for such people. Some might be in debt and trying to escape from their creditors. Others might be trying to avoid violent loan sharks. They will not be enfranchised to take part in a referendum because they are trying to escape from the people who are pursuing them. Some might be victims of domestic violence hiding from violent former partners—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me a little. Which amendment is he speaking to?
Ian Mearns
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to return to this matter on Third Reading, but there are some important points about the Bill that need to be made.
Mr Harper
I did not detect any focus on the amendments in the last few speeches, so I shall not address the points that were made in them. I shall focus instead on those Members who troubled themselves to speak to the amendments and raised sensible points, as did the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). He and others mentioned that the orders relate to the elections and not to the referendum. The conduct of the elections is not devolved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) said. The hon. Gentleman will know that, under the Calman proposals, we propose to move the administration of those elections to the Scottish Parliament.
The orders that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are not amendable, and I hope that the House will support them. If it does not, I have already said that we will revert to the original provisions in the Bill, which have been debated and voted on by the House. Either way, the House of Commons will have had the opportunity to consider both scenarios—without the new orders and with them—and to pronounce on them. I am therefore confident that the House and the other place will have taken those decisions, whatever they might be.
Chris Bryant
When the hon. Gentleman says that the Government would revert to the previous provisions, I presume he means that he would table amendments in the House of Lords, because he would not be able to table them here. In that case, he would not have met his own criterion that matters relating to the elections would be decided on here.
Mr Harper
No, not at all. If Parliament did not adopt the orders, we would indeed have to table the amendments in the House of Lords, but in so doing, we would simply be bringing the Bill back to the stage that it is at with the amendments that have already been debated and voted on by this House. Either way, it would be this House that had effectively decided on the machinery for our electoral arrangements. I hope that I have set that out clearly, even though I know that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with it.
I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is no longer in his place, or, indeed, any other place—[Hon. Members: “He must be somewhere!”] Well, he is not in the Chamber. He must be somewhere, but he is not here. He talked about the respect agenda, and he and others talked about holding elections and referendums on the same day. We have had this debate before, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will not try your patience.
The hon. Gentleman made some sensible points on the coincidence of elections, notably of a UK general election and devolved elections. He knows that that matter has been highlighted—although not actually put in place—by the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, and we have already said that we are thinking about possible solutions. When the Government have settled on a position, we will consult parties in each of the devolved nations—not the devolved Administrations, because they only represent one or more parties—to come up with a solution. That relates to the coincidence of elections; the Government do not think that the combination of a referendum and elections will have the same qualitative impact.
Tom Greatrex
Surely the solution is to have four-year fixed-term Parliaments. The UK and Scottish parliamentary elections would then never happen on the same date.
Mr Harper
I will not dwell on that point at length, because you would rule me out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Briefly, however, I will say that it would be possible, if there were an early UK general election or if the devolved Administrations’ cycles changed, to have four-year terms for both Administrations. That could result in coincidence on every occasion, rather than just once every 20 years. I will not pursue that, however, as it relates to a different piece of legislation, which the House will have the chance to debate in due course.
Chris Bryant
I know that the Minister will not want to dwell on this point either, but he was talking about process, and about the amendments that he might or might not have to table. If the Government change the law on prisoners’ voting, they will have to do so in primary legislation. Will the Minister make it clear that he would not do that by tabling amendments to this Bill in the House of Lords?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman is getting ahead of himself a little. I made it clear in the statement that the Government had not yet made any decisions on how to implement that judgment. We have made it quite clear on a number of other issues relating to this Bill that it is about the referendum. Indeed, we have resisted amendments in which people have tried to make changes that would have a wider policy impact and that should be made elsewhere. For example, we had a debate on the appropriate age at which people should be able to vote. There was a general view on the Government Benches, even among those who support that provision for elections in general, that this Bill was not the right place in which to make those arrangements. I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the form for the postal voting statement to be used for Scottish Parliament elections in which the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers was not combined had been changed. The Scotland Office has updated the form in the 2010 order, and we have followed that in the Bill for the purposes of the Scottish Parliament elections next May.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) asked why, in Northern Ireland, all postal ballot papers had to be returned if one was spoiled. In cases of a combined poll, there will be a pack containing all the ballot papers, and another pack would have to be issued in such circumstances. Someone could end up with multiple ballot papers for the same election, if the first set were not returned. That is also the long-standing practice in England, Wales and Scotland. I shall come to the hon. Member for Foyle’s other points in a second, and he can come back to me if he does not think that that answer is appropriate.
The hon. Member for Rhondda also asked why proposed new paragraph 42 in amendment 177 referred to the words before “the colour” being omitted. The words are being omitted when the poll at one election is taken with the poll at another election. The reason that we have omitted them is because, if the elections happen on 5 May, we know that there will be combinations and that the words will be redundant. He also asked why amendment 78 changed the wording in line 3 of page 266. It is a consequential minor change—consequential to the drafting change made to the order governing the Scottish Parliament elections—and it is not intended to have any practical effect.
I was asked about amendment 78 and the changes to provisions on abandonment of poll in the Scottish parliamentary elections. Again, this follows changes to the 2010 order, which separates out for the first time provisions dealing with the death of a candidate in a regional election from those dealing with the death of a candidate in a constituency election. This means we have to amend the provision, making it clear how the abandonment of either poll would affect the referendum. The policy remains that the referendum poll would continue.
Chris Bryant
Does that meet the requirements of the later amendment that deals with the equality of votes where a candidate has died?
Mr Harper
They are about different things; they are not linked. [Interruption.] No, the later amendment is about how the AV rules would work, whereas this one is about the working of the elections taking place next year. They are separate issues.
I was also asked about the use of black ink on the postal voting statement. Because it is for the postal voting statement, it is not relevant to the forms used in the polling station. My understanding and my advice is that the use of black ink is to make the document easier to verify when it is checked and scanned when the postal vote identifiers are being checked. I will make further inquiries, however, and write to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) if this proves not to be the case.
Kevin Brennan
Will the Minister confirm now—or, if not, later in that letter—whether, if an elector does not use black ink, the postal vote will not be invalidated?
Mr Harper
I will look further into that. The real issue is the ease with which returning officers can validate the identifiers. I understand that, where that is not able to be done automatically, it means in practice that it has to be done manually. As I say, however, I will check, write to the hon. Gentleman, copy it to the hon. Member for Rhondda and place a copy in the House of Commons Library.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) said that there were a significant number of amendments. That is true, although as I think the hon. Member for Rhondda acknowledged in his remarks, a lot of them are very technical. They consist of replacing 2007 with 2010, for example, and use straightforward language to reflect what has been changed. The issues of substance, particularly those affecting Northern Ireland—where significant changes have been made to postal voting—have been discussed.
The hon. Member for Foyle raised a number of issues. He asked whether the chief electoral officer could still combine working on local and Assembly elections. Yes, he can. I was asked why the chief counting officer and the Northern Ireland chief electoral officer need to agree on the issue of the receipt of postal ballot papers. The chief counting officer co-ordinates the referendum nationally, so he has the general power of direction. The chief electoral officer of Northern Ireland obviously knows that situation on the ground, so it makes sense for them both to agree on whether to issue combined postal votes. The same position applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. We were urged at an earlier stage of our debate to make this mandatory, but combining the postal ballot papers would sometimes not be practical. Legislating for something that proves not to be practical is not very sensible.
The hon. Member for Foyle also made a point about amendment 18. My advice is that it is not intended to—and, we understand, it does not—change the position on the ability of the Northern Ireland Assembly to change the date. He raises a good point, however, and if he is concerned about it, it is worth my reflecting on it further. I will do so and write to him when I have thought more about it. I repeat that it is not the intention to change the position and we do not believe that it does. The point is nevertheless worth dealing with, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman, if that is acceptable.
Mr Harper
Yes, of course. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to confirm that. I will write to the hon. Member for Foyle, copy my reply to the hon. Member for Rhondda and place it in the Library for the benefit of all hon. Members. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. A number of private conversations are going on, and I am finding it difficult to listen to the Minister. If Members want to have a chat, will they please go outside the Chamber?
Mr Harper
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I have just one further point. The hon. Member for Foyle also raised an issue about whether the language on the forms was clear enough about spoiled ballot papers. The form mentions the need to return all the spoiled papers, but that might leave some ambiguity, so I will reflect further on it. There are two things worth saying. We have an opportunity to deal with the issue, but the hon. Gentleman will know that at an earlier stage of our proceedings, the House agreed to an amendment that gave the Electoral Commission permission to make the forms—but not the ballot papers—more accessible for disabled people and easier for voters to understand. To be clear, if, after the Bill receives its Royal Assent, as I hope it does, any further issues are raised as to whether the forms are as clear as they could be, the Electoral Commission will have the power to make those changes to facilitate accessibility or make the forms easier to use.
Mark Durkan
I thank the Minister for those particular assurances, but on my reading, form 3A under schedule 8 does not explain that if one ballot is spoiled, they all have to be returned. That is not at all clear in the wording. Any effective amendment would need to lead to a change of wording on the form, perhaps through the channel that the Minister has described.
Mr Harper
I agree. I said that I thought the hon. Gentleman made a fair point. I will go away, think about whether it is a real concern—it is a good point—and decide on the best way to deal with it. I hope that that is helpful. I believe that I have addressed the points made by hon. Members and I hope that the House will agree to the Government amendments.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Amendment made: 19, page 3, leave out lines 31 and 32.—(Mr Harper.)
Schedule 7
Combination of polls: Scotland
Amendments made: 44, page 212, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
‘“the 2010 Order” means the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010;’.
Amendment 45, page 212, line 15, leave out from ‘Article’ to ‘Order’ and insert ‘14 of the 2010’.
Amendment 46, page 212, line 32, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.
Amendment 47, page 212, line 41, leave out ‘19 of the 2007’ and insert ‘18 of the 2010’.
Amendment 48, page 213, line 9, leave out ‘20 of the 2007’ and insert ‘19 of the 2010’.
Amendment 49, page 213, line 19, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.
Amendment 50, page 213, line 31, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.
Amendment 51, page 214, line 34, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.
Amendment 52, page 215, line 5, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.
Amendment 53, page 216, line 1, leave out ‘second sentence of’ and insert ‘requirement for separate ballot boxes in’.
Amendment 54, page 216, line 33, leave out ‘and (12)’.
Amendment 55, page 216, line 40, leave out ‘(13)’ and insert ‘(12)’.
Amendment 56, page 218, line 18, leave out ‘46(7)’ and insert ‘46(6)’.
Amendment 57, page 218, line 35, leave out ‘46(7)’ and insert ‘46(6)’.
Amendment 58, page 218, line 38, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.
Amendment 59, page 219, line 11, leave out ‘47(5)’ and insert ‘47(4)’.
Amendment 60, page 219, line 21, leave out ‘48(7)(a)’ and insert ‘48(6)(a)’.
Amendment 61, page 219, line 35, leave out ‘48(9)’ and insert ‘48(8)’.
Amendment 62, page 220, line 5, leave out ‘49(8)’ and insert ‘49(7)’.
Amendment 63, page 220, line 7, leave out ‘49(12)’ and insert ‘49(10)’.
Amendment 64, page 220, line 24, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 65, page 220, line 29, leave out from ‘53(1)’ to first ‘reference’ in line 30 and insert ‘and (2) of the Scottish Parliamentary Election Rules, a’.
Amendment 66, page 220, line 31, leave out from ‘referendum’ to ‘does’ in line 32 and insert—
‘( ) Rule 53(2)(g) of those rules’.
Amendment 67, page 220, line 37, leave out ‘53(1)(a)’ and insert ‘53(2)(a)’.
Amendment 68, page 220, line 38, leave out paragraph 40 and insert—
‘40 Rule 53(2) of the Scottish Parliamentary Election Rules has effect as if “counting officer” were substituted for “CRO” in each place.’.
Amendment 69, page 221, line 2, leave out ‘53(3)’ and insert ‘53(4)’.
Amendment 70, page 222, line 27, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.
Amendment 71, page 222, line 33, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.
Amendment 72, page 223, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
‘(5) The counting officer must, on request, provide an election agent for the Scottish parliamentary election with a copy of the statement relating to that election.’.
Amendment 73, page 224, line 12, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.
Amendment 74, page 225, line 16, leave out from ‘the’ to ‘and’ in line 17 and insert ‘polling register (within the meaning given in Article 2(1) of the 2010 Order),’.
Amendment 75, page 225, line 24, leave out ‘69(1)(e), (f) and (h)’ and insert ‘69(1)(c), (d) and (f)’.
Amendment 76, page 225, line 27, leave out from first ‘the’ to end of line 28 and insert ‘CRO were to the counting officer’.
Amendment 77, page 225, line 36, leave out ‘72’ and insert ‘72(4), 75(2) or 77(1)’.
Amendment 78, page 226, line 3, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert—
‘(2) Rule 78 of the Scottish Parliamentary Election Rules has effect as if it were amended in accordance with sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A).
(3) In paragraph (2), after “ CRO” insert “or counting officer”.
(3A) For paragraph (3) substitute—
“(3) After the close of any polls that are being taken together with the poll that has been abandoned, the counting officer must—
(a) separate the ballot papers for the abandoned poll, and
(b) deliver or cause to be delivered to the CRO the ballot papers and other documents relating to the abandoned poll.
(3A) Paragraphs (4) to (9) apply in relation to the poll that has been abandoned.”’.
Amendment 79, page 226, line 28, leave out ‘72(8)’ and insert ‘78(10)’.
Amendment 80, page 226, line 32, leave out ‘Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/937)’ and insert ‘2010 Order’.
Amendment 81, page 227, line 1, leave out ‘20A(4) or 20B(3)(a)’ and insert ‘20(4)(b), 21(4)(b) or 22(3)(b)’.
Amendment 82, page 227, line 2, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.
Amendment 83, page 227, line 4, leave out ‘28’ and insert ‘30’.
Amendment 84, page 227, line 5, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.
Amendment 85, page 227, line 9,, leave out ‘(9)’ and insert ‘(10)’.
Amendment 86, page 227,, leave out lines 22 to 25.
Amendment 87, page 228, line 8, at end insert—
‘“proxy postal voters list” includes the list kept under paragraph 8(6) of Schedule3 to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010;”;’.
Amendment 88, page 228, line 27, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 89, page 228, line 35, leave out ‘constituency returning officer’ and insert ‘CRO’.
Amendment 90, page 228, line 40, before ‘In’ insert—
‘In sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) for “CRO” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer”;
(b) for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’.
Amendment 91, page 228, line 40, leave out ‘sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), for “constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘sub-paragraph (2), for “CRO”’.
Amendment 92, page 229,, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—
(a) the CRO and members of the CRO’s staff;’.
Amendment 93, page 230, line 13, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 94, page 230, line 18, leave out ‘(8)’ and insert ‘(9)’.
Amendment 95, page 230, line 18, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 96, page 230, line 21, leave out ‘(5)’ and insert ‘(6)’.
Amendment 97, page 230, line 22, leave out ‘(8)’ and insert ‘(9)’.
Amendment 98, page 230, line 23, leave out ‘“(8A)’ and insert ‘“(9A)’.
Amendment 99, page 230, line 24, leave out ‘(6) or (9)’ and insert ‘(7) or (10)’.
Amendment 100, page 230, line 28, leave out ‘(10)’ and insert ‘(11)’.
Amendment 101, page 231, line 14, leave out ‘32(5)’ and insert ‘31(5)’.
Amendment 102, page 231, line 29, leave out ‘32(5)’ and insert ‘31(5)’.
Amendment 103, page 231, line 21, leave out ‘constituency returning officer’ and insert ‘CRO’.
Amendment 104, page 232, line 15, leave out ‘7(7)’ and insert ‘9(7)’.
Amendment 105, page 232, line 17, leave out ‘constituency returning officer’ and insert ‘CRO’.
Amendment 106, page 232, column2, leave out lines 19 and 20.
Amendment 107, page 233,, leave out lines 4 to 10.
Amendment 108, page 233, line 36, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 109, page 233, line 42, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 110, page 234, line 3, before ‘In’ insert—
‘“In sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) for “CRO” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer”;
(b) for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’.
Amendment 111, page 234, line 3, leave out ‘sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), for “constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘sub-paragraph (2), for “CRO”’.
Amendment 112, page 234, line 7, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 113, page 234, line 10, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 114, page 234, line 12, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 115, page 234, line 15, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 116, page 235, line 35, leave out ‘20A’ and insert ‘21’.
Amendment 117, page 235, line 36, leave out ‘20B’ and insert ‘22’.
Amendment 118, page 236, line 18, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 119, page 236, line 29, leave out from ‘sub-paragraph (4)’ to end of line 30 and insert
‘(a) for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”; (b) after “then” insert “lock the ballot box (if it has a lock) and”’.’.
Amendment 120, page 236, line 31, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 121, page 236, line 35, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 122, page 236, line 41, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 123, page 236, line 43, leave out ‘(7)’ and insert ‘(10)’.
Amendment 124, page 237, line 2, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 125, page 237, line 3, column2, at end insert—
‘In sub-paragraph (4)(c), for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’.
Amendment 126, page 237, line 5, leave out ‘20A’ and insert ‘21’.
Amendment 127, page 237, line 5, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 128, page 237, line 6, column 2, at end insert—
‘In sub-paragraph (4)(c), for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’.
Amendment 129, page 237, line 9, leave out ‘20B’ and insert ‘22’.
Amendment 130, page 237, line 9, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 131, page 237, line 10, column 2, at end insert—
‘In sub-paragraphs (3)(c) and (5), for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’.
Amendment 132, page 237, line 13, leave out ‘lock and’.
Amendment 133, page 237, line 16, leave out ‘21’ and insert ‘23’.
Amendment 134, page 237, line 16, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 135, page 237, line 19, leave out ‘22’ and insert ‘24’.
Amendment 136, page 237, line 19, leave out ‘(3), for “constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘(2), for “returning officer”, and for “CRO”,’.
Amendment 137, page 237, line 24, column2, at end insert—
‘In sub-paragraph (3)—
(a) for “CRO” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer”;
(b) for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’
Amendment 138, page 237, line 25, leave out ‘23’ and insert ‘25’.
Amendment 139, page 237, line 26, leave out ‘constituency returning officer’ and insert ‘CRO’.
Amendment 140, page 237, line 30, leave out ‘24’ and insert ‘26’.
Amendment 141, page 237, line 30, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 142, page 237, line 35, leave out ‘25’ and insert ‘27’.
Amendment 143, page 237, line 35, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 144, page 237, line 38, leave out ‘26’ and insert ‘28’.
Amendment 145, page 237, line 38, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 146, page 237, line 41, leave out ‘27’ and insert ‘29’.
Amendment 147, page 238, line 2, leave out ‘28’ and insert ‘30’.
Amendment 148, page 238, column2, leave out lines 2 to 48 and insert—
‘In sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) for the words before sub-paragraph (a) substitute “The relevant returning or counting officer shall retain, together with the documents mentioned in rule 69(1) of the Scottish Parliamentary Election Rules and rule 49 of the referendum rules”;
(b) in paragraph (a), for the words from “the election to which” to the end substitute “the election or referendum to which it relates and the area to which it relates”;
(c) in paragraph (b), at the end insert “in respect of the election, and a completed statement in the form set out in Form 10 in Part 3 of Schedule 7 to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010 in respect of the referendum”.’
Amendment 149, page 239, line 3, leave out ‘53(1)(g)’ and insert ‘53(2)(g)’.
Amendment 150, page 239, line 6, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.
Amendment 151, page 239, leave out lines 9 to 12.
Amendment 152, page 239, line 13, leave out ‘68 and 69’ and insert ‘68, 69, 70 and 71(1)’.
Amendment 153, page 239, leave out lines 29 to 38 and insert—
‘(i) in relation to a document or packet relating to the Scottish parliamentary election, rules 68, 69, 70 and 71(1) of the Scottish Parliamentary Election Rules;
(ii) in relation to a document or packet relating to the referendum, rules 50 and 51 of the referendum rules.”’.
Amendment 154, page 239, line 39, leave out from ‘sub-paragraph (4)’ to end of line 42 and insert ‘for “CRO”’.
Amendment 155, page 240, leave out line 9.
Amendment 156, page 245, line 5 (Form 4—Form of postal voting statement (to be used for Scottish parliamentary election where proceedings on issue and receipt of postal ballot papers not combined)).
Amendment 157, page 251, line 9 (Form 10—Statement as to postal ballot papers for the referendum).—(Mr Harper.)
Schedule 8
Combination of polls: Northern Ireland
Amendments made: 158, page 255, line 6, at end insert—
(ba) Part 5 of the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2009/1741) or Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/454) (issue and receipt of postal ballot papers);’.
Amendment 159, page 255, line 25, at end insert—
(0) rule 16A (corresponding number list);’.
Amendment 160, page 255, line 36, at end insert—
( ) a provision referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(ba), (3)(c) or (h) or (4)(b),’.
Amendment 161, page 255, line 39, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—
( ) rule 16A of the Local Elections Rules to the extent that it relates to ballot papers issued in pursuance of rule 21(1) of those rules, or’.
Amendment 162, page 255, line 44, at end insert—
‘( ) The Chief Electoral Officer may not decide that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together unless the Chief Counting Officer agrees.’.
Amendment 163, page 256, line 2, leave out ‘, 3’ and insert ‘to 3B’.
Amendment 164, page 256, line 13, at end insert—
( ) rule 16A of the Local Elections Rules.’.
Amendment 165, page 256, line 16, at end insert—
( ) rule 16A(2) of the Local Elections Rules.’.
Amendment 166, page 256, line 25, at end insert—
( ) rule 26(1) of the Local Elections Rules.’.
Amendment 167, page 256, line 31, at end insert—
( ) rule 16A of the Local Elections Rules.’.
Amendment 168, page 257, line 31, leave out ‘this paragraph’ and insert ‘sub-paragraph (2)’.
Amendment 169, page 257, line 33, at end insert—
‘(4) The declaration of identity to be used by those entitled to vote by post in the Assembly election must be in the form set out in Form 3A in Part 2 of this Schedule.
(5) Sub-paragraph (4) applies instead of the requirement in rule 24(1) of the Assembly Elections Rules for a declaration of identity to be in a particular form.
(6) The declaration of identity to be used by those entitled to vote by post in the local election must be in the form set out in Form 3B in Part 2 of this Schedule.
(7) Sub-paragraph (6) applies instead of the requirement in rule 21(1) of the Local Elections Rules for a declaration of identity to be in a particular form.’.
Amendment 170, page 258, line 16, at end insert—
(0) rule 26(3)(e) of the Local Elections Rules.’.
Amendment 171, page 258, line 18, at end insert—
( ) rule 26(3ZC) of the Local Elections Rules.’.
Amendment 172, page 260, line 38, at end insert—
22A (1) This paragraph applies where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.
(2) If the Chief Electoral Officer thinks fit, he or she may require the relevant registration officer to produce—
(a) a combined postal voters list, consisting of the things that would otherwise be included in—
(i) the postal voters list for the referendum;
(ii) the list under paragraph 2(4)(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order;
(iii) the list under section 7(4)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1985 as applied for the purposes of Assembly elections by Article 3(1) of, and Schedule 1 to, the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001;
(b) a combined proxy postal voters list, consisting of the things that would otherwise be included in—
(i) the proxy postal voters list for the referendum;
(ii) the list under paragraph 4(8) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order;
(iii) the list under section 9(9) of the Representation of the People Act 1985 as applied for the purposes of Assembly elections by Article 3(1) of, and Schedule 1 to, the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001.’.
Amendment 173, page 265, line 41, at end insert—
‘( ) Where lists are prepared as mentioned in paragraph 7(2), 8(2) or 16(1)—
(a) rules 49(1)(b) and 51 of the referendum rules apply to the packets of those lists;
(b) rule 58(1) of the Local Elections Rules applies as if sub-paragraph (da), so far is it relates to those lists, were omitted.’.
Amendment 174, page 266, line 6, after ‘rule’ insert ‘60 or’.
Amendment 175, page 266, line 9, after ‘61’ insert ‘or 63’.
Amendment 176, page 266, line 42, leave out ‘61(2)’ insert ‘64(1) to (6)’.—(Mr Harper.)
Amendment proposed: 177, page 266, line 42, at end insert—
Part 1A
Postal voting
Interpretation
39 In this Part—
“the 2008 Regulations” means—the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1741) as applied for purposes of the referendum by Part 3 of Schedule4, and those regulations as applied for the purposes of Assembly elections by Article 3(2) of, and Schedule 2 to, the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/2599);
(a) the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1741) as applied for purposes of the referendum by Part 3 of Schedule4, and
(b) those regulations as applied for the purposes of Assembly elections by Article 3(2) of, and Schedule 2 to, the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/2599);
“the Local Elections Order” means the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/454).
Attendance at proceedings on issue and receipt of postal ballot papers
40 (1) This paragraph applies where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.
(2) The following provisions have effect as if the persons listed in them included persons who would be entitled to be present at the proceedings on the issue or receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum or a relevant election if those proceedings were taken on their own.
(3) The provisions are—
(a) regulation 72 of the 2008 Regulations;
(b) paragraph 3(1) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.
Procedure on issue of postal ballot papers
41 (1) This paragraph applies where—
(a) the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together, and
(b) a combined postal voters list or proxy postal voters list is produced by virtue of paragraph 22A.
(2) In a case where a postal ballot paper is issued at the same time in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections, a single mark must be placed in the list under the following provisions—
(a) regulation 76(2) of the 2008 Regulations;
(b) paragraph 6(1) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.
(3) In any other case, a mark must be placed in the list under those provisions identifying the poll to which each postal ballot paper issued relates.
Provisions requiring declaration of identity to indicate colours of ballot papers
42 (1) The provisions listed in sub-paragraph (3) do not apply where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.
(2) Otherwise, the provisions listed in sub-paragraph (3) have effect as if the words before “the colour” were omitted.
(3) The provisions are—
(a) regulation 76(4) of the 2008 Regulations;
(b) paragraph 6(3) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.
Envelopes
43 (1) This paragraph applies where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.
(2) The same covering envelope and ballot paper envelope must be issued to a voter under the following provisions in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections.
(3) The provisions are—
(a) regulation 78 of the 2008 Regulations;
(b) paragraph 8 of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.
(4) The number of each of the postal ballot papers issued must be marked on the ballot paper envelope unless the envelope has a window through which all of the ballot paper numbers are displayed.
(5) The following provisions do not apply—
(a) regulation 78(4) of the 2008 Regulations;
(b) paragraph 8(2) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.
Spoilt postal ballot papers
44 (1) This paragraph applies where—
(a) the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together,
(b) a person returns a spoilt postal ballot paper under regulation 81(1) of the 2008 Regulations or paragraph 12(1) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order, and
(c) a postal ballot paper has been issued to the person in respect of one or more of the other polls.
(2) The spoilt postal ballot paper may not be replaced unless all the postal ballot papers issued to the person are returned.
(3) Where an unspoilt postal ballot paper is returned as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), the 2008 Regulations or Local Elections Order apply to it as if it were a spoilt ballot paper.
Opening of postal voters’ ballot box
45 The following provisions have effect as if for the words after “opened” there were substituted “at the counting of the ballot papers”—
(a) regulation 85(3) of the 2008 Regulations;
(b) paragraph 16(3) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.
Opening of ballot paper envelopes
46 (1) This paragraph applies where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.
(2) The following provisions have effect as if after “number” there were inserted “(or one of the numbers)”—
(a) regulation 88(2)(a) of the 2008 Regulations;
(b) paragraph 17B(2)(a) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.
(3) The following provisions have effect as if at the end there were inserted “or, where more than one number appears on the ballot paper envelope, a sufficient number of ballot papers (marking the envelope to indicate the missing ballot paper)”—
(a) regulation 88(2)(c) of the 2008 Regulations;
(b) paragraph 17B(2)(c) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.
Countermand or abandonment of poll for relevant election
47 The following provisions do not apply where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together—
(a) regulation 90 of the 2008 Regulations;
(b) paragraph 18 of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.
Retention of documents
48 (1) This paragraph applies where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.
(2) The Chief Electoral Officer must—
(a) endorse on each of the specified packets a description of its contents, the date of the poll and the name of the area to which the packet relates;
(b) complete a statement as to postal ballot papers in relation to each poll;
(c) retain the packets and statements.
(3) The specified packets—
(a) in relation to the referendum and the Assembly election, are the packets made up under regulations 79, 81(5) and 89 of the 2008 Regulations;
(b) in relation to a local election, are the packets made up under paragraphs 11 and 17C(b) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.
(4) A statement as to postal ballot papers—
(a) in the case of the referendum and the Assembly election, must be in the form set out in Form N in Schedule 3 to the 2008 Regulations;
(b) in the case of a local election, must be in the form set out in Form 2 in Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.
(5) Where—
(a) any covering envelopes are received by the Chief Electoral Officer after the close of the poll,
(b) any envelopes addressed to postal voters are returned as undelivered too late, or
(c) any spoilt postal ballot papers for the referendum or Assembly election are returned too late to enable other postal ballot papers to be issued,
the Chief Electoral Officer must seal those envelopes or postal ballot papers up in a separate packet, endorse the packet as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) and retain the packet.
(6) A copy of the completed statements as to postal ballot papers for the referendum and for the Assembly election must be provided to the Electoral Commission.
(7) The following rules apply to any packet or document retained under this paragraph—
(a) rules 51 and 52 of the referendum rules;
(b) rule 56 of the Assembly Elections Rules;
(c) rule 59 of the Local Elections Rules.
(8) In its application by virtue of sub-paragraph (7)(c), rule 59 of the Local Elections Rules has effect as if references to the proper officer of the council were to the Chief Electoral Officer.
(9) This paragraph applies instead of regulation 91 of the 2008 Regulations.
(10) Paragraph 19 of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order has effect as if—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1), the reference to paragraphs 11 and 17C(b) were omitted;
(b) in sub-paragraph (2), the references to envelopes were omitted.’.—(Mr Harper.)
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 7, page 6, line 10, at end insert ‘, and
(c) the number of electors casting a vote in the referendum is equal to or greater than 40 per cent. of those entitled to cast such a vote.’.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 197, page 6, line 10, at end insert
‘, and
(c) the number of electors casting a vote in favour of the answer “Yes” is equal to or greater than 25 per cent. of those entitled to cast such a vote.’.
Amendment 8, page 6, line 12, after ‘“No”,’, insert
‘or if the number of electors casting a vote in the referendum is less than 40 per cent. of those entitled to cast such a vote,’.
Amendment 198, page 6, line 12, after ‘“No”’, insert
‘or if the number of electors casting a vote in favour of the answer “Yes” is fewer than 25 per cent. of those entitled to cast such a vote’.
Mr Cash
The question of threshold is the second most important issue after the question of whether we agree to this Bill on Second or Third Reading. We have Third Reading to come, and I admit to having voted with some enthusiasm against the Bill on Second Reading, as did a number of my colleagues. We did so because of our inherent objection to the principles that underlie it. I objected to the alternative vote in the wash-up, and I have no reservations about my objections to it. Indeed, I have consistently objected to variants of the proportional representation system ever since I entered the House.
That principled objection has been adopted by Members throughout 150 years of our parliamentary democracy. Many, including Gladstone, Disraeli and even Lloyd George, have objected to the whole idea of undermining the first-past-the-post system. I am reminded of what Disraeli wrote in his novel “Coningsby”. At the time of the Reform Act and the repeal of the corn laws, he wrote in a brief chapter of just one-and-a-half pages:
“There was a great deal of shouting about Conservative principles, but the awkward question naturally arose—what are the principles we are supposed to conserve?”
I believe this Bill is inherently contrary to Conservative principles for the reasons I have given.
Indeed, I would go further and say that I fear that we have not really heard the full reality— the actualité—of what is going on here. Failure in that regard makes it all the more necessary to have a threshold, because if we do not tell the British people the entire truth, which Churchill said we had to do, I fear they will be misled in the referendum campaign. My belief that a threshold is necessary is based in part on the fact that at least that would enable a percentage of the population to be the determining factor as to whether or not the vote is valid.
Mr Cash
Actually, I set it at over 60% until we had the shenanigans on, I think, 18 October. We were effectively deprived—I will not say cheated—of the opportunity to debate this matter in our deliberations on clause 6. The chicanery, as I called it, that we engaged in on that occasion resulted in the threshold being negatived under the procedures of the House. I am not going to go back over that territory however, because I am delighted that we are now having an opportunity to debate this topic.
The threshold question is very important and we were previously deprived of an opportunity to discuss it properly because of the programme motion and other activities that I regarded as rather disreputable. I believe the Bill is being severely vitiated, and I think it is very important that the people of this country know that threshold is a key issue. Indeed, threshold and the 40% figure are regarded by all commentators as having significance across the international scene as well as for the United Kingdom.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman mentions the international evidence. Italy has a provision that is similar to the one he is proposing and the effect is that those who favour a no vote in referendums simply campaign for them to be boycotted. If the hon. Gentleman’s amendment is successful, will he campaign for a no vote or for people to boycott the referendum?
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that the problem identified by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) is not one that applies to amendment 197, because it proposes a support threshold, rather than a turnout threshold.
Mr Chope
I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. If amendment 197 were to be accepted, at least one in four electors would have to support the proposed change, and that is very different from what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is talking about, which is a turnout threshold.
Mr Cash
We were all much more in agreement about this in Committee. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that I believe very strongly, for the reasons I have given and because of the principles I have enunciated, that the 40% threshold is desirable. Incidentally, on the majority provisions prevalent in other democracies in the west, Denmark’s requirement on constitutional change is for 40% of registered voters and, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) implied, Italy has a turnout requirement of 50% of registered voters. Indeed, this country used something not similar, but parallel in the 1979 vote, when the requirement was for 40% of registered voters saying yes.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
All these amendments on thresholds are eminently sensible, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is no chance of their being accepted because the Government will not accept them and that is because there is such profound apathy about this measure among the British people that if any kind of threshold was in place, there would be no chance of the proposal in the referendum being accepted? That is the reality.
Mr Cash
I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but the problem arises if he simply takes the view that, for one reason or another, either in this House or outside it, there is apathy. I simply refer him back to all the great constitutional problems that have arisen in the past 150 years, when there has also been a problem of apathy, because the constitutional arguments are difficult to get across. I think of this on the basis of, for example, the preference arrangements where a person votes for only one candidate, which will mean that a large number of people will, in effect, be disfranchised—they might be very concerned about that. Some 1.5 million people voted for the UK Independence party and the British National party, and one might say that they may well not vote for anybody else. The other thing, which goes with that, is that if one is faced with a choice of Liberal and Labour, there may be an increased likelihood of people voting Liberal Democrat.
Mr Cash
Wait a minute. That is so for the very simple reason that many people have a visceral hatred of both parties and therefore think, wrongly, that they are voting for another party that will do them some good—we have a different view about that.
I regard this as a lambs-to-the-slaughter Bill—this is why I insist on the threshold—because of what would happen under these arrangements to a number of Conservative MPs if they were to get less than 50% of the vote, as they did in the last election. I have calculated that 60 Conservative MPs had Liberal Democrats in second place. My sense of friendship for my colleagues suggests to me that putting as many as 60 seats on the line is a very high price to pay for the purposes of something so central to the coalition. The figures I have show that those who would be affected range from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), who got 34.9% of the vote, to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who got 49.7%. All those Members would be largely at risk, although some more so than others, and something will depend on the boundary changes. I cannot understand how my party can make arrangements that take those lambs to the slaughter. This is extraordinary and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reply.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman’s point. I agree that turkeys do not usually vote for Christmas. Does he perhaps think that his leader has a plan for his party that he is obviously not party to?
Mr Cash
I have voted consistently against this Bill and I will continue to do so, for the reasons that I have given. It behoves some of us to act both with consistency and in principle against things that were not in our manifesto—in fact, it is the opposite because our manifesto declared that we were not in favour of the alternative vote. Furthermore, there was complete silence on the question of threshold until we received the Bill.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman is probably one of the longest-serving parliamentarians. Will he clarify whether he believes that the House of Lords should be bound to follow the manifesto commitment convention or, given that this provision was not in his party’s manifesto, that the House of Lords is perfectly entitled to disregard that convention?
Mr Cash
That is a very good question.
My final point is that leaving this ultimately House of Commons issue—it is about voting here in the House of Commons—to the House of Lords is absolutely disgraceful. This issue should not be resolved in the House of Lords. I have heard a number of my hon. Friends, for whom I have the greatest respect on most matters, churning this out and I simply think it is unacceptable. This is a matter for the House of Commons; it is about our electors, our constituencies, our constitution and the freedom of choice at the ballot box. I utterly reject this Bill and I utterly reject the idea of AV. I strongly urge hon. Members to vote with me on the threshold provision that stands in my name.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) knows that I have great respect for him. He is adamantine in his positions, holding to them with consistency and firmness, and I respect him for it enormously. Often I disagree with him, but I almost entirely agree with him on this Bill, and I also think that he has made a good case this evening. He referred to Conservative principles, so I wish to nick a few words that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) reminded some Welsh colleagues of this morning in Westminster Hall. As he said, Evelyn Waugh asked what the point of a Conservative Government is if it does not turn the clock back, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Stone will agree with that.
However, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about thresholds in referendums because, broadly, they are not a good idea. As these amendments have shown, it is difficult to know whether the threshold should relate to the turnout—the number of people who vote—or the turnout of those who express a preference. In other words, should it leave out or include those who spoiled their ballot paper? Alternatively, should it relate to those who vote yes to change? Obviously, in countries that have written constitutions all this tends to be laid down; it is one of the key elements that is written down. If someone wants to change any element of the constitution in Germany, Spain or many other countries, they have to obtain a fixed percentage—normally greater than an absolute majority—to be able to effect change. In the German constitution, any change has to be given a successful mandate after two subsequent general elections. I do not believe that that is the way we have tended to do things in the British system.
Mr Leigh
I am curious to know why the Labour party takes the attitude it does. Is it because it is, in principle, opposed to thresholds or is it because it is scarred by its experience in 1979, when the referendum would have gone through but for the threshold, which ushered in the vote of confidence, 18 years of Tory role and all the rest of it? Does Labour have a principled objection or is it just history?
Chris Bryant
The scars of history can give us principles—that is the truth of it. That may well apply to the Conservative party too in relation to some of the things it has had to change in recent years. I point out that if there were to be a threshold for election to this House or to council seats, especially in council by-elections, there would undoubtedly be some occasions when people would not be returned, because voters might choose to do precisely what happens, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) has said, in some countries where there is a threshold.
Chris Bryant
I will give way in a moment. In some countries that have thresholds, people are persuaded to boycott. If people felt that they did not like any of the candidates, they might decide that the best way not to return a candidate was to boycott the election.
Chris Bryant
I had offers from Labour Members, so, tempting as the hon. Lady’s offer is, I am going to give way—
Chris Bryant
I am not so sure actually. No, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer).
Graham Stringer
I cannot imagine why my hon. Friend is not so sure about that. I would be grateful if he told us where in the Labour manifesto—or anywhere else in Labour party policy—there is a commitment against thresholds. More importantly, is not the serious argument for the Labour party, the Conservative party or any other party in this Chamber the question of what we would do if there was only a 15% turnout? What would the Government do and what would the House of Commons do? Surely we could not accept that.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is no fixed determined policy that we are completely and utterly in all cases implacably opposed to thresholds. Nor, for that matter, is there a belief that we ardently should have thresholds. However, I suspect that the hon. Member for Stone has tabled this amendment in some sense as a wrecking amendment, in that he does not really want AV, and that is part of his intention.
Chris Bryant
I shall not give way to him, because there is very little time for debate. I accept that that might not be his intention, but none the less it might be the result of such a thing.
Chris Bryant
I ought to give way, in fairness, to one of the hon. Ladies opposite.
Dr Wollaston
Does the hon. Gentleman have any threshold at which he thinks we would be completely without any validity at all? Perhaps he would like to suggest a threshold.
Chris Bryant
I was actually trying not to suggest a threshold. The hon. Lady is right in one sense, of course. I hope that this might appease my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton as regards some of what he said. There is a complexity about the referendum that we might have next May, because we might have very differential turnout in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England.
If, for instance, there were to be a very low turnout in England that returned a no vote and a very high turnout in the other places—there is a Scottish parliamentary election, in Northern Ireland there are two other sets of elections and in Wales there is the Assembly election at the same time, and in Wales and Scotland those feel in many senses like general elections—returned significant yes votes, people might start to question the validity of what we were doing. This is all the more important because the referendum is not just an advisory referendum—as referendums have always been in the past—but an implementing referendum. In other words, if there is a yes vote, it comes into law. It happens, and the next general election will be held on the basis of the alternative vote.
I am not convinced by the arguments that are being advanced in favour of thresholds. I personally will be voting yes in the referendum. I do not believe that there should be a referendum, but there is a legitimate argument that others might want to consider about whether the fact that we are combining the polls will produce a differential turnout in different parts of the country that might make a necessity of a threshold.
Mr David
As well as making a powerful comment—and judgment, really—on the proposal for a threshold, is my hon. Friend not harking back to what we talked about earlier, making a convincing case not to have the elections in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on the same day or to have the AV vote on the same day?
Chris Bryant
Absolutely. As somebody who supports alternative vote, which I know my hon. Friend does not, and as somebody who will want to see a yes vote in the referendum, I find that one of the most depressing things—I think this is true of others in the Chamber who want to see change to the electoral system—is that the way in which the Government and, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister have proceeded with this has made it more difficult for many to advocate that cause and to push for reform. Now, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing)—
Chris Bryant
She no longer wants me.
As the hon. Member for Stone said earlier, two different thresholds are proposed. One is that there will be a 25% yes threshold—that is, that we would have to secure 25% of the electorate to count for a yes, and that can be found in amendment 197. The other is the turnout referendum of 40% that the hon. Gentleman has already proposed. I think that it would be inappropriate to move forward with either of the two thresholds and I urge hon. Members to vote against them.
John Mann
Like my hon. Friend, I am a supporter—and always have been—of AV. He mentioned the Labour party, and of course the Labour party has no policy, but has not the Labour movement long held the principle that in trade union rule changes there should be a threshold precisely because rule changes are irreversible, in that they must be implemented? Should not the principle of a threshold mean that the Government should be looking for significantly more than 326 votes on Third Reading tonight to demonstrate any kind of support for this rotten Bill?
Chris Bryant
The difficulty about thresholds in the Labour movement is that, for instance, I suppose one could have said that there should be a threshold for the election of candidates for the Labour party—or, for that matter, for the leader of the Labour party. I think that that would be inappropriate. When we have an election, we in the Labour movement have always proceeded on the basis of alternative vote—[Interruption.] To be fair, in the past, for a brief period, we used a single vote but then there was a run-off that was used for several years. For several years now—for several decades, in fact—we have used the alternative vote to select candidates when there is a single member standing. When there are multiple members, we use first past the post. The point that I want to make is that I do not think that it is appropriate to bring in a threshold at this time, but I fully understand that there are others who say that because of the way in which the Government are pushing forward with this legislation and because it is an implementing referendum, a threshold would be appropriate.
I think I can see the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) cogitating, so I shall give way to him.
Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I was not cogitating—I was bemused by the rationality of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. If I understood it correctly, he was saying that there was a level of turnout that would not authorise, essentially, so dramatic a change in the public mind. If it does not have the authority of a certain percentage enabling us to claim that it was the will of the people, at what level does he think that should be set? There must surely be a level for such a profound constitutional change to be authorised, as was suggested with reference to the union movement, for instance.
Chris Bryant
To be honest, I would prefer us to have a written constitution in which all those elements were laid out, but that is not what is before us tonight. One could go around this Chamber and see on what proportion of the vote of the total electorate any one of us was elected—after all, the proposition in amendment 197 is that one would have to be elected by a proportion of the electorate. I think that that would be inappropriate. We have a system in this country where someone either wins or loses the vote. There would be a strong point in arguing that this should not be an implementing referendum, but merely an advisory referendum. The House would therefore be able to take a decision on the basis of what turnout there had or had not been. I would hate to see the campaign simply to boycott the referendum that would almost certainly arise from those who are opposed to a change.
Chris Bryant
I am very keen to abandon the Dispatch Box as soon as I possibly can, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan).
Mark Durkan
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the impact of thresholds on referendums—remember that we are told that the whole issue of constituency changes in this Bill is about creating equal votes—is that they create unequal votes? Those who do not vote—even those who do not vote because they are dead—have more influence and more say than those who go to the bother of voting. Is not the real issue that people want to learn the lesson from Irish referendums? As well as creating confusion and saying, “If you don’t know, vote no,” they will say in some places, “If you don’t know, don’t vote.”
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend made that point in a previous discussion, and he is absolutely right. We should have a straightforward system where people fight to win their side of the argument. They win that side of the argument by getting people past the ballot box to vote either yes or no. That is why I am, broadly speaking, opposed to referendums.
Let me issue one tiny note of caution, which comes from the problems that the Government are giving us by combining the polls on 5 May. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) said earlier, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether people are bright enough or stupid enough to understand two different propositions that might be put to them—the voters are perfectly intelligent enough to be able to do that—but we will have different turnouts in different parts of the country, which will cause a significant problem. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said earlier that a no vote in the referendum would be a significant problem for the Deputy Prime Minister, the Deputy Leader of the House said from a sedentary position, “No, it wouldn’t really.” So the cat is out of the bag: the Deputy Prime Minister could not care less whether the referendum is successful—whether it leads to a yes or no vote. I think, as do many Members on both sides of the House who would really like a reform of the electoral system, that that betrays the cause that many people had thought essential to the Liberal party. That is why many of us have a profound suspicion that the Deputy Prime Minister is in this less for sound principle than for self-advancement.
Mrs Laing
By tabling amendments 197 and 198 I am again trying to help the Government. The Minister made it clear when we tried to debate this matter in Committee on 18 October that he wanted a debate and a vote on the vital issue of thresholds. He, we and the House were denied that opportunity in Committee so I hope that I am being helpful in giving him the opportunity to debate it now. Alas, however, because very long speeches were made by Opposition Members earlier, we do not have long to debate this matter.
The amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and I submitted in Committee was for a turnout threshold not of 60%, as I have been derided in the press for suggesting, but of 50%. [Interruption.] Not by the shadow Minister, no—by The Daily Telegraph. There is a surprise! I would never have suggested 60%. However, I have listened to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I have listened, surprising as it might seem, to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mrs Laing
He is never here for these debates—never at all. The Minister has entirely taken the responsibility for all this and the Deputy Prime Minister has been here only for the first half hour of Second Reading—that is all—and I do not suppose we will see him at any other point in the debate. I have listened to him however, and he has said, as the hon. Member for Rhondda has said this evening, that it would not be fair to count potential electors who do not vote as no votes. The hon. Member for Rhondda has also said that those boycotting the poll would be counted as no votes, and I entirely accept that.
Mr Shepherd
This is a very important point. There was an old rule right through history that with proposals for a big change, those who did not vote were expressing that they were satisfied with the existing arrangements. Does my hon. Friend agree that if one believes in change, one votes for change, and that if one does not believe in change there is no incentive to do so because one is consenting to the existing arrangements?
Mrs Laing
That is the crux of the matter. People who want a change in our constitution will go out on 5 May—I suppose that it will be 5 May—and vote for change. People who do not go out to vote for change can reasonably be presumed not to want change. However, I accept that the issue could be made clearer, rather than allowing the argument about boycotts and no votes, so we have tabled amendments 197 and 198, which would require 25% of those who are entitled to vote—just a quarter—to vote yes for the referendum to be binding. That is a very modest requirement and a very low threshold.
Thomas Docherty
My maths is not fantastic, but does the hon. Lady accept that she is talking about a turnout of up to 49.9% with 25% voting yes and 24% voting no, and that many constituencies do not get such turnouts at general elections?
Mrs Laing
The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. A referendum is not an election; it is a completely different part of the democratic process. The hon. Member for Rhondda and others have compared turnouts in general and local elections, in which voters choose between three, four or five candidates, with referendums, but they are not the same. If they were, a referendum would be called an election. A referendum is a plebiscite. In a referendum, the people are consulted on a particular issue on a yes or no vote; that is not the same as an election and comparisons between the two regarding turnout or other aspects are therefore irrelevant. The simple, inescapable principle is that a change to the voting system is a significant constitutional change; that is why the Government have decided to have a referendum—and rightly so. The outcome of a referendum to change our constitution must be, and must be seen to be, decisive. It must command confidence and respect and it should not be challengeable. If there is a derisory turnout, the result will not command respect or confidence. Indeed, it is worse that that.
Mr Leigh
Is not the virtue of my hon. Friend’s amendments, compared with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), that hers would not encourage abstention? With hers, everyone who wanted AV would go and vote for it and everyone who did not would vote against it.
Mrs Laing
I thank my hon. Friend; that is exactly the point of my amendments on having a threshold for those voting yes. Any constitutional change that will have an enormous effect on the composition of the House and of Parliament ought to be brought about in a way that commands confidence and respect. In tabling my modest amendments, I am trying once more to help the Government.
What if the referendum takes place and 15% of people vote yes? In a local election, we normally get about 29% and, as the hon. Member for Rhondda has rightly said, there is likely to be differential turnout throughout the country, which is likely to add to the confusion and the likelihood that the result of the referendum will not command respect and will be questionable. If the outcome does not command respect—if only 15% of those entitled to vote actually go out and vote for constitutional change—that result will be derisory and will mean that all future general elections under the AV system will be open to question. I have every confidence that the British people will have the sense to vote against AV, but just in case they do not—this is a serious matter—I put it to the House that if 15% or so of the population vote for a constitutional change that brings about a new AV system for elections to the House, the entire validity of our electoral system will be open to question and the very integrity of our democracy will be undermined.
Mr Harper
The amendments moved by my hon. Friends seek to specify certain thresholds. They are very different, as has emerged from the debate. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) would impose a simple turnout threshold. At least 40% of those entitled to vote would have to cast a vote, or the result would not be valid.
I should take this opportunity to put my hon. Friend right on the form of the alternative vote system that we propose in the Bill. I do not know if he was present for the debates that we had on it. His concern, I think he said, was that people would be forced to vote for all the candidates on the ballot paper, and if they did not, their vote would not be valid. He referred to some parties for which people would not want to vote. I can reassure him—
Mr Harper
Okay, but under our system of optional preferential, we are not forcing anybody to vote for anyone. Voters can vote for one candidate, all the candidates or any number in between, so the form of the alternative vote that we are putting to the electorate next year does not raise any of the concerns that my hon. Friend touched on. I am sorry if I overstated his argument.
The reason we have not specified a threshold in the Bill is, as a number of hon. Members said, that we want to respect the will of the people who vote in the referendum, without any qualifications. The argument against my hon. Friend’s amendment is that specifying a threshold for voter turnout—on this I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg)—is that it makes every abstention effectively a no vote.
People may choose to abstain, but the amendment would create an incentive for people who favour a no vote to abstain. So people would not campaign, as they rightly should, for only yes or no votes in the referendum. We would have people campaigning actively for voters not to participate. We debated this a little on Second Reading, and as I said in my speech then, I do not think that is right. We need to encourage participation in the referendum. We want people to take part, and putting in a rule that encourages at least one side to campaign actively for voters not to take part would do our democracy a disservice.
I am not concerned as some colleagues are about what the turnout will be. As we have said in previous debates, both in Committee and in the House, there are elections for the devolved Administrations—for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly—but there are also elections scheduled next year for 81% of England. The percentage turnout in English local elections varies, but it is usually in the mid to high 30s at least. I am confident that with the additional publicity and the awareness of the referendum, and the fact that it is an important decision, we will indeed get a good turnout.
Previous referendums in this country have either had good turnouts or, where the turnouts have not been that high, they have produced decisive clear results from the electorate, so I do not share that concern. We should not go against our tradition and practice in this country by setting turnout thresholds.
Let me now focus on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing). She is right to say that it proposes a completely different, outcome-specific threshold. It is worth saying to colleagues on the Government Benches who support the Government’s proposals and respect the coalition agreement that my hon. Friend’s amendment is not compatible with what we set out in the coalition agreement, which was a simple majority referendum, without an outcome-specific threshold. Colleagues who are reconciled to a referendum being held should bear that in mind if they are tempted to vote for my hon. Friend’s amendment.
Mr Harper
I do not think my hon. Friend’s point holds a great deal of water. I think I am right in saying that the decision of the Liberal Democrats, although I am not an expert on their internal party mechanisms, was unanimous or almost unanimous. That does not take us an awful lot further forward.
Mrs Laing
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out to me that I have made a mistake. I have said in the past that I respect the coalition agreement, and I would not go against it. I understand what he has just said about the exact terms of the coalition agreement and amendment 197. I therefore will not press that amendment to a Division this evening, as it would be inconsistent of me to do so—but of course I will then have to support my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash).
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not think I have ever been quite so persuasive with any of my arguments as to persuade one of my hon. Friends not to press an amendment. [Interruption.] I hear the opposition, so I shall put that one away and take it as a victory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest made it clear to the House that she does not think that referendums should be compared to elections in any way, but it is worth saying to hon. Members that if we were to adopt a similar process for elections, the House would be spared the services not of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) but of, among others, Mr Deputy Speaker’s colleague the right hon. Member for Bristol South (Dawn Primarolo), the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton), who is the Opposition Chief Whip, and—most tragically of all for our side of the House—my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who in his by-election on 10 July 2008 sadly polled only 24.4% of the electorate. We on the Government Benches would be sadly lacking if we had been deprived of his services.
Mr Leigh
I am now totally confused. Generally, I find it is a big mistake to attend debates, because one gets tempted to vote against the Government. Is my hon. Friend the Minister saying that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) is contrary to the coalition agreement, but that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is not?
Mr Harper
No, the amendment is not contrary to what is in the coalition agreement, but we do not agree with it, and I have set out clearly why. We do not, in this country, have a tradition of turnout thresholds. The one experience that we have had of an outcome-specific threshold was in a Scottish devolution referendum in 1979. That threshold was put there to deny Scottish devolution.
That leads us to the heart of the argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest made it clear, as she has done throughout, that she was confident of the decision that the British people would come to—but then she said she wanted to introduce her amendment, just in case. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone, in a revealing response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, said that we should trust the people. That is an expression that I used in my Second Reading speech, and it is right.
There are different views in both parts of the coalition and in the Opposition parties, but whatever our views, we should not set artificial limits that encourage people not to participate in the referendum. Whichever side of the argument we are on, we should have the courage of our convictions. We should get the Bill—or the part of it that we agree with—on to the statute book, make our case, engage with the people, explain to them the rights and wrongs of the cases, and trust the people, as the hon. Gentleman said, to make the right decision, to come out and vote, and to make a clear decision. Then the House will be able to proceed. That is the best way, so I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to press their amendments—and if do they press them, I urge the House to vote against them.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
First, let me welcome the scrutiny that the Bill has now undergone. I know that there has been vigorous debate on all the Bill’s provisions, which is only right for a measure of such importance not just to this House but to the people we represent. It was also right that we should spend eight days on the Floor of the House debating the Bill, and that the House should have the opportunity, which it has taken, to divide on the key provisions before it goes for consideration to the other place.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I should like to make a bit of progress.
The Bill has been amended during its passage through this House. The Government accepted the Electoral Commission’s findings on the question—something that found support right across the House. The Bill also now includes detailed provision for the combination of the referendum with the other elections on 5 May, making the poll easier to run and allowing savings to be made.
Many Members have drawn attention to the constitutional importance of the changes that we propose: changes to deliver more equal constituencies, a House of Commons of reasonable size, and a referendum to give people a choice over their voting system. The Government recognise the significance of these measures. We also recognise that Members are not simply being asked to vote on these matters in the abstract, but that the changes have real consequences for Members of this House and for their constituents.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has joined us for the first time after eight days of debate. Can he confirm to the House whether he read the Gould report personally before he picked the date of 5 May for the referendum?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I read reports of the Gould report. I did not read every single word of the Gould report itself, but I read enough to tell me that it conclusively showed that the problem with the combination of votes in Scotland arose because of the unique nature of the ballot papers in those local elections, which were extremely confusing to voters who were voting in two elections at the same time. By contrast, next May I think it will be uncomplicated for people to vote in devolved elections, in local elections in England, and on a simple yes or no answer to the referendum question.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I would like to make a little progress.
At the heart of this Bill are some simple principles. It is right that constituencies are more fairly sized, so that the weight of a person’s vote does not depend on where they live. It is right that we reverse the unintended trend that has seen this House grow in size and cap its membership at a more reasonable number. It is right for people to have their say on the extremely important question of which system voters use to elect MPs, and crucially, it is right that, at a time when people’s trust in Parliament has been tested to destruction, we act to renew our institutions.
Mr Cash
I am most grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for giving way and hope not to detach him too long from his speech. Would he be good enough to explain to me, in the light of the announcement earlier today on votes for prisoners, whether under the Bill prisoners who are currently disqualified from voting in parliamentary elections will be unable to vote in the referendum? Do the Government propose to change that to bring it into line with today’s announcement?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), explained this afternoon, we have made no decision on the matter other than to state the obvious point, which was first stated by the previous Government, that we will need to act in accordance with the law. We are still debating exactly how and when to do that, and we will make announcements as soon as we can.
I am sure I do not need to remind Members of the damage that was done by the expenses scandal, which lifted the lid on a culture of secrecy, arrogance and remoteness right at the heart of the democracy. The coalition Government are determined to turn the page on that political culture and give people a political system that they can trust. That is why we have set out a programme for wholesale political reform. We are starting with this Bill, which, through its commitment to fairness and choice, corrects fundamental injustices in how people elect their MPs.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister makes the important point that we need to ensure that we reconnect with communities. How will the removal of public inquiries, and therefore of the right of individuals and communities to make oral representations on the most profound boundary changes for 150 years, reconnect Parliament with individuals and communities?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill provides for a significant extension—actually a tripling—of the time during which people can make written representations.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman might shake his head and dismiss the idea of people making written representations, but they will not end up in the bin. They are an effective means by which people can make their views heard, and I am sure he will take up that opportunity if he wishes to.
Combined with our other reforms—fixed-term Parliaments, a new power of recall, and reform of the other place—the Bill will help us close the gap between people and politics, ensuring that our institutions meet expectations and are fit for a modern 21st-century democracy.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I do not doubt the Deputy Prime Minister’s sincerity, but he used to be very keen on reducing the number of Ministers in this place. Why is he not so keen on that measure now?
The Deputy Prime Minister
There may well be a case for looking at the number of Ministers when the size of the House of Commons is reduced, but that is not happening now. It would happen only in the next Parliament. We would need to keep it under constant review, and—dare I say it?—future Governments might wish to act upon that idea. I do not dispute at all the principle that as the Commons is reduced in size, so should the number of Ministers be reduced.
I understand that some Members continue to have specific concerns about the detail of the Bill. That was clear, for example, during the thorough debate on the date of the referendum. I know that Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in particular continue to worry about the implications of combining different polls on 5 May, but I believe that our decision is right and that voters are able to distinguish between elections to local government or devolved institutions and a straightforward yes or no question on a completely different issue. However, the Government remain alive to the concerns and will continue to work with the Electoral Commission and administrators across the UK to help ensure that combined elections run smoothly.
Mr MacNeil
One of the major concerns about having elections on the same day is that the media, rather than the voters, may be unable to cope. We have all accepted, both in Committee and on Report, that that is where the difficulty lies. There is a problem with the registration of the yes and no sides of the campaign. How will that affect access to the media, particularly in the run-up to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland elections? That is an important consideration.
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, registered and designated organisations in the referendum campaign will have access to broadcast time. I do not see why that should make it in any way impossible for voters—they are the ones who count—to distinguish between their choices in the devolved elections and in the referendum contest.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Members are jumping up with great excitement, but if I can make a little headway I will give way in a minute.
On the boundary review, I recognise that some Members are nervous about the implications for the areas that they represent. We have taken those concerns seriously. For example, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, visited the Isle of Wight to meet people with views on both sides of the argument. However, the Government’s view, and the position that has withstood sustained debate, is simple. Fairness demands constituencies that are basically equal in size. Of course the boundary commissions must have some discretion to vary from absolute equality to take account of local factors, and the rules set out in the Bill provide flexibility in that regard, but there can be no justification for maintaining the current inequality between constituencies and voters across the country.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I entirely agree, of course, with the principle that we should have more equal constituencies, but not the regimentally and statistically equalised ones proposed in the Bill. That will create homogenised, pasteurised constituencies of bland uniformity. If the Bill returns from the Lords with amendments to establish a reasonable balance between equalisation and a recognition of tradition, culture and local authority boundaries, will the Government resist the changes?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I admire my hon. Friend’s commitment to his constituency, of course, and he argues his case with great conviction, but I disagree with the characterisation of the Bill as an attempt to “pasteurise” constituencies. After all, one third of the Members in the House already represent constituencies within the size quota that we are setting down, so it is hardly a revolution. It is very much an evolution, building on arrangements that are already in place.
My hon. Friend talks about the rigidity of the constituency size set out, but there will actually be a 5% margin either side of an ideal size. As he also knows—I have discussed it with him previously—it builds on a provision already present in existing legislation. The Bill merely prioritises the matter in a way that is not currently the case. So no, we would not be minded to accept amendments that reopened the fundamental question of fairness and equality in how constituencies are drawn up.
I urge Members to remember that if the Bill passes, as I hope it does, it will be then that the real decisions on constituency boundaries begin. They will be up to the independent boundary commissions, and Members and communities will have plenty of opportunity to have their say.
Mark Tami
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not think his argument would be stronger if he did not make an exception for a certain number of seats in Scotland, to his own political advantage? They are being treated completely differently, and without the equal value that he pretends to believe in.
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman may know, two constituencies are treated differently from others. One is held by the Scottish National party. [Interruption.] No, two. The other one is a Liberal Democrat constituency. Both constituencies have been recognised in previous regulations and legislation as having a unique status. I know that the hon. Gentleman has about 60,000 people in his constituency. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister himself has looked up the statistic, so we are talking about a very good authority. Other colleagues represent 20,000 more voters. Surely that cannot be right.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Before apoplexy breaks out on the Opposition Benches, let me try to bring this to a close.
Where there has been a reasoned case for amendment, we have accepted the arguments and acted. The Bill is almost ready to go to the other place for further scrutiny, which will undoubtedly add to the debates that we have been having here. Before that, the Commons will have its final say tonight.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will not give way, because I want to conclude.
The elected Chamber will, I hope, agree these extremely important changes to the very elections that put us here. Fair constituencies and choice for people over their voting system will prove unambiguously that the House of Commons is dedicated to real and meaningful reform, including of the very system that put us here.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. He may have missed the contribution made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who reminded us that the first and only time that he graced the Chamber with his presence was on Second Reading on 6 September 2010. He reminds us of Alfred Hitchcock in those classic films in which he has a walk-on part and then comes back at the end for a bow. However, unlike Hitchcock, the right hon. Gentleman brought a posse with him for fear of being lynched—lynched by either that lot, the Liberal Democrats, or that other lot, the Conservative Back Benchers, never mind us lot in the Opposition.
Ironically, the Deputy Prime Minister, who was so keen on this Bill and who directed it, has made no attempt to play a role in it. The real reason, of course, is that he is not the architect. The architect is his chum the Prime Minister, who has just walked out, now that he has seen that his friend is safe.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As the right hon. Gentleman is less than overwhelmed by the prospect of this Bill, would he care to say which Hitchcock film he has most in mind? Is it “Vertigo”, “Sabotage” or “Psycho”?
Sadiq Khan
It is all the films that have a bad ending. Most right hon. and hon. Members will agree—some publicly and others privately—that as things stand, this is a deeply unsatisfactory piece of legislation. It has its genesis in the party political horse-trading that characterised the coalition talks and which is all too evident. I remind the House and those in the other place of what this Bill means unless the other place overturns some of the clauses passed here: a referendum on AV on 5 May 2011, which was not in the manifesto of either of the coalition parties, so there is no mandate for it; a reduction of elected Members in this House from 650 to 600, which was not in the manifesto of either coalition party, so there is no mandate for it; the abolition of public inquiries for boundary commission proposals, which was in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos, so there is no mandate for it; holding the next general election with new boundaries based on purely mathematical formulae, save for two exceptions, of 600 seats, which again was in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos, so there is no mandate for it.
We will soon have before us a new Bill that will set in stone the date of the next general election—5 May 2015. Once again, that was in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos and there is no mandate for it. The Prime Minister and his chum, the Deputy Prime Minister, will sell these reforms in public as democratising measures that herald the dawn of a new politics. Behind closed doors, however, they offer a different rationale, as was revealed by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field). On the day of Second Reading—the last time the Deputy Prime Minister came to this Chamber for this Bill—the hon. Gentleman said that
“the current proposals for AV and the reduction in number of parliamentary constituencies are being promoted by party managers as an expedient way to prevent our principal political opponents from recapturing office.”——[Official Report, 6 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 47.]
I know that the Whips have kept the hon. Gentleman out of the Chamber this evening.
This Bill is the product of a straightforward political bargain. In exchange for a referendum on the alternative vote, which the Conservatives opposed, the Liberal Democrats signed up to a review of constituency boundaries that the Conservatives favoured. As such, it has come to be regarded by the leadership as an unalterable document that must be accepted totally and unquestioningly.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
Is all of this peroration meant to defend the 4.2% built-in bias for the Labour party in elections? Is that what this is about?
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman, who is a friend, has been absent for the past few days, and I am not quite sure what point he makes.
Sensible, neutral suggestions that have commanded support on both sides of the House, such as the proposal to ensure that the Executive do not grow disproportionately powerful as the legislature is reduced in size, have been dismissed. As any independent observer who has followed the passage of the Bill to date will readily admit, that unbending attitude deprives the Bill of the adjustments and improvements it sorely needs.
The scrutiny process has suffered from being rushed. It is a convention that major constitutional matters are debated here, but it is also a convention that they are given sufficient time.
Mr Cash
On constitutional conventions, is it not the case that in many countries, including ours, Bills of this kind are subject to thresholds because they ensure that enough people have voted? On the abstention argument, do the Opposition believe that people have a right not to vote? Otherwise, do they believe that voting ought to be compulsory?
Sadiq Khan
The problem with the hon. Gentleman’s propositions is that the manifestos of neither coalition party contained any of the ingredients of the Bill, let alone thresholds. That is one reason why, like sheep, they have voted against proposals for more accountability, both in Committee and on Report. Any independent observer who has followed the passage of this legislation, including the Deputy Prime Minister, who might have had a chance to read some of the Hansard reports, will readily admit that that unbending attitude deprives the Bill of the adjustments and improvements it sorely needs.
Let me give some examples of Bills that have gone through the House with proper debate and scrutiny. The Government of Wales Act 1998 was taken on the Floor of the House and was the subject of more than 69 hours of debate. The Scotland Act 1998 was also taken on the Floor of the House and was the subject of more than 121 hours of debate before it left for the other place.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend mentioned the Government of Wales Act 1998, which specified, subject to a referendum, that there would be no reduction in the number of Welsh seats until primary powers were devolved.
Albert Owen
But that was the settlement given to the Welsh people, and the Deputy Prime Minister is driving a coach and horses through it with his Bill.
Sadiq Khan
We also did a novel thing in those days—Labour still does this now—of putting the things that we stand for in an election manifesto. Even if someone wins a popular mandate for that manifesto, they should ensure that there is proper debate and scrutiny on the Floor of the House. The coalition Government have a smaller majority than the previous Labour Government, but they have rushed the Bill through.
The Bill is more far-reaching than the Acts to which I referred, but there have been fewer than 40 hours of debate on it in the House before it goes to the other place. Day after day, colleagues on both sides of the House have been denied their wish to speak and deprived of the opportunity to make important points, and their speeches have been truncated when in full flow. The Liberal MPs on the Front Bench below the Gangway have had their mouths zipped because of the way in which the coalition Government have rushed the Bill through.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman obviously has not quite understood that in a coalition, more than one party must be accommodated. The Labour party is not in the coalition. Can he be very clear whether Labour party policy is the same as it was at the election, which is to support the alternative vote? I am referring not only to the Leader of the Opposition, but the shadow Cabinet, Labour Members and the party as a whole.
Sadiq Khan
The deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats wants to start a new convention—have a manifesto, not win the election, get involved for five days in a shabby deal with the Conservative party, and reach an agreement for the sake of power rather than principle.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I am always happy to come to the aid of the Liberal Democrats when they, once again, get their facts wrong. The policy of the Labour party at the last election was to have a referendum on the alternative vote and to allow the people of this country to have a say, with Labour MPs campaigning on both sides of the argument.
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The point is what these arrogant Ministers have come to, after just five months, in this mother of all Parliaments. At a time when we are helping emerging democracies understand how democracy should work, we have a Bill that will change the voting system, reduce the number of MPs and change the way in which seats are distributed, all for the sake of political expediency and the coalition’s calculations, rather than for principle.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Labour party supports the principle of more equal seats, but that objective could be met in a more balanced and practical way than proposed in the Bill. As things stand, the requirement for every seat to fit within 5% of a UK-wide electoral quota would see dramatic changes to long-established patterns of representation, but take no proper account of geography, history or community ties. The boundary commission secretaries said in evidence—I know that the Deputy Prime Minister does not like evidence, but I will give him some this evening—that
“the application of the electoral parity target is likely to result in many communities feeling that they are being divided between constituencies…and will result in many constituencies crossing local authority boundaries.”
We will see the creation of seats that cross the Mersey, a “Devonwall” constituency that straddles the Tamar is inevitable, and then there is the Isle of Wight—a problem that called for the wisdom of Solomon has received the attention of the absent Hitchcock in the last few weeks. Against everyone’s wishes, the island will be split in two, with 35,000 electors merged with constituencies in Hampshire, producing a ripple effect that will distort the composition of neighbouring seats for miles around.
We have suggested that several areas, including Cornwall, Anglesey and the Isle of Wight, should be allocated whole constituencies, to avoid these perverse outcomes. The Government have not listened. We advocated the compromise of a 10% absolute limit on disparity, which would provide more equal-sized seats while enabling factors such as geography and community to be taken into account. The Government have not listened.
The indecent haste of the changes will also create problems. To complete a review by October 2013, the boundary commissions have been instructed to use the December 2010 electoral register, from which more than 3.5 million eligible voters are missing, as the foundation for the constituencies redesign. As the missing millions are mostly younger, poorer people predominantly located in urban areas, the calculations are bound to produce a distorted electoral map.
To compound everything, the Bill abolishes the right to hold local inquiries into boundary commission recommendations. Even critics of the inquiry process have questioned that decision, asserting that if there was ever a boundary review for which inquiries will be needed, this is it. But the Government will not listen, because consulting the public would mean delaying their politically driven timetable, designed to damage Labour’s electoral standing.
Combining the referendum with other polls next May is also clearly wrong. It increases the risk of administrative chaos and the potential for spoiled ballots. It will also cause problems with expenses, the media and the electoral rules, as other hon. Members have pointed out.
Geraint Davies
On the issue of corrupting the democracy of the Welsh Assembly and the evidence of the Select Committee, does my hon. Friend accept that Wales is a nation of 3 million people set alongside a nation 17 times its size? Wales is also exclusively reliant on a funding stream from England. The Select Committee essentially said that there will be profound constitutional consequences for the whole of the UK if this Bill is railroaded through and the democratic mandate from Wales is reduced by a quarter. We are here to be the voice of Wales, and this is a slap in the face for the Union and for Wales.
Sadiq Khan
If my hon. Friend thinks that the Deputy Prime Minister—the great reformer—has read the report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I am afraid that he is mistaken. The Deputy Prime Minister has not even read Ron Gould’s report or been present in the Chamber since 6 September, so the idea that the Government will take into account any of the evidence is nonsense.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the Gould report. The problems in the Scottish elections in 2007 were caused because the Labour Government decided to have a ballot paper on which people had to put two crosses in two separate columns. If he had read the Gould report, he would know that that was what caused the problem. In this case, there will be three ballot papers and people will have to put an X on each of them. That is far simpler. Clearly he has not read the Gould report.
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman is making the same mistake that the Deputy Prime Minister made, which is not to have heard the comments made just an hour ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on the same point. What the hon. Gentleman has described is not the reason why we object to the referendum and the elections being held on the same day. He really must do a service to his constituents, bearing in mind that they will suffer huge consequences, by listening to the evidence and listening to the debate. The other problem with having a referendum on the same day as national elections and council elections outside London is the differential turnout. Irrespective of the result on 5 May 2011, and whichever way the vote goes, there will be questions about the legitimacy of that vote because of differential turnouts. Who is to blame for this? The Deputy Prime Minister, the great reformer.
Labour supports a referendum on AV and agrees with the principle of creating more equal seats, but this Bill is a bad means of delivering both objectives. It is too inflexible and too hasty, and it will lead to great and ongoing political instability. This House has failed to improve the Bill because it has not been allowed to do so. To our shame, that task now falls to unelected peers in the other place, whom we must now rely on to inject some democratic principles into what, to date, has been an inglorious episode in recent parliamentary history.
Mrs Laing
We have had many, many hours of debate on this Bill— not enough, some would argue. Unfortunately, there are parts of the Bill that have not been reached and not been examined, for various reasons. The other day I found a quotation in one of those amusing books that said: “Laws are like sausages. It is better not to see them being made.”
Mrs Laing
I believe it probably was Bismarck. If ever that were true, it is true of this Bill. However, this is also a necessary Bill. I said at the beginning that I appreciated why we had to have it and that I would support it, and I will continue to do so.
The Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform did its best, on a rushed timetable, to perform what legislative scrutiny of the Bill we could. On behalf of the Committee, let me say that I hope that our reports and investigations, and the evidence that we have made available to Members has been useful in informing some of the debates that have taken place. While mentioning the Committee, let me say that the Chairman, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), will be sad to have missed this part of the proceedings on the Bill, just as he has had to miss many of the Committee’s sittings, because he has been unwell. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing him a speedy recovery, although he is not seriously ill, so I believe that he will be back soon—it is okay, I should tell Opposition Members that he will not be missed for too long. The Committee has done its best to help the House to consider this Bill properly.
The second part of the Bill is excellent—the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will not be surprised to hear me say that. It is correct that we should at last grasp the difficult nettle of the composition of the House of Commons. It is correct that we should reduce the number of Members of Parliament to the perfectly round and reasonable figure of 600. It is correct that this House and this Parliament should make that decision, as it is doing this evening. It is also correct and inarguable that every constituency in the United Kingdom, whether in Scotland, Northern Ireland, England or Wales, that sends a Member to this United Kingdom Parliament should be of equal size.
Jonathan Edwards
Does the hon. Lady recognise that historically there has always been a weighting in favour of the Celtic nations to ensure that we do not have an England-dominated Parliament?
Mrs Laing
No, I certainly do not. The hon. Gentleman’s point has no validity whatever. This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom—of the whole United Kingdom—and every constituency in this United Kingdom should be of equal size and should have an equal number of voters. Every Member who is elected to this Parliament should come here with an equal weight of electorate behind them.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
Now that we must give votes to prisoners, will we have to have equal-sized prisons?
Mrs Laing
Mr Deputy Speaker might say that that point is not relevant to this Bill. It is not for me to argue the matter. I do not want prisoners to have the vote, but that is not the point at issue. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) gave perfectly good responses to that this afternoon.
Labour Members have produced all the little arguments they can possibly think of to try to preserve the current unfair imbalance in constituency structures that gives the Labour party an unfair electoral advantage. Every statistic shows that, and it cannot be argued against because it is a matter of simple arithmetic. It is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact—[Interruption.]
Hon. Members say, “gerrymandering”, but the gerrymandering was done by the last two Boundary Commissions under the then Labour Government. Of that there is no doubt whatever.
Sadiq Khan
Does the hon. Lady think a system that is not subject to a public inquiry is more or less likely to lead to gerrymandering?
Mrs Laing
No. I think the point is incompetent. We debated it at great length last night, and the fact is that public inquiries are not necessary. It is necessary to have a certain amount of time for consultation, and that is provided in the Bill. We do not need long, drawn out public inquiries when political parties spend weeks and months arguing spuriously about old-fashioned boundaries and traditions, and about hills, mountains and rivers, when they are concerned only about the number of Labour voters or Conservative voters who are likely to be in a constituency. Labour Members should have the courage to face up to a fair democratic system, and that is what the Bill will introduce.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Is the hon. Lady aware that in 2005, when Greater Manchester reviewed 28 constituencies, the public inquiry took three weeks, not months—no longer than three weeks?
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The hon. Lady has said a lot about fairness. Does she think it is fair to pack the House of Lords with more Members in order to force this legislation through?
Mrs Laing
I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the acts of the last-but-one Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who packed more members of the Labour party into the House of Lords than any previous Prime Minister had done. And no, I do not think it is fair, but that is not relevant. I am sure that his party will be pleased to hear his criticism of its hero, Mr Blair.
I have had more difficulty in supporting the first part of the Bill, although it is obvious that we have to have a referendum because it is part of the deal done between the two parties in order to form the coalition agreement. We need a coalition Government in order to give the country the stability that we require to deal with the horrific economic circumstances left behind by the last Labour Government.
Dr Julian Lewis
I am sorry to make an unhelpful intervention on my hon. Friend, whom I greatly admire, but my understanding of a deal for a coalition Government is that when a bargain is made, both sides stick to it. That is why I voted for this Bill on Second Reading, despite my objections to it. Subsequently, however, the part of the bargain that induced me to endorse the deal—namely, the fact that we were told that the Liberals would accept the renewal of the Trident strategic nuclear deterrent—was dishonoured. That is why I shall be voting against the Bill on Third Reading.
Mrs Laing
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but it does not change my arguments about the Bill. I appreciate his point, but I still say that we should have a coalition in order to provide the stability that the country needs in the aftermath of Labour’s economic disasters. It is therefore necessary to have this Bill and to have a referendum.
It is a great pity that the referendum is to be held on the same day as other elections. We have heard many very well put arguments, particularly from Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, about why the referendum should not take place on the same day as their national elections. Nor should a referendum go ahead without a threshold. That could result in a vote on a derisory turnout of some 15% changing our constitution. That is quite simply wrong, but I realise that the Government are not going to accept that argument because, once again, these provisions are in the coalition agreement, by which we are bound.
Kevin Brennan
Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the date of the referendum is not set in stone in the coalition agreement, and that it is simply a part of the Bill? Does she also agree that the Deputy Prime Minister’s desire to maximise the chances of winning the referendum by holding it on that date could well backfire on him, because of the manner in which the Bill is demotivating many of us who are in favour of electoral reform but who have consistently been appalled by the way in which it has been railroaded through, against the wishes of the devolved Administrations?
Mrs Laing
Yes, I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. He is totally correct. The fact is that some of us have tried, in all good faith, to improve the Bill, but we have failed to do so. On those matters of principle, we now have a Bill in more or less the state that it was in when it first came to the House. I must not presume what might happen in another place, but let us assume that we will now have to go ahead with a referendum on the same day as the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and some local elections in England. The turnout for the referendum could be derisory, so it would not have much validity. However, I am now sure of one thing, and the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has just reinforced my point. As this argument has gone on in the country and the media over the last few months, it has become clear—and it will become even clearer—that the British people will not be duped into voting for a voting system that is representative neither of a fair first-past-the-post system, nor of the sort of proportional representation seen in some countries, which I do not like, although I agree it has some validity. The system we will be voting on will be neither one nor the other—and I do not believe that the British people with their good sense will vote for it.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
Is the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] Wonderful? Yes, she is wonderful, but is she aware that there is no popular mandate for this referendum? It was not in the Liberal Democrat manifesto—the Liberal Democrats wanted to push this through without a popular referendum and to impose this on the British people—and it was not in the Conservative manifesto either. Does the hon. Lady think that the other place might well regard this commitment as having no validity in terms of a democratic mandate?
Mrs Laing
Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: there is no democratic mandate for this referendum—none whatever. If the proportion of votes cast for the Liberal Democrats in the UK as a whole during the general election in May this year were mirrored in the referendum, there would be no problem defeating the yes vote. The referendum would fail and we would be able to continue with our good, historic, solid, decent first-past-the-post system, which has served us so well for centuries.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I will be brief, as other Members want to contribute. The speeches this evening and other speeches in Committee and on Report have shown that this is a highly politicised issue and a highly politicised debate. When we debate changes to the voting system, major constitutional change and changes that affect the boundaries of constituencies, an attempt is usually made at least to reach some cross-party consensus. It is sometimes done through the procedure of a Speaker’s convention, for example.
Given the rhetoric of the Government parties before the election, one would also have hoped for some pre-legislative scrutiny and the proper involvement of the parties representing all regions and areas of the United Kingdom. Instead, a Bill has been cobbled together, and elements of it have received no mandate—and no mandate has even been sought in respect of them. As a result, we are in this divisive situation, in which the Government are ramming the Bill through without agreement and without consensus. That is no way to deliberate and it provides no basis for making decisions on the future composition of this House—or indeed for deciding how people should vote for Members of this House in the future.
Despite what the Deputy Prime Minister has said and despite what other Ministers—they have struggled manfully to deal with these issues—have done, it is clear that a lot of the opposition to the Bill has come from Conservative Members behind the Government Front Bench, not just from Opposition Members. From a Northern Ireland perspective, I have to say that the respect agenda that has been much talked about has not been much in evidence on this issue. Eloquent words on Wales and Scotland have already been spoken, but as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the alteration of the Northern Ireland parliamentary boundaries has a direct impact on the Northern Ireland Assembly boundaries—they are one and the same. Those changes will happen every five years. The Deputy Prime Minister seemed to suggest that they will not happen, but given that there will be a boundary revision every five years, and given the changes in registration and the number of votes allocated to different countries and regions, it is inevitable that there will be changes in the boundaries. That will have a direct impact on the make-up of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has multi-Member constituencies.
We have all gone through an long period during which we tried to reach a political settlement in Northern Ireland. Thankfully, we have made enormous progress. We have a reasonably, or relatively, stable political set-up, although of course challenges and difficulties remain. However, we risk upsetting that political equilibrium—that consensus—with this measure, which, as I have said, will have a direct impact on the Northern Ireland Assembly. Moreover, all this has happened without any prior consultation with the parties or the Executive in Northern Ireland. I believe, and any objective observer would believe, that that consultation should have taken place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed boundary changes, and the continual changes that will follow, will lead to instability and uncertainty, and that that in itself does not augur well for the political process in Northern Ireland?
Mr Dodds
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He has experience of these matters, having been a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly until recently.
The Deputy Prime Minister said that, as well as the changes in the Bill, the Government would introduce reforms of the House of Lords. While I welcome the proposals for House of Lords reform, I am mystified by the fact that the Bill is being rushed through without our seeing any of the details of those proposals. If the Government wish to make changes to the political system and make democracy more accountable and transparent, why do they not introduce all their reforms at once? Why can we not see the details of what will happen to the other place, as well as what will happen to the voting system and membership of the House of Commons? We have been given no explanation, other than the obvious explanation that this is being done entirely for reasons of political expediency and—as suggested by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing)—to keep the coalition agreement alive.
It is outrageous that the Government have done away with the proposals for local public inquiries taking oral evidence. That would have allowed people to become involved in the process, to be interrogated on their evidence, and to be cross-examined. It would have enabled communities to have an input. We will experience the most sweeping changes in boundaries that we have experienced for decades, and Northern Ireland in particular will experience the impact of those changes. That is outrageous and wrong, it should be reviewed, and, at the very least, people should be allowed to have their say at local level.
Like other Members, I sincerely hope that if the Bill is railroaded through in the absence of cross-party consensus, another place will consider it extremely carefully, and will reach some wiser and more sensible decisions.
Mr Charles Walker
I shall be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I could have just about brought myself to vote for the Bill, but for the fact that once again it plays into the hands of the Executive. Once again, we see the Executive seizing more powers at the expense of Parliament. The House will be reduced to 600 Members of Parliament, while the Executive will remain as large as it is now.
I really did think that we had learned our lesson in the last Parliament. I really thought that, after 100 years of giving powers away, we might do things differently in this Parliament. I now wonder what on earth is the point of being a Member of Parliament in this place. Only three hours ago, we were informed that prisoners would be given the vote. We would not have a say in it; it would be done over our heads.
Tonight, my constituents have every right to ask, “What is the point of Charles Walker? What is the point of having elected representatives?” This is an appalling state of affairs. Once again, we are increasing the powers of the Executive at the cost of Parliament, and we deserve absolutely no sympathy. Whatever befalls us over the next four years as Back Benchers, we will have brought it on ourselves. However, I say to new parliamentary colleagues in particular that it is very difficult to vote against this Bill, because their political virility will be measured by whether or not they become a Minister, and if they do not become a Minister they do not get the extra money, the car or the red box, and when they leave this place as a humble Back Bencher there will not be people queuing up to offer them jobs because companies want only politicians who have had the red box to serve on their boards. I therefore say to any Back Bencher who votes against this Bill tonight, “You are extremely brave, and if you do vote against the Bill you, like me, won’t have a career going forward, but you will have my undying admiration.”
Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The facts show that those who rebel against their own party are more likely to become junior Ministers than those who do not.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I thank the hon. Member for that clarification, but it was not a point of order. Have you finished Mr Walker?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Many Members want to speak, and I want to call as many of them as possible. If Members are as brief as Mr Walker was, I am sure we will hear from a lot of colleagues.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I will abide by your dictum, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and many other Members both from England and the regions have spoken extensively in the debates in opposition to the Bill for various reasons.
Let me say at the outset that I commend the Minister. I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that he should be proud of a Minister who, under fire, has completely resisted any suggestions, alternative ideas or possibility that there might be any other logic to adopt for the way forward. The Minister has done very well in that respect.
There is a difficulty in that position, however, and it involves a fundamental point of principle. I agree that equalisation is a real issue, but I honestly thought that Liberals and Conservatives understood not only this Parliament and the Union, but also the slow evolution of the Union. Issues to do with the Union have been approached incrementally by and large. Successive Government of Wales settlements, and Northern Ireland and other settlements, have been very sensitively engineered and calibrated in order that the Union is strengthened.
I am a strong Unionist, and my fear in respect of this Bill is not as the Member for Ogmore, although I know that under the maps for these proposals my constituency disappears—and I am sure it is only a coincidence that it has the biggest absolute majority of any constituency in Wales. I can take that on the chin, however.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
You’ve only got 52,000 voters!
Huw Irranca-Davies
The hon. Gentleman says I have a certain number of voters. What he and his Government colleagues are doing in the Bill is reductively defining parliamentary democracy as
It states:
“In this Schedule the ‘United Kingdom electoral quota’ means—
I say to the hon. Gentleman and all his colleagues that this is the ultimate constitutional fetishism, because all those individuals are people who have an identity with the community.
As people in Cornwall and Devon have recognised, one of the defining characteristics of this whole debate is that there are areas where people strongly identify not only with their region, but the locality. There is a Welsh word that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), but not many other Members, will recognise. “Hiraeth” is difficult to translate, but it means longing and identity with a place, a people, a community. My constituents will be deliriously happy to know that that can be dissolved down to the formula
A Member on the Government Benches asked what was the point of his being here in Parliament and what was the point of his identifying with his area, and he is right to ask those questions. Why is one of the key figures decided on in the Bill 95% to 100% with no variation? Why do the Bill’s provisions display a singular inability to recognise the diverse nature of the United Kingdom, except in two or three specific instances?
Disraeli has been mentioned in our debate. When Disraeli was in a heated discussion with Gladstone across that Dispatch Box and was being defeated by the incessant logic being deployed he told him not to desist in the fanatical application of his sterile logic. That is what we are confronted with here, and I genuinely hope that when this Bill goes to the other place they who have a respect for our constitution, our devolution settlement, and the role of this Parliament and of elected representatives will stop this in its tracks, because our electorate—the people we represent—deserve a lot more.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
The Bill is a compromise brought about by the coalition agreement and it contains two different parts: the AV part, which I wholeheartedly support; and the part about reducing the number of MPs and imposing the 5% straitjacket. I am perfectly supportive of reducing the number of MPs, but I have difficulties with the 5% straitjacket.
Tristram Hunt
Will the hon. Gentleman explain the rationale behind the choice of 600 Members, given that the Liberal Democrat manifesto proposed 500 and the Tory manifesto proposed 585? What was the thinking process involved in getting to 600?
Mr Reid
The Liberal Democrat manifesto’s proposal for 500 Members was based on the assumption that the single transferable vote system would be used—our proposal was combined with that. Coalition involves compromise, and I was not present at Chequers when the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister negotiated the fine points of this Bill. The coalition agreement said that there would be
“fewer and more equal sized constituencies.”
So there was no need to go for this 5% straitjacket.
This country is fortunate in having an independent Boundary Commission, which in the past has always acted truly independently and has never been subject to political influence. We should be grateful for that and we should give more powers for flexibility to our independent boundary commissions. In the Bill, the 5% straitjacket is not an absolute principle because, as has been pointed out, there are some exceptions. There is an exception for islands, and I support that. It is perfectly right that Orkney and Shetland and Na h-Eileanan an Iar should have their own constituencies. However, I also draw the Government’s attention to the fact that other constituencies contain islands, for example, the Isle of Wight and Anglesey. My constituency contains 13 islands that can be accessed only by ferry or air, which compares with the three in the Western Isles. My constituency has four times as many islands as the Western Isles, twice the land area and three times the size of electorate, so I would hope that we could have some more flexibility.
Elsewhere, on the highland mainland, the Government have introduced the 13,000 square kilometre rule. It will not result in the creation of any constituency that is more than 5% under the quota. What it will do is create three strange constituencies, because in order to get both within the quota and under the 13,000 square kilometre rule the Boundary Commission will have to create three strange constituencies, each containing a part of Inverness. One will comprise one part of Inverness and will go all the way up to Cape Wrath. Another will contain a part of Inverness and will go all the way west to Skye. A third will contain a part of Inverness and will go south and east. Those will be three strange constituencies and there is little community interest for them. We are supposed to be representing communities, but there is very little community link between somebody on the north-west of Sutherland and somebody in Inverness. I hope that this part of the Bill will be re-examined in the House of Lords and the Government will be amenable to accepting amendments that will give the Boundary Commission a bit more discretion. We are fortunate in having an independent Boundary Commission, and we should give it more discretion.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It has been a long seven-and-a-half-hour wait and I did have a 10-minute speech, but I shall cut that down as much as possible. It is obvious to anybody of independent mind that this legislation is being pushed through with unseemly haste, although perhaps not so quickly that the manifold flaws, inconsistencies and illogicalities in part 2, with its utterly arbitrary “reduce and equalise” agenda, have not been suitably identified and exposed.
I would write it all off as incompetence, were it not for the Government’s wilful refusal to make improved voter registration a priority and precondition for reform, their reluctance to make a commitment to an appropriate and proportionate reduction in Cabinet posts and their determination to leave common sense out of the boundary review process, which will reduce constituencies to little more than arithmetical units.
As always—I make no apologies for this—I am particularly concerned about the ramifications for Merseyside. The sub-region has coped well in the face of the recession, but analysts suggest that it is likely to be extremely and disproportionately hard hit by the Government’s slash-and-burn policies. However, at a time when the people of Merseyside will increasingly be looking towards their MPs to fight their corner, the sub-region looks set to lose at least two parliamentary seats. That puts paid to the myth that lofty ideals, social conscience and progressive thinking underpin the Government’s electoral reform agenda.
Let me, if I may, jump on the number-crunching bandwagon for a couple of minutes. Currently, my constituency—Liverpool, Walton—has one MP for 89,732 citizens or 62,612 registered voters. In the year—[Interruption.] Someone is questioning the figures, but I live there. In the year of the constituency’s creation, 1885, the population of Liverpool stood at about 614,000 and the city was split into no fewer than nine parliamentary divisions. That equates to one MP for every 68,228 citizens, but—note—for far fewer registered voters, given that, among other things, women had not yet achieved suffrage. Had the registered electorate in Walton represented 69.8% of the constituency population, as it does now, John George Gibson MP, the first Member for Liverpool, Walton—a Tory, no less—would have represented only around 47,000 registered voters. In reality, the electorate minus women represents a smaller percentage of the Walton population, and thus the figure would have been considerably lower—perhaps 24,000.
This is not just about numbers. It is true that the composition of parliamentary seats back in the 19th century was arguably as arbitrary as it is now, so I am not for a minute suggesting we use any point in history as a blueprint, but let me tell the House why that example from our local history is important and matters. The Government intend every MP to represent an electorate of at least 72,000. Leaving aside the issue of non-registration, which further skews the figures, what equips a 21st-century MP, in these complex times, to represent three times as many individuals as his or her Victorian predecessor? What is progressive about a modern-day voter having approximately a third of the democratic clout of his or her ancestor?
Equally illogical and disingenuous is the so-called “equalise” agenda. I struggle to understand how numerically homogenising seats has anything to do with “fairness” or “equality”—those much vaunted and abused buzz words of the coalition Government. On the face of it, my constituency would appear to be pretty evenly matched with that of the Bill’s chief flag bearer, the Deputy Prime Minister. Their populations are similar and their registered electorates both stand around the 60,000-plus mark, falling short of the 72,000 lower limit proposed by the Government, but that is where the similarity ends. In my constituency fewer than 9% of the population are graduates, whereas in Sheffield, Hallam 35.6% of the populace have graduated from university. In my constituency, 32% of households have no central heating or private bathroom; in Sheffield, Hallam the figure is 4%. In my constituency, 45% of adults have no qualifications at all, whereas in Sheffield, Hallam only 17% of adults are disadvantaged in that way.
I have another major concern. In the most recent periodic boundary review there were absurd suggestions about Merseyside, including one for a constituency straddling the River Mersey. Fortunately, that did not come to pass, but an expert recently concluded that
“the spectre of a cross-Mersey seat would rise again”
under the proposed legislation. In July I asked the Deputy Prime Minister for assurances that the River Mersey would be recognised as a natural boundary, to which the Minister responsible for political and constitutional reform, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), gave a decidedly evasive reply. He passed the buck to the Boundary Commission but stressed that the “electoral quota” requirement would take precedence. That paves the way for all manner of insensitive, inappropriate and impractical boundary changes on Merseyside and elsewhere that will result in even greater political confusion and disaffection than already prevails.
Part 2 of the Bill is based on a version of reality that is quite at odds with the reality on the ground. It presumes a politically engaged electorate, and that the average voter is indignant that his or her vote might be statistically worth a fraction less than the vote of a counterpart elsewhere in the country. It implies that granting votes parity and thus achieving democratic equality will somehow render life in Britain more equitable and fair. But the “Animal Farm” argument that we are all equal, but some are more equal than others, will not wash. More than 3.5 million people in England and Wales alone are not even registered to vote, and most people do not fret about the statistical weighting of individual votes.
Steve Rotheram
No; I am short of time and I am being encouraged to hurry up, so I am trying to speak as fast as I can.
The reality is that millions of voters in many constituencies do not have the luxury of dwelling on their democratic parity with their peers elsewhere: they are too busy simply trying to stay afloat. They approach their MPs for practical support, guidance and intervention more than they do for high-minded ideological representation. There is nothing equal or fair about this reality, and the proposed constituency changes, which are unwarranted, ill-conceived, poorly evidenced and politically pernicious, will do nothing to address it.
Mr Shepherd
The only question that has really worried me in the middle phase of my parliamentary career is the extent to which the constitution has changed in my time in this place. This Bill represents the old politics as we know them, and it is extraordinary for those whom we represent to hear the expression “new politics” while the same old methods, the same old tricks, the same old imposition of will and the same number of guillotines pour out of the Executive. That is rich, because it happens each time the House changes. The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) has made the most important point of all in the old discourse: all this has no mandate. No one in the electorate has expressed a view on it, and no one even raised it with many of us during the course of the general election.
I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) for carrying this Bill. I have never been present during deliberations on a Bill when its protagonist or originator does not deign to attend the Commons—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] No, let us get to the point: not only that, but he is incapable of making the argument for it. We have been left with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary having to refer to the coalition agreement—the image of gold. There will be some in the house who remember the story of Nebuchadnezzar, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. They created an image of gold. And what is the image of gold? It is the coalition agreement. It did not serve them right, and it does not serve us right.
My question is, as always on constitutional matters: in what way does the Bill enhance the position of the electorate vis-à-vis representation in the Commons and the Executive? I do not find that the Bill enhances that in any way. In fact, it goes out of its way to ensure that that is not enhanced. It reduces the number of elected representatives, for a start. That, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), means that the influence of the Executive vis-à-vis the Commons as a whole is increased.
Behind that, as we know, there are more captured people than merely those who aspire to the Executive. There is the Opposition, with their regiment of Whips and those who are expected to follow their own parties into the Lobby. There are very few independent souls in the House, and we have heard them in the course of the discussion of the Bill. That is the one good thing about the Bill.
I do not recall a Minister who has so cavalierly dismissed his responsibilities to the House—[Interruption.] I do not want to over-emphasise that point, but the country should know that we have never had such a poor demonstration on a major constitutional Bill. Furthermore, this was as guillotined a Bill as we could arrive at. We had what we now politely call a timetable motion—No. 4, only yesterday. That is the way the passage of the Bill has been run.
Hundreds of amendments have been pushed in because the Bill was incomplete and not thought through. The consequences were not weighed. How could they be weighed? The Minister leading on the Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister, is unaware of the arguments that take place here. The Bill will be sent down to the House of Lords, and there is an argument that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest—what business is it of the Lords, the electoral rules and regulations of the House of Commons?
Yet I am on my knees, and freethinkers in the House are on their knees, hoping that the Lords will have a view on whether there was propriety in the purposes behind the Bill. That is why I want to see—I hope to see—that House rise up and say, “This coalition image of gold is rubbish. The Bill does not reflect the settled will of the House of Commons”—that is what it amounts to—“nor does it reflect the needs of our people to have their own distinctive form of representation.”
These islands, these countries that form this Great Britain, have different traditions, different allegiances. My father said a long time ago that there are many Englands, just as there are many Scotlands, many Waleses, and so on. Each is particular. I represent the west midlands, which was the manufacturing heartland of the United Kingdom. For a brief moment this was the greatest, richest, most powerful nation on earth. Those are the same people whom we represent. Have we enhanced their rights, their power over the decisions of Government, their influence in the House? The Bill has not done that; in fact it diminishes those. I shall gladly vote against it, and I hope the House will join me in the No Lobby.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), who has demonstrated two things about his character and his political principles: first, he is a man of great independence; and secondly, he is a greatly passionate politician. He has made a great speech, and I am proud to follow it.
The Deputy Prime Minister, in opening this Third Reading debate, said that he thought that in the wake of the expenses scandals of the previous Parliament, it was important to bridge the gap between the remoteness of Members of Parliament and the electorate. I think that those were the words that he used. That is a laudable objective, and there cannot be any Member who would not agree with it, but, before we decide how we vote on Third Reading, we have to judge the extent to which the measures in the Bill make us less remote from the voters.
Let us take three important issues that have not been addressed satisfactorily, if at all. First, what does the Bill do about the 3.5 million people who are not even on the register, and even though we know that they qualify for it? [Interruption.] Hon. Members laugh, but it is a serious issue. How could one be more remote than not even being on the electoral register? Yet nothing in the Bill will bridge that gap.
Secondly, there is the issue of the alternative vote system or, as Government Members somewhat misleadingly refer to it, “making the voting system fairer”. I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes).
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Howarth
I will not, because I do not have much time and I need to allow others to speak.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark is a long-standing supporter of proportional representation, and I respect that but do not agree with him. Now, I do not intend to get into an argument about the merits of PR and first past the post, but I think that he said, “It’s a coalition. There has to be give and take.” The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) made the point slightly differently, saying that there has to be compromise. However, I ask the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark: who is giving and who is taking? It amazes me that he, as a supporter of proportional representation, feels able to support the Bill, because it does not include proportional representation, as he well knows. It does not even include the corrective of top-up seats, so we will end up with a system scarcely more proportional—and in some circumstances even less proportional—than our current system.
Finally, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, how does taking away the right of people to appear at a public inquiry and argue the case for a different set of boundaries from those that have been proposed make this Parliament or any other less remote from the people? It does not at all. In fact, it makes Parliament even more remote. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill is a complete mess. I have to ask those on the Liberal Democrat Benches: how can you support this system? It is not a compromise; it is give and take: they are taking everything and you are giving everything. I say to the Liberal Democrats, you have sold yourselves very short on this legislation. This is a Bill that you will come to regret, and I hope that the House will vote it down tonight.
Simon Hughes
I will deal straight away with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). This is not a perfect Bill—I am not pretending that it is—but it is a good Bill, and the two things that it does needed to be done.
First, we needed to give the British people a chance to improve the electoral system. The alternative vote is not a proportional system—I have never claimed that it is—but it has two advantages that our current system does not have. I appeal to anybody who is a progressive politician in any party to come to the view that we should support a system that, yes, keeps single-Member representation, but sends us here with a majority of support from those of our electorate who vote—
Simon Hughes
Yes it does, compared with the current system. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will just calm down—he is far too overexcited most of the time.
Secondly, the system allows people to express preferences—it is positive, not negative, voting that allows them to say what they really want politically as opposed to being forced to say what they do not want politically. That is definitely progress.
There is another practical consideration, as the right hon. Member for Knowsley knows. This House does not have a majority in favour of a proportional system at the moment—I accept that. I want a proportional system. Personally, I prefer alternative vote plus, because it has the balance of a single-Member seat plus top-up. But there is not a majority for those things. This measure allows Parliament to come to a view, as put forward by the Labour party in the general election, that the British people should be given the option of moving to a better system. It is not the perfect system—there is no such thing as a perfect system—and not the best system, but it is a better system. I hope that this House and the other place will allow the great British public to decide on this. Then, if the referendum comes up with a yes vote, as I hope it will, we will have a better political system and a better democracy.
I share one of the views of the right hon. Member for Knowsley and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram). It is a scandal and a shame that in this country, throughout the time of the Labour Government and now, 3 million or more people are not on the electoral register when they should be. I have made it clear to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and colleagues that there is a duty on our Government, just as there was a duty on the Labour Government that they did not discharge, to work across parties and outside parties to ensure that we get all those registered who should be registered.
Simon Hughes
No, I am trying to be very quick.
I will go on arguing from these Benches that the Government need to do more to increase electoral registration. Yesterday, with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I urged our party members to do more, and I hope that the Labour party and the other parties will do more as well. I hope that the Government will assist in every way—this month, before the December register comes into force—to ensure that the maximum number of people are on the electoral register. There are all sorts of ways of doing that, and the sooner we can start sharing our wisdom, the better.
I want to make one more substantial point. There is an absolutely overwhelming argument for more equally sized constituencies. The disparity between the number of voters per constituency is scandalous. I speak as somebody with Welsh, Scottish and English roots. It is no longer justifiable for Wales or Scotland to be over-represented in this place when England does not have any devolved government at all and is therefore already relatively under-represented.
Simon Hughes
No, I am not giving way.
Nobody argues that there should not be exceptions in extreme cases, which is why two seats have been singled out. That has never been in dispute. There is an argument, which has been tested, as to whether there should be other exceptions, such as other island communities. That is an argument that will not go away in the debates up the corridor, and nor should it, because there are reasonable arguments for an extension down that road. However, I hope that we accept the principle that, wherever humanly possible, the number of electors should be similar, because that is the only way to ensure that this place can proportionately reflect the views of the electorate and that we can all be elected in a similar way.
Mr Winnick
What possible justification can there be for the boundary changes taking place without any public inquiry at all? Is that not a travesty of democracy? The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of defending and justifying what is intended.
Simon Hughes
I will give the hon. Gentleman the answer, having appeared at inquiries in the past. The justification is that the job will be done by an independent set of boundary commissions, which are no more or less likely to treat people and arguments fairly by receiving representations in writing than in oral evidence. Often, the main argument at public inquiries has been not among real people about their communities, but among political parties’ paid officers.
One argument that has been made is that we cannot reform one part of the constitution without reforming the others. I say gently to colleagues in the Labour party that unlike them, we will secure a predominantly elected House of Lords, which they did not do. Unlike them, we have on our agenda a reduction of the number of Ministers in future. [Hon. Members: “No you don’t.”] Yes, we do. We have it on the agenda—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I have never known a situation in which the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) is virtually shouted down. It is not only unprecedented, it is unacceptable. We must hear the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the strong feelings.
Simon Hughes
This is the first of a series of radical constitutional reforms that Labour never delivered, and that the coalition is willing to deliver. I hope that the House is radical enough to support it, and that the House of Lords does a proper job of ensuring that we have the best possible form for the two proposals that I have mentioned. It does Labour no good to argue against changes none of which it introduced in 13 years.
Ian Lucas
When Labour came to power in 1997, it began a major programme of constitutional reform. At its heart was devolution in Scotland and Wales. Labour’s proposals in Scotland were based on the cross-party constitutional convention. In both Scotland and Wales, after referendums, it introduced voting systems that guaranteed representation for the Tories in the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales at a time when they had no representation there in Parliament. The political system also ensured that the Liberal Democrats had representation.
We may contrast that with the approach that we have seen from the Tories and their Liberal Democrat lapdogs in this disgraceful Bill. It has no basis in manifestos, and there was no draft legislation, no consultation with Opposition parties and no discussion with the elected representatives of devolved institutions. It removes the right of constituents to make representations on the biggest ever change in the boundaries relating to their communities. That is an absolute disgrace and a catalogue of decisions that the coalition parties should be ashamed of. Fundamental constitutional change is being imposed for partisan political reasons, with a timetable devised to secure maximum political advantage for the Tories and the Liberal Democrats.
The consideration of the Bill has been a cynical outrage. We have had Liberal Democrats voting against the single transferable vote and Tories voting in favour of taking away the right of local people to speak out in public inquiries when fundamental changes are made to their boundaries and communities. What does that say about Tories and Liberal Democrats empowering individuals and communities? As an MP from Wales, albeit an English one, I have seen the contempt for Wales that drives Welsh people into the arms of nationalists.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), and the Deputy Leader of the House have no understanding of the constitution of the United Kingdom. They ignore the asymmetric devolution that we have in the United Kingdom, and they take no account of the views of the peoples of the devolved nations who have voted in different referendums—in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales—to establish our constitution and they are now being ridden roughshod over without any electoral mandate.
What is even worse is that the supine Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and, yet again, the Welsh Ministers do not care. Where are they? The reason they do not care is that Wales and Scotland are irrelevant to the Tories. The Tories do not care what Welsh MPs think. This Bill will be pressed through. It does not matter what MPs, Assembly Members or Members of the Scottish Parliament say.
This Bill is contemptuous. It is designed to secure partisan advantage for the Tories and their allies. It has been railroaded through on a timetable constructed to maximise political advantage, and to ensure that it gets through before the next general election, and that is all that the Government care about. It changes the constitution for short-term political gain, without the consent of the peoples of the UK. The coalition parties will rue the day that this Bill was ever passed. It is the antithesis of everything that good legislation should be about. It shows this Government for what they are—dissembling, self-serving and dictatorial. Those who support them should be ashamed of themselves.
Mr Cash
I have opposed this Bill from the beginning because I do not believe that it is based on any sensible constitutional principle whatever. It is in defiance of our own manifesto. It supports the process of a coalition, which, given how this Bill came to be part of the coalition agreement, is itself subject to questioning. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and others as to the manner in which this Bill, or this proposal for this Bill through the coalition agreement, was devised. I do not need to rehearse all that. This is something that is a matter of grave concern to many of us. The question of principle and conviction, which ought to underlie any major constitutional issue, is wholly lacking in respect of this Bill.
I heard many of the arguments from the Labour party. I have to say that irrespective of what Labour Members do in the vote tonight, I cannot honestly say that I believe that they stand on any principle that is worth considering. They have not had any mandate for their vote as far as this Bill is concerned. The idea that a threshold should not be inserted as being the only protection for the people of this country, who are being taken to a referendum—a poll—largely because this Bill is being so heavily whipped, is in itself a matter of the gravest concern. This Bill violates constitutional principle. It violates the manner in which for 150 years we have conducted our parliamentary processes by first past the post. That is a principle that was upheld by people such as Disraeli and Gladstone, and even Lloyd George until the Liberal party decided, under his leadership or his influence at the time, that it might not be so convenient because the votes would not follow what he had to say.
In a nutshell, this Bill is unacceptable, which is why I, and I hope as many colleagues as possible, will vote against it. It is unprincipled. It is without a mandate and it is wrong.
Julie Hilling
I wanted to make a number of points, but with the shortage of time, I will keep my comments brief. Like many other hon. Members, I have tried to make points before, but because of the conduct and timetabling of the Bill, I have been unable to speak on my deeply held beliefs.
Let me take just one element of the Bill and try to correct some of the errant nonsense on independent inquiries. In 2005, an inquiry was held into the boundaries in Greater Manchester, because it was decided that after the application of the electoral quota, there should be 27.25 MPs rather than 28. However, because nobody could have the spare quarter of an MP, the number went down to 27 MPs, and something similar may happen in the near future. There were 384 written submissions before the decision to hold an independent inquiry. Once the inquiry was called, there were more than 600 written submissions and 190 people spoke to the inquiry. Sixteen alternative proposals were made.
I do not know of 190 political parties in Greater Manchester, so I would conclude that those submissions were from ordinary citizens. As I said, the inquiry took three weeks, not the many months that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members would like us to believe inquiries take. Constituents individually or collectively put forward their views on how they wanted to be represented.
The Bill is deeply flawed on many levels. Not only does it reduce the number of MPs, potentially ignoring historical links, splitting wards and removing the right of people who are affected by changes to have their say, and not only is it gerrymandering of the worst kind, but it runs counter to all the Government’s grand statements on the big society, local decision making and empowering local people. The Bill shows that those are simply words, and that the Government have no intention of localising power. The Bill may be cost saving, but at what cost? It should not pass.
Ms Bagshawe
As Opposition Members will know, I have sat through most of the debate, and I have been astonished at their cant and hypocrisy—[Interruption.] Have they forgotten that among the nations—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but she must be heard.
Ms Bagshawe
Have Opposition Members forgotten so completely that among the nations of the United Kingdom is the nation of England, which has been badly served by the democratic deficit? Again and again we have heard from them arguments over geography.
Ms Bagshawe
I have but three minutes and I regret that I cannot give way.
We have heard arguments over valleys and rivers, but never have we heard arguments in favour of people. The Bill seeks to remedy an ancient wrong.
I say this to my hon. Friends who are worried about the AV referendum: take heart. I believe that the referendum is something of a miscalculation by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Liberal Democrat party, but I am quite happy and content to trust the people. Let us lay it before the people and let them decide.
Opposition Members have become convinced of the doctrine that what is traditional is therefore right. I welcome their eleventh-hour conversion to that doctrine, but they cannot get away from the fact that the boundaries in this country are incredibly unfair. The votes of those in Corby and east Northamptonshire should be worth exactly the same as those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). No matter how they run and no matter how they hide, they cannot make the argument that equality is bad for democracy.
That sums up Opposition Members’ arguments. I hope that the House supports the Bill in numbers, as it deserves.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today I received two letters about transferring parliamentary questions. One was from the Solicitor-General’s office telling me that my question on human trafficking had to go to the Home Office. The other was from the Home Office and said:
“The Home Secretary has asked me to let you know that he has arranged for the Question”
to be transferred. That is a different question, but it is about human trafficking and has been transferred away from the Home Office. Will you advise me, Mr Speaker, on who the new Home Secretary is, and what I can do about my questions being messed around with?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. On the first matter, his sense of humour never deserts him, and I do not think he requires any advice on that matter. However, the Home Secretary may want to have a word with her officials about this important issue. She has some reason to feel aggrieved.
On the second point, the hon. Gentleman will understand that it would not be right for me to comment on the detail of the matter. Suffice it to say that he is an ingenious parliamentarian, and he has put his views on the record very clearly and forcefully. They will be heard by the people whom I know he adores—the Whips on the Treasury Bench. I hope that that is helpful.
Business without Debate
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 3 to 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Capital Gains Tax
That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Anguilla) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 July, be approved.
That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Bahamas) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 July, be approved.
That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Gibraltar) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 July, be approved.
That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Liechtenstein) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 July, be approved.
That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Turks and Caicos Islands) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 15 July, be approved.—(Mr Vara.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Immigration
That the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (No. 2) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 11 October, be approved.—(Mr Vara.)
Question agreed to.
delegated legislation (committees)
Ordered,
That the Motion in the name of Mr Peter Lilley relating to the House of Commons Members; Fund (Discretionary Payments) shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice of a motion has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Mr Vara.)
Administration
Ordered,
That Frank Dobson, Gemma Doyle and Mr Dave Watts be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr Tom Harris, Mr Kevan Jones and Angela Smith be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Business, Innovation and Skills
Ordered,
That Luciana Berger, Jack Dromey, Nicky Morgan, Chi Onwurah and Rachel Reeves be discharged from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and Paul Blomfield, Katy Clark, Simon Kirby, Gregg McClymont and Ian Murray be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Communities and Local Government
Ordered,
That Toby Perkins and Chris Williamson be discharged from the Communities and Local Government Committee and Simon Danczuk and David Heyes be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Defence
Ordered,
That Mr David Hamilton, Mr Adam Holloway, Alison Seabeck and John Woodcock be discharged from the Defence Committee and Thomas Docherty, Mr Dai Havard, Penny Mordaunt and Sandra Osborne be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Education
Ordered,
That Conor Burns and Liz Kendall be discharged from the Education Committee and Neil Carmichael and Bill Esterson be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Energy and Climate Change
Ordered,
That Gemma Doyle and Tom Greatrex be discharged from the Energy and Climate Change Committee and Barry Gardiner and Ian Lavery be added.— (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Nigel Adams be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Richard Drax be added.— (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Emma Reynolds be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Mr Bob Ainsworth be added.— (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
HEALTH
Ordered,
That Fiona Mactaggart be discharged from the Health Committee and Yvonne Fovargue be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
HOME AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Mary Macleod be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr James Clappison be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
Ordered,
That Mr Andy Slaughter be discharged from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Mr Virendra Sharma be added.— (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Ordered,
That Mr Russell Brown and Ann McKechin be discharged from the International Development Committee and Mr Michael McCann and Alison McGovern be added.— (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Stephen Pound be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Kate Hoey be added.— (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Ordered,
That Eric Joyce be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Stella Creasy be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Ordered,
That Jon Trickett be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Lindsay Roy be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
TRANSPORT
Ordered,
That Angie Bray, Lilian Greenwood and Angela Smith be discharged from the Transport Committee and Steve Baker, Julie Hilling and Gavin Shuker be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
WELSH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Glyn Davies be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Stuart Andrew be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Work and Pensions
Ordered,
That Ms Karen Buck, Margaret Curran and Shabana Mahmood be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Alex Cunningham, Glenda Jackson and Teresa Pearce be added. —(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Termination of Pregnancy (Information Provided)
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Although the abortion figures for last year were slightly reduced by 3.2%, there were still 200,000 abortions carried out in the UK last year—572 per day. Abortion in this country is an industry from which a small number of organisations and individuals make vast amounts of money. No sensible person would condone this. In examining the legislative abortion procedures of European countries with far lower numbers than ours, it occurred to me that for those countries in which informed consent before an abortion takes place is enshrined in law—Germany, France, Belgium, Finland and others—the abortion rate was much lower. I have deliberately excluded countries with religious and cultural influences, such as Italy, Spain and Portugal from that analysis. It also appears to me that in those countries, the abortion procedure is a far kinder one, which takes much more account of the vulnerable position a woman might be in at the time of her request for an abortion and provides her with alternatives to consider and a cooling-down time in order to think, breathe and take stock of what is happening.
All those countries with good informed consent legislation had significantly lower than average daily abortion rates than the countries that do not have such informed consent legislation. Although a causal link is impossible to prove, these figures suggest that informed consent legislation might prove a good way of reducing Britain’s abortion figures. I think that all Members of all parties are agreed that we want to see that happen.
In this country, if a woman requests a termination from her GP, no questions are asked. I have spoken to numerous GPs and posed this question to them: “When a woman sits in your surgery and asks for a termination, what do you say?” The answer I frequently receive is that the GP does not say anything, but writes a referral letter. That is the process at the GP stage. A referral is made to a hospital or clinic and the abortion is performed, for the woman’s sake, as quickly as possible and without fuss.
Minimal counselling or no counselling is provided in some NHS hospitals and some clinics. Minimal counselling is provided by BPAS—the British Pregnancy Advisory Service—which carries out a large number of abortions on behalf of the NHS. However, BPAS carries out some counselling, but also carries out the abortion, so there is a clear conflict of interest there.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I understand that the counselling provided by abortion providers is Government funded only if the abortion goes ahead. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about that?
Nadine Dorries
I am going to come to that very point a little later in my speech. It is one of the main concerns, mainly because no alternative counselling is provided to negate that option.
We all know that when it comes to abortion, the law is indeed an ass. It has no application whatever. We know that the law prohibits social termination—two doctors’ signatures are required—but none of that is ever taken into account. Abortion clinics freely admit that consent forms pile up in their offices, waiting for the second signature, long after the event has taken place.
A woman has an assumed right to choose. However, she apparently has no right whatever to any information on which to make that choice. If any of us were referred to a hospital today for a minor procedure such as an operation for an in-growing toenail, the procedure would be explained to us in detail. We would be made aware of the level of pain we might experience; we would be told exactly what would happen while we were under the anaesthetic; we would be given follow-up appointments to check on the progress of our healing; we would have our dressings changed and have checks for infection. A woman who has an abortion has none of that.
At the end of the day, the woman is discharged out on to the street and left to come to terms with the rollercoaster emotional journey of which she will still be in the midst. Before the woman received the procedure, she might have felt coerced, pressurised or bullied into the abortion. To her, it might have been a life or the beginning of a life—depending on her perspective. She might have had a seed of doubt, but once she was on the conveyor belt to the clinic, she might have felt helpless and unable to step off.
Make no mistake: abortion is not a medical procedure. It is not an in-growing toenail. Abortion is about the ending of a life, or a potential life. It is about a death which is final, and from which there is no going back. The abortion of a baby does not abort the seed of doubt or misgivings that may have been present at the time; that still remains.
Many consultant psychiatrists from the Royal College of Psychiatrists are becoming increasingly concerned about the number of women who are presenting with mental health issues directly linked to previous abortions. A major longitudinal 30-year survey published in The British Journal of Psychiatry in 2008 showed clearly—after adjustment for confounding variables—that women who had had abortions had rates of mental disorder 30% higher than women who had not. The Royal College of Psychiatrists said that, following its position statement on abortion and mental health,
“healthcare professionals who assess or refer women who are requesting an abortion should assess for mental health disorder and for risk factors that may be associated with its subsequent development”.
Nothing remotely like that happens. No consideration whatsoever is taken of the state of a mother’s mental health when she asks for an abortion. If she asks for an abortion, she is given one.
Given the disregard that we have for women seeking this procedure, I am surprised that that figure stands at only 30%. We push vulnerable women through a clinical procedure at great speed to end a life—or, as I said, a potential life—that is growing within them, and we wonder why only 30% have problems in later life. Those are the women who are diagnosed. They are the women who seek help, and whom we know about. We do not know about the others. Is it not time that we started to treat women a little better than this?
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of the rights of women in this context, but what about the fathers? I hope she agrees with me that the law needs to be examined to ensure that the rights of the potential father are taken into consideration.
Nadine Dorries
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, but I am afraid that I must stick to the point of the debate, because otherwise we shall run out of time.
Does not the way in which abortions are carried out in this country today almost amount to abuse? We need to take lessons from our European neighbours. In Germany, women are offered counselling and a cooling-off period. That gives them a chance to breathe and think. It gives them support. They are informed about the procedure, and of the possible consequences. They are provided with alternative routes other than the surgical removal of a life. They are given information about adoption—and yes, I know that people throw up their hands in horror when that is mentioned, but it is not our pregnancy, and it is not our baby.
We have no right to institutionalise and frame a decision-making process that is void of choice for the women who seek information. It is a woman’s right to choose, and women should have the right to be given every shred of information that we have and every alternative option. If a woman wants to continue with her pregnancy and deliver her baby for adoption, she should have the right to choose to do so. If she does not, at least she can emerge from the abortion process feeling that she made an informed decision. She can emerge feeling that she went in empowered and not helpless, strong and not vulnerable, and believing that she did the best thing because she knew exactly what she was doing and had full knowledge of every available option. She will be able to draw strength from that in future.
Women are entitled to an option. They are entitled to give informed consent, which should be explicitly supported by pro-choice and pro-life campaigners. When it comes to a decision of such magnitude, it is vital for women to receive information that is absolutely accurate and is given calmly, without coercion or a principled bias and, in particular, without political ideology. Last month ComRes, the pollsters, revealed after an extensive survey that 89% of people agreed with that. They think that women should be entitled to have more information when requesting an abortion. Given that overwhelmingly high figure, it is time that this House paid some attention. I hope the Minister agrees that it is time that we took a little more care of women undergoing such a procedure. It is time that we introduced a statutory process of informed consent and a cooling-off period. The European evidence shows that that could provide us with a considerable reduction in the number of abortions, and everyone would surely welcome that.
I shall finish by mentioning a book which is to be launched this month. It is published by the charity Forsaken, which is neither pro-life nor pro-choice: it is pro-women. For two years, the charity has put together the stories of women suffering from post-abortion syndrome. Reading the book is so heart-wrenching that we just want to reach out and take their pain away, but we cannot. There is no going back. We cannot make it better; abortion is a procedure to end life—it is final.
The women interviewed for this book feel that talking about abortion is taboo. That forces them into silence, leaving them unable to express their suffering. Abortion really is a taboo subject. We will never see an abortion filmed on television; we will never see that screened. It is still the taboo subject that we do not talk about.
One woman in the book describes how even when she told the anaesthetist that she was changing her mind and was having doubts, he pushed her to go ahead. He did so because, if she changed her mind, he would not have been paid. There is the same process as for the counselling. If the woman does not go ahead with the abortion, the clinics are not paid for the counselling, and therefore they need to know that she is going ahead before she is given the counselling—and we can imagine the process that ensues.
I will conclude by reading a paragraph from the book, giving a young girl’s account:
“An uncle dropped me off at the clinic with a letter to give to them. I don’t know what that letter was. At this point, I was holding onto the thought that they were only checking me. The staff at the clinic were very nice there, seemingly courteous and kind. It was not my usual surgery, I did not realise it was an abortion clinic until I was shown into a counsellor’s room. When I went to the counsellor’s room, I was asked: ‘Why don’t you want to keep this pregnancy?’
‘I want it but my family don’t want it,’ I replied, and promptly burst into tears. ‘They won’t support me and I can’t look after it myself.’
Nothing more was said that I remember...I was given a bed—there must have been 20 of us crowded into that ward. I was the first in line. As I waited, I scanned the corridors for some means of escape, but I was already wearing my hospital gown and no underwear. It wasn’t long before a man brought a wheelchair to take me to the operating theatre. For a brief moment I wondered if I had the strength to run away, but instead I sat obediently into the chair.”
That is a story of loneliness, suffering, emptiness and loss that many thousands of women live with day after day. It is they who become the 30%.
It is time for the UK to catch up with the rest of Europe and introduce informed consent in an attempt to ensure that stories like this become a rare exception. It is time for this country to start looking after our young girls and women at the most vulnerable time in their lives and treat them with some respect.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on securing this debate on a subject in which I know she has had a long-standing interest. She rightly described it as a taboo subject, and the extract she read was moving, evocative and of concern to us all.
The debate comes at a welcome time for me, as I will be meeting representatives from the two biggest independent sector abortion providers later in the month to discuss how we might integrate contraception and wider sexual health provision into the services they provide. It will also be an opportunity for me to raise some of the issues my hon. Friend has highlighted tonight.
I also recently had a useful and productive conversation with a charity that supports young women and men in making informed sexual health decisions. For me and for the Government, reducing the abortion rate is an absolute priority, and to do that we have to ensure that women and men are given information and support to make responsible sexual health choices.
We have seen significant advances in the quality of abortion provision since the Abortion Act 1967 came into force. Early access to abortions has improved and evidence shows that the risk of complications increases the later the gestation. Currently, 75% of NHS-funded abortions take place at under 10 weeks, compared with 51% in 1992. Early abortion means that women have more choice as to the abortion method. Medical abortion using two tablets now accounts for 40% of the total number of abortions, as opposed to only 12% in 2001. However, abortion comes at the end of a failure of many other services in the lives of young women.
Independent sector abortion providers and those organisations that refer women for an abortion are hugely experienced, but are subject to Secretary of State approval and monitoring by the Care Quality Commission. That is why some of the issues that my hon. Friend raises are of considerable concern. We need to ensure that continued emphasis is placed on giving women and men advice and contraception, because it is needed. In the same way, women should be given access to tailored, appropriate and impartial advice on their pregnancy options.
The Government will be responding to the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology recommendation to update advice on the mental health consequences of induced abortion. The Government have commissioned a systematic review of the evidence, and the report will be published in spring 2011.
Interestingly, we have recently seen a substantial increase in the number of men attending family planning clinics—there was a 16% increase in the number of young men attending clinics in 2009-10, with 162,000 attendances. That is a massive 93% increase on the figure in 1999-2000, when only 84,000 men attended. I welcome the fact that young men are taking the issue of sexual health and pregnancy more seriously; I hope that they are taking it as seriously as young women are.
There are some examples of truly excellent, innovative sexual health services that have grown up at local level. However, as my hon. Friend said, the total number of abortions currently being carried out is just over 189,000 a year. Since 1992, the number of abortions has steadily increased, with the exception of the past two years when there was a fall in the number, albeit small. Just under half of teenage conceptions end in an abortion. However, the trend in both teenage conceptions and births is downward and the teenage pregnancy rate for 2008 was the lowest annual rate for more than 20 years. We should welcome that, although we should never be complacent because that figure of 189,000 is still way too high.
Repeat abortion is a continuing issue. Some 34%—one third—of women undergoing abortions had one or more abortions, a figure that has risen from 29% in 1998. Some 25% of repeat abortions were to women under 25. There are also significant and concerning variations between primary care trusts in repeat abortion rates, with rates in some areas as high as 45%. Abortions are traumatic and stressful, and they are not a form of contraception, but sadly they are clearly used as such in some instances. Women are offered a follow-up appointment within two weeks of the abortion. That also provides an opportunity to have another conversation about contraception needs if the woman was unclear as to contraception requirements at the time of the abortion, but that is not always taken up.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Is the Minister as concerned as I am that it is common practice for independent abortion providers to have their commercial relationship with PCTs and with other trusts in the health service hidden by the caveat of “commercial in confidence”? Therefore, people are not in a position to understand those providers’ commercial relationship with the NHS, and surely that offends against the principles of transparency in the NHS.
Anne Milton
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. The issues raised by conflicts of interest and hiding behind commercial sensitivity give rise to considerable concern. That is why I am pleased to be meeting some of the service providers in the next week or so to discuss those issues. It must be pointed out, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire, that although the stories she talked about involved bad practice, there are a lot of instances of very good practice. We should not miss that in the discussion about where things are not going as well as they should be.
Contraception has been free for everyone and is readily available in the community from GPs, family planning clinics and abortion providers, but there are clearly barriers. Why are so many young women and men not using it? A number of factors can lead to risk-taking behaviour, such as sexual violence, alcohol, lack of contraception awareness and self-esteem. We need to use simple, effective messages about safe sex, sexually transmitted infections, condom use and contraception. We need to ensure that young people receive high quality education on relationships and sex and we need to tackle those issues in a holistic and effective way. We need to ensure that young people are equipped to make the choices and the sometimes challenging decisions that they face in their lives. Those decisions are increasingly challenging in this day and age.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Those thoughts from the Minister are all excellent, but it is my understanding that before the general election the now Prime Minister promised Government time so that the House could have an opportunity to have a free vote on legislation to change, for example, the upper limit. Will the Minister tell the House tonight whether the Government are still committed to providing time and, if so, when?
Anne Milton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Others in this House might know more about parliamentary procedure than I do, but I understand that abortion is a matter that is usually raised by Back Benchers. He may look bemused, but that is what I have been told. It is usually raised by Back Benchers and the Government do not normally take a view on it. It is an ethical decision and there are usually free votes on it—I have witnessed them myself.
Young women and men need to think about contraception before having sex. People have busy lifestyles—and, in some instances, very chaotic lifestyles—and there are barriers to accessing contraception. However, with long-acting reversible contraceptives there are ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy for everyone, whatever their lifestyle. We need young women and men to be equipped with the information and knowledge to look after their physical, mental and sexual health so they are not put in this position in the first place.
Some £11.5 million has been invested this year and the sexual health charities Brook and the Family Planning Association, with funding from Government, have developed a new web-based contraception decision tool to help people to choose the best contraception for them. Launched on 14 July, the “My Contraception” tool asks users a range of questions about their health, lifestyle and contraceptive preferences and recommends a contraceptive method based on the results.
The Government’s “Sex. Worth talking about” national campaign has been quite well received and early indications suggest that it has prompted positive action. Local areas will now be able to use the “Sex. Worth talking about” campaign resources to support their local work. That is a development that I am sure we will all welcome. There are also pages on the NHS Choices website with a huge amount of information and a helpline for confidential advice.
Some advances have been made to ensure that women are able to have safe, legal abortions, but we need to stop the tide of unwanted pregnancies. That is the position that we want to be in. That will take an effort on a number of fronts, and later this year we will publish our White Paper on public health, which will set out our approach in a great deal more detail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire rightly points out that a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy is extremely vulnerable. She also rightly points out that the consequences of abortion can be traumatic and far reaching. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) raised the issue of fathers, who are often forgotten in relation to this subject but who should not be forgotten in legislation and in the mechanisms we put in place to ensure that we not only prevent unwanted pregnancies but deal with their consequences.
I shall be very grateful for the continued support of my hon. Friends in making sure that we get the very best services available for women at this critical time. Anecdotal and individual Members’ experiences are vital to ensuring that we get those services right. Having in place informed consent, appropriate counselling and the right support for women at this vulnerable time will ensure that we do not fail them for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business of the House
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
The Government will be spending some £90 million on universities and student support this year.
[Official Report, 14 October 2010, Vol. 516, c. 493.]
Letter of correction from Sir George Young:
An error has been identified in the oral answer given on 14 October 2010.
The correct answer should have been:
Sir George Young
The Government will be spending some £19 billion on universities and student support this year.
Petitions
Archway Centre (Walsall)
Islamic Burial Space
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 6 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
Welsh Grand Committee (Scrutiny)
(13 years, 6 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
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Caton, I believe that this morning we are seeing a further example of the Government’s contempt for Welsh Members and the procedures of the House. When I first sought the debate, with the support of a large number of Welsh Members, I was advised by both the Speaker’s Office and the Table Office that the subject should be dealt with by the Leader of the House. Indeed, the debate was delayed by a week specifically so that it would fall in a week when he would be responding to debates in Westminster Hall. I have not been notified that he has declined to respond to the debate and has instead put up the junior Minister at the Wales Office to reply. The Leader of the House is clearly unwilling to appear here today to defend the Secretary of State’s behaviour, even though it falls within his responsibility to do so. On a more important constitutional point, the opportunity that the Welsh Grand Committee provides for Welsh Members to debate properly major issues affecting Wales is a matter for the whole House, not just for Ministers in the Wales Office. May we please know who decided that the proper procedure should not be followed when making arrangements for the debate, and why?
Martin Caton (in the Chair)
It is entirely a matter for the Government to decide which Minister will reply to debates. You have put on the record your grave disappointment that the Leader of the House is not present, Mr Michael.
Alun Michael
Further to that point of order, Mr Caton, may I therefore ask you to establish when and why it was decided that the Leader of the House would not reply to the debate, and to draw that sorry state of affairs to the attention of Mr Speaker?
Martin Caton (in the Chair)
I am afraid that that is not a matter for me, Mr Michael. If you would like to take it up with the Leader of the House, you can of course do so. We must now move on to the debate.
Alun Michael
I am grateful for the opportunity to open the debate, and to the large number of Welsh Members, particularly Labour Members, for attending. They include colleagues from across the geography of Wales and from every level, from the oldest Members to the newest. Perhaps in one sense we should be grateful to the Secretary of State for her steadfast refusal to agree to hold a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee to discuss the implications of the most serious constitutional change to threaten Wales for generations, because it has made us all the more conscious of the mechanisms that allow us to defend the interests of Wales and of the Welsh people in the House of Commons.
The subject of the debate is the Welsh Grand Committee and the scrutiny of Government policy as it applies to Wales. There is clearly a deficiency in how current legislation is debated. The failure to meet to discuss the current legislation goes beyond that individual topic and touches on how Welsh issues are dealt with generally in the House. Welsh Members have fought for proper representation over many years, and as the shadow Minister said in an excellent article in The Western Mail, the balancing of the interests of minorities with a national constitution is regarded as not just important, but essential in a number of other countries, such as Germany. There ought to be a balance that is not just about simple, crude arithmetic.
Representation of constituencies in Wales will be damaged by the provisions of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. It is about not only the reduction in numbers, but the fact that the reduction can be achieved only by tearing up the principle of representing communities of interest in each part of Wales and the principle of respecting the links with local authority boundaries and, above all, by tearing apart the constituencies that are currently represented by both a Member of Parliament and a Member of the National Assembly for Wales. That cannot be right.
Even worse is the lack of proper debate as the Conservatives steamroller over the interests of the people of Wales and principles of democracy. The matter should have been debated in the Welsh Grand Committee before the Bill was debated on the Floor of the House, and I remind Members on both sides of the Chamber of the battles that took place to establish the Welsh Grand Committee in the first place as a venue for debates.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about Assembly constituencies being the same as Westminster constituencies, it follows from that part of his proposition that he is arguing that there should never be any change at all.
Alun Michael
I am not arguing that at all. When the National Assembly for Wales was being proposed in opposition, I actually recommended a different structure, one that would have given two Members for each Westminster constituency, elected according to the alternative vote system. That would have given 60 Members on a coterminous basis, even with the considerable reductions that the Conservatives propose, but it is only one of the principles that need to be looked at. I have already mentioned the importance of representing combinations of constituencies.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will recall that it has been some time since the Welsh Grand Committee met in Wales. Would it not have been more appropriate, because of the impact on the Assembly and the House, for those discussions to have taken place in Wales so that constituents, Assembly Members and those interested in the Assembly could have lobbied their MPs in the Welsh Grand Committee in the Principality itself?
Alun Michael
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have seen a development of such institutions in recent times. For instance, the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), has developed a way of interchanging with the Assembly. It would be right for the Welsh Grand Committee also to develop its way of representing the people of Wales and engaging with the Welsh Assembly as an excellent new institution.
Jonathan Evans
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to develop my earlier point. He says that he is not arguing that we retain the exact structure and keep the Assembly seats, as he had proposed in the past that there should be 60 Members, two for each constituency. Hence, it would seem that he argued for 30 constituencies.
Alun Michael
No; I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not very good at arithmetic, even though he depends upon it as a basic principle for his argument. The National Assembly for Wales has 60 Members. Under my proposed provision, it would have had 80 Members from the start, which, because of its greater legislative powers, would have made sense. My point is that the coterminosity of boundaries for Westminster and Assembly constituencies is one of the building blocks that should be part of the way constituencies are decided upon now and in future. For example, Sully was brought into the constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, which I represent at Westminster, for the last Assembly elections, and the same boundary change was then made for the parliamentary elections. It is not rocket science; it is quite simple to deal with that. What is important is that we have those principles of coterminosity of boundaries with the Welsh Assembly constituencies, a respect for local authority boundaries—I say that as someone whose constituency crosses those boundaries—as the ward principle is an important one, and the representation of communities.
We all represent communities of interest. I can say confidently that my Labour colleagues all feel passionate about the communities that they represent. It is a basic parliamentary principle that we refer to each other by constituency, as we are here as representatives of our constituencies. It is that connection that the current legislation is likely to destroy, and that is why it is so important that the issue be debated properly by Welsh MPs and why it should have been debated properly in the Welsh Grand Committee.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that the Welsh Grand Committee’s ability to scrutinise legislation that is made in Westminster and affects Wales will be further enhanced by the ability to call for expert evidence? An example would be evidence from the Centre for Welsh Legal Affairs, which is based in Aberystwyth. By way of declaration, I studied at Aberystwyth university and had a great time there.
Alun Michael
I know that the hon. Gentleman, having got his degree at Aberystwyth, has an affection for Wales. I welcome his intervention in this debate, because his suggestion about the Welsh Grand Committee expanding its role to take evidence is one that should be considered—many colleagues may agree with that. The point is that the Committee, in order to consider whether it expands its functions, has to meet in the first place, but, with the current Secretary of State for Wales, there is no such inclination. Perhaps when we do get to meet, we can take on board the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, which is a constructive one, and suggestions that others might make.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
How can we be clearly represented by a Welsh Grand Committee that can be called only at the whim of a Secretary of State who does not enjoy a single Welsh vote, and a Welsh Affairs Committee that is grotesquely unrepresentative of the expressed views of the people of Wales in the last election, for which only a Conservative could be elected as Chair? Is it not right that we go back to the origins of the Welsh Grand Committee and many of the fine institutions in Wales that had their genesis in the Welsh parliamentary party, which includes every Member from Wales and will meet tomorrow? Such a system would genuinely reflect the democratic views of the people of Wales.
Alun Michael
My hon. Friend, who is the distinguished secretary of the Welsh parliamentary committee—that shows a capacity for survival, if nothing else—makes a powerful point, and I believe that tomorrow’s debate will be an excellent one. It will involve Welsh MPs debating matters that affect Wales.
The issue of how the Welsh Grand Committee should be called would not be an issue had the Secretary of State for Wales shown respect for the wishes of Welsh MPs to have such a debate. I agree with my hon. Friend that her intransigence has called into question the current arrangements for calling the Committee. That did not need to happen—mutual respect would have been better. It was not there on this occasion, and I regret that.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He will be aware of the excellent report that the Welsh Affairs Committee produced, to which I was proud to be a signatory. One of the reasons why we moved with such speed was that we wanted the outcome of our report to contribute to a broader discussion, but that discussion has been denied to us. Some of us have waited during proceedings on the Floor of the House for issues such as coterminosity and the break between list and parliamentary seats to be discussed. Plaid Cymru tabled a good amendment that has never been discussed. The crux of the issue is that we have not had an opportunity for a debate. The Select Committee certainly would have welcomed such an opportunity.
Alun Michael
I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate today. He is absolutely right, and I congratulate him on putting representation of his constituents above his location on the Government Benches in those comments.
I had planned to refer to the Select Committee report, so perhaps I could just do so briefly now. It points out that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill that is being debated on the Floor of the House will have a greater impact on Wales than on any other nation of the UK, with a projection that Wales will lose 10 of its 40 seats—a reduction of 25%. A Committee that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) indicated, is totally unrepresentative of Wales has, nevertheless, come out with a powerful criticism of how the Government are dealing with these issues, I congratulate members of that Committee on having the independence of mind to do so.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Last night, 12 Labour Members did not have a chance to speak in the debate on the Bill, an important piece of rushed legislation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that having a Welsh Grand Committee would have enabled all Members to speak on this important issue? It is an important issue for Wales because the Vale of Glamorgan has a registration rate of only 76%, a ward in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) has the worst registration rate—56%—in Wales, and my constituency, the Vale of Clwyd, went from 49,000 registered voters to 56,000. We have lessons to learn in Wales for all of Wales and the UK.
Alun Michael
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. [Interruption.] Government Members would do well to listen to the points that are being made, rather than heckling from a sedentary position.
Let me deal with the point that my hon. Friend made. He referred to the failures of registration over a number of years, and I share his concerns that the Electoral Commission has failed to regulate how such things are done. As he rightly said, the Bill is based on under-registration, and it will have an effect on the representation of people in Wales.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. On the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) about the excellent cross-party report by the Welsh Affairs Committee, is my right hon. Friend as disappointed as I am by two things? First, the report was totally ignored by the Secretary of State for Wales, and, secondly, many of the hon. Members who were on that Committee voted to curtail debate last night through the programme motion.
Alun Michael
That is indeed disappointing. I believe that many people on the Government Benches are beginning to feel slightly embarrassed by how this Government are behaving. They are behaving not as a responsible majority but as an oppressive one.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about embarrassment, let me tell him that I am embarrassed by the opportunistic approach of Opposition Members. I come back to the point about voter registration: if voter registration was such a priority, why did 13 years go by in which nothing happened in that respect?
Alun Michael
It was not that nothing happened. The Electoral Commission was meant to deal with some of these issues. I was a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life which looked at how such matters were dealt with, and which said that the commission needed to improve its act in terms of voter registration. Labour Members proudly debated the issue and pressed the Labour Government to recognise its importance, so I see no reason why we should not press the present Government on it.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Is not this part of a much wider habit that the Government are developing in respect of Wales? Some of us have been asking for a meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss the important issue of jobs at the Defence Technical College in south Wales, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). The Secretary of State said in June that she would be happy to meet a cross-party group of MPs but still has not met any group of people. Is it not a bit embarrassing to find that the hon. Gentleman has not bothered to speak up for jobs even in his own constituency?
Alun Michael
I agree entirely. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) should be fighting for the jobs that were promised—
Alun Michael
In a moment. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself and let me finish at least one sentence before he seeks to intervene again. He should be fighting for the jobs in his constituency which were promised as part of the defence academy, and which would enhance the performance of our armed services and save money as well as helping the economy of south Wales. Perhaps he would like to discuss that point rather than just raising spurious points and trying to embarrass the Opposition.
Alun Cairns
I object absolutely to the comments made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). He knows well that I have been in discussions with the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and other Ministers—[Interruption.]
Martin Caton (in the Chair)
Order. The background noise has grown as this debate has gone on. Could Members be quiet enough that I can hear whoever is speaking?
Alun Cairns
Thank you, Mr Caton. Discussions that I have had with the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and other Ministers have been reported widely in the press, but the hon. Member for Rhondda conveniently chooses to ignore that fact. I am delighted that St Athan remains the preferred option for the defence training solution, and I am shocked and saddened by the approach taken by Opposition Members in favour of a private company and cost to the taxpayer—
Martin Caton (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that was supposed to be an intervention.
Alun Michael
Methinks the hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. We will see the outcome, and if that outcome is jobs in south Wales we will welcome—
Alun Michael
I shall give way in a moment. The Conservatives this morning are over-excited. I think that they are embarrassed—[Interruption.] They want to talk now, but they must listen. If the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan has any success in his discussions we will welcome anything that improves the situation in south Wales. However, I suspect that the Prime Minister might not be listening to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr David Jones
A moment ago, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to accept the point made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales had ignored the report of the Welsh Affairs Committee. Having served with the right hon. Gentleman on that Committee, I know that he is a fair man. Will he accept that there is adequate time for a response to that report by my right hon. Friend, and will he also accept from me that such a response will be made?
Alun Michael
I shall try to respond to that question fairly: my answer is no. The Select Committee has come out with a report that underlines the blindingly obvious, which is that this is all being rushed. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the decisions. The summary states:
“The decision to hold a referendum on a change to the UK voting system on the same day as elections to the National Assembly of Wales might result in a number of problems for electoral administrators.”
It then goes to the heart of the matter:
“More generally, we are disappointed at the pace at which the whole package of constitutional reforms is being legislated and implemented. The provisions of the Bill will have profound consequences for the UK Parliament and for Wales in particular. We are equally disappointed that the Government has decided to timetable the Bill through the House of Commons without adequate opportunity for fuller scrutiny. We regret very much that the Secretary of State for Wales did not make allowance for a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee so that Welsh interests in the Bill could be considered in depth.”
That consideration should have taken place before the debates on the Floor of the House, and I underline “before”.
Alun Michael
An untimely, delayed response might be made, but that does not meet the point of timeliness and it is part of the general picture of unseemly rush by a Government who are clearly embarrassed by their own proposals.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to the Committee Clerks, the Secretary of State could take up to two months to respond?
Alun Michael
Indeed. The point is that we should have proper debate in the Welsh Grand Committee on subjects of importance to Wales, when the debate is relevant and timely. It should be now; it should have happened already.
Mr Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Can my right hon. Friend help me to understand why the Secretary of State is not here this morning to respond on these issues? We are speaking a lot about her, but she is not here to say for herself why the Government are doing, or rather not doing, what they propose.
Alun Michael
I do not think that I can. The Government are clearly embarrassed by all of this, which is why the Leader of the House has refused to be here, even though it should have been him responding to the debate today. I suspect that the Secretary of State, having taken over the subject, if you like, preferred to send her junior Minister as the fall guy. I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman because of the onerous burden that has been placed on his shoulders but, as I understand it, it is only the Secretary of State who decides whether there will be a Welsh Grand Committee in response, in respect for the Members in Wales. I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy)who, like me, has held that office, is of the same view. The Secretary of State should really have been here to answer for her own decisions.
Mr David Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his concern, but I assure him that the burden rests lightly. As a matter of information, the Secretary of State is at a Cabinet meeting, which is why she is not here.
Alun Michael
Would the hon. Gentleman like to tell us whether at that Cabinet meeting the Secretary of State is fighting for the interests of the people of Wales? I think that we know the answer.
Chris Ruane
If the Secretary of State is indeed in the Cabinet meeting, will she be raising the cancellation of the Severn barrage? Will she be raising the cancellation of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency project, the cancellation of the north Wales prison, the loss of jobs in Newport or the cancellation of the electrification of the south Wales railway line?
Alun Michael
I suspect that she will be sitting silently in the corner.
I want to make reference to a former Member of this House who argued powerfully for the establishment of a Welsh Grand Committee. There were debates over many years, going back into the 19th century, about the establishment of such a committee, and in his early days in Parliament Cledwyn Hughes, a former Secretary of State for Wales, argued powerfully in favour. Indeed, when a Welsh Grand Committee was initially established, he argued that it ought to be more powerful and not just a tepid opportunity for debate. Regarding the lack of adequate facilities for the proper discussion of Welsh affairs in the House, he said:
“Since I became a Member of this House some eight years ago, this has been one of my most frustrating experiences—and that is saying something.”—[Official Report, 13 July 1959; Vol. 609, c. 120.]
He went on to point out how the reports that the Government published would not be debated. Cledwyn Hughes represented Ynys Môn—the county where I was born—and it is ironic that the effect of the Bill will be to force Anglesey into some sort of combination with part of the mainland. That is disrespect to Môn mam Cymru.
Albert Owen
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning my predecessor Cledwyn Hughes, who fought in this House for not only Welsh rights, but for the fourth Welsh channel. Last week, not only were we denied a debate on the comprehensive spending review—Cledwyn would have been turning in his grave—but we had the Government just announcing that the channel was going to the BBC. Cledwyn Hughes worked with Conservative Members of Parliament over those years, and he worked in consensus. That consensus has been broken.
Alun Michael
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. Cledwyn Hughes was loyal to his party and passionately loyal to Ynys Môn, but he was a man to seek to build consensus where consensus was possible. Had the Secretary of State agreed to the requests from Labour Members for a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee to debate these issues, she would have been treated with respect. But she has not treated us with respect.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
On that point, my right hon. Friend will recall that in the only Welsh Grand Committee that we have had in this Session further contempt was shown when the Government had the Chief Secretary to the Treasury there without actually going through the usual channels to advise us. That shows the total contempt that this Government have.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on leading the debate into a calmer, cooler and, may I say, more constructive stream. But does he not agree that Cledwyn Hughes would not be content with just seeing the Welsh Grand Committee as it is but would wish it to evolve to meet the needs of Welsh Back Benchers? Surely the purpose of this debate is not to look at specific legislation but to consider the role of the Welsh Grand Committee and how it can be improved.
Alun Michael
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He makes a constructive point. I think that the passion and anger that he sees on the faces of many people in this Chamber is due to the constructive debate that he and I would wish being denied us. It has been denied us in the Welsh Grand Committee, and it has also pretty much been denied us on the Floor of the House in the rush to legislate. In the past few years, we have seen very welcome strides forward in how Wales is represented through democratic institutions. The National Assembly for Wales is a success; it will continue to develop and grow, and I am certain that it will be even more effective and successful in the future. But it is at its best when representatives in Parliament and representatives in the Assembly are working together.
I have seen the benefit of that in my constituency, and in the teamwork between Welsh Labour AMs and Welsh Labour MPs that has developed very positively over the past few years. Through the way in which we have made sense of the delegation of powers to the National Assembly for Wales—through the system of legislative competence orders and debates in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, as well as in the House, over the past 13 years—Parliament has remained relevant to democracy in Wales and should remain so.
In response to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), the Welsh Grand Committee should develop and take on new ways of doing things, and, perhaps, take on the suggestion about taking evidence on appropriate occasions. After all, Standing Committees now do that at the start of their proceedings. We should be developing our democratic institutions, not sidelining them.
Mr Havard
The power in the relationship that my right hon. Friend describes between Cardiff and London and the institutions has, in part, come from the fact that it has been developing pre-legislative scrutiny—not post-hoc scrutiny. We have a Government with a questionable mandate for doing something that was not in a manifesto—a good example of why pre-legislative scrutiny is even more, not less, important.
Alun Michael
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point with which I entirely agree. During the previous Session, Parliament looked at ways in which it could enhance its work, improve its democratic credentials and reconnect with the people. The Welsh Grand Committee is one way in which we could do so properly, if we develop it.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Should not the Secretary of State learn the lesson, which she has ignored either in pig-headedness or naivety, that the Government can, ultimately, have their way because, as Disraeli said, a majority is its own repartee, but the Opposition should be able to have their say? By denying the Welsh Grand Committee the opportunity to meet, she has undermined that fundamental principle of our constitution.
Alun Michael
My hon. Friend is right about the fundamental point: a Government—the majority—have to show respect for the minority, even when they know that they have the numbers to win a vote on their legislation. At the end of the day, the Government will get their Bill, but they will have done so in bad temper, with ill grace and without proper respect for the minority.
Alun Michael
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman several times. I wish to conclude my remarks because others wish to speak.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. The signal difference between the approach that he and his predecessors in the Wales Office took and the current one is that when controversial decisions had to be made he took them to be debated and to face challenge, and heaven knows he had enough controversial decisions on his plate. That is a signal of good government. The Secretary of State for Wales does not speak for Wales; the only people who speak for Wales now are those on the Opposition Benches.
Alun Michael
It is our responsibility as Members of Parliament to enhance democracy, and those in power can help to do that only by listening and debating. That is the essential point. I am concerned about that, not only on this topic, although it is the burning topic before us, but on the grounds that for the next five years we need topics that affect Wales to be debated properly in regular meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee—
Alun Michael
No, I will not give way.
We need the Committee’s performance and activity enhanced rather then diminished. That can be achieved only if the Secretary of State shows proper respect for the people of Wales and their interests, uses the mechanism of the Welsh Grand Committee to listen to the views of those who represent the people of Wales—Welsh MPs—and shows proper sensitivity to the fact that she does not represent any of the people of Wales.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) on securing the debate. From its title, which related to the scrutiny of Government policy as it applies to Wales, I hoped that we would be looking at the role of the Welsh Grand Committee, and indeed at other ways that Back Benchers can express their views on Wales. We came to that topic a little later in the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution than may have been best for the debate.
I signed the early-day motion calling for a Welsh Grand Committee on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. It would have been a good idea, because it would have allowed Members to express their views and engage a little more with the people of Wales. I have not been inundated with representations from constituents on this matter; I may be atypical, but that reflects my experience. In previous Parliaments we had regular Welsh Grand Committees—
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for the approach that he is taking, but is he surprised that over the past six years the Welsh Grand Committee met only once in three of those years?
Roger Williams
That was a complicated set of statistics. The hon. Gentleman will have to allow me to accept that but not to comment on it. As far as I remember, we had regular Welsh Grand Committees in previous Parliaments, but I was never consulted on the subjects of them. I was dealt with courteously by Government Whips, who would tell me, “The Welsh Grand Committee will be on 23 May and the subject is this. Will that be all right?” On most occasions it was all right, but we were never engaged, or encouraged to put forward subjects for the Committee. I would like the support system for the Welsh Grand Committee to become more like the Backbench Business Committee. We could then have meetings of Back Benchers of all parties to put forward suggestions for subjects for the Welsh Grand Committee.
Albert Owen
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about the development of the Welsh Grand. Does he accept that there was some development in the previous Parliament? We had a question session at the beginning when we could speak on a wide range of topics; Back Benchers could submit questions and ask follow-up questions.
Roger Williams
I absolutely accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I am all for developing the system if it makes it more productive and gives Back Benchers a greater role, but the fact that we have had some development does not preclude or prevent other developments in future.
Chris Ruane
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; I will call him a friend—an ex-Friend. I concur entirely: the Welsh Grand Committee needs to be developed, but in the meantime all we need to do is meet. Does he agree that we need to meet and talk—jaw-jaw?
Roger Williams
I have said on the record that I was a signatory to the early-day motion, so we will leave that subject for a moment.
When the Minister sums up, will he address my suggestion that we look at how the Welsh Grand Committee system operates and encourage Back Benchers to have a greater say, not only on the frequency of Welsh Grand Committee meetings, but on the subjects? I include in that an assessment of how the question and answer sessions work, whether we need Ministers appearing at the Committee to answer questions on specific areas of Government policy and whether we call expert witnesses to help with our deliberations. Cledwyn put a very successful system in place, but it is time for it to evolve and develop to ensure that Welsh Back Benchers have real input in Government policy as it affects Wales.
Martin Caton (in the Chair)
Order. I should like to start the wind-ups at 10.40 at the latest. At least five Members are indicating that they wish to speak, so the more succinct each of you is, the more people can make a contribution.
Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)
This debate was called because we have come to a point of crisis for the Welsh Grand Committee. I have always found the Secretary of State to be a reasonable and courteous person, but I have no idea what has entered her head, because on this matter she has betrayed a stubbornness that I find most uncharacteristic and unwelcome. The debate is about how the Welsh Grand Committee runs itself and is organised. My experience over five years as Secretary of State for Wales on two separate occasions was that the decision to hold a Welsh Grand Committee was wholly in the hands of the Secretary of State. Therefore, the decision not to hold such a Committee lies entirely in the hands of the current Secretary of State.
There was never any question but that if there was consensus among Welsh Members of Parliament, a Welsh Grand Committee would be held. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) will remember that when I was Secretary of State, we consulted him on the subject, date and number of Welsh Grand Committees. Never once in my experience did I refuse a request or an understanding of consensus to have a Welsh Grand Committee. To my knowledge, this is the first time in its history that a Secretary of State has stubbornly refused to hold a Welsh Grand Committee to discuss important matters.
Kevin Brennan
My right hon. Friend is right. I checked with one of his predecessors, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who was happy to confirm that he would never have turned down a request for a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee. There is now nostalgia in Wales for the right hon. Member for Wokingham. [Laughter.]
Paul Murphy
Not on my part. However, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Whatever the political persuasion of the Secretary of State, there was no refusal to hold a Grand Committee on an important issue. When I held office, 21 meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee were called to deal with a large number of issues, including major constitutional matters. I cannot understand for one second what entered the head of the Secretary of State when she decided not to hold a meeting of the Committee.
Paul Murphy
But there were discussions on the legislative programme—on the Queen’s Speech and its impact on the people of Wales. That would be part of the process. This decision is a grave constitutional error, which, in my view, could mean the end of the Welsh Grand Committee. If the Secretary of State continues to refuse to hold meetings requested by the majority of Welsh Members of Parliament, the institution will become moribund.
My other point concerns the reasons why the Secretary of State should hold a Welsh Grand Committee to consider the impact of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill on the people of Wales. First, there has been no adequate scrutiny on the Floor of the House. The Select Committee recommended that a Welsh Grand Committee be held, but when I wrote to the Secretary of State to ask her to hold such a Committee, she replied that there would be ample opportunity for discussion, particularly on clause 11. That has not happened. The Welsh Grand Committee would have provided an opportunity for all Welsh Members of Parliament to debate important issues such as the referendum, the devolution settlement, the representation of Members of Parliament in this place and the relationship with the Welsh Assembly Government and the Welsh Assembly. Those are huge and important issues that will have an impact on the people of Wales, but the Secretary of State is stubbornly refusing to call a meeting of the Committee to discuss them.
Chris Ruane
I concur entirely with my right hon. Friend. What is happening in Wales and the UK is a tectonic, momentous movement on a range of issues that particularly affect Wales, which probably has some of the highest levels of deprivation in the UK. Wales has the highest number of public sector workers in the UK, and the constitutional changes that are about to be foisted on Wales are the biggest in the UK. There will be the biggest decrease—25%—in the number of MPs. Those are momentous, tectonic movements, yet we cannot even talk about them.
Paul Murphy
That is the point. As parliamentarians representing Wales, we are being denied a proper opportunity to discuss the impact on Wales of the most important constitutional Bill for a generation.
Chris Bryant
Is not the biggest problem the fact that if the people of Wales see the Westminster Government treat Welsh MPs with disrespect, and if the Government believe that in the future there should be lower representation from Wales, the argument for nationalism in Wales will increase? The way that the Government are progressing gives a fillip to nationalism rather than to the Union cause.
Paul Murphy
Yes, of course. Reducing the number of Members of Parliament goes against the settlement that the people of Wales voted on in 1997. Many of us argued that devolution strengthens the Union. However, in this case Wales is being treated separately in terms of its constitutional position as a smaller country in the UK. In my view, that goes against the Unionist principle in which the Conservative party is supposed to believe. The refusal to hold a Grand Committee means that our opportunities as Members of Parliament are gravely limited when discussing a Bill that affects us all. There has been no pre-legislative scrutiny. There has been inadequate discussion on the Floor of the House, and the legislation has been rushed through. Frankly, the Bill is not about proper scrutiny but about ensuring that the Labour party does not have sufficient seats in the House of Commons.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most depressing aspects of the consideration of the Bill in the House has been the complete failure of the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) and for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) to have any comprehension of the constitutional settlement in Wales? There has been complete silence from Welsh Front-Bench MPs in the Government. They have said nothing about the unique position of Wales in the United Kingdom and the way that the legislation threatens that link.
Paul Murphy
I was particularly unimpressed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) when he spoke about Wales yesterday in the House. The oddity is that had those debates taken place a year ago, the Liberal Democrats would have been the first to complain about the lack of scrutiny in the Bill and the business of having no boundary inquiries. The Liberal Democrats have long since ceased to be a party of civil liberties that deals with the rights and duties of the citizens of our country.
Ian Lucas
Yesterday evening, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) described the Bill, and the abolition of public inquiries in particular, as a negation of democracy. That former leader of the Liberal Democrats has some principles. I am sorry that other Liberal Democrats do not.
Paul Murphy
Some of us think that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber should still be the leader of the Liberal Democrats, but that is another issue.
In conclusion—this is an important debate, and others want to speak—this is a sad occasion. I hope that the Secretary of State will reflect on the wishes of the majority of Members who represent Welsh constituencies, think again, and give us an opportunity to discuss these important issues.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
I wanted to contribute to the debate primarily because when I was listening to the parliamentary stages of the Bill, I heard the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber, offer the observation that all Members of Parliament from Wales shared concerns about the legislation. I would like to put on the record that I am an enthusiastic supporter of the legislation.
Jonathan Evans
We heard enough from the hon. Gentleman during the parliamentary stages of the legislation.
In Wales, we have a distorted voting system and a situation in which the Labour party, with 36% of the vote, has 65% of the seats. Anything that is done to change that voting system threatens the position of the Labour party.
Kevin Brennan
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is sincere in his belief that we can reduce the number of parliamentary seats in Wales and that he will still be able to keep his seat by carving up the Liberal Democrats. Nevertheless, does he agree that it would have been good to have the opportunity to discuss the points that he raises at a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee?
Jonathan Evans
I intend to make only a brief speech and I will come to that matter, but I first wanted to put on the record my views about the legislation. The hon. Gentleman invites me to say what the impact would be on my constituency. The Electoral Reform Society has produced a report in which it speculates on what the outcome might be, and it suggests that my seat would revert to the Labour party. However, that makes no difference to my enthusiasm for the legislation. Why? Because I am a democrat. I see a situation in which my opponent, who was a very well regarded Member of the House, and over whom I had the smallest majority, had the second largest Labour vote in Wales, yet is not a Member of the House. Why? Because 25 of the 26 Labour seats in Wales have significantly smaller electorates than our electorate. We need to deal with that.
Jonathan Evans
I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies).
Huw Irranca-Davies
On the Welsh Grand Committee’s inability to have the opportunity to express the views of Welsh Members, one of the points I would have made in the Committee is that the concoction in the Bill means that any subsequent Government of a different political colour could take all the mechanisms in the Bill and—by the simple arithmetical change of saying that instead of 76,000 electors, we shall go to 80,000 or 100,000—gerrymander directly to their benefit under exactly the same arguments of democracy: one person, one vote, and equal votes. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the failure to give us the opportunity in the Welsh Grand to articulate not just the parochial dangers to our own seats but the dangers to democracy in the Bill is a signal failure of the Government?
Jonathan Evans
The basis on which I look at our system in Wales is that we have a gerrymandered system. The reality is that the Boundary Commission is invited to look at the historical basis of our constituencies. That is why all those constituencies are so small and why I am an enthusiastic supporter of the change.
Jonathan Evans
No, because I want to move to my second point, which is the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), who brought us back to what the debate is about. What should the Welsh Grand Committee be discussing? Here we are, having got on to discussing the legislation—[Interruption.] I shall come to that in a minute. The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) has been complaining about Government Members getting excited; Members should allow me to develop my point before we run out of time.
I certainly believe that there should be an opportunity for discussion, and there was an opportunity initially for discussion on the Floor of the House. I look across at the hon. Member for Rhondda, who was certainly not sparing in his contributions in the course of that debate. He has indicated to me, “Oh well, the Minister spoke for a long time as well,” but the reality is that those subjects were talked out. [Interruption.] Sorry, that is the reality. Therefore—[Interruption.] No, I will not give way because time is running out. [Interruption.] I have already given way three times; I am developing my argument.
I believe that there should be an opportunity for these points to be put. I am not making any criticism of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State over the fact that she decided initially that there was an opportunity for us to discuss the matter on the Floor of the House. As things stand, however, that opportunity, for whatever reason, has been denied to us. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will convey to the Secretary of State the fact that we are now in a changed circumstance. When she took her decision, it was on the basis that she thought that there would be an opportunity for discussion. That opportunity has been denied. [Interruption.] I think the word spoken from a sedentary position may have been unparliamentary—but there we are; we shall pass on that one.
I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind the points I have made. I now want to draw my remarks to a conclusion.
Chris Ruane
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Welsh Grand Committee could have discussed not only the constitutional issues affecting Wales, but the economic issues? In his seat, 48% of workers work in the public sector. In my seat, the number is 46%. In Clwyd West, it is 45%. The Welsh Grand Committee could have discussed the impact of the sacking of 25% of those workers by the Government the hon. Gentleman supports.
Jonathan Evans
There is a need for us to develop mechanisms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire—[Interruption.] Let me please respond to the first point. My hon. Friend has outlined that there must be mechanisms. The Government are now looking to improve our political governance, and my hon. Friend proposed an agenda that could be helpful in that regard. I say to Opposition Members that people in Wales were not impressed by the first meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee. That is the reality. If there is to be a respect agenda, it is important that although the Labour party may have 65% of the seats in Wales, it should reflect on the fact that more than a quarter of people in Wales voted for the Conservative party and more than a fifth of the people in Wales voted for the Liberal Democrat party. The claim that Members on the Opposition Benches speak for the people of Wales is flawed.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I am glad to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) on securing this Adjournment debate. It was secured because, as many hon. Members have said, there was no possibility of a Welsh Grand Committee. I find that amazing, given the importance of the Government’s plans for the people we represent. It will be looked on as a great slight to the people of Wales that the Secretary of State for Wales, despite all the pleas made to her, has refused to have a sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee.
There is some kind of alternative. As some of my hon. Friends have mentioned, we are to have a meeting tomorrow of the Welsh parliamentary party. A meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party can be called when no other forum exists to discuss issues of importance to Wales. I have invited all Welsh MPs—hon. Members of all parties who hold Welsh constituencies. I understand that all the Conservatives—there are not many of them—have turned down the invitation, which I find extremely disappointing.
Ann Clwyd
I am very pleased to hear that. Does anyone else want to express their intention to attend? They will be very welcome, because we shall have a proper debate on issues of Government policy as they particularly affect our constituents.
The debate on the Floor of the House last night was very truncated because of the guillotine that fell at various points, but it was obvious from the passions that were shown and expressed during that very short debate that people who represent Welsh constituents feel that they are being sold short because they have not been able to have the full discussion that we all wanted on important constitutional reforms that affect our constituencies.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the main Chamber, with MPs from all over the United Kingdom, the focus has to be on the principles in the Bill? There is no opportunity to cover in detail the issues that we want to discuss, which we in Wales can understand and would like to have a deeper discussion on, but with which we do not like to burden all our colleagues.
Ann Clwyd
I thank my hon. Friend. She reinforces the point that I am making: people feel frustrated and sold short because they cannot express their views. Tomorrow is an opportunity for MPs of all parties to come together and express their views in the Welsh parliamentary party.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Looking around the room, we can see that 29 Welsh MPs are present. It looks as though the Lib Dems are in favour of a sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee, and although it was only implied, it looked as though the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) was in favour of a sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State should listen to the people and representatives of Wales?
Ann Clwyd
Yes, I agree. It is deplorable that the Secretary of State is not here this morning. As I remember it, Cabinet meetings usually last for about an hour, so she still has time to come to this debate. She may be listening, but I am sure that we would find time to hear her even if it was only for a very short time. If she is not able to come today, perhaps she could come tomorrow. She would receive a very warm welcome—except, of course, that she is not a Member with a Welsh constituency, so the rules of the Welsh parliamentary party, unfortunately, on this occasion will exclude her. However, I am sure that if she wants her views to be made known, she will make them known through other hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), who has shown his enthusiasm, even if he is alone, about being present at the meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party tomorrow.
It will be obvious to the people of Wales who represents their interests in this place. It will be clear at the next Welsh Assembly elections that the people of Wales will be voting for the party that most reflects their interests in this place. The Welsh Assembly feels particularly short-changed by how it has been treated by the Government, so that too will be reflected in the results of the next Welsh Assembly elections.
Mr Havard
May I thank my right hon. Friend on her initiative on the Welsh parliamentary party meeting tomorrow? Does she agree that one of the difficulties with such a body is that it does not benefit from the services of the House? For example, I understand that there will not be a Hansard record or any of the attendant publicity that comes from a proper discussion in this place.
It is rather disappointing that the press of the country do not seem interested in this discussion. My right hon. Friend talks about what is happening—the power grab in Westminster—being clear to the people of Wales. However, it will not be clear to them, because the press are not taking an interest in educating the civic society of Wales about what is happening—a constitutional change on which it was never given the opportunity to express an opinion.
Ann Clwyd
I thank my hon. Friend, who is one of my neighbours. At one time we shared a constituency, when it was Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare in the time of Keir Hardie. However, Keir Hardie, who fought for so many rights for the people of Wales over the years, would be very aggrieved today if he saw what was happening in the House of Commons.
I draw attention to one or two things in the press today. The Archbishop of Wales has thought it necessary to make various points, criticising how benefit claimants are being portrayed by the UK Government. We all feel the same way. He said that the mark of a civilised society was the way that it cared for its worst-off members and that the UK Government
“talks about benefit frauds, as if the country is full of people who are out to milk the system.”
Some people are out to milk the system, but it is not the benefit frauds—it is the bankers and the people the Conservative party represents in this place.
The Conservatives have failed to penalise the people who put us in this financial situation. It was not the people we represent, the people of Wales who will now be affected by the cuts that the Government will put in place and the thousands of people who will lose their jobs in the public sector and, we are now told, in the private sector as well. Because of the VAT increase to 20% in January, tens of thousands of people will lose their jobs in the private sector.
Dr Morgan went on to say:
“One of the great characteristics of the mining communities was that they did care for the less fortunate—they made sure that widows and orphans had enough to eat and coal to heat their homes. They knew what it meant to be members of one society. The Big Society concept would not have been strange to them—they implemented it long before this Government thought of it.”
Chris Bryant
Archbishop Barry said all those things at St Andrew’s church in Tonypandy on Sunday evening. He was commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Tonypandy riots, which falls at the end of this week.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the many other issues on which we should also be having Welsh Grand Committees, in particular the effect of the comprehensive spending review. Is she worried that we might have no debate in the next few months on how that affects Wales? We might have no St David’s day debate next year and, because it is a two-year Session, no debate on the effects on Wales of another Queen’s Speech or legislative reform. All that is making the voice of Wales more marginalised in the House.
Ann Clwyd
I entirely agree. The fact that we are not able to debate issues of great importance to the people we represent is outrageous. That outrage was clearly expressed on the Floor of the House of Commons last night. There were many passionate speeches, in particular because people feel that a constitutional change of the kind proposed by the Government is of such momentous importance to Wales, where 25% of Members of Parliament will disappear. That is of great importance.
I do not want to anticipate what the Welsh parliamentary party will decide tomorrow, but I suspect that if the Welsh Grand Committee is not able to meet because the Secretary of State says no, the Welsh parliamentary party might decide to assume some of the Grand Committee’s functions. It might decide, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) suggested to me earlier, to go on a tour of Wales, to bring to the people of Wales the very issues that we cannot discuss in this place.
There will be momentous changes in how the vast majority of the elected MPs for Wales in this place decide to take matters into their own hands. We cannot rely on the Government. We have never been able to rely on a Tory Government. The people of Wales will see once again the kind of 18-year Tory Government that they have had before. We warned them at the last election of what might happen, but we did not, unfortunately, at that point think about the Lib Dems joining the Tories, because nothing in the Lib Dem election manifesto suggested that they would ever dream of joining the Tory party. They may want to think again; they would be very welcome to join us, in particular on issues that they feel strongly about and about which their former leader again spoke so passionately last night.
The people of Wales will see this Parliament and this Government for what they are—an insult to the people of Wales. We have a Government the people of Wales have never wanted. They have never wanted that Government in the past, they do not want them in the present and they definitely do not want them in the future.
Martin Caton (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid there are only three minutes left before I start the wind-ups.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Thank you, Mr Caton, for the truncated opportunity to speak. I had a much longer speech with which I would have been happy to regale the Chamber, but perhaps I will have the opportunity tomorrow.
Evelyn Waugh asked what the point of a Conservative Government was if they did not turn the clock back. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government have so far shown a distinctly non-Waugh-like tendency to change everything, and as soon as possible. Since the election we have had a slew of legislation, some of it eye-catching, some humdrum. Inevitably, some of it has not been thought out properly.
Has the Welsh Grand Committee been able to debate the changes as they apply to Wales? Obviously not. The changes to the funding and status of S4C are an obvious example. They are being rushed through without consultation and without the principal parties involved being consulted properly.
For example, I received an instructive parliamentary answer on 28 October from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I had asked when the Welsh Assembly Government, the Welsh Minister for Heritage, S4C, the Secretary of State for Wales and the BBC had been informed of the S4C decision. The answer was that they had been informed
“in the days leading up to, or at the time of, the spending review and licence fee settlement announcements.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2010; Vol. 517, c. 413W.]
Hon. Members can decide for themselves if that is a respectful, or even effective, way of deciding the future of a key Welsh institution. The plain truth, of course, is that the S4C decision was rushed through to achieve a cost saving for the DCMS.
I will dispense with the rest of my speech, but will make a point about last night’s debate, when the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) referred to the Encyclopaedia Britannica and its famous entry for Wales: “See England”. That quote usually draws gasps of amazement, from some quarters at least, but what is less often mentioned is that when one looks Wales up under England, there is scarcely anything there. Wales under England just disappears. Without a proper forum for debate, without a specifically Welsh means of holding the Government to account in the House on behalf of the people of Wales and without proper powers for the Welsh Assembly, Wales under England just disappears. As far as I can see, that suits the Government just fine. No wonder they are so loth to hold Welsh Grand Committee debates.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. We are particularly lucky that a Welsh Member and a Welshman is in the Chair. That is particularly appropriate.
I offer my warmest congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) on securing the debate and on highlighting the twin critical issues at its heart. The debate is about balancing the rights of the minority in the House, or the Opposition party, against those of the majority, or the Government party, in scrutinising legislation as it relates to Wales. There is also the larger, far more important issue of balancing the rights of the minority country, Wales, against those of its dominant partner, England, in their peculiar and, for the moment, stable union within the UK.
Too many Members to list have spoken with enormous passion about both those critical issues. Their eloquence and passion bears great testimony to just how deep the feeling is among Opposition Members that Wales—our country—is being ill served by the coalition Government. We feel that we are being disrespected, disregarded and, today, disfranchised.
Alun Cairns
Would the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that, among the many crocodile tears that have been shed today, there is just a hint of self-interest?
Owen Smith
No, I would not. Throughout the debate, one of the most disconcerting things about the Government’s Front Benchers, and particularly the silence of their Welsh Front Benchers, has been the absolute failure to acknowledge that there are any legitimate questions to be asked about balancing the interests of Wales against those of England. The continued refrain has been that we are talking about balancing one seat and the votes in it against another seat and the votes in it. There is a legitimate issue there, and we have acknowledged throughout that the issue of equalisation is legitimate, but it is just as legitimate to address the issue of balancing the aggregate weight of Wales and Welsh seats against that of English seats—our Dai of 40 seats against the English Goliath of 533 seats. That is a legitimate question, and the Welsh Grand Committee should have met to consider it. The Secretary of State’s decision repeatedly to deny Welsh Members our right to discuss these critical issues is yet another example of the disrespect agenda that is the hallmark of this Government’s approach to Wales.
Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)
Under the previous Government, the then Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), was anxious to hold an early meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee to discuss the Welsh Affairs Committee report on the National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Welsh Language) Order 2009. However, as a result of the Select Committee’s intervention while I was its Chair, the Secretary of State graciously acceded to delaying the meeting. Is that not the way the present Secretary of State should behave? She should listen, as another former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), said.
Owen Smith
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One thing that is clear from the debate and from the history of the Welsh Grand Committee is that Labour Secretaries of State and, indeed, previous Conservative Secretaries of State have a starkly different attitude from the present Government to listening to those who represent Welsh constituencies and to calling the Welsh Grand Committee when we need to discuss matters of importance for Wales. The Committee met 21 times at the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), but it has met once in the past six months. We still do not know whether it will meet to consider the CSR, but it must.
I want to start my substantive remarks with a challenge to the Minister. I want him to defy my assertion that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill is having a far greater impact on Wales than on any other area of the United Kingdom. Wales is losing 25% of its constituencies versus just 6 or 7% in the rest of the UK. That impact is out of proportion. The Minister will argue that that is happening because Wales has historically smaller constituencies, but can he, unlike his hon. Friends on the Front Bench, not accept that a specific case can be made for Wales? We are not the west midlands, but a separate, distinct nation with a different set of priorities. That is what needs to be considered alongside the legitimate questions about equalisation.
Albert Owen
Had the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), who claimed to be a democrat, given way, I would have asked him whether it was not more democratic that there was a referendum in Wales as part of the devolution settlement. That settlement said that we would retain the same number of Welsh representatives in Parliament. We are now having another referendum. Would it not have been sensible to wait until after the people of Wales had spoken in that referendum and we had seen the outcome before gerrymandering seats in Wales?
Owen Smith
Again, I completely agree. It is an absolutely telling indictment of the Government that they did not even think about the implications of the referendum because they are hellbent on railroading the proposed changes through in an attempt to rig not only the next election, but successive elections. This is about trying to secure Tory power in perpetuity, and we need to defend against that.
As various Members have said, the Welsh Affairs Committee is a Tory-chaired Committee with a Tory majority. It concluded unanimously that the proposed changes would have an impact on not only Wales, but the UK—on our constitution and the union between Wales and England.
Alun Cairns
This is the second or third time that I have heard the point about the make-up of the Welsh Affairs Committee, but it is made up in just the same way as every other Select Committee. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me when this Administration introduced the process and structure that led to the imbalance that he talks about?
Owen Smith
I will respond with a counter-question, I am afraid. As someone who sat with me on that Committee, does the hon. Gentleman deny supporting its conclusion that the Bill would gerrymander the map of Wales and should not be passed?
Kevin Brennan
Although the Select Committee will reflect the Government’s majority, it was the Government who decided to have a Conservative Chair. Can my hon. Friend imagine their doing the same to the Scottish Affairs Committee?
Owen Smith
To be honest, given the way they have been behaving recently, yes, I can imagine that. That is precisely the sort of thing they might consider doing, no matter how outrageous it is. [Interruption.] No, I will not give way any more. I want to ask the Minister a further question. If he cannot deny that Wales will be affected more than other parts of the UK, is he telling his constituents that? Is he explaining to them that he is sitting idly by watching Wales burn and his constituents’ representation in Parliament be diminished? I would be intrigued to know what his constituents in Clwyd West think about that.
I would also be intrigued to know whether the Minister has told his constituents, as we have heard so often from Conservative Front Benchers, that people’s local identities and local communities, as reflected in their political representation, no longer matter. Apparently, none of that matters, and the only thing that counts is a crazy arithmetical formula for determining in a Bill how our constituencies should be organised henceforth. Is the Minister telling his constituents that that is all that matters these days and that their identities do not?
Roger Williams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I just leave him with this thought. MPs have to deal with important issues, such as education and health, and we in Wales have democratic representation in the Assembly for that. There is nothing equivalent for the regions of England, so the democratic deficit will lie more in England than in Wales.
Owen Smith
I do not accept that at all. The critical point is that in 1997 Wales voted for devolution—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will listen. It voted for devolution and not marginalisation within the affairs of the United Kingdom. Marginalisation by the back door is happening under the Bill. I am pro-devolution and in favour of further devolution for Wales, as I know many Opposition Members are; but I am not in favour of having as a corollary a reduction without reference to the Welsh people of their voice in Westminster. We did not vote for a lessening of our say here, and we still want a proper say as part of the UK. We are not getting that under the present Government.
It is a disgrace that we have not had a Welsh Grand Committee. We face a crisis of constitutional issues, but also, as The Western Mail noted this morning, a crisis because of the unfair cuts’ impact on Wales. I challenge the Minister to tell us today whether, if we cannot have a Welsh Grand Committee on the constitution, we will get one to discuss the economy and its impact on Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I commend the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) for securing this debate on the Welsh Grand Committee and its scrutiny of Government—although it has ranged considerably beyond those matters. I want to reiterate that the Government regard the scrutiny of the Executive by Parliament as a matter of paramount importance, and, furthermore, that the Welsh Grand Committee has a significant role to play in that respect. Since its foundation in 1960 it has proved itself to be an invaluable body for scrutinising issues relevant to Wales. I commend the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) who did much to enhance its role.
The principal focus of the Committee is the scrutiny of the Welsh elements of Government policy—elements for which there might not otherwise be sufficient time for debate on the Floor of the House—most notably of course the Queen’s Speech and the Budget. However, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill has been different. Despite the myth of Welsh political martyrdom that Opposition Members have concocted today, the timetabling of the Bill has given adequate time for debate, and the Floor of the House of Commons is surely the right forum.
Martin Caton (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister has said he does not intend to give way.
Mr Jones
I have listened for the past hour and a half to histrionic rubbish from Members on the Opposition Benches and it is about time that that was redressed.
It is accepted that there is considerable political interest in the Bill throughout Wales. The focus of interest was clause 11, which deals with the number of seats, and which was debated last night—the right hon. Member for Torfaen made an important contribution—and clause 13, which decouples Assembly constituencies and parliamentary constituencies in Wales. That was not reached last night, although I waited all evening to debate it.
From the start, the Government were careful to make adequate time available for the Bill. My role, as the Wales Office Minister responsible for taking through the Wales-specific elements of the Bill, working closely with the Bill Minister—the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who has responsibility for political and constitutional reform—is to ensure that Welsh issues are centre stage during the Bill’s passage through the House.
The Government allowed adequate time for debate on the Floor of the House. The original programme motion approved by the House on Second Reading provided for five days of debate in Committee. Subsequently an additional six hours of debate were granted to make sure that on days when there might be statements, there would be adequate time for debate.
The five days that were allowed in Committee compare more than favourably with the three days in Committee that were allowed for the Government of Wales Act 2006, which was forced through by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain). I reiterate the point that I made to the right hon. Member for Torfaen—that neither for the Government of Wales Act 1998 nor for the 2006 Act was a Welsh Grand Committee convened, because of the simple fact that the right forum for debate was the Floor of the House of Commons. There have been five days in Committee and two days on Report—36 hours of debate. [Interruption.] No, I will not give way. That has given more than adequate time. Have Opposition Members taken advantage of that time? No, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), from whom we have heard at length. They have done nothing but agonise and posture over process, and the complaints about the non-convening of the Welsh Grand Committee are symptomatic of that.
The matter is nothing to do with concern about constitutional arrangements. It has everything to do with Opposition Members’ concerns about their own partisan position as Members of Parliament, because they know, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) has indicated, that there will be a reduction of 25% in the number of Welsh constituencies, because Wales is grossly over-represented in the House of Commons. The debate has everything to do with the vested interests of the Labour party, which seeks to preserve political advantage over the concerns of the nation as a whole. I see nothing wrong with a Bill that will ensure that a vote in Arfon, Ceredigion or Clwyd West is worth the same as a vote in any other part of the country. That is fairness, and the people of Wales are nothing if not a fair people. If the hon. Member for Pontypridd does not understand that, he has made a very poor start to his parliamentary career.
Paul Flynn
On a point of order, Mr Caton. The Conservative spokesman intervened on other speeches and has refused interventions on his own speech.
Martin Caton (in the Chair)
The gift of allowing interventions is entirely in the control of the hon. Member who is speaking.
Mr Jones
To reiterate, this morning there has been nothing but posturing over process, and histrionics from the Labour party, which did not want to debate the issues on the Floor of the House. Had its members wanted to debate them, and not to push to the limit the bounds of what might be, but clearly is not, regarded as filibustering, we should have had adequate time for debate. We have heard a ludicrous set of objections from the Opposition.
There will be, in due course, further Welsh Grand Committees, and they will be called for matters that are appropriate for such Committees. Issues that are appropriate for the Floor of the House will be debated there. Issues that are appropriate for Grand Committees will be debated there. The next time Opposition Members have the opportunity to debate in Grand Committee, I hope they will contain themselves and listen with more respect to speakers on the Government side. Their synthetic outrage will not resonate in Wales at all. The Bill that is going through the House will ensure fairness for people in every part of the United Kingdom. Had the Opposition sought to do so they could have debated the issues on the Floor of the House, rather than avoiding doing so.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I am grateful to be allowed to speak briefly. That was a hugely disappointing speech from an hon. Gentleman whom I previously held in high regard. In particular he several times suggested that Opposition Members had not tried to take advantage of proceedings in the Chamber. That is completely untrue. I spent a great deal of time taking part in those debates, including speaking in them.
Kevin Brennan
Will my hon. Friend note that the Minister refused to give way because he did not have enough time, then did not use the time he had available?
Ian Lucas
Indeed. The Minister should be speaking for Wales, and he has become the lapdog of a Government who are a disgrace to the United Kingdom and are pursuing the Bill for entirely party political, partisan motives. We will have our say and be heard. We will speak for Wales, because we have a Government who do not.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The key point about the debate is that the Government have chosen 50 seats as a cut, knowing that that will affect Wales, Scotland, Manchester and other Labour areas. That is a cynical piece of gerrymandering, and is despicable—
Martin Caton (in the Chair)
Order. We must move on to the next debate, on the post office network.
Post Office Network
(13 years, 6 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
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton, and I thank you and Mr Speaker for giving the House the opportunity to debate this important subject. Although it may not be quite as lively as the previous debate, it nevertheless affects constituents throughout the United Kingdom. I therefore hope that many Members will be able to take part. I welcome the Minister to his seat. He is extremely welcome, and I am sure that he will consider my proposals with great sympathy.
This subject was more broadly debated in the main Chamber during the Second Reading of the Postal Services Bill last Wednesday. I start by offering my overwhelming support for the proposals put forward by the Government in their effort to protect the future of Royal Mail and the post office network. Unlike the previous Administration, which for more than 13 years chose to manage its decline, the Government have taken decisive action within their first few months.
The Secretary of State noted on Second Reading:
“The previous Government’s closure programme shut 5,000 post offices.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2010; Vol. 517, c. 352.]
Once and for all, the Bill reverses the decline of Royal Mail by tackling the £8 billion pension deficit; in terms of today’s debate, it provides a new vision for the future of the Post Office and guarantees the universal service obligation to the 28 million addresses in the UK. It is an assurance that the days of wholesale closure are over. I wholly support the Business Secretary.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has managed to secure this debate. He is precise in what he said about the previous Government, but would he care to tell the House how many post office closures took place in the five years prior to Labour taking power in 1997?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will find that there were more closures during the 13 years of Labour Government than under the previous Conservative Government. He should be careful when considering the figures.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
One problem is that the Post Office has to be so heavily subsidised that it classifies as state aid, and there are difficulties with the state aid rules. If we start to lever more private finance into Royal Mail and the Post Office, those difficulties will, I hope, not pertain. That will give the Post Office greater freedom to run post offices wherever it wants.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that intervention. The Minister will need to use all his ingenuity to make the European rules flexible. My hon. Friend and I have taken part in many Post Office debates, and we urged the previous Government and then Post Office managers to allow greater flexibility in running post offices and to allow more private finance to allow a greater range of services—in short, to run post offices a little more as if Tesco were running them given its branch network.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I did not support my Government’s change in the closure programme, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that many post offices closed under both Conservative and Labour Governments. He is a reasonable man and will acknowledge that one reason for the speedy run-down of business in many post offices was the internet and new technology. Does he accept that we now have the opportunity to upgrade the post office network so that it can provide 21st-century services, something that was denied it during the previous two decades?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
That is precisely the reason for today’s debate. We need a little innovative thinking and a forward-looking vision for the Post Office to ensure that the maximum amount of the network remains profitable and open to serve the communities in which post offices are placed. That is what I hope to hear from the Minister. I shall now make some progress.
The most important thing that the Secretary of State said last Wednesday was that
“the Post Office plays an essential social and economic role in our communities.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2010; Vol. 517, c. 351.]
All Members know that only too well. Probably the first person to hear about a problem in the community is the postmaster or postmistress. This is precisely why I fought so vehemently against the announced closure of 12 post offices in my constituency in 2008. The closure of the local post office can have a huge effect on the community, but none more so than those in rural parts of the country, which often have no public transport and have already witnessed a decline in such services as pubs, schools, local shops and other amenities.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the effect of closures on rural areas. He talks of reducing hours, but does he share my alarm that Post Office management seems to be retiring sub-postmasters in order to reduce the opening hours in rural areas of the sort that he and I represent? That is a worrying trend.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Yes. That was part of the dogma used to support the 5,000 post office closures that took place under the previous Government. We need to tailor post office services to meet the demand of the local population. That might mean more flexible hours, but not necessarily a reduction.
The post office is truly at the heart of the community, and I warmly welcome the steps that the Government are taking to keep it there and to diversify the services that it can offer. It was clear at the time of the closures two years ago that the Labour Government were insistent on pushing through their target of closing 5,000 post offices, irrespective of the viability of the individual branch. At times that meant that the will of the political masters was imposed against the better judgment of the Post Office, which knew that in certain circumstances, profitable branches were being closed. So badly thought out were some of the closures that a third of the last Prime Minister’s Cabinet actively campaigned against them.
I know that many Members will want to debate broader questions about the future of the post office network that they may believe were left unresolved after last Wednesday’s debate, but my comments are far more locally based. They centre on the prospects of a bright future for two branches that suffered during the 2008 cull. I quote the Business Secretary again. During last week’s debate he declared:
“I can today announce £1.34 billion of new funding for the Post Office over the spending review period.”
That is extremely welcome. He went on to state:
“The funding will be used to reform the current network, to change the underlying economics, and so reverse the years of decline and secure its long-term future.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2010; Vol. 517, c. 353.]
That is exactly the positive thinking that my hon. Friend the Minister and the coalition Government want to see.
That upbeat and optimistic statement will bring hope to many, including me. With that in mind, I present a ready-made solution to the Minister that I believe will fulfil all those goals. The best part about it is that it will barely cost a penny and will offer a high return. I hope that it will be music to the Minister’s ears, and will leave him singing like a postman. I come from Norfolk, Mr Caton, which has a song about singing postmen; but you will be glad to hear that I shall not sing it, even with a Norfolk accent, which I am perfectly capable of doing.
The two branches in question are in Stratton and the Beeches, both on the outskirts of the market town of Cirencester in my constituency. Both were closed in 2008, with no option for outreach. I vigorously campaigned against that decision because it was patently wrong. Although we are looking to the future this morning, I must go back to the past once more to highlight the ludicrous nature of those decisions.
I turn first to Stratton. There was a deep conviction in the community that the decision to close the branch was taken not on a financial basis, but simply because of its proximity to the Crown post office in Cirencester. The sub-postmaster, Mr John Lafford, reported that in January of that year the branch had a turnover of over £468,000, a point that I raised in this Chamber at the time. Such was the strength of Mr Lafford’s business case for that branch that he was willing to turn down a possible payment of £100,000 to keep the post office serving the community.
At the time of the closure, the branch also provided a far greater range of services than those that met purely postal needs. No other post office, including the Crown post office in Cirencester, had a lottery terminal, and Stratton was the only place where lottery cheques could be issued. That is the sort of innovative thinking and services that all post offices should be offering. By being placed in the local convenience store, the post office was truly at the heart of the community, as it is in so many towns and villages up and down the country.
The closure of the branch in the Beeches demonstrated a similar lack of forethought, given that there is a development in the vicinity that will see the building of approximately 650 new homes. That development would have provided even more trade for the current branch, if it had been kept open. However, it is when taken together that the closures become even more ridiculous, because of the collective number of people affected. Those two branches, being on the outskirts of Cirencester, took in trade from the outlying villages. When they closed, not only were 5,400 residents of Stratton and 12,000 people within a mile of the Beeches forced to use the one already unsuitable branch in Cirencester, so too were the residents of 19 villages covering 100 square miles.
The Cirencester branch was already blighted by long queues. It did not have suitable parking facilities, making it extremely difficult for people with large parcels to use the service. That is an important service for businesses, in particular in light of the growth of online marketplaces, of which there are many such businesses in Cirencester. It was also inaccessible to elderly and disabled people. The Post Office’s own figures show that over a fifth of those residents within a mile of the Stratton branch and nearly a third of those within a mile of the Beeches were retired. For many elderly people who wrote to me at the time, the concept of a walk to a bus stop—if it indeed existed—a bus ride, a walk to the post office, then a long queue before being served, in no way met the Post Office’s accessibility criteria.
Although it is true that the closure of the two branches was compliant with the accessibility criteria, it was no way in the spirit of them. It gives me no pleasure to report that my concerns, raised at the time, have been proved absolutely correct, particularly about the lack of suitability of the Cirencester Crown branch to cope with the influx of new customers. Indeed, research from Consumer Focus notes that since the 5,000 post office closures, average queue times have got significantly longer. The local impact is reflected in a letter from my constituent Valerie King, who wrote to me on 2 July this year with regard to the Cirencester Crown branch, where she noted:
“On many occasions I have been in a long queue, sometimes stretching outside....the elderly are particularly affected as there is nowhere for them to sit and the wait can be quite long. Invariably there are never more than three windows open which at busy times can be infuriating.”
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman clearly sets out some of the problems that have arisen from closures. I was pleased that in my constituency we were able to get the reprieve of two post offices, one in Brecon and one in Llandrindod Wells. Some of the others have to make do with the services of a mobile facility. I do not know if it is the experience of the hon. Gentleman but, for us, it is a very second-rate service, compared with the previous service, or even when a post office is situated in a local shop, pub or other facility.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I believe an outreach service can work very well, and I am going to go on to suggest a solution on those lines. It is variable; I have a lot of outreaches in my constituency, relating to the 12 post offices that were closed. Some work well, some not so well. It is up to all of us to try to see how we can rejig the services and the hours, working with the Post Office—I hope the Minister might be able to say something about that today—and, with a little bit more flexibility from the Post Office, to see how in the individual localities they can be made to work a little better.
The building of new houses in the Beeches has begun and, secondly, the Cirencester branch has been moved. Far from easing the problem, that has added to the car parking difficulty, forcing the parcel and other business into the hands of the courier operation and, as has already been said by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), into the internet business and so on as well.
I would like to offer my brief vision of the future to the Minister. I use “my” very loosely, as credit for this must go to Gary Kirkman, the postmaster of Bourton-on-the-Water and John Lafford, the former postmaster for Stratton, for framing the technical realities of the approach, to Councillors John Burgess and Peter Braidwood in Cirencester for their on-the-ground know-how, and to Lee Cox, the former postmaster of the Beeches. At the time of the closures, I suggested in my response to the consultation that at the very least an outreach service should be provided at Stratton and the Beeches, but that was not heeded. I have been monitoring the progress of outreach services elsewhere in the Cotswolds, as I have said. Although it is not always the full-time postal service that customers were previously used to, people work around the outreach hours, albeit sometimes reluctantly, and the postmasters are committed to an excellent service delivery.
It was in an approach to me by Gary Kirkman, the postmaster at Bourton-on-the-Water, who also provides outreach services in my constituency to the villages of Longborough, Guiting Power, Sherborne, Aldsworth, Temple Guiting and Stanway—so he has a track record of managing these outreach services—that I discovered that not only were his outreach services functioning well, but he has the capacity and will to take on more branches, such as the Beeches and Stratton. Discussions with the former postmasters John Lafford and Lee Cox in Stratton and the Beeches have proved that they continue to recognise the importance of the post office both to the community and to their businesses, and they both see a future for this proposal.
The Minister will no doubt be aware of my letter to Mr David Smith, the managing director of the Post Office, of which he received a copy, outlining these proposals. They bear repeating. It would be a hosted outreach branch with a location within Stratton and the Beeches, with the core post office in Bourton-on-the-Water acting as the service provider. Customers would be able to drop off parcels during these hours, and these would be taken to Bourton or Cirencester at the end of the day. I can report that since that letter was sent, I have received a letter dated 28 October from Mr Mark Wright, the network change development manager at the Post Office, stating:
“The post offices nationwide network is kept under constant review so that we continue to meet the changing needs of our customers whilst at the same time working to protect the financial stability of our network.”
That is beginning to show the sort of flexibility that I would expect from the Post Office. Mr Wright goes on to say that, as a consequence of my letter, he will be conducting a review of the proposals and has offered to meet me to discuss this further. Of course, I will take up that offer and use the opportunity to highlight the benefits of these proposals, and I will take the time I have left to remind the Minister of them.
The outreach services will provide a welcome alternative to the overworked, inaccessible Cirencester post office, without significantly affecting its profitability. Indeed, with the current difficulties of accessing this Crown branch people are choosing not to use it at all. As reported by Consumer Focus, Crown branches across the UK continue to lose approximately £60 million a year, almost one third of the Government’s subsidy of £180 million committed in 2011-12. Rather than taking business from the Cirencester branch, these proposals would provide scope for recovering business lost since the closure of the branches in Stratton and the Beeches. The really good news is that the proposal only has minimal variable costs which can be more than covered or reduced through alteration to the opening hours to match demand, and requires the purchase of very limited new equipment—limited to just a computer and a security box, I am informed. At a time when localism is high on the agenda, when carbon footprints and green issues are at the forefront of Government policy, this is a clear opportunity to return services to the locality where they are needed, thus saving unnecessary car journeys and reducing congestion in the town of Cirencester.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, I believe the proposal, if seen through, would send a clear message that the post office network under this Government is not just about closure, but is about providing a service in the location and at times that people really want to use it. That in turn will help profitability, underlining the fact that outreaches could in part be the saviour of the post office network. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills made clear last Wednesday:
“There will be no programme of closures under this Government.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2010; Vol. 517, c. 353.]
Although there may be no programme of closures, the Secretary of State and the Minister today will be aware that changes to the business environment still mean that sub-post offices are continually being closed due to non-profitability and retirement of postmasters. Although I have chosen to present the case for Stratton and the Beeches, I believe that this idea could be implemented nationwide, first, by seeing if outreach could be provided by a nearby branch when a full-time post office becomes unviable and closes. That would maintain postal services by replacing an unprofitable branch with a profitable outreach service, which in turn would strengthen the business case of the core provider.
Tackling the problem of branch closures while trying to maintain the number of post offices, through replacing a closed branch with a new business model of outreaches that would have a variable cost to meet demand, avoids the need to maintain the existing model, which has a high fixed-cost base and an uncertain viability in certain locations. Although an outreach is not a full-time post service, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) when he intervened, it can provide all those services offered by a Crown post office, such as the purchase of bonds, foreign currency, insurance and so on, which sub-branches cannot always offer.
As the Government look to extend the range of services offered by post offices, each outreach provider could do the same. That may be of even greater importance as proposals for the Royal Mail are moved forward. With many postmasters deriving some of their income from running a sorting office for Royal Mail, if they were to lose that part of their business they would need to find a way to make up the difference. Taking on additional outreach is a simple and beneficial solution all round. I am confident that the proposals that I have for Stratton and the Beeches, by meeting demand, will be profitable for both the outreach provider and the Post Office. In addition, they would set a precedent nationwide if those conditions can be met.
Although I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members will talk about the wider picture of the post office network today—an issue that the Minister will also want to address—I ask the Minister for his reassurance that he will use his political influence to work with the Post Office to see these innovative proposals through. Previous Ministers used their political influence incorrectly on the Post Office in 2008. He has the opportunity to use his ministerial responsibility to help to correct that wrong and to demonstrate this Government’s commitment to protecting and growing the post office network nationwide. The message that the Government need to give to the Post Office is not “closure, closure, closure” but “opportunity, opportunity, opportunity”.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing this important debate.
I have been debating the issue of post offices in all the time I have been in the House, and throughout that time there has been a continual decline in their number. Just before the general election of 2001, there were 1,933 post offices in Scotland. By March of this year, the figure had declined to just 1,446. In many areas of Scotland, the decline has been worse than in others.
In my own constituency of Angus, we have lost a number of post offices despite vigorous opposition to their closure. I am pleased to say that, in the last closure programme, we managed to save three post offices through local campaigns in the constituency. However, there remains a problem with many post offices, as alluded to by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds. Some are now in insufficient premises. Three of the large towns in my constituency—Forfar, Kirriemuir and Montrose—are now down to one post office that serves the entire town. Often, there are large queues at those post offices, which causes great frustration for customers.
I note that the Government have said that there will be no more closure programmes, but as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, that does not necessarily mean that there will be no more closures, because many sub-post offices are still facing financial challenges, particularly in these difficult times. I suspect that there will continue to be closures for other reasons.
I do not want to get involved in a sterile argument about who is to blame for the most post office closures—whether it was the last Government or the Tory Government before that. The truth is that post offices have been closing for a number of years, and we should look at how we move post offices forward and prevent closures in the future.
It should be borne in mind that many of the remaining sub-post offices are not stand-alone post offices but are coupled with a shop, which is often the only shop left in the local community. Indeed, I can think of only two post offices in my constituency that are not part of another business. It seems to me that in the last few years, the Post Office has deliberately gone out of its way to get rid of stand-alone post offices and get postmasters to take post offices on as part of another business, which is an interesting development to note.
The post office business itself does not provide a living for those running the business, but it is an important part of the business—the two elements cross-subsidise each other. The loss of the post office business or any other part of the business could bring the whole business down. In my view, we need to find ways of ensuring that the whole business is more viable.
I point out to the Minister the example of what has happened in Scotland. The Scottish Government have introduced a business bonus scheme that provides relief to businesses with properties in Scotland with a combined rateable value of £18,000 or less. The scheme has now been expanded, and where the cumulative rateable value of the properties of a business falls between £18,000 and £25,000, the scheme will offer some relief—up to 25%—to individual properties. As a result, all properties with a rateable value of up to £10,000 pay no business rates; those properties with a rateable value of between £10,000 and £12,000 get relief of 50%; those properties between £12,000 and £18,000 get relief of 25%; and, as I explained, if the cumulative values of the properties of a business are up to £25,000, the business can also get 25% relief on individual properties.
That scheme has been a huge boost to small businesses in constituencies such as mine, where many were struggling with the rates, which is one of small businesses’ major costs. It has obviously helped small post offices in villages and towns throughout Scotland.
In addition, the Scottish Government have launched a post office diversification fund, which has recently made awards totalling £1 million to help post offices to diversify and launch new business activities, in order to strengthen the vital role that they play in our local communities. The fund opened in July, with 49 post offices in 22 areas bidding successfully and receiving awards of up to £25,000. Examples of the diversification schemes that were approved include setting up an internet café, which the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) was talking about earlier, and selling local produce. Indeed, I believe that one of the successful schemes involved setting up a post office in a fish and chip shop. That shows that those who run post offices are really thinking about how to meet the challenge of the future. The Welsh Assembly has, I believe, taken similar measures to boost post offices.
Those are concrete examples of how relatively small sums of money can be utilised—
Albert Owen
The hon. Gentleman is making a very strong argument about rural post offices and indeed about some post offices in urban areas, including small towns. As he said, the diversification programme gives grants, but one of the drawbacks is that if a business suffers and has to close or change, it loses that grant. Is there not an issue with mutualisation? I hope that the Minister will refer to it in his winding-up speech. Businesses are uncertain about which part will be mutual and what assets actually belong to the postmaster and can be held on to by them.
Mr Weir
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I was going to come on to the question of mutualisation in a moment.
As I was saying, the examples I have just given are concrete examples of how relatively small sums of money can be utilised to help to strengthen the post office network and hopefully put it on a more secure financial footing, thus helping to boost economic growth in many rural communities where there is often little other economic activity.
Indeed, Mervyn Jones, the commercial director of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, commented on the Scottish scheme:
“This announcement of successful applicants by the Scottish Government is most welcome. It means that many sub-postmasters can now invest in their businesses which will help them make their post offices more viable. The success of this scheme demonstrates the commitment that both the Scottish Government and our sub-postmasters have in maintaining this vital community service.”
I also note that, in a briefing for this debate, the National Federation of SubPostmasters says:
“Local and devolved government should offer full, automatic small business rates relief to support post offices; and provide grant funding to enable improvements in post offices and their retail businesses.”
That is what the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly are already doing, so perhaps the Minister should consider doing it in the parts of England that could also benefit from such schemes.
However much help is given to sub-post offices, it will not assist them if the basic business is allowed to atrophy. We had a lively debate on the Postal Services Bill last week. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I still oppose the privatisation of Royal Mail, but I am interested in some of the possibilities for the post office network that are contained in the Bill, and I would like to explore his intentions with regard to those possibilities.
In that debate on the Postal Services Bill, I asked if there was any international equivalent of what is being proposed in the Bill, whereby there would be a division between the mail carrier and the post offices. I did not get a response to that question; indeed, it is a question that the National Federation of SubPostmasters has also asked. I wonder whether the Minister can let us know today if such an example exists that we can look at, to see how the proposed system might operate.
Clearly, that matter is of some importance because much of the work of the existing network comes through the inter-business agreement between the two companies in the network. Once again, the National Federation of SubPostmasters has raised concerns that that agreement might not be continued after privatisation. I know that the Minister’s view is that the brand identities of Royal Mail and Post Office are so interlinked that it would be in their interests to continue, but I am not so sure, once commercial profit becomes the overriding motive of the privatised delivery service, that it will necessarily continue with that link rather than considering other links as ways of delivering services. The future of post offices, particularly those outside major urban centres, remains in danger.
I turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn about the mutualisation of the Post Office. I am a huge supporter of mutuals, and the idea is interesting. I would genuinely like to know more from the Minister and the coalition Government about how they propose to take it forward and how it would work. As I said earlier, all but two of the post offices in my constituency form part of another business. In other areas, many are situated in branches of WH Smith, for example, or a local supermarket. The structure is diverse, and it is difficult to see how it might work as a mutual organisation. I am not saying that that is impossible, but I wish that he would give us more detail so we can consider it, especially before the Bill is debated in Committee. I think that many Members would be interested in supporting the concept of a mutual structure, but we need to know the detail of how it will work. There is a great reluctance simply to accept the concept without knowing exactly what is being proposed.
Many post offices are integrated with other parts of a business, so individual sub-postmasters are concerned to know how that will work in a mutual structure. As the hon. Member for Ynys Môn asked, will the post office or the whole business be part of the mutual? How will the mutual interrelate with the rest of the business? If the Minister can convince many of us that there is a way forward, I think he will be able to gain support for the mutualisation rather than the privatisation of Royal Mail.
The post office network continues to play a vital part in the life of local communities, even in its slimmed-down state, and I hope that it will continue to do so for many years to come. I also hope that the Minister is right in saying that the days of mass closures are behind us, but it seems to me that a great deal of uncertainty remains about the future of the post office network, given the privatisation of the mail carrier and the woolly nature of the privatisation proposals. He needs urgently to flesh out Government policy on mutualisation.
The devolved Administrations are doing much to help keep existing post offices open, but we need a clear path for the future of the whole network and the confidence for sub-postmasters to continue investing in their businesses. If mutualisation is to work, they need a much stronger say in how those businesses are run, but there must still be a link to the main carrier, Royal Mail.
Martin Caton (in the Chair)
I would like to start the winding-up speeches at 10 past 12. As you can see, a large number of Members have indicated that they want to contribute to the debate. More brevity means more speakers.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for securing this debate on what is clearly an important issue; hence the number of Members here. I also reinforce his comments. Post offices are the lifeline of our local communities. They provide advice and community cohesion. Indeed, one very small post office in Kingskerswell in my constituency provides a local newsletter, which is fantastic. It is absolutely right that the value of post offices cannot be judged only in economic terms. I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments regarding the £1.3 billion investment, which I welcome, being offered by the Government over the next four years to prevent closures and assist with refits.
A decade of closures has hit my part of the world particularly hard. The south-west has had the largest decline of any region in the number of post offices. During that period, we lost 214 through Labour’s urban reinvention programme and 277 through the network closure programme. As a result, the south-west has only 1,303 post offices left, which is not very many given the rural spread and nature of its communities.
Survival in my part of the world and in my constituency has, in many cases, been driven by local support. Broadhempston, one of the smallest villages in my constituency, is a good example of the big society in action. It would not have survived without the support of local volunteers. The securing of premises, fundraising and manpower have been locally driven; the only paid individual is one part-time manager. It is a tribute to what that community, and communities in general, can achieve. The post office opening hours in that small village are Monday to Friday, 9 to 12. That is the beginning of a good service, but a number of problems remain that I feel the Government can help us address.
We need to enable small post offices to offer more services. Many of the last decade’s closures occurred because the ability to provide services such as TV licences or payment of car tax were either rationed to one post office in a group of four or five, or removed altogether and offered on the internet instead. I urge the Government to consider what we can do about that.
I also ask the Government to be sensitive to local needs. Broadhempston provides services in the morning, but not in the afternoons or on Saturdays. At the moment, the Post Office is refusing to pay the postmaster to work those additional hours, which are crucial. Broadhempston has no broadband, so our businesses depend absolutely on the post office. The Government should be locally sensitive in deciding where to agree to fund extra services. I would like some of that £1.3 billion to go not just to refits but to service provision. Afternoon services will also benefit an elderly population and small businesses; across the country, 19% of small businesses visit the post office daily, and 47% visit twice a week.
My third point has already been mentioned. How can we provide financial support? I welcome the concept of mutualisation and, like many Members, want more information about how it will work, but I would also like us to support those who are already helping themselves. Individuals have invested a lot locally, both in bricks and mortar and through volunteer support. I would like those who have put themselves and their financial assets forward to be helped with match funding or other financial assistance, because many of them have entered into extremely long-term commitments.
In closing—I have made my contribution short—I ask the Minister to consider carefully the specific needs of the south-west. Geographically, we are spread out, and we need support on the ground for our small rural post offices.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I am pleased to be called in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for raising the issue yet again. As he said, he has a good and honourable history on the matter.
I am pleased to continue the debate that we started last Wednesday, when we had only limited time. As the Minister knows, I have serious concerns about the plan to break up the Post Office and Royal Mail. I have been the secretary of the Communication Workers Union liaison group in this place for more than a decade, and have worked with sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses on every campaign to oppose the closures that have been deeply damaging to many communities in all our constituencies, particularly in rural areas, as has been pointed out.
My concern about the announcement is what the detail will be. I do not remember Hooper recommending such measures as necessary to save Royal Mail. All the things that Hooper 1 and 2 focused on did not result in a recommendation to break up the two organisations. As has been said, there are substantial synergies. One third of Post Office’s income comes from the synergies and the services it delivers for Royal Mail.
I have three concerns for the Minister to address. What will the announced subsidy of £1.34 billion be spent on? What back-of-a-fag-packet calculations has he done? He has put none in the public domain so far. Will that £1.34 billion come on top of the currently planned subsidy of £180 million a year from 2011, or will it include that sum? On the cost of breaking up Post Office Ltd, how much is it calculated will be required to set up a parallel structure removing it from Royal Mail? It is currently a subsidiary of Royal Mail to whose new chief executive it is answerable through another chief executive.
The second problem relates to the historical business model of Royal Mail versus the promises that there will be continuing synergies. It is easy to make promises that that will happen—I heard the new chief executive say that it will—but, in reality, when it comes down to the wire will that be the case? For example, when Royal Mail at the centre was asking too much for the right to issue TV licences, it transferred that business out and would not take it. My local post office could not get that business because Royal Mail at the centre was asking for a fee that there was no willingness to pay. In fact, we started to get that service from PayPal at a service station at the bottom of my village.
Mr Russell Brown
That very point was also raised by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris); the saving was £100 million for TV Licensing. It was a commercial contract for which the Post Office, frankly, was not even in the ballpark.
Michael Connarty
I recall the detail well, but to me it was an example of a centralised organisation not having in mind the interests of the peripheral parts of the organisation, particularly small businesses. That is why although I am a Co-op party member, I have serious concerns about a mutual taking over all of Post Office Ltd, because it will become another central organisation, with its own raison d'être that is not necessarily the same as that of people in sub-post offices. I have some serious concerns about how the detail of the proposal will work.
I see the Minister smiling. The other issue is that this is another Lib Dem promise. We know that their promises are worth absolutely nothing, particularly to those who voted for them. That is similarly the case with regards the question raised by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir). To say that there will be no closure programme is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. It is like saying, “The world will stand still because we have done this in the Postal Services Bill.” The world will not stand still; changes will be required. Again, that was mentioned in a Lib Dem promise. It is easy to make promises, but unfortunately the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) is actually a Minister now; he is in government and he must back up such promises with facts. Is he saying that regardless of how far the income of every single sub-post office in every village or urban community declines, the Government will continue to pile in subsidy? As I said in the debate last week, my calculation is that it would take £270 million a year to guarantee that.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
We have heard many opinions so far and my hon. Friend is making a very important point, but there is a way to boil things down. Most countries have specific provisions in legislation to protect post office numbers but, as it stands, the Postal Services Bill does not.
Michael Connarty
My hon. Friend has made a factual statement and it will be recorded in Hansard. There is, in fact, a duty on the Post Office in Germany to provide post offices for towns and communities of a certain size; it has to do that as part of its duty. Under the Postal Services Act 2000, that should have been part of our duty. That legislation said that we could have freedom, but the freedom should have been constrained by discipline, which would have saved post offices in small communities. We should have looked at the business case in such communities and guaranteed that the subsidy would go in.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right. Nothing stands still in business. There is a cleansing effect and businesses going to the wall are part of that. However, does he recognise that the stage before that, which is within management control, is to help people in small businesses run their business better? That has not been done effectively by the Post Office to date.
Michael Connarty
The hon. Gentleman is slightly over-egging the pudding. I think that the National Federation of SubPostmasters has tried such an approach. It is not as though that organisation has been standing still; it has been talking to its members about innovation and getting more footfall, as the footfall declines. Let us be frank. Many of us are now semi-urban dwellers who travel to large centres to do our shopping—we drive past our post office, regardless of the service it provides. I am and always have been a post office user, but my local postmasters and postmistresses tell me that very few people from the big estates in my village use the post office there; they drive to the centre of the town, where there is a big supermarket and post office.
Michael Connarty
I shall not give way, because I am conscious of the time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind, but I think that other hon. Members want to speak.
My third concern relates to the structure of the Post Office itself. There are two types of post office: Crown offices, whose closure causes the most damage in terms of people’s perception of what they get from the post office, and privately owned, subsidised sub-post offices. The plan was that in 2011 we would need £180 million to maintain the subsidy. Many such post offices are rural; very few are in urban areas.
There was an early Crown post office closure model in my area; a sorting office was kept in Grangemouth in my main town, and a Crown office was retained and rented out to a former post office manager. He has a wonderful shop there. However, the Government are now talking about restructuring in such a way that they will take the sorting office and delivery office away, and it will become completely unviable for an individual to rent such a unit.
In Linlithgow, which used to be the county town, the sorting office went first and then the Post Office said it was unviable to keep the front shop so the post office was moved into a large sweet shop—everyone will know the name, but I will not give it any publicity. Every Monday, it is overcrowded and people cannot get in when it is bucketing down with rain outside. That post office is at the far east of the town. Anyone who knows the geography of Scotland will know that from South Queensferry at the bridges there is no post office until that one in the east of Linlithgow. After that, there are no post offices until Polmont in Falkirk. Post office provision has been unbelievably stripped back.
That is what happens when delivery and sorting are taken away. The same thing happened in Bathgate, where the post office is at the back of a supermarket. If there is a market model, the structure of the Crown offices, which will be given over to Post Office Ltd, will mean there is temptation to do the sensible thing—under a market model—and move away from retaining such buildings in the centre of towns and put them in easier areas outside the town, such as industrial estates. That will be a real threat to Crown offices, which are fundamental to the viability and perception of post offices.
The final problem I shall mention is PayPal. Someone who now works for the Communication Workers Union used to work for PayPal at quite a senior level. They left PayPal and eventually came to the CWU. They said that the board of PayPal would take a loss-leading position to strip out the Post Office monopoly on the things it does now with Royal Mail. That is its aim. PayPal also wants to do cash deliveries. At the moment, there is a system of secure cash deliveries to post offices. PayPal wants to do that. It also wants to pay out benefits—it wants to do everything. PayPal will undertake a campaign to undermine Post Office Ltd, regardless of whether it is a mutual.
The Government are throwing Post Office Ltd to the wolves. The subsidies will not continue, or they will have to grow exponentially. Will the Government explain what safeguards there will be? As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) suggested, will they write in a guarantee that every community of a certain size will have a post office and that the Government will subsidise it? If not, they are sending Post Office Ltd to destruction.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing this Westminster Hall debate. I thank the Minister for being here and for producing various briefings on the Postal Services Bill for my colleagues. The future of the post office network is close to my heart, not only because I am one of the vice-chairs of the all-party group on post offices, but because my rural constituents of Colne Valley, west Yorkshire, have suffered many post office closures in recent years. In fact, my parents lost their local branch in Holmbridge in the past couple of years.
We all know the crucial role post offices play in our local communities. It is sometimes only when they have gone that we really appreciate what they offered our communities. The role of the Meltham post office in my patch has become all the more important because the last bank branch has closed there this month, with Lloyds TSB pulling out. That leaves the post office branch with the only town centre cash machine, which is crucial.
I am very lucky because I live just a couple of hundred yards from a fabulous community post office in my village of Honley. I can tax my car there, get foreign currency, get my dry cleaning done, and I can even get tasty fresh olive bread—yes, even in west Yorkshire we get such lovely goodies. However, as we heard earlier, we cannot get everything done there. I cannot renew my TV licence and, although I can pay my Yorkshire Water bill, I would be penalised £2.50 for the transaction. The branch is also doing Santander bank work. It is handling bags full of coins and change from businesses and charities, which is a good service. However, for an hour’s coin handling, the sub-postmaster tells me that they receive only about £1. That is hardly the basis for a stable business, so all is not well.
What can be done? The National Federation of SubPostmasters has identified several measures that could enhance the network. We heard about many such measures during the debate, and we will hear some more in the next 40 minutes. However, I will end my contribution with the thoughts of my local sub-postmaster, Brenda, who has been running the Honley branch for four and a half years. I called her last night while jotting down some notes. Please remember that it is her business and her family’s livelihood.
She made three points. First, Government Departments, central and local, and including the Department for Work and Pensions, must make the Post Office their No. 1 facilitator of services—a point we heard earlier—and prioritise it ahead of telephone and online provision. Secondly, we must understand that post offices need to deliver more work to flourish. They are ideally placed to be the focal point of the big society. Thirdly, we must speculate to accumulate; we have already heard about the £1.3 billion of investment, which Brenda welcomes, but we need to invest now if we are to have a network for decades to come. Money from Royal Mail needs to be invested to bring the branches into the 21st century. Brenda highlighted the fact that that means basic equipment, such as proper scales, which they struggle without. We need to invest in that if we are to have an accessible network that makes sub-postmasters proud, so that in 10 years’ time we will not need to put in the rural subsidy.
Jason McCartney
I am afraid that I have almost finished. In summary, the Postal Services Bill signals a crossroads for the post office network. It is a great opportunity, and I hope that my colleagues in all parts of the Chamber will join me in fighting for a sustainable, long-term future for our post office network.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I apologise for having to leave during the previous speaker’s contribution, Mr Caton—it was probably the excitement of the previous debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing this important and timely debate, which follows the Government’s announcement last week.
I want to start by saying that I support the post office network, and I do so as a customer; I ensure that I pay all my bills across the counter at my local town post office. In doing so, I hope to set an example. As a Member, I ensure that all my office transactions are done in local post offices. As has been mentioned, it is wrong for Members to drive past post offices that are closing down and say, “Isn’t it a crying shame?”, before going to other outlets. We must lead by example in our communities if we are to keep our post offices.
The important business for post offices is not only from individuals, but from Government Departments and local government. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds rightly said that we need innovative business. One simple business transaction that local government could encourage council tax payers to undertake would be to pay their bills in local post offices. During the network change programme, I suggested that to my local council, because it was outraged that central Government were closing post offices. I challenged it simply to state on the notice that it sent to each household in my constituency that that service was available in post offices, but it refused to do so. Worse still, the chief executive said categorically that the council could save a lot of money by having people pay the bills electronically or in one-off payments.
I think that we are all in this together. We talk about the big society, and my Anglesey community has a big heart, but we do not need lectures on that from anyone. There needs to be interdependency and help from the public, private and third sectors, a point I will come to later. I opposed the network change programme’s closures because it was too rigid and came from the centre. I wish that the Conservative Opposition at the time had said that they would put money into that, but they did not commit themselves in the last Parliament to put in the subsidy, which is why I did not support the Conservative motion. I abstained, and people who know me know that I do not do that very often; if I think something is right I will vote for it, and if I think something is wrong I will vote against it. It was wrong of the Conservatives not to commit themselves to the subsidy, but the new Government have said that they will commit additional money to help the post office network, and I support that. It would be churlish not to do so. I think that that is important and must be sustained.
Echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), I am confused about the mutualisation programme. I support mutualisation. Indeed, I told the previous Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for the Post Office at the time that Royal Mail should be mutualised, because I believe that it is so special in the fabric of British society that it must be treated differently. It should be neither left to the laissez-faire approach and the free-for-all of the market, nor cushioned as it had been under previous management and Governments. I was told that mutualisation was the wrong model, but I do not think that Hooper looked at that model carefully enough. Welsh Water, for example, which operates in my constituency, is a not-for-profit organisation. It provides a universal, quality service in Wales, and all its profits are reinvested in the company for the benefit of the customers. That is the kind of model we need for Royal Mail. I hope that the Minister will give some details on the mutualisation for the post office network.
Ultimately, post offices are private businesses in the main. They are run by individuals who have invested their own hard cash, time and effort to provide a public service. They are private means. There are also the private subsidies from Government and, in the case of Wales and Scotland, a special diversification programme to help keep the businesses open, so there are three streams of investment to the post office business.
I wonder how the mutualisation will work and, if there is difficulty, how post offices will get help. There will be difficulty, because business is dropping as the pattern continues of people using mechanisation and electronic mail, which is taking over. There are big concerns, which I am sure the Minister will try to address, because it is important that people know now what will happen. I have friends who are postmen, sub-postmasters and in management, whom I work with, and they are all confused about that. We need clarity on that matter
Gregg McClymont
I want to add to something my hon. Friend has said. Our understanding from Post Office Ltd is that only about 4,000 of the 11,500 post offices now open are profitable. In addition to the public subsidy, Post Office Ltd cross-subsidises the loss-making post offices to the tune of £400 million. The Government subsidy is welcome, but we have to be clear that it really is an uphill task. Mutualisation will have to be tremendously successful to make up the shortfall for those 7,500 post offices.
Albert Owen
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although it is not for me to answer on the Government’s proposals. I would like to see something developed along the lines of the people’s bank. I would like to see credit union activities in local communities, in which people will have a real say on what goes on.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning credit unions. Does he agree with me that one of the useful things that the Government could do with the subsidy they propose to put into post offices is support the back office integration that needs to happen and the technology that would allow post offices and credit unions to work together?
Albert Owen
I absolutely agree, and I think that a mutual, with its ethics, could do that. There is a way forward, but I am unsure of the detail at present, so I will not commit that that can be done in the proposals we have seen and in the form they have been given.
Other Members wish to speak, so I will conclude my remarks by referring to another issue that the National Federation of SubPostmasters has raised: the separation of the Post Office from Royal Mail, and the inter-business agreement. The hon. Member for Angus asked whether there is an international model that the Minister has in mind that is successful, and I would be grateful if the Minister responded. If we do away with a third of the business or privatise it, there is a risk that it will look at its shareholders as its main priority, rather than the post office network. Those are my concerns, and I am sure that the Minister will look to address them.
[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I will make a short contribution, as I know that many Members wish to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing the debate on an issue that is important for all our constituents. The two counties represented in my constituency were badly affected by the most recent round of post office closures. In the Yorkshire part, we lost post offices in Airmyn, Pollington and on Westfield avenue in Goole. Over in Lincolnshire, we lost them at Wrawby, West Butterwick and Eastoft. When my village of Airmyn lost its post office, we sadly also lost our village shop, so we are left with only our pub.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon): Does my hon. Friend agree that rural pubs offer an opportunity to protect and enhance the post office network? The Red Lion pub in my constituency recently submitted an application to offer the post office service, which I support, as it is probably a good opportunity to protect our service.
Andrew Percy
I do. As it happens, I was in a different Red Lion this past weekend, in Epworth—it is wonderful. There is an opportunity for pubs and other organisations to be used for outreach services. In fact, I was planning to speak about outreach in a couple of minutes.
The impact of post office closures, particularly on rural communities, cannot be overestimated. I do not believe that the previous Government fully appreciated the impact of losing services such as the village post office and shop.
Julian Sturdy
My hon. Friend makes a good point about losing the local post office and shop. We had a similar case in Fulford in my constituency: the post office and shop were not viable, but together they are a viable concern and an important community facility. Once the post office goes, the local shop goes, and that is something that we have to remember.
Andrew Percy
I absolutely agree. I remember reading in local newspapers that my hon. Friend ran a campaign for the Fulford post office and delivered a petition to No. 10 Downing street. I know that he worked incredibly hard on that.
I want to say a couple of things about what local authorities can do to support the post office network. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) made a point about that. One of my local councils in north Lincolnshire attempted two or three years ago to put into the council budget and local council policy the establishment of council terminals in every sub-post office so that residents could pay their bills and access council services and essential advice. All of that was costed and put into the budget proposals but, sadly, it was rejected by the Labour-run council, which missed a huge opportunity. I am sure there are plenty of examples around the country of missed opportunities to engage local authorities in doing what they should be doing, which is standing up for their rural areas as much as their urban areas, and supporting what we all accept is important. Everyone has fine words. They say that they support post offices, but actually doing something is a little harder sometimes.
Another point that I want to pick up on is rural broadband, where post offices could have a role. Several of my villages have no access to broadband and are unlikely to get it any time soon. I welcome the announcement about the additional funding that will be coming our way. There is the potential in some of our villages for post offices to help roll out a mobile broadband or satellite broadband network, but there must be structures in place to manage a local solution such as that. Perhaps the Government could give some consideration to it.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the back-door closure of post offices, which I raised in a debate last week? I am enormously grateful to the Minister for recognising the problem. He may be interested to know that, of the 2,406 audits that were done in 2009, 265 suspensions were held, and there were only two reinstatements after appeal. That very much reinforces the picture that suspensions are being used as a means of closing post offices, which I am sure we would all deprecate.
Andrew Percy
I absolutely agree. I join my hon. Friend in condemning that, and I am sure that the Minister will respond to his comments.
The additional funding is extremely welcome. In fact, it was publicised in my local paper just last weekend. I was out door-knocking this weekend in several villages, and quite a few people who had seen the article told me how grateful they are that the Government have finally committed to the post office network.
Will there be additional funding to extend outreach services where we have lost post offices? We lost several post offices, which were replaced with outreach. Unfortunately, the outreach services are often available for only two or three hours a week during the middle of the working day. For people such as myself in my village, it is utterly impossible to use those services. Perhaps we could have a bit more information on whether outreach services will benefit from the subsidy.
We all have a responsibility to support the post office network and Royal Mail in general. During my four years of campaigning, I used Royal Mail for all my deliveries—my opponent sadly did not. When we tax our cars, we can lead by example; we can use Royal Mail and support our post offices. As I said, words are easy but actions are sometimes a little harder, but we all have a role to play in our communities.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. The previous Chairman indicated that the winding-up speeches would start at 10 past 12. Realistically, we will have time for only two more speakers, so I intend to call Gregg McClymont followed by Lorely Burt. I ask that they each speak for three minutes.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I shall speak even more briefly than that.
I spoke on Second Reading and have had conversations and briefings with the Minister. All politics is local, so it is understandable that we have heard a great deal today about local post office branches; in villages, in particular, they are a lifeline. However, I want to raise the broader picture and speak a little about how the Postal Services Bill is drafted.
I said in an intervention that statutory provision for post offices should be written into the Bill. At the moment, it is unclear what mutualisation actually means, but however well it proceeds we have a big problem, because 7,500 post offices do not make a profit. The two most successful mail services in the world are the German and Dutch services. In both those countries, provision for post office services is written into statute. I reiterate the point that however worthy the good intentions of the Government and Members on both sides of the House in respect of the Bill, unless we make provision in it for post office numbers, given the economics of Royal Mail and the Post Office, we are looking at significant closures down the line.
The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) made a valid point about allowing managers to manage, but given the economics of the Royal Mail and post offices, even wonderful managers will have a difficult task protecting the 7,500 post offices that do not make a profit.
Gregg McClymont
I am tempted to produce a line from the Leader of the Opposition: I understand that I ask the questions and the Government answer them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that given the logic of the economics of the post office network and Royal Mail, it is difficult to see how to protect the 11,500 post offices we currently have unless we write into the Bill provision to protect them? That is the key point.
Gregg McClymont
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s confidence and enthusiasm. We hear a great deal—understandably—from Government Members about the Labour Government closing 5,000 post offices, but that Government’s criteria meant that we have maintained 11,500 although only 4,000 are profitable. I say in all sincerity that unless we write into the Bill provision to protect the number of post offices we have now, we will see post office closures down the line, and that is something that everyone in the House would deprecate. I ask the Minister whether he will put that provision in the Bill.
My final point is about the universal service. I understand that the first universal service order that Ofcom will make as the regulator will not require parliamentary assent. When Ofcom makes its universal service order we will not be able to say that we do not accept it. That is important.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
For the past 10 years, we watched the near desecration of the post office network under the Labour Government, who presided over a subsidised decline of the post office. Well, things will change radically. I very much look forward to the statement that I believe is coming tomorrow. There will be no closure programme under this Government.
Lorely Burt
No, I am sorry, but I have only two minutes.
There will be more services and more potential. I greatly welcome separation from the Royal Mail. It will give the Post Office much more say in its own affairs; it will no longer be a junior partner. Can we build into the Postal Services Bill provision for the Secretary of State to seek a review of the access criteria, subject to parliamentary approval? There is concern about that.
I would like to know a little more about what conditions need to be in place before mutualisation can happen.
Lorely Burt
No, I am sorry, but I have no time.
On funding, it is absolutely brilliant that we will have the £1.3 billion which, at last, will give the Post Office the boost that it needs. The most important thing is that it will enable the Post Office to move into the 21st century. We have already been told a little about essentials, and we are really looking forward to bringing down the barriers that have been created by previous Governments, so that we can open up the Post Office to the sort of thing that it is very capable of doing. Government work, new mail services—including local collection and drop-off—the Post Office bank, which was mentioned by Members earlier, access to all the major high street banks and benefit changes are all things that the Post Office is well equipped to do, and I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister outlining in the statement tomorrow exactly what can be done.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for the Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing the debate. It is clear from the turnout and the speeches that hon. Members on both sides of the House have high regard for the post office network.
Our post office network is much more than a network of businesses. Post offices are the lifeblood of our communities and an essential part of our social network. For many people, particularly those who do not have bank accounts or access to the internet, they are the only means of accessing services, withdrawing pensions and paying bills. We all know sub-postmasters who frequently go that extra mile, those who will notice that Mrs Jones has not turned up to collect her pension and will make discreet inquiries to see if anything is amiss.
When we were in government, we established access criteria for the first time, in recognition of the business and social importance of the post office network. The access criteria developed by the Labour Government ensured that 99% of people living in deprived urban areas, and 90% of people nationally, would be within one mile of a post office. That is extremely important, because it provides the access that some of the most vulnerable in our society need. We then put in money to keep open 11,500 post offices, whereas a purely commercial network would have been reduced to some 4,000. We put in £150 million per year up to 2011 to subsidise that network, with an increase to £180 million for 2011-12. We welcome the recent Government announcement that there will be continued support for post offices.
Anyone who runs a business knows that it is necessary to be constantly prepared to change and adapt. Post offices need to attract new customers, and offer new products to existing customers. Sub-postmasters retire and new people come in. When someone first decides to take over the running of a local post office, they need to know that their business will be viable. When sub-postmasters retire, they sometimes decide to keep the premises as their home. That means that newcomers have not only to identify premises and find the funds to start up, but also find the funds to install the counters and facilities to meet post office requirements. To make that sort of commitment they need the confidence that they can make a go of it, and absolutely fundamental to that confidence is the inter-business agreement with Royal Mail. That is why the National Federation of SubPostmasters wants the guarantee of a minimum 10-year agreement signed and sealed between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd. Anything less would be a betrayal. It would be a death sentence hanging over all but the busiest of our post offices.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I share the hon. Lady’s concern about the impact on business start-ups and business innovation. I represent a very rural constituency, and one thing that we have seen over recent years is new businesses springing up and using the internet to sell goods further afield than the isolated rural areas in which they are based. I am very concerned that the loss both of the universal service commitment and of post offices is inhibiting business growth. That will absolutely undermine existing small businesses and disincentivise new ones, not only in the post office network but in the wider rural economy.
Nia Griffith
Indeed. The hon. Lady makes reference to the important role of post offices in rural communities, but those very post offices are the ones that would be most threatened if the inter-business agreement were not in place. It is absolutely vital, as the National Federation of Sub-postmasters suggests, that we have some sort of 10-year agreement to guarantee that business.
Proceeding to privatise Royal Mail without such guarantees for Post Office Ltd would also call into question the wisdom of investing considerable sums of taxpayers’ money in a business that had no chance of being viable—a bit like redecorating flood-prone properties without shoring up the flood defences. It is not sufficient for there to be vague assurances and assumptions that somehow Royal Mail would automatically choose Post Office Ltd for its counter services. No astute business person would be satisfied with anything less than protection through written contracts and legislation. The Postal Services Bill does not provide that protection, and the Opposition will be tabling amendments that would provide Post Office Ltd with the necessary certainty that a privatised Royal Mail will continue to use the post office network for its counter services.
It is very worrying to hear the National Federation of SubPostmasters report that the Government are very resistant to its requests for the guarantee of a 10-year agreement. That is no way to treat sub-postmasters who have invested considerable sums of their own money in the local post office network, and it will certainly not encourage new entrants to take over when sub-postmasters retire. That is one area in which the Government can, and should, take action to safeguard the third of Post Office income that derives from Royal Mail.
Furthermore, one in seven rural post offices provides premises, facilities and supervision for Royal Mail delivery staff. Sub-postmasters running the 900 mail-work post offices are paid according to the number of postmen and women they supervise. That pay is frequently about 25% of the income of such post offices. They need a guarantee that the income will continue. There is no guarantee that a privatised Royal Mail, quite possibly owned by foreign interests, would honour or renew the inter-business agreement, and without determined Government action in that respect post offices will lose their core business.
In addition, we need to know what other specific proposals the Government have to increase footfall in our post office network. As I have said, all businesses need to attract new customers and identify new services that will interest their customers. One notable success story is that post offices have become major suppliers of foreign currency.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
: The hon. Lady is setting out a fantastic case as to why the post office network is vital, so will she briefly explain why her Government closed down 7,000 branches?
Nia Griffith
I have just explained why we put in money to ensure that 7,500 branches, in addition to the 4,000 commercially viable ones, were in fact kept open. The crucial issue we all have to address, and on which we need answers from the Minister, is how to make those post offices viable so that, in the words of some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, the subsidy is not needed for ever and at the end of the day there is a viable business that can survive, and provide the network that we all want.
Nia Griffith
May I finish, please?
The Labour Government undertook to develop a successor to the Post Office card account, and the contract was awarded to the Post Office. We need specific details from this Government about their vision for such accounts and how their scope could be broadened. We also prepared the way for increasing the range of banking services to be made available through local post offices. Hon. Members might remember that we instigated a consultation, and they might have encouraged their constituents to take part in that last February, and to respond to a survey about the type of banking services they would like to be able to access at their local post office. How do the Government intend to take forward that work, and what specific plans do they have to extend and promote banking services through the post office network? It is not simply a question of making services available at post offices; we cannot turn the clocks back.
In some areas, as few as 7% of women over the age of 65 in lower-income groups have regular access to the internet, but that figure rises to almost 100% among younger men on middle and high incomes, many of whom want and expect to be able to access services online. They are likely, for example, to renew their driving licences at the click of a mouse, rather than in their local post office, even when they might physically call in to the shop that houses the post office to buy snacks or drinks, or to rent a DVD.
In terms of the sub-postmasters’ vision of an enhanced role for post offices as the front-line provider of an expanded range of Government services, what specific plans do the Government have to make that happen? Fine words and lofty aspirations are not enough. Even the straightforward availability of services might not in itself be sufficient. Even the plentiful good will towards post offices that exists in our communities is unlikely, on its own, to increase footfall. How exactly do the Government plan to turn that vision into a queue of real people choosing to carry out business transactions at post office counters?
Local councils can also play a role, but some councils have not always been supportive of the post office network. For example, a couple of years ago, we found hidden away in the small print on the back of council tax demands from my county council plans to cease accepting payments via the post office network. I persuaded councillors to allow representatives of local sub-postmasters to address the full council, and those plans were dropped.
To sum up, we want to hear specifics from the Minister. We want an explicit commitment to protect the inter-business agreement between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd and to hear specific plans for increased Government use of post offices and developing more business for them. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
The debate has been extremely good; I counted at least 26 Members present during our discussion. We heard passionate defences of the services that many of our constituents enjoy up and down our country, and I want to reply to as much of the debate as possible, although I will be making a statement in the very near future—but not tomorrow; I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt). We will publish our policy statement soon, and I hope that hon. Members will enjoy reading it and questioning me and other Ministers as we go through the Postal Services Bill over the next few weeks and, possibly, months.
I congratulate the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on his exemplary speech. He started by praising the Government, which is always a good beginning. It would have been even better if, with a Norfolk accent, he had burst into song like the postman; nevertheless, he talked cogently about the issues in his constituency and showed what a fine constituency MP he is. He has campaigned for his constituents, particularly for the local post offices in Stratton and the Beeches, and, although they were closed, he is still campaigning and working with local sub-postmasters and councils on putting forward a report to Post Office Ltd. His remarks about the importance of outreach services and their potential were well made.
Even before the debate, the hon. Gentleman scored a major victory because he got a review for those post offices and the potential for reopening them. He is meeting Post Office Ltd management shortly, and I wish him luck. He will understand that through legislation and Government practice over time, Post Office Ltd and Royal Mail operate at arm’s length, so it would be wrong for a Minister to instruct Post Office Ltd to meet his demands in detail, but he has already made a powerful case. I am sure that he will be listened to closely.
The hon. Members for Angus (Mr Weir) and for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), among others, raised our plans for mutualisation. There is a little confusion, so I am grateful for the opportunity to put it right. The proposals in the Bill focus on Post Office Ltd—the national organisation that holds everything from the intellectual property, to the brand, the contracts, the discipline codes and so on. We are proposing that it could become a mutualised organisation in due course, if the network became more financially viable through our other plans. Let us be clear: that would mean an organisation that could be owned and run by sub-postmasters, post office employees and communities.
How are we approaching that? Because we need a number of years for our policies to take effect, it will be some time before we can be sure that the post office network is completely viable, but I hope that in the lifetime of this Parliament we can move towards mutualisation. We want a real debate, so I welcome the contributions that we have had. We have already had a pamphlet from Mutuo discussing the possibilities of mutualisation. The Government have asked Co-operatives UK to consult widely, not only within post offices, but in the co-operative movement and other mutualised organisations with expertise in the area. We asked it to do that because Government do not run co-operative and mutual organisations. This is not about Government imposing a structure; if the process is to be successful, it must be organic, which is why we are keen for the first big consultation on it to be led from outside Government.
Of course, Government must take responsibility, and once we have had the response to the Co-operatives UK-led consultation, we will hold a national consultation, which I expect to start some time after the Postal Services Bill receives Royal Assent. Members of the wider public can then be involved in the consultation. That will prepare the ground and the details, so when we have a financially viable post office network, or a network that is on train to becoming financially viable, the mutualisation option will become real. That is not to say that individual post offices cannot be mutualised.
As hon. Members know, individual post offices are often single, sub-postmaster-run, privately owned businesses. Some are chains run by different agents—such as WH Smith —and some already operate on a mutual basis, either as community mutuals, and we have heard examples of those, or through mutual organisations such as Co-operatives UK. Mutualisation already exists locally, and I think that more than 1,000 post offices are already run in that way. We are talking about mutualising the national organisation, which will improve the incentive structure by aligning the incentives for local sub-postmasters at community level with the incentives of the national organisation.
I hope that is a full answer. I am grateful for the opportunity to put it on record.
Albert Owen
There is a social enterprise in my constituency. That would be straightforward—a mutual could work with a mutual—but how would a private business that is investing retain its assets? Would that company have to go mutual to have a relationship with Post Office Ltd in its new form?
Mr Davey
No, it would remain a private organisation, but it would have a share in the mutual organisation, which would give it contracts and so on. In no way would we take assets from individual private entrepreneurs who have set up post offices and run them for years. That would be wrong.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
In the little time that the Minister has left, will he concentrate on how the £1.34 billion investment will be put into the Post Office network to strengthen branches? Will he give us a flavour of how many branches he envisages the post office having? I have been through the bruising process of losing 12 post offices. Having heard from hon. Members around the Chamber this morning what a terrible problem there is when a post office closes, what is his vision for the future and the number of branches?
Mr Davey
I will disappoint my hon. Friend because to answer him would be getting ahead of the statement that we have to make. It will deal with how we want to spend the £1.34 billion and the detailed business case that Post Office Ltd developed. It was not done on the back of a fag packet, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said. Given the amount of detail in the business plan for spending the £1.34 billion, it would have to be a very large fag packet. In the statement, we will also flesh out our vision for the future of the post office network.
I shall try to deal with some of the points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk was incredibly critical of the Government. He failed to point out that five post offices in his constituency closed during the previous Government’s closure programmes. If he had done that, we might have listened to him with a little more attention. He and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) commented on the need to write into legislation the number of post offices there must be in Great Britain. I looked at the Postal Services Act 2000 and the previous Government’s 2009 Postal Services Bill, to see what their proposals were. Do you know what, Mr Hollobone? The previous Government made no such proposals at all. No sensible Government would tie down private business in knots of legislation, and we should remember that private businesses run 97% of post offices. Frankly, that sort of approach goes back to old socialist regulation and is not how to modernise the post office network and make it more commercially viable.
Nia Griffith
The Minister must realise that clause 3 of our Bill said that the organisation would be publicly owned. That is the difference. If Royal Mail is in majority public ownership, a great deal more can be done to control those details than if the entire business were sold into private—possibly foreign—hands. That is the key difference between our proposals and those in the current Postal Services Bill. I hope that the Minister can answer the sub-postmasters and sub-mistresses who are worried about the viability of their businesses because they cannot see an agreement in the legislation.
Mr Davey
Again, the hon. Lady shows that her party does not understand business and certainly does not understand the post office network. The previous Government did not write the inter-business agreement between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd, and nor should they have; it was an agreement between two separate organisations.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. That was an enjoyable debate. I ask all those who were taking part to leave quickly and quietly. We are now moving on to a debate on the education maintenance allowance.
Education Maintenance Allowance
(13 years, 6 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
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
This is my first opportunity to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I look forward to it and wish you well on the Panel of Chairs. I am grateful to have secured this debate, and for the opportunity to exchange views with the Minister. I look forward to hearing his opinions on the wider issues that I shall raise.
I would like to discuss the education maintenance allowance and the effect that axing the scheme will have on those young people and families who rely on it. Even though I am a Scottish MP, and the EMA was first attacked by the tartan Tories—the SNP—I fight for the rights of young people as a UK MP.
During the previous Parliament, I secured an Adjournment debate on 2 February this year. If hon. Members want a good example of the differences between the previous Government and the current Government, they should look at the policy on the EMA. Last time I spoke, the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), committed the Labour Government to maintaining the EMA in its current form until 2011 and beyond. Many of the young people who contacted me following that debate with their support and thanks will feel disappointed by politics and by having their fears and hopes raised and then crushed in a matter of months. Let there be no mistake—that is what happened.
I will give an example from the campaign that I support. Since the announcement to abolish the EMA was made in the comprehensive spending review, many young people have posted comments on the website saveema.co.uk. I was struck by comments such as this one from Nick:
“Without EMA I wouldn’t be able to go to college and become what I have always dreamed of being.”
Alex said:
“I need EMA otherwise I will have no education. In other words… no future.”
It is obvious from comments left on the website that the families of pupils who receive the EMA will also suffer. Ms Robson states:
“I am a single parent and work 37 hours a week and have 3 children of whom two of those attend sixth-form college. They both receive £30 EMA and it helps them buy books and helps with their bus fares. Without that, I don’t think I would be able to give them the money for bus fares, books etc. Please don’t scrap it, it is a great help for me.”
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there will be tens of thousands of students across the country from low-income families who will be anxious about their future chances of going to college aged 16 if no allowance is forthcoming? Worse still, they will find themselves seeking work without the benefit of the future jobs fund, which has also been axed by the Government.
John Robertson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will go on to talk about such people in detail. In my speech, I will refute the Government’s reasoning for scrapping the scheme, and shed light on the path they have taken to arrive at their position. Let me give a brief explanation for those in the Chamber who may be unaware of the EMA and why it is such an essential part of further educational support.
The EMA is a means-tested allowance of £10, £20 or £30. It is paid to 16 to 19-year-olds who stay in education and come from families where the annual household income is below £30,810. The top rate of EMA payment is £30, which requires the student to come from a family where household income is below £20,810. Some 80% of all recipients are on that top rate of £30.
The EMA was introduced nationally in September 2004 in order to reduce the country’s post-16 drop-out rate, which was one of the worst in the developed world at that time. The policy intent of the EMA is to broaden participation and improve the retention and attainment of young people aged 16 to 19 in post-compulsory education. The EMA is already strictly means-tested, so tightening the eligibility criteria further will only harm already disadvantaged young people. The scheme is close to my heart because it is based on providing a platform for poor families so that economic barriers will no longer stand in their way to getting an education and getting on in life.
I expect the Minister to say that the EMA is not being axed but rather “replaced.” However, if we turn to page 42 of the comprehensive spending review, we see that the so-called “saving” from replacing EMA is £500 million from a £550 million budget. It is not necessary to be Einstein or to have a university degree to realise that removing 90% of the budget of any scheme means effectively axing it, or severely undermining its implementation. I say to the Minister: do not insult my intelligence or that of our young people, and be honest.
The Government will tell us that there is a dead weight to the scheme and that according to a poll, only 10% of people say that they need the EMA. However, that argument barely stands up to closer examination. First, that was the only research on which the Government based their decision, despite the weight of widely available evidence showing that the EMA works. One example of how bad that research was is the fact that the Government poll was carried out on school pupils instead of college students. As we know, those still in school are in receipt of free school meals and free travel, as well as a uniform allowance and the full measures afforded to school pupils. In contrast, the National Union of Students conducted a poll this year looking at actual recipients of the EMA in college. Almost 60% of those students said that they would not be able to continue in education without the EMA.
Let us take the Minister’s argument to its natural conclusion. His research suggests that 10% of students would be affected, which equates to over 60,000 of the poorest teenagers in this country—the sort of numbers mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). Does the Minister feel that that is a price worth paying?
For a long time, many supporters of the Conservative party have argued that the scheme is a waste of money and that the allowance is misspent by those receiving it. Before last week, the Conservative party, the Secretary of State for Education and the Prime Minister all said that they would support the EMA. In March, the Secretary of State told The Guardian:
“Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.”
It is not only the Secretary of State who has said one thing in opposition and another in government. In January this year, the Prime Minster, then leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, told the Save EMA campaign in an ironically named “Cameron Direct” event in Hammersmith that he supported the EMA. That was after he had refused to give a straight answer on the EMA in an interview with Sky in 2007, so I was pleased to hear that he had seen the light and was supporting the EMA.
A couple of weeks ago, however, we had the announcement on page 42 of the CSR about axing the EMA. It is safe to say that the Prime Minister’s support did not last long. I hope for the Minister’s sake that the Prime Minster does not offer the same level of support for him as he did for the EMA, or the Minister will be out of a job by Easter—then again, perhaps I do hope that.
On a serious note, I do not ignore the fact that there may have been some fraudulent claims, just as there are those who claim other benefits fraudulently or who avoid paying tax by using offshore bank accounts. I despise fraud whether it is by Tory grandees or benefit scroungers. However, if EMA fraud follows the levels of other benefit fraud, we are looking at a meagre 1%. It seems draconian to axe an entire scheme because of the actions of such a minority; it is tantamount to cutting off the head to cure a cold.
I hope that the Minister does not try to link the end of the scheme with the deficit, because that would show a lack of economic competence on his part. First, if he is telling me that taking money out of the pockets of the poorest teenagers in the country is our salvation, we are beyond redemption. Secondly, it makes very bad long-term economic sense to do that, because according to the Treasury, by 2020 the number of unskilled jobs will be half what it is today, meaning that more unskilled people will be fighting for even fewer jobs. I would be interested to know whether the Minister denies that.
Lastly, we need more people in employment. With rising youth unemployment, the decision we are discussing will swell an area that does not need increasing any further. What is more, as the Directgov website page for EMA clearly points out, for every extra skill and qualification that someone earns, they are £3,000 a year better off. Research by the Office for National Statistics shows that people without the minimum set of qualifications earn on average £55 a week less. I am sure the Minister will agree with me that paying people £30 a week in the short term so they can earn £55 a week more in the long term will help us not only to upskill our work force, but to pay down the deficit faster.
A 2009 survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that only 17% of employers were planning to recruit from the pool of 16-year-olds leaving school, and that only one third of employers planned to recruit those leaving school at 18. We know that being unemployed for more than 12 months under the age of 23 has a hugely negative impact on a person’s future, causing a permanent scar of disadvantage. Those who have experienced long periods of unemployment in their youth will suffer sizeable wage penalties well into their 40s.
There has been talk that the Government plan to budget for EMA at local authority level. That concerns me greatly. With no ring-fencing of council spend, how will that be achieved?
The best thing about EMA is that it ensures parity of payments throughout the country. Let us take, for example, someone under 18 who is a care leaver. As payments controlled by local authority children’s or leaving care services vary, young care leavers could fall victim to a postcode lottery of support. A care leaver living in Croydon in south London, where almost 5,000 young people are on EMA, could receive less than someone in Richmond upon Thames, which is only a bus ride away but has only 900 young people on EMA, as there is less demand locally and it has a bigger budget to go round.
The evidence speaks for itself on why we should save EMA. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that attainment at GCSE and A-level by EMA recipients has risen by 40% since its introduction, and by even more for those living in the most deprived neighbourhoods.
In addition, RCU market research services carried out research on the national scheme and published in 2007 a report called “Evaluation of the EMA National Roll-out”, which concluded:
“EMA has had a positive impact on the retention, achievement and success of certain groups of learners…traditionally associated with lower levels of achievement”.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. As a Conservative, I am a fan of EMA; 65% of students in my constituency going to Nelson and Colne college receive EMA. The Government are not scrapping EMA; they are simply replacing it with more targeted support. Surely that is a sensible and credible step in clearing up the worst public sector deficit in the G20, which was bequeathed to them by the hon. Gentleman’s party.
John Robertson
I did not see, but the hon. Gentleman must have come into the Chamber late, because he obviously has not listened to my speech and has not read the CSR. I point him to page 42 of that document; he obviously was not listening.
John Robertson
If the hon. Gentleman was here, how sad.
As we can see, the scheme is widely recognised by independent authorities as a success, and the arguments by those opposed to the scheme are easily silenced.
The Minister will be aware that the EMA scheme is devolved and each Administration have their own policy responsibility for EMA. The Scottish National party Administration in Scotland have been as inconsiderate as this one when it comes to protecting students from low-income families during the recession. They cut the £10 and £20 payment scheme and lowered the threshold for the top rate of £30 to below £19,000, despite warnings from NUS Scotland that that could lead to about 8,000 students dropping out this year alone. This year, EMA for my constituency of Glasgow North West has been cut by 20%.
However, figures released by the Scottish Government last year show that the old system, developed under Labour, was successful. The figures showed an increase in uptake on previous years and that the allowance helped school pupils from low-income families to stay on in education, just as it was planned to do.
I know that the Minister has no responsibility for the administration of EMA in Scotland, but I use that as an example of what will happen if support is removed from students on EMA. That view is supported by the National Union of Students for Scotland, as well as by many education experts and independent think-tanks.
The Minister should also take into consideration those living independently at an early age, who may need particular support. Lack of access to financial support may be one of the main barriers to participation in education. There are some key barriers: course fees; travel expenses; the cost of food and other essential items; costs associated with the course or placement, such as equipment; and a lack of comprehensive advice and guidance for young people on their entitlement to benefits.
For example, a young person aged from 16 to 18 is far more likely to be independent of their family than younger students, and as such to require more support to enable them to participate in learning. For those living with families on a low income, the overall impact on the family finances should be considered. In some instances, young people have been discouraged from taking part in education. Economic barriers should not be part of someone’s choice about whether to stay on in education.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, particularly in communities where education is not highly valued, the EMA has played a fantastic role in allowing young people to make for themselves the decision to stay on in education? That is particularly the case for girls and young women, whose families often see no purpose in their girls continuing in education. The EMA has played a very valuable role in ensuring that those young people can stay on in education.
John Robertson
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right. That is why I have tried on several occasions to secure a Westminster Hall debate on this subject. We must raise the issue of the plight of people who need extra help in education. At the end of the day, education is the doorway to their future. If we take EMA away from them and do not give them that opportunity, we are destined to repeat the class system of history, and I do not want that.
I shall put to the Minister one of the comments on the Save EMA website. Cassie Campbell says:
“I need EMA. My mum is on benefits and I am a full-time student at college. Without EMA I can’t go to college. I will have to drop out and I don’t want to do that.”
In conclusion, I have to ask the following questions. Does the Minister agree with me that because of the importance of EMA to students from low-income families, it should be supported beyond 2011? What will replace EMA and how can we ensure that it reaches the young people who need it, no matter where they live? What assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of cuts on young people aged 16 to 25? How many students have the Government estimated will no longer be able to afford to continue studying under their plans to administer student support with 90% less funding? How does the Minister believe that young people should fund their transport to and from college once EMA has been abolished and local authorities have withdrawn subsidised travel passes? Considering the number of students, particularly those from a wider range of backgrounds, who have EMA to thank for their being at university today, have the Government given up on widening participation in higher education altogether?
People put honesty, loyalty and trust at the top of their agenda. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have failed those tests. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and seeing whether he, too, fails those tests.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) on securing the debate? I know that he is passionate about the issue—as he said in his opening remarks, education maintenance allowances are close to his heart.
I share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to see more young people, from lower income households in particular, staying on in education and gaining the qualifications they need to contribute to and enjoy the culture of our country and to obtain good employment. I assure the hon. Gentleman that one of the main priorities for the Government is to ensure that our education system is on a par with the best in the world. We want our schools and colleges to prepare their students for success. We will continue to provide support for the most vulnerable young people, so that they can stay on in education.
I acknowledge that the evidence from the EMA pilots shows that the EMA was successful in its early days at encouraging young people to stay on in education. The decision to end the scheme will be disappointing to many young people, in particular to those from the website whom the hon. Gentleman cited in his opening remarks: Nick; Alex, who said that without it he would have “no education” and “no future”; and Cassie Campbell, whom he cited towards the end of his speech and who said that without the EMA she would have to drop out. I will come to that point later in my comments, when I say that they will not have to drop out of education as a consequence of this decision.
We are, today, in a different world. Already, 96% of 16-year-olds and 94% of 17-year-olds participate in education, employment or training. Attitudes to staying on in education post-16 have changed. We are committed to going further still, to full participation for all young people up to the age of 18 by 2015. However, a payment designed as an incentive to stay on is no longer the right way to ensure that those facing real financial barriers to continuing their education get the support that they need. We need to look again at the most effective way of supporting the most vulnerable young people to stay on in education.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
As the Minister might well know, I was the principal of a sixth-form college until fairly recently. I can say from personal experience that the EMA has supported widening participation, the raising of aspiration and greater attainment among young people from a wide range of backgrounds. The EMA has certainly underpinned those developments—it is not an incentive, but an underpinning of continuing in further education. The Minister would be foolish to move away from his statements of only June this year, when he gave assurances that EMAs would continue into the future.
Mr Gibb
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. There is evidence that EMAs have helped a small number of young people to stay on in education. However, that same evidence suggests that the scheme has a significant deadweight cost. Indeed, pilot evidence throughout the scheme, and more recent research, to which the hon. Member for Glasgow North West referred, from the National Foundation for Educational Research, found that almost 90% of young people receiving the EMA believed that they would still have participated in the courses they were doing if they had not received it.
The fact is, the EMA is a hugely expensive programme, costing more than £560 million a year, with costs of administration amounting to £36 million, but impacting on the participation of only around 10% of the young people who receive support. In effect, the taxpayer has been paying £9,300 for every extra young person who has stayed in education due to EMA. Most of the young people who receive the EMA would have made the same choices and achieved the same qualifications without it.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
The research quoted by the Minister has been questioned by other research, some of which has shown that the EMA has increased participation. My point is that it is not just about either/or, and whether the children or youngsters go into education, but it is about supplementing poorer families’ incomes so that they are encouraged to stay in education. It is not whether they go into it, it is helping them a little—with some cash—so that they stay in education.
Mr Gibb
Again, I shall come to that point in just a moment.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West talked about how successful the EMA has been. I have acknowledged some important positive impacts, but it is also important to look at where the EMA has been less successful. That will help us to develop something that is fairer, more responsive to individual need and more efficiently targeted. Many young people and their parents think that the EMA is unfair and have told me that many people who receive it do not need it, and that some who do need it—the point made by the hon. Gentleman—are not able to claim it.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The young people in north Lincolnshire certainly needed all the support that they could get when the Labour council put their bus passes up by 500%. It is important that we target support in the right area.
I used to teach in a private school—only for a short period—where there were parents who were paying fees but whose children were still accessing the EMA. I am a big supporter of the EMA and of support for young people, but it is important that that support goes to the people who most need it, rather than through the somewhat scattergun approach we have seen.
Mr Gibb
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that some people have seen the EMA as an additional welfare benefit—the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk)—but it is important to clarify that the EMA has never been a support benefit. It was introduced by the previous Government to incentivise young people to stay in post-compulsory education. It has always been paid in addition to welfare payments. The Government have protected support for families with the lowest incomes and we will continue to support the most vulnerable while ensuring that all sections of society that are able to contribute to the deficit reduction do so. The withdrawal of child benefit from higher rate taxpayers, which will save £2.5 billion a year by the end of the review period, will ensure that people on lower incomes are not subsidising those who are better off.
Mr Gibb
I will not give way to the hon. Lady, because I am running out of time and I want to get to this point: child benefit for families without a higher rate taxpayer will be maintained and will be paid for children up to the age of 19 if they are in full-time education. The Government will use some of the savings from child benefit to help fund significant, above-indexation increases in child tax credit, which will be worth something like £30 in 2011-12 and £50 in 2012-13. That is in addition to the increases announced in the Budget: £150 in a year for 2011-12 and £60 in 2012-13.
I can also assure the hon. Member for Glasgow North West that none of us wants any young person to drop out of education because of financial difficulty. However, we cannot justify continuing to fund a programme that is so expensive, unresponsive and poorly targeted. Instead, we will introduce an enhanced discretionary learner support fund.
Currently, £25 million a year is given to schools, colleges and training providers through a discretionary learner support fund, to enable small payments to young people to help them meet the cost of their education. Colleges value the fund, because they are able to provide support to the young people whom they consider to be in most need. They can also respond to any changes that there might be in a student’s household income during the year. After the EMA is abolished, the fund will be significantly increased over the spending review period. The detail of the future arrangements is still being considered, but we envisage that the enhanced learner support fund will build on the principles of the current scheme to provide exceptional targeted support to students aged 16 to 18 who are experiencing financial difficulties.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I thank the Minister for saying that. Students in my patch who go to Greenhead and Kirklees colleges will welcome those announcements that the help will be more targeted. Some of the scaremongering around the EMA can now hopefully be put to one side, and I am pleased to hear that it is all about targeting the help on the students who really need it. I thank the Minister for clarifying that.
Mr Gibb
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he encapsulated in one intervention everything that I have been saying for the past 10 minutes.
In conclusion, I ask the hon. Member for Glasgow North West to bear in mind the economic background to our decision to remove the EMA. In today’s economic climate, with a budget deficit of £155 billion, the highest of any G20 country, we have a particular duty to ensure that we continue to spend where spending is needed and to get the best possible value for taxpayers’ money. We cannot justify spending more than £556 million a year on an allowance 96% of the recipients of which would have stayed on in education even if they had not received it.
We will, of course, continue to support the most vulnerable and to provide help to those who need it. That is why all schools with children from poorer backgrounds will benefit from the pupil premium. That is why we plan to increase and enhance the discretionary learner support fund once the EMA is abolished.
The Government believe that we should trust the professionals working with young people to make the right decisions. Student support officers in schools and colleges are better able to identify those students who need support.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. We must move on to the next debate.
National Express East Anglia
(13 years, 6 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
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is a genuine delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me the opportunity to raise in Westminster Hall the issue of the performance of National Express East Anglia, which operates the Greater Anglia franchise. The issue really affects my constituents, so I welcome the Minister, who will listen to the concerns I raise. She has been incredibly helpful on issues relating to the commuters and the local rail service in my area, and she has heard about some of the quality-of-service issues I have had to raise previously.
By way of background, I should say that my constituency has four rail stations on the great eastern main line, which very much parallels the A12 through my constituency. The main stations, from west to east, are Hatfield Peverel, Witham, Kelvedon and Marks Tey. Marks Tey may be familiar to some Members, because it is at the junction with the Sudbury line, which crosses into Suffolk. There was a serious derailment there in August when a train collided with a sewage tanker. Witham is at the junction of the Witham to Braintree branch line. These are incredibly busy junctions, and total annual passenger usage for the four stations is close to 4 million.
The great eastern main line is a busy line. A lot of commuters travel to London, which takes under an hour, given London’s accessibility. As a result of its close proximity to London, my constituency has boomed, and that is also true of its housing developments. My constituency is very attractive for professionals working in London, particularly in the City and in Docklands.
Given the high fares that they pay, local commuters genuinely expect a good-quality service on their journeys and a good overall commuter experience. Let’s face it, a commuter paying a lot of money each day will want a reasonably pleasant journey. On that point, I should pay tribute to the Braintree and Witham rail users group and the Kelvedon rail users group, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) would want to do so, too. Over the years, both groups have relentlessly fought on behalf of rail users on issues such as poor-quality train stations, the lack of ticket office staff, overcrowding, access to train stations and fares, which are going up constantly.
I want to draw a number of issues to the Minister’s attention. They relate predominantly to the Marks Tey train station and the new timetable that comes in from December, as well as to customer satisfaction levels and performance across the board, which I have touched on.
On customer satisfaction, a recent study highlighted the poor record of National Express in running train services in a reliable and punctual manner. Only 62% of National Express East Anglia passengers arrive in London on time and just 48% of those travelling from London arrive on time. The Minister will be aware that National Express has the second lowest customer satisfaction levels of any train operator in the country. The number of complaints it receives has soared, while the number of answers it supplies within 20 working days continues to fall. I get complaints from constituents about that. The situation is unacceptable, and constituents and commuters who use these services deserve better.
These matters need to be addressed, and I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister that many of them will be raised as and when the discussions on the franchising arrangements take place. Frankly, if National Express cannot provide the service that my constituents expect, local people would obviously welcome a new operator taking over. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet later this month with one of my constituents, the chairman of the Kelvedon rail users group, Mr Mark Leslie, who has many issues to raise.
On poor performance, I have touched on satisfaction and punctuality, and I want now to move on to Marks Tey station. The Minister is well versed in what has happened and she is already aware of the appalling way in which National Express has handled the £2.4 million of taxpayers’ money that has been spent through the national station improvement programme. Network Rail described the development as a “programme of investment” that
“will give passengers what they want”.
Despite the promises of new facilities, however, there is a major issue.
One gentleman, local business man entrepreneur Mr Nigel Clark, who runs his business out of Marks Tey station, has been treated very badly during planning for the redevelopment of the station. He has been a stalwart of passengers at the station. Every day over the past decade, in all weather conditions, he has served commuters their morning coffees and newspapers from a stall on the platform. Since the plans were put together, however, he has effectively been made homeless.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Although few people in Brigg and Goole probably use the National Express East Anglia route, the quality of our stations is important. Some train operating companies have told me that if franchises lasted longer, companies could plan investment in stations much more and possibly increase it much more. Perhaps the Minister can address that when she responds.
Priti Patel
That is a timely intervention. The development at Mark Tey station has come together quickly, and there was no local consultation. I presented the Minister with a petition bearing the signatures of more than 700 local commuters who were very distressed that Mr Clark’s service is being taken away from the station, but National Express completely ignored their views and those of Mr Clark. Planning and timing are important; as I said, however, the development has come together very quickly in Marks Tey. The frustrating aspect of the plans is that they made provision only for a “retail outlet” in the ticket office. That would then be offered to Mr Clark. I say retail outlet in inverted commas, because Mr Clark’s business is a stall.
The only reason why National Express was willing to take any representations on board was that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made persistent representations to secure Mr Clark’s business in some shape or form. The Minister may be interested to hear that I have had a letter from National Express today saying that it has had positive engagement with Mr Clark, will take the dialogue on board and will secure a facility for him. Alas, I have also heard today from Mr Clark. He was told that he would have a new stand, but it was too small and inadequate to function on the platform, so it has been removed and put in the car park. Mr Clark is losing business because nobody comes through the car park in the morning to buy coffee and newspapers. Mr Clark needs to be on the station platform.
The poor performance of National Express really is in another realm. There has been no full consultation. Local passengers have been ignored. Mr Clark has been treated appallingly. The premise that National Express used in the consultation was based on some kind of national passenger survey results from Passenger Focus, which, for the record, is a quango receiving £7 million of public money. Given that we are spending vast sums of public money and that our policy is very much about localism and giving people the chance to have a say—that brings in issues of accountability and transparency in public spending—we should have had much more accountability and engagement.
I ask the Minister to review in full the details of the way in which National Express has performed in relation to Marks Tey. I would very much like a response from Passenger Focus. I wrote to the chief executive two months ago, but I have yet to receive a response about the background to the dialogue that has gone on. I have asked for the full evidence base for the decisions that have been taken. I would be grateful if the Minister informed me when all the contracts for the project were signed. It seems to have come together very quickly. I would welcome a reassurance that she will look again at Mr Clark’s situation and see whether there is any way to guarantee his future.
Another example of poor performance by National Express is in the consultation of commuters about timetable changes. Following the comprehensive spending review and the introduction of the retail price index plus 3% fare formula, commuters will pay significantly more for their tickets. Yet commuters using Kelvedon, who currently pay more than £3,500 for their season tickets, will lose a service in the new timetable, from December. The 18.38 from Liverpool Street will no longer stop there. That is more than inconvenient for hard-pressed commuters, who want to get home to be with their families, because the next train is not until 19.08. One of my constituents who contacted National Express was told that no alterations would be considered, and despite a request for an explanation for the changes, none has been forthcoming. Likewise, the 6.27 service from Witham to London will be lost. In both cases, commuters feel they will simply be paying more money for a reduced service. I trust that the Minister will help my constituents to obtain the explanations from National Express that have been denied them.
I know the Minister is considering and reviewing the franchising process, and that the Greater Anglia franchise is likely to be the first to be put out to tender, under new arrangements. I hope the Minister will take seriously many of the points I have made, and the views of my constituents—she will meet the Kelvedon rail user group later in the month—and reflect on them as part of the franchise review and the Greater Anglia tendering process. I welcome her attention and thank her for coming to the debate.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) in saying that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate her on securing the debate and on presenting her case with such energy and tenacity. It gives us a useful opportunity to consider the performance of rail services on the East Anglia franchise. I pay tribute to the energetic campaign she has run to champion the interests of her commuting constituents.
I want first to outline some of the Government’s broader plans for reform of the railways, because they may help to address a number of the issues that have been raised today. Secondly, I will focus on my hon. Friend’s concerns about the works under way at Marks Tey station, and Mr Clark’s retailing stand. Thirdly, I will consider the general performance of National Express East Anglia, and fourthly, I will attend to my hon. Friend’s points about the new timetable
Just a few months ago I announced that the NXEA franchise would be extended by a little over six months. I chose to exercise the Government’s contractual right to do that to allow the outcome of our consultation on rail franchising to be taken on board in the letting of the new franchise. That extension will also enable the interim conclusions of the McNulty study on rail value for money to inform our decisions on the future of rail services in East Anglia. Of course, I urge my hon. Friend to make her views about current services known when the re-let takes place. The record of all the bidders for the potential new franchise will be taken into account in assessing their suitability to take it on.
The Government believe that we need to reform the railways to ensure they deliver better value for money. My hon. Friend emphasised that concern. Unless we get costs down, we will not be able to bring about the improvements to services and capacity that passengers want, so we are committed to reforming Network Rail. When Labour established the company, it failed to put in place sufficiently robust accountability mechanisms to ensure that Network Rail would deliver value for money and high-quality performance at the level needed for a modern and successful railway. We need to tackle that accountability gap, and to get the people running our tracks and trains working more efficiently and cohesively together. We also need to modernise the franchising system. We propose to move to longer franchises to give the private sector the certainty it needs to help us deliver vital improvements, such as better services and stations. They should also help us in providing better rolling stock, which I know is a serious concern for my hon. Friend and many of her constituents.
The reforms are aimed at moving away from a system in which Whitehall specifies detailed and prescriptive inputs into franchises. Instead, we want a stronger focus on the quality of outcomes for passengers, giving more flexibility to the professionals who run our railways to apply innovation and enterprise in working out the best way to deliver those outcomes. Let me assure the House that the outcomes we set will be demanding for the franchise my hon. Friend is concerned about and for all the rest for which we have responsibility. Operators who do not comply with franchise requirements will face sanctions, including termination of the franchise in the most serious cases. I expect our reform plans for Network Rail and franchising to get the two sides of the rail industry working more cohesively together, and to ensure that they are more responsive to passenger needs. I therefore believe they will help to address a range of the issues raised by my hon. Friend this afternoon.
As to the national station improvement programme and the works that are under way at Marks Tey, a budget of £150 million has been allocated to the programme to improve the passenger environment at about 150 medium-sized stations in the current railway control period. The improvement scheme at Marks Tey station includes the provision of a modern ticket office building and booking hall area, and a small retailing opportunity. We hope that the project will give passengers protection from the weather, which they currently lack. It will also improve staff accommodation, which is apparently in such disrepair that the station office suffers from repeated flooding. The London-bound platform will be widened to improve circulation for passengers. New waiting shelters will also be installed on that platform. The station forecourt will be redesigned to provide a passenger pick-up and drop-off area and improvements to cycle and motorbike parking.
My hon. Friend is concerned that the work under way is not the best way to deploy taxpayers’ money. Decisions on how to deploy the budget were devolved to the rail industry, but they are overseen by an NSIP project delivery board and ultimately by the rail regulator, to ensure that proper checks are kept on the way in which the rail industry spends taxpayers’ money. I am informed that national passenger survey scores were taken into account in deciding which stations were most in need of improvement, but in addition—I know my hon. Friend is a little sceptical about their value—comments from local stakeholders were taken on board. I understand that with respect to Marks Tey, a value-for-money assessment was carried out by Network Rail and NXEA. NXEA consulted a range of stakeholders, including some local rail user groups and station tenants, local authorities, rail staff and Passenger Focus. It is unfortunate that the train operator’s customer surgeries at Marks Tey took place only fairly late in the day, after most of the key decisions had been made about the shape of the upgrade programme. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns about that, but I have received some assurance that customer feedback from an earlier point was taken on board in putting together the improvement proposals. Clearly it would have been preferable if NXEA had carried out those customer surgeries earlier.
Priti Patel
I would welcome an assurance that for future developments of this nature, there will be greater transparency in the consultation and dialogue with communities. It is all well and good receiving a survey and ticking a box, but there is the question of understanding the intricacies of planning and the impact on the community and businesses. That should be taken into consideration.
Mrs Villiers
I do not think it would appropriate for us to mandate a model for consultation, but across the board we encourage train operators to engage extensively with passengers and local stakeholders on decisions of this kind, and a range of other issues that are important for commuters.
National Express has advised my officials that passengers have commented on the queues and congestion caused by there being only one poorly positioned ticket window at Marks Tey. Passengers interchanging between the main line and Sudbury have also complained about the state of the toilets and the waiting shelters on platforms 3 and 4. However, it seems that improvement works at Marks Tey are designed to relieve those conditions.
The key issue for my hon. Friend today is the future of Nigel Clark’s newspaper and coffee retailing business. My hon. Friend has fought a robust campaign to secure the future of Mr Clark’s news stand and the service it provides to her commuting constituents. If I remember correctly, I prepared a briefing for the Prime Minister on the subject, so I know that my hon. Friend has taken the matter to the top; I am impressed by her determination. However, my answer must be the same as that which I gave in correspondence.
It is not for me, the Minister responsible for rail, or for the Department for Transport to dictate how train operators should structure retail opportunities at their stations. However, my hon. Friend knows that I have passed her concerns to NXEA, along with the petition that she delivered to me on the subject. She has put her concerns on the record, and fought a good campaign. It is for National Express and Mr Clark to resolve matters, no doubt assisted by my hon. Friend’s robust intervention. I understand that a six-month lease for a temporary unit has been agreed, although my hon. Friend has expressed some concern about its location. I hope that a longer term solution will be found in due course. I know that Mr Clark and others will have the chance to submit proposals for use of a new and permanent retail unit should they wish to do so. I hope that the matter will be resolved, and I urge both sides to find a satisfactory outcome.
I turn to the overall performance of NXEA. The latest period for which complete performance data are available shows that 90.9% of NXEA trains arrived on time. That is according to the moving annual average. However, those figures are aggregated across a diverse franchise that covers long-distance, rural and commuter services, so they do not necessarily reflect the experience of commuters using the services in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Nevertheless, as she pointed out, satisfaction with NXEA is lower than for train operators in other places, so there is clearly room for improvement, particularly in light of what she said today.
A key task for the Government and the Department for Transport is to protect the passenger and hold train operators to account for their performance, particularly in relation to some recent reliability problems. For example, in early summer NXEA suffered some significant problems with its fleet, which caused a large number of delays and cancellations. The Department took up the problem with NXEA. As a result, an emergency action plan has been adopted. Part of that plan involved hiring additional engineering staff, who were placed at Liverpool Street station to try to deal with technical faults on the spot, in order to keep the trains in service. I gather that that has had a positive impact and that fleet performance has improved considerably.
I emphasise that reliability issues on the rail network in my hon. Friend’s constituency are not solely down to National Express East Anglia. Another significant factor is the performance of Network Rail. According to the latest industry figures, approximately 70% of passenger delays on the line are caused by Network Rail or other train operators. A significant amount of work is under way to improve reliability on the great eastern main line route. Most of the overhead electrical equipment between Liverpool Street and Colchester stations dates from the late 1950s, and extensive renewal work is being undertaken by Network Rail on the Liverpool Street to Chelmsford section. That work is due to be completed by 2012, and it will provide real improvements in reliability. Problems with the ageing infrastructure are one reason for the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Every passenger dreads hearing the terrible words “planned engineering work”. However, when scheduling maintenance and renewals work, the rail industry always faces a difficult balancing act. On the one hand it needs to deliver the relevant work in an efficient and cost-effective manner; on the other it is essential to minimise disruption for passengers whenever possible. Because of the scale of work needed on the East Anglia routes, there has been a long series of weekend track possessions. No matter how much care is taken, is inevitable that possessions will cause some disruption, but on the routes in question it sometimes results from delays in Network Rail handing back possession to National Express East Anglia. If the possession overruns, the train operator does not gain access to the tracks at the scheduled time.
Such disruption can be considerable, especially for passengers facing the dreary Monday morning commute. It is such problems that we need to address in our rail reform programme; we must ensure that Network Rail becomes more responsive to customer concerns about issues such as track possessions and overruns, and that it improves its performance overall in providing an infrastructure that keeps services running. We are very focused on those reforms as well as on reforming the franchise system. The twin tracks of reform are designed to deliver the enhanced levels of improvement necessary to address the problems my hon. Friend has highlighted.
The Office of Rail Regulation is responsible for regulating Network Rail’s performance and its stewardship of the national network. In addition, I regularly meet senior representatives of the ORR and rail industry to discuss operational performance and the measures being taken to address problems. I have raised the issue of the performance of the East Anglia routes at this regular forum. In addition, officials at the Department for Transport are in regular contact with train operators to discuss service reliability; and targets for each operator are closely monitored.
The third concern raised by my hon. Friend relates to the timetable to be introduced in December. The Government are funding increased capacity for the NXEA franchise, but that has meant a significant recasting of the timetable. In order to get a timetable that maximises the efficient use of the network and ensures overall passenger benefits, a small number of stations are left with longer gaps between trains. My hon. Friend referred to two of them. Unfortunately, there is no getting away from the fact that difficult trade-offs have to be made and conflicts resolved between the various passenger groups. Efforts to get the maximum efficient use out of the network will sometimes mean that such conflicts are resolved in favour of the busier journeys.
I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend, and I emphasise that it is important that the operator endeavour to keep instances of extended gaps between services to a minimum. The new timetable was developed following extensive consultation during the summer of 2009. I have seen no evidence that the train operators acted unreasonably in making their decisions; but when the new franchise is re-let, timetabling with be considered afresh. That will give my hon. Friend an important opportunity to make further representation.
Our rail reforms are designed to make the rail industry perform more efficiently and respond more effectively to the sort of problems highlighted by my hon. Friend. Programmes to expand capacity on the East Anglia franchise and to renew and improve the infrastructure in order to ensure more reliable services are already under way. Although we had to take tough decisions on rail fares, we have made it clear that the three-year rail fare increase will enable us to deliver the upgrades that are vital to improving life for passengers and to securing our long-term economic competitiveness.
Science, Engineering and Technology (Women)
(13 years, 6 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
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss Government policy on support for women in science, engineering and technology, and that it has attracted such interest across the main parties in Parliament.
Science, engineering and technology are important areas, where we need to increase research and improve productivity, in order that the UK economy can achieve sustained economic growth. It is the view of many that, to achieve these desirable goals, we have to increase the number of women working in those fields. That increase should come from both encouraging young women to enter and supporting women getting back into those fields when they have been away for some years. To do that means continuing to support the work being undertaken by a number of organisations, including the UK Resource Centre for women in science, engineering and technology, and the Institution of Engineering and Technology.
Employers increasingly worry about the under-representation of women, as it is directly affecting productivity and growth. In the private sector, in all SET occupations, there are around 417,000 female employees. Women made up only 12.3% of the work force in 2008, and the IET 2010 survey of engineering employers found that only 5% of engineers and 4% of engineering technicians are women. In the IT industry, men outnumber women by four to one.
Government strategy for women in SET was laid out in 2003, and the key mechanism for taking the strategy forward is the UKRC, which was launched in 2004. The UKRC works with British business to maximise the opportunities for professional women in the relevant areas of activity, and close the skills gap that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills says is damaging UK competitiveness. It also collates statistics on women’s participation in SET education and employment and funds individual projects that aim to improve women’s progression and profile. The UKRC analysed its work to assess its value and effectiveness using the social return on investment methodology, as developed by the Cabinet Office and others. The social value generated by the UKRC is nearly £12 million above its grant funding. That means that for every pound invested in the UKRC, £5.27 of social value is created for organisations, women and their families.
My first question to the Minister concerns its future. I consider the UKRC an organisation that we should be supporting at this time to ensure our future economic growth. Are there any proposed cuts to its budget? Public sector cuts could also have a long-term impact on women working in a wide range of science, engineering and technology-related roles. The UKRC’s assistant director, Jane Butcher said:
“Nearly 45% of SET graduates working in the public sector are females; this is much higher than in the private sector....The UKRC is concerned that many women scientists, engineers and technologists may lose their jobs, and this will impact on the quality of public services and on the long-term profile and presence of women in SET.”
One positive sign for the future is that more girls are studying science, technology, engineering and mathematics courses, otherwise known as STEM. Girls and boys enter GCSE exams in those courses in almost equal numbers. Furthermore, the overall representation of girls in those subjects has improved in recent years, especially in physics, chemistry and biology.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The hon. Lady is right. However, girls and young women are often pressured later into a more academic route, as it is seen traditionally as female. I am keen to pursue joint pathways, where young people, particularly girls, can take both partly academic and partly vocational qualifications. Does the hon. Lady not think that if we can achieve that in our schools, we will encourage many more of our girls to go on much further in these subjects?
Meg Munn
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Although we are not largely concerned today with issues in schooling and the like, it is still important in terms of what happens.
Overall, we know that number of girls taking further mathematics, technology subjects, physics and other science subjects at A-level has increased, and it has increased proportionately more than the number of boys taking those subjects. So there is an interest there. The girls perform as well and often better in their GCSE and A-level courses. In 2009, girls outperformed boys in grades A* to C attainment in six out of 12 STEM GCSE subjects. They also outperformed boys in A-grade attainment in all but two A-level STEM subjects and had a slightly better pass rate than boys in all A-level STEM subjects. That level of success is good, but where are those bright young girls going? More young women are studying STEM courses, but female graduates are not heading towards employment in those areas.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward such an important issue. I would like to declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the chemical industry and as a supporter of women in this area for the past 10 years. It is interesting that a new report has come out from the Institute of Mechanical Engineers to say that it is vital not only to guide girls through from age 11 to 14, but now to start to look at the progression from the age of seven to 11. I wonder whether the Minister would look to that for future policy.
Meg Munn
These are important areas. It demonstrates that, while we have the Minister from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills here today, other Departments also have a key role. It is a cross-Government issue. Less than 30% of all female STEM graduates—compared with half of all male graduates—are working in those occupations. Many of those skilled women work in lower-skilled, lower-paid jobs, and the economy is therefore operating below its potential. That is not a recent phenomenon, with 70% of women overall with SET qualifications not working in those areas. Encouraging women into higher-skilled, higher-paid jobs would help us to reduce the current skills shortage and ensure that women have the opportunity to reach their potential.
Unfortunately, in ICT there are particular challenges, with low levels of participation at GCSE, which fall further at A-level and subsequently degree level. Worryingly, participation levels of women and girls have fallen in recent years and that is reflected in a fall in female IT professionals from 25% in 2001 to 21% today. To be successful in the global economy the UK needs more technologists, more scientists and more engineers at every level.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I wonder whether the hon. Lady would like to pay tribute to some of the engineers in my constituency, who are at the forefront of the Young Engineers project. They do not just take it into primary schools, they follow on through and are particularly keen on using the opportunity to go into girls-only schools. I know three ladies who worked incredibly hard on the engineering projects and are now at Cambridge doing engineering. Clearly, that is the future.
Meg Munn
I am delighted to pay tribute to the work they are doing. The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the importance of role models. I shall shortly come on to talk a little about that.
We need people with the experience and skills; we need them for their positive impact on our manufacturing sector and to broaden our innovative capacity. How can we entice female graduates with the knowledge and skills into these sectors of the economy, sectors which are vital to our future? We need to change the culture of many organisations; we must have greater opportunities for women to enter and return to SET training, to education in this area and to employment. To attract, retain and promote women more actively, companies should support women through targeted programmes and improved opportunities. The UKRC runs innovative programmes to help companies understand unconscious bias, which can impact on their work, and to help them identify the practical steps that can help promote gender equality. We need employers also to recognise the benefits of keeping women with skills, through promoting the availability of senior, high-quality part-time and flexible roles. We lose far too many women who just cannot make a full-time job work with family life. They then find that, by the time they can return to full-time work, their skills are out of date.
Of course, it is important to note that some of the companies that are putting those programmes into action are themselves experiencing real benefits, as well as benefiting our economy. Atkins Global, E.ON, BT, Sony and PepsiCo are among more than 100 businesses and organisations that have signed up to the UKRC chief executive officer charter. Women taking part in this type of support project report real change in their job prospects, with more than 60% of them securing work or promotion.
One company where we can see a positive effect of the UKRC CEO charter is E.ON. Back in 2007, the EU Commission found that just 10% of board members across Europe were women, despite the degrees and training that women had. E.ON acknowledged that it was not an exception to those findings. At E.ON, 27% of the employees were female but only 11% held positions in senior management. E.ON wanted to change that and double the number of women in leadership positions in the medium term. It created the Women@Energy project in 2007 to support women. The first results from the research have already been put into practice. Gender issues are now part of the leadership training programme. After a year, more than 100 employees were involved in the group-wide IngE network for women in engineering—I am not sure if I have pronounced the name of that network correctly, but I will give the Hansard reporters the spelling. As well as being a fantastic networking device, the key objective of IngE was to find ways to support the prospects for women in technological jobs.
The effort at E.ON progresses. The female network for women executives, which was founded in 2008, provides six half-day seminars over the course of a year, giving focused advice and intensive leadership training to female managers. There is also the women into engineering programme and there are girls’ days. E.ON really is a company that recognises the benefits of having a more diverse work force.
I now come on to the issue of role models. The Institution of Engineering and Technology runs the young woman engineer of the year award. That award goes to the very best female engineer that the UK has to offer and highlights the achievements of women in engineering. There is no doubt that providing high-profile role models is an effective way to encourage women to become engineers. The institution supports the winners throughout their year in office and ensures that they get media coverage, highlighting what female engineers can achieve. I wonder if the Minister can commit to supporting this excellent scheme. He will be relieved to know that I am not necessarily talking about money. Rather, I am talking about raising its profile throughout the engineering industry, which would be a signal to young women that their talents and skills are seen as important.
I also want to mention the work being done in the charity sector. The Daphne Jackson Trust is an independent charity focusing on returning talented scientists, engineers and technologists to careers after a break of two years or more. The trust offers flexible, part-time and paid fellowships in universities and industrial laboratories throughout the UK. It has been highly praised by the Government and is acknowledged as running a vital returners scheme. It has a 96% success rate in returning fellows to SET careers. I hope that the Minister will join me in commending the trust’s work and thanking it for the effort that it has put into supporting women to return to the careers in which they were previously successful.
Finally, I turn to the women and work sector pathways initiative, which focuses on women’s career progression in industries where women are under-represented. For example, Aston Martin is putting 17 female employees through the programme. The company realised that women were encountering barriers and it wanted to equip female employees with the right skills to promote themselves within its engineering business. The company accessed £400 towards the cost of tailor-made training for each of those 17 employees, which was matched by its own contribution. Since the pathways initiative was established in 2006, £20 million in funding has helped more than 22,500 women and 3,200 employers. It is estimated that the value to the economy per woman helped by this scheme is between £900 and £1,300 per annum, and 93% of employers have stated that the initiative has met previously identified skills gaps within their industries.
However, I am concerned that that initiative is at risk of not being renewed as its final phase is due to end in March 2011. So, can the Minister reassure me that programmes such as this one will continue to receive the vital support that they require? I am sure that the Minister is aware that this project grew out of the Women in Work Commission, which looked at the gender pay gap. Interestingly, today is equal pay day, as designated by the Fawcett Society. The full-time pay gap means that effectively this is the last day on which women are paid in the financial year compared to men. So it is highly appropriate that we are having this debate in Westminster Hall today.
Today’s debate will only scratch the surface of this very important issue. I have not discussed in any detail the important role of early school experiences, which some of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), have mentioned —I will call them hon. Friends today. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]. I have also not mentioned the role of work experience in encouraging girls into these sectors, nor have I touched on the importance of careers guidance, university funding or apprenticeships. In this short debate, I have put briefly to the Minister some of the important work that has been started in this area during the last few years.
It is recognised by everybody that there must be public spending cuts and I acknowledge that the Government have identified the importance of protecting the science budget as much as possible. However, within that budget I ask the Minister to acknowledge the importance of continuing to support the initiatives that I have mentioned, which are making a difference to science, engineering and technology. By ensuring that women are encouraged to develop these skills and by supporting women with these skills to return to their professions, we can help our economy to grow and prosper.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) for securing such an important debate and I also thank the Minister in advance for what I am sure will be a very positive response to it.
As an engineer myself for 23 years, this is a subject that I feel passionately about. During the summer, I worked with many organisations to look at ideas for encouraging girls into science, technology, engineering and maths. We have discussed the points that have been raised in this debate with the Minister for Equalities and I look forward to working on them with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley.
I agree with everything that has been said so far in the debate. Briefly, I want to make two additional points. First, although women are under-represented in all areas of engineering, only 3% of engineering apprenticeships are filled by women, which is a figure in the realms of statistical error. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister if he will develop an action plan to address that particular issue.
Secondly, as has been said already, it is essential to inspire young girls about the potential of engineering. There are many good pilots and projects that are running in this area, and I hope that the Minister is aware of and can confirm the funding for projects such as the Aim Higher and Stimulating Physics schemes, which are run by the Institute of Physics. I hope that we will go on to see a cross-party consensus in this area.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
It is a pleasure, Mr Hollobone, to serve under your chairmanship and indeed to respond to this short but important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) on bringing this issue to the attention of the House, and I also congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on her contribution to the debate. I know that both of them have relevant experience in this field. I know that the hon. Lady has a degree in electrical engineering from Imperial college, and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley has highlighted her own long experience in the field.
The subject matter of this debate concerns both women and science. To begin with, let me say a word about the first of those. It is absolutely right that we should provide opportunities for girls and women to fulfil their potential, wherever that takes them. The Government are wholly committed to the idea that people, regardless of where they start and of who they are, should be able to fulfil their potential. Of course, that includes science, technology, engineering and maths, or STEM, subjects, about which I will speak in detail in a moment. However, it is perhaps worth putting on the record that women contribute to our society in all kinds of ways, not least in this place, and I make no apologies in your presence, Mr Hollobone, for highlighting the contribution that women are making to our national interest in Afghanistan and Iraq as we speak.
For too long, however, the public perception of science has been that it is a predominantly male field. The reality of the scientific professions has been and, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley pointed out, to some extent remains predominantly one of middle-aged men in white coats. However, even that reality must not be allowed to obscure the achievements of women who have dared to break the glass ceiling.
When women first battered down the doors of our universities, it was most often to study the most scientifically demanding of subjects: medicine. These days, more than a century on, young British women with a talent for science are not short of inspirational examples, including Dorothy Hodgkin, who won a Nobel prize, and Rosalind Franklin, who surely would also have won one alongside her colleagues Watson and Crick had she not died tragically young. Other great figures such as Jocelyn Bell Burnell and Nancy Rothwell happily remain with us as living proof that women’s aptitude for science is certainly no less than that of men. Why should anyone assume otherwise? After all, science is as bound up with the world around us as other subjects, if not more so. Rosalind Franklin wrote that
“you look at science (or at least talk of it) as some sort of demoralising invention of man, something apart from real life, and which must be cautiously guarded and kept separate from everyday existence. But science and everyday life cannot and should not be separated. Science, for me, gives a partial explanation of life. In so far as it goes, it is based on fact, experience and experiment.”
In my view, the case for women not just in science but in other supposedly male preserves is already made.
History is full of instances where the price of equality has been paid in blood, but in the case of women’s representation in scientific and technological subjects, it has tended to be paid in gold. The hon. Lady mentioned a number of schemes that have contributed toward that price. Some have been supported by Government funding; others rely on other sources. I will happily advertise those schemes, as she asked, and congratulate the people associated with them. By advertising such schemes, as this debate plays an important part in doing, we will encourage more people to participate. We need not apologise for amplifying remarks such as those made here today whenever we can.
On the hon. Lady’s understandable concern about the continued availability of public funds, although that is not the only issue, as she generously acknowledged, I point out—she would hardly expect me to do otherwise—that in the recent comprehensive spending review, the Government acknowledged the critical role that science plays by defending and protecting its budget for an extended period. That decision was not easy, for there are, of course, many competing priorities, but we fully understand the key role that science plays in contributing to economic growth, feeding social enterprise and networks, serving the common good and providing the competitive edge that our businesses need. Her assessment of the value of science is shared across this Chamber and in Government.
Beyond that, I hope to satisfy the hon. Lady on several specific issues and to offer reassurance. I mentioned the ring-fenced support that we have given to science in the CSR; she will know that it amounts to about £4.6 billion a year. That will continue to support research in higher education and remains a substantial commitment of taxpayers’ money, as well as a vote of confidence in the science base. This Government need no convincing that scientific and technological excellence have a big role to play in renewing economic growth.
The hon. Lady rightly mentioned employers such as E.ON and charitable organisations such as the Daphne Jackson Trust, which are important, in particular, to women entering or returning to careers in science, engineering and technology. I assure her that such initiatives have and will continue to have the Government’s full support and encouragement.
In her concluding remarks—though she said that she did not have time to discuss it in detail—the hon. Lady mentioned the importance of high-quality careers guidance. She is right; it is critical in setting young women’s feet on the path towards careers in areas that have traditionally been largely male preserves. She is also right that the advice that young people get at school shapes the pattern of their subsequent progress in both learning and employment. It is therefore important that such advice is empirical, independent, up-to-date and gender-neutral, and is not about where people start from but about where they might end up. To that end, I shall set out this week, in a speech in Belfast, plans for improving careers advice and guidance.
The hon. Lady will know of my personal commitment to apprenticeships. She is right that they too involve a gender imbalance. She will be pleased to know that, mindful of that imbalance, I wrote this summer to the Skills Funding Agency asking how we can take steps to improve access to apprenticeships, particularly in fields such as engineering, for young women. I am anxious to ensure that that access enables young women with an interest and passion in and a talent and taste for STEM subjects, particularly applied science, to enter apprenticeships at all levels. I will speak more about apprenticeships in the coming weeks and months, but suffice it to say at this juncture that our extra investment in apprenticeships—£250 million in the CSR, with the potential to increase the number of apprenticeships by 75,000—must include a proper concentration on the opportunities available to young women and those who want to return to the workplace, change direction or upskill.
On that point, I will say a word about adult community learning, which we also protected in the CSR settlement, as both hon. Ladies will know. Adult community learning is important, in particular, for returning women who have taken time out from learning or the workplace and want to improve their chances of re-engagement by updating their skills. It is an important bridge to subsequent learning opportunities and employment.
It is not necessarily the case, nor should it be, that few young women, properly and professionally advised, should make their way into science, engineering and technology. I do not accept that we must leave things as they are. To that end, as I think the hon. Lady is aware, the Government have taken and continue to take steps and support initiatives to break down perceptions among young women, employers, training providers and educational institutions that the battle that she has fought for some time cannot be won.
The case for bringing more women into science and technology studies and careers requiring excellence in those fields is, in my judgment, unanswerable. It is impossible at this stage to promise new investment. I do not think that the hon. Lady expects me to—indeed, she almost acknowledged in her speech, generously, that I would be unlikely to do so—but it is important to promise on the record our continued commitment and effort in the direction in which she wishes us to travel, not merely as a Government but as a nation.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has rightly described the Government’s task as bringing our economy back from the brink. Let no one be in any doubt that we are fully aware that a strong science base has an indispensible role to play in accomplishing that task. Without it and the skills of our scientists—both men and women—Britain’s ability to use scientific and technological innovation to promote growth would be greatly diminished.
Mr Hayes
I considered both those points in anticipation of this debate, as the hon. Lady would expect. I cannot give a definitive answer, but I can tell her that we take those matters seriously and are debating them carefully. The fallout from the CSR in all areas of Government is such that we are working through exactly what we will fund and how. Even within the ring-fenced science budget, it is obviously imperative to ensure maximum cost-effectiveness. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science is considering the issue closely and that he is particularly aware of those two initiatives, as I discussed them with him before I entered this debate to speak on his behalf. The hon. Lady’s point has been heard and taken note of. That is as far as I dare go, given that I am standing in for the Science Minister and am interested in keeping my job by not falling out with the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The hon. Lady is right to say that it is partly an issue of culture and of what we expect and anticipate. It is also partly about the perceptions of young women. She made an interesting point about the early promise in STEM subjects shown by many young women that is not fulfilled. Our job, on the back of this debate and inspired by examples such as hers, is to ensure that that promise is fulfilled for many more young women in future. It will benefit them, our society and our economy, and I think that we will all grow bigger as a result.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Convention on Biological Diversity
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
I attended the High-Level Segment 10th Conference of Parties to the convention on biological diversity, known as the Nagoya biodiversity summit, from 27 to 30 October. A team of officials from my Department and the Department for International Development supported me, having attended throughout the conference to prepare the ground for the ministerial High-Level Segment.
The conference concluded with all three of the UK’s main objectives fully achieved:
Agreement on a new strategic plan for global biodiversity conservation to 2020 and beyond. This comprises an ambitious, realistic and deliverable international mission, underpinned by 20 sub-targets on halting species loss and habitat degradation, reducing pollution and over-exploitation, and increasing financial support to developing countries
Agreement on a resource mobilisation package to ensure that developing countries would have the capacity to implement the strategic plan; and
Agreement on a new “Nagoya Protocol” on access and benefit sharing. It has taken 18 years to achieve this agreement, which establishes a regime under which developing countries will allow access to their genetic and natural resources in return for a share of the benefits—financial and other—for their use.
In addition to the three key issues under discussion, the Nagoya meeting saw nearly 50 individual decisions relating to a wide range of biodiversity issues—such as protected areas, biofuels, and invasive alien species—approved. The agreement emphasises the value of the natural environment to human welfare and livelihoods, and reflects the links between biodiversity, climate change and development. Notably, we gained agreement for the CBD to develop advice on the application of safeguards for biodiversity under REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries). The UK played a key role in securing this agreement.
Additionally on 26 October, I represented the UK at a ministerial meeting of the REDD+ partnership, a group of some 60 countries. This was an important opportunity to generate momentum before negotiations on REDD+ recommence at the UNFCCC meeting in Cancun later this year. At this meeting, I outlined the extended commitment to international climate finance provided under the spending review.
On the first day of the High-Level Segment, 27 October, I gave a speech, which included commitments on:
new funding to deliver biodiversity benefits through international forestry;
funding for the proposed Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES); and
support for key projects on the economic value of nature, building on the landmark “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” (TEEB) report, which was published in Nagoya.
The new strategic plan will set the framework within which all 193 parties to the convention of biological diversity will be expected to operate domestically in order to play their part in the global conservation effort. Plans for implementing key elements of it in England will be included in the natural environment White Paper to be published in the spring.
United Kingdom-France Summit
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am today issuing a declaration with President Sarkozy that proposes further co-operation in defence and security.
Underpinning this co-operation will be two treaties.
First we shall sign a defence and security co-operation treaty to develop co-operation between our armed forces to make our forces more interoperable, to maximise our capabilities, and to obtain greater value for money from our investment in defence.
Second we shall collaborate in the technology associated with nuclear stockpile stewardship in support of our respective independent nuclear deterrent capabilities, in full compliance with our international obligations.
In both cases this represents an intensification of our already strong relationship, not a reduction in national sovereignty.
I am placing a copy of the declaration in the Libraries of both Houses.
The treaties will be laid before Parliament in the usual way.
House of Lords
Government: Role of the State
Lord Roberts of Conwy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the role of the state.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the big society is about putting more power into people’s hands—a massive transfer from Whitehall to local communities. What we have announced in the spending review will help communities and individuals to take on more responsibility through community empowerment, through opening up opportunities to deliver public services to other organisations, and through social action such as the national citizen service, enabling young people to play a more active role in society.
Lord Roberts of Conwy
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Is it not absolutely clear from the alarmingly high structural deficit that this Government have inherited and the inevitable reductions in spending after the spending review that the state has become hyperactive and has overreached itself to an unaffordable, unsustainable extent, as it has done before under Labour? Some of us remember 1975-76 and the IMF marching in. Is it not clear that there must be a change of approach and that, among other things, the private and voluntary sectors in their broadest sense must be strongly encouraged and empowered, as my noble friend said, to take up more of the responsibilities currently foisted on the state?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My noble friend makes a valuable point. That is why we are working to open up public services to small businesses, voluntary organisations and social enterprises and to enable those currently in the public sector to spin out from the state through mutualisation. The Government are also providing support for the voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors via a £100 million transition fund and the establishment of a big society bank, which will provide new resources of finance.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, in acknowledging that this Government believe in a less ambitious state, do they, however, accept that it is the irreducible responsibility of the state to do what it can to ensure that the poor and the vulnerable are sheltered from the storm? If they do, how is it consistent with that responsibility to introduce policies that are bound to increase homelessness?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Lord will be aware that this side of the House is very conscious of its responsibilities in government and, indeed, to protect the vulnerable. I acknowledge that this is a difficult time for the country as we take necessary action to reduce the deficit. The voluntary and community sector has always been there for vulnerable people in tough times, and I know that it will be there again. That is why we are looking to support it.
Lord Waddington
Does my noble friend agree that successive Governments have in fact been reducing the role of the state for years and years by farming out difficult decisions, such as whether there should be a law of privacy or whether prisoners should have votes, to bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights, and farming out virtually all their other powers to the bureaucracy in Brussels? Is it not about time that we went for the repatriation of some of our powers?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
We have plenty of opportunity to discuss European matters on other occasions, and it is certainly beyond my brief to comment on my noble friend’s contribution.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn
My Lords, instead of creating all these new organisations and societies, would it not be better to support existing organisations, such as the citizens advice bureaux, which are suffering a great deal because of the cuts?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
We are indeed supporting the citizens advice bureaux and we are hoping to strengthen them under proposals that the Public Bodies Bill will bring forward. The truth of the matter is that there is enormous scope to provide for community action and decision-making at local level. This Government believe in that and are prepared to introduce policies that take it forward.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, in this age of chronic insecurity, do the Government not recognise that, while assistance to individuals to help localities and sectoral interests is important, we need, above all, strong, central and communally trusted government that is capable of reinstating the security that we lack?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I hope that the way in which this Government have tackled the deficit issue indicates that this is a confident and competent Government. Indeed, that is the leadership which Governments exist to provide, but it is important to stimulate local communities and make them feel empowered so that they, too, have a role to play in the governance of the country.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
My Lords, in the light of his earlier responses, will the noble Lord tell us how many new state organisations the Government envisage will be created if the ambitions of the health White Paper are realised?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am not in a position to answer that question definitively, but I will ask my noble friend, the Minister responsible, to write to the noble Baroness on that issue. However, we do not see the bodies that are being created under the proposals that I have been talking about as state bodies. They will be community governed and community empowered.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, has not the role of the state many aspects, one of which is to retain our residual sovereignty?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes; I suppose each to his own. Government centrally certainly has fundamental responsibilities for the security and stability of the society in which we live. However, the policy direction of the Question was about the devolution to local communities of responsibilities that are not necessarily matters for the security and establishment of the state. I was able to give an affirmative answer to my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy’s request that that is government policy.
Finance: Fiscal and Monetary Policy
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Barnett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the Chancellor of the Exchequer is co-ordinating fiscal and monetary policy.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England takes into account the path for fiscal policy in judging the outlook for growth and inflation, and hence in its monetary policy decisions. As provided for in the Bank of England Act 1998, a Treasury representative attends, and may speak at, the monthly MPC meetings. The non-voting representative plays a key role in ensuring appropriate co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy, including by briefing the MPC on the Budget.
Lord Barnett
I thank the Minister very much for that Answer. Did he notice a recent speech by Dr Posen, a new member of the Monetary Policy Committee who presumably was appointed by the new Government, in which he said that we should not get too excited about the welcoming figures on growth that we saw last week—which of course did not come from the present Government’s responsibilities? I would never seek to accuse the noble Lord of getting overexcited about anything, but perhaps I could refer to a Written Answer he gave me on the question of the non-voting senior Treasury official who attends the Monetary Policy Committee. He said that he,
“plays a key role in liaison between the Treasury and the Bank to ensure appropriate co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy”.—[Official Report, 27/9/10; col. WA 493.]
It would be interesting to know what the Government mean by “appropriate”. Would that include telling the Bank that the Treasury wanted to see something done to help growth, for example by increasing capital investment, which is desperately needed and would also help considerably with unemployment?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, first, since the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, draws attention to the fact that we did have a strong third quarter of growth at 0.8 per cent, we should celebrate the fact that we have had a third consecutive quarter of growth. The recovery will no doubt be choppy, and I am sure that at certain points what happens will suddenly become our responsibility, not theirs. That aside, the responsibility of the Treasury official who attends the Monetary Policy Committee is essentially to bring to the attention of committee members matters of which they ought to be aware in coming to their independent conclusions on monetary policy judgments. That includes briefing them, for example, on the judgments that have been made in the Treasury’s Budget so that they can factor them into account in their deliberations.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, has my noble friend seen the reports today on the mid-term elections in America, which state that President Obama's deficit reduction council is set to recommend that the best way to reduce the deficit is to cut the burden of taxation on the private sector in order to create wealth?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, in the judgments that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made about how to achieve the huge and very necessary consolidation of the fiscal position here, by the end of the consolidation period, 77 per cent of the burden will have been taken by expenditure cuts and only 23 per cent by taxation, because it is precisely by not raising taxes and choking off growth that we will get the economy growing again in a balanced way. I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing our attention to that matter.
Lord Peston
My Lords, the Minister rightly reminded us of the legislation under which the Monetary Policy Committee operates, which obliges it to hit an inflation target. There is also a “subject to” clause that has troubled all of us for years. Will the Minister interpret for us the Government’s present view of “subject to”? In particular, where do the Government stand on the restoration of full employment as an aim in our economy and as an achievement?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the Chancellor writes a very clear mandate letter to the Governor of the Bank of England for the Monetary Policy Committee to hit a target of 2 per cent for the 12-month rise in the CPI. Of course, that is the same target that was set under the previous Government. It is up to the governor and the MPC to interpret the Act in the appropriate way. As far as concerns employment, we must think about the OBR forecast which says that on the Government's policies laid out in the Budget, unemployment will fall and employment will rise in every period considered by the forecast.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Does my noble friend accept that, if we are to see a revival in the economy, it is going to come from the private sector and from low interest rates, and that those interest rates would be very much higher if this Government were not addressing the appalling structural deficit that we inherited from the previous Government?
Lord Sassoon
I completely agree and am grateful to my noble friend for drawing our attention to that. Indeed, only 10 days ago, after the spending review, Standard and Poor’s, one of the leading rating agencies, moved our rating from negative to stable. It is that confidence that keeps interest rates low and enables businesses to invest.
Lord Soley
First, I thank the Minister for what I think was the first open acknowledgement, and the clearest indication yet, that the last three quarters’ growth has been down to the previous Government, not this Government. Secondly, going back to his first Answer, how much importance do the Government attach to the growth of the economy? After all, on many occasions over the past 200 years national debt in the United Kingdom has been far higher than it is now, and it has always been primarily growth that has got us out of it. Therefore, should we not put growth at the very top of the agenda and should not the Government start saying that?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, first, I made no admission. I do not think that we have time today to apportion credit and blame but I merely note that I look forward to seeing when the party opposite decides that something relating to the economy is its fault. As to the size of the debt, as a Government we inherited the largest peacetime deficit in our history—indeed, the largest deficit in Europe—and there are all sorts of measures of this. We have needed to engage in an £81 billion consolidation of the fiscal situation in order to retain, as we have done, the confidence of the market to enable growth policies to be underpinned.
Intellectual Assets: Crime
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Goschen
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the threat posed to United Kingdom corporate interests by illicit attempts to acquire proprietary technology and other intellectual capital.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
My Lords, this Government recognise the risk to the prosperity of the United Kingdom from the loss of intellectual assets, and work is afoot to obtain accurate information as to the size and nature of that loss. The Government provide advice to private sector companies on defending their systems against cyberthreats. The transformative cybersecurity strategy, which the Government are now developing, will strengthen our collective ability to tackle cyberespionage and cyberattacks that target UK intellectual capital.
Viscount Goschen
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reassuring and informative Answer. Does she accept that the protection of proprietary, valuable technology is absolutely critical to companies’ ability, and indeed willingness, to invest in long-term research and development, and indeed to our ability as a country to attract inward investment?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, I think that the whole House will endorse the view that an economy such as ours depends crucially for its advance and future prosperity on its capacity to innovate and the intellectual capital on which that depends. Therefore, a central part of the Government’s strategy is very much concern not just with national security but with developing, with the private sector, a secure cyberplatform on which investment in this country from both domestic companies and companies abroad can be based.
Lord Rosser
Bearing in mind the increasing threat posed by the type of crime raised in this Question and the importance of developing still further links and levels of co-operation with other countries on this issue, can the Minister give a categorical assurance that the Government’s intention to merge the Serious Organised Crime Agency with the new national crime agency will not result in any diminution of personnel and resources directed at fighting crime of this kind? Furthermore, will the Government’s recently announced review of intellectual property and its value to the UK economy also address the threat posed by intellectual property crime?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, of course many sorts of crime are involved. The original Question was clearly about espionage but there is also theft, to which the noble Lord referred—that is, crime of a more straightforward kind—and both those aspects of our intellectual underpinning in this country need to be addressed. I can give the assurance that there will be no change in the status of SOCA, which will remain central—and I mean central—to crime-fighting in this country, so there will be no diminution in our efforts on that front. As those on the Benches opposite may know, we will produce a strategy for cybercrime by the end of the year. Therefore, I can give that assurance, and we agree with those on the Benches opposite that this is a matter of high national importance.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House of any work that is being undertaken internationally since it seems that work with other countries should be central to management of the ware?
Baroness Neville-Jones
Yes, I can give several instances but two in particular. First, the UK is developing a vision for our handling of cyber issues in the future which we will share with close allies. Secondly, noble Lords may have observed that it was announced today that we and the Government of France are seeking to co-operate on cyber matters. I believe, as the noble Baroness says, that we will not succeed in producing a secure cyberrealm in the absence of international co-operation.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, the Minister and the Government were correct in identifying cyber as a major new priority in the strategic security review, but does she accept that if we are to counter the use of malware, industrial espionage, or, God forbid, cyberattacks from terrorists, possibly in our emergency systems or in the financial sector, we will require above all a new cadre of well-developed, trained and selected young people who are at the very frontiers of thinking in this direction? Can she tell the House what measures have been taken to encourage and identify such a cadre?
Baroness Neville-Jones
The noble Lord puts his finger on a very important issue, and one that will be a concrete and identified part of the strategy that the Government are developing. Clearly we need to have proper competences in government and co-operation with the private sector, and to build skills in this country, which means enhancing the necessary studies at our universities. We must also encourage best practice and good behaviour among all cyberusers—individuals as well as companies.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness shares my view about the importance of cyber, and I welcome the extended work on that. However, her initial Answer did not quite give the right impression that we are still looking at the problem. Am I not right in saying that whole areas—for example, whole engines and their entire design specification, and whole aircraft and their design specification have been taken from companies in this country and America? We know that that has happened. That information is already there and it is important that it is acknowledged by the Government—it was certainly acknowledged by the previous one.
This might be more difficult, but I would be interested to know the answer. Mr Jonathan Evans, head of the Security Service, mentioned China as a specific country. Would the noble Baroness be willing to agree with that, or is it too sensitive to talk about?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I think that I will refrain from rising to that one. The noble Lord is quite right that this is one of the reasons why we have fixed our eyes on this threat. It is real. There is evidence that theft has taken place and it must be stopped, so there is no dispute between us. In my original Answer I was saying that we are trying to put a value on the losses. In other words, we are doing some historical work but also looking at the trend lines to be able to know more than we do at the moment about both the volume and the nature of the threat we face.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, the Government very sensibly in the spending review announced an increase of expenditure on cybertechnology and cybercrime. Is the Minister confident that there is sufficient co-ordination within Whitehall to ensure that that money is spent correctly, and will she advise the House which is the lead department in Whitehall on this issue?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, the lead department is the Cabinet Office and I am the Minister responsible in that department. The answer to the noble Lord’s question is that we are extraordinarily aware, as I am sure the previous Administration were, of the need for co-ordination. We are building on what the preceding Administration did to strengthen the co-ordination, but we want rather more than that. We want a single strategy that all the departments follow, and do not want simply to co-ordinate existing efforts but to have everybody involved in an overall strategy in which they each pursue their delegated part.
Immigration: Deportation
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neuberger
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what restraint methods are now used in deportations; and whether there has been any change of practice recently.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)
My Lords, the vast majority of people who are being removed from this country depart voluntarily. There is a small category of people who resist. It is known policy that escorts may be used to control and restrain such individuals and that these techniques are accredited by the National Offender Management Service.
Following the death of Mr Mubenga, the UK Border Agency temporarily suspended the use of control and restraint on scheduled flights for a 10-day period between 15 and 25 October. That was for the purpose of carrying out an immediate review to see whether the techniques used on the aircraft were appropriate.
The use has been reinstated. The National Offender Management Service, which conducted this review, has said that there is no substantiation to the claims that have been made that the restraints being used were inherently dangerous. We are now going on to conduct more investigation of the appropriateness and utility of restraint. We do not believe that we have anything like achieved the last word. So I can assure the House that this issue, which I know is a matter of anxiety to us all, will be taken forward and that we are examining what needs to be done very thoroughly.
Baroness Neuberger
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. It is very reassuring to hear what she said. Given the news that we are now to have a new contractor, Reliance, conducting these deportations, perhaps I may ask whether its contract will spell out in greater detail than hitherto what control can be used, and, indeed, whether the individual staff members will have to sign up to a code of practice. I think that that would give the House considerable reassurance.
Baroness Neville-Jones
The noble Baroness raises some of the absolutely pertinent issues which our further review needs to take into account. I cannot comment precisely on the contract of the company that will be employed in addition to G4S but I think it fair to say that the Government feel they need to look at all aspects of the services provided. They need to start with the contract and go right through to what happens on the aircraft.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, what checks will the Government be making to ensure that the new private security firm involved in deportations carries them out in accordance with the laid-down practices and procedures, including, in particular, the use of force?
Baroness Neville-Jones
My Lords, as the House may know, there are several control and monitoring systems in place. Contrary, perhaps, to some of the prevalent views, they are in fact very active. The Chief Inspector of Prisons has oversight of all the detention facilities, which includes the escorts, and he conducts inspection visits on an unannounced basis. The independent monitoring board is based at Heathrow. After the last Question that I was asked on this subject I inquired how active that independent monitoring board was, and I was told that it is very active. It has produced critical comment on some of the practices it has observed, although not in this area, and it has said specifically that it does not think that there is a systemic problem, which I know is one of the anxieties in the House. Furthermore, detainees themselves have the right to make complaints. Those go to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman and he reviews them. There are many controls trying to ensure that there is both a good system and proper practice.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, voluntary departures are clearly much more humane and give much better value to the taxpayer. Are the Government convinced that there are enough incentives available for people who depart voluntarily?
Baroness Neville-Jones
We are trying to increase the number of people who are willing to depart voluntarily. Nevertheless, we also encourage people, when we have to oblige them to go, to do so in a compliant fashion. We are making very great efforts to ensure two things: first, that the maximum number of people who are not entitled to stay do depart this country; and, secondly, that when they have to be escorted, it is done in a proper, humane fashion.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lord, can the Minister tell us what alternative methods to the distraction techniques that are used by detention officers exist? Can she tell us, possibly at a later date, what distraction techniques are used in other parts of these islands by the various detention services? Does she agree that the use of pain-induced compliance requires much more stringent management and that such management will inevitably incur further cost?
Baroness Neville-Jones
I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me, but I did not hear all her question, although I heard the last part. One of our objectives is not to be put in a position where any pain-induced compliance technique has to be used. As a result of this latest incident, not only have we gone through with all escorting officers their duties and the methods of restraint they use, but we have taken them all the way through in detail with particular emphasis on the health and safety aspects of the job, including positional asphyxia, which is a particular source of attention at the moment. We clearly need to have extremely well informed and educated guards on duty.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
May I express to the Minister our appreciation for the energetic way in which she has followed up the concerns of the House? Will she consider allowing the guidance offered by the UK Border Agency to private companies, which is currently not in the public domain, to be made available in the Library to Members of both Houses? That would help us in sustaining the very high standards that she wants to see.
Baroness Neville-Jones
I think that is a perfectly reasonable request and I shall see that it is done.
Business of the House
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I rise to inform the House about the publication tomorrow of an interim report from the Leader’s Group appointed to identify options for allowing Members to leave the House of Lords permanently. The group, ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, has produced the interim report summarising the views presented to it by a number of Members of your Lordships’ House and inviting further comment by 23 November. In order to facilitate the next stage of consultation, the usual channels have agreed that the House will be given the opportunity to debate the interim report on Tuesday 16 November. The group’s interim report will be available from 10 o’clock tomorrow morning in the Printed Paper Office and online.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will now repeat a Statement on the European Council. There will then follow the debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Marland and then, at a convenient point very shortly after 4.30 pm, my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever will repeat an Urgent Question as a Statement on the proposed treaties with France.
European Council
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I hope that it is now convenient to repeat a Statement that was made in another place by the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon. The reason for the delay was to give this House the maximum amount of time to discuss the comprehensive spending review, an opportunity that was taken up by many of your Lordships.
“With Permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement. Clearly the whole country has been focused this weekend on the terrorist threat, and the Home Secretary will make a full Statement after this, but I want to put on record my thanks for all those involved in the international police and intelligence operation, whose efforts clearly prevented the terrorists from killing and maiming many innocent people, whether here or elsewhere in the world.
The fact that the device was being carried from Yemen to the UAE to Germany to Britain en route to America shows the interest of the whole world in coming together to deal with this and, while we are rightly engaged in Afghanistan to deny the terrorists there, the threat from the Arabian peninsula, and from Yemen in particular, has grown, so as well as the immediate steps that the Home Secretary will outline it is clear that we must take every possible step to work with our partners in the Arab world to cut out the terrorist cancer that lurks in the Arabian peninsula.
Let me turn to last week’s European Council. This Council’s main business was going to be economic governance in the light of the serious problems that the eurozone has faced. But I was clear that we would not talk about the need for fiscal rigour in the EU’s member states without also talking about the need for fiscal rigour in the EU budget—both next year and for the future. So we ensured that the EU budget was also on the agenda.
Let me go through both issues. The first is the budget for 2011. From the outset in May, we wanted a freeze. We pressed for a freeze. In July, we voted for a freeze seeking to block the 2.9 per cent proposed by the presidency. Finland, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Austria all voted with us. Unfortunately, together we were just short of the numbers needed for a blocking minority. So, in August, the Council agreed a 2.9 per cent increase.
In October, that went to the European Parliament, which voted for around a 6 per cent increase. This was the frankly outrageous proposal with which we were confronted at this European Council. What normally happens in these situations is that you take the position of the EU Council and the position of the EU Parliament and negotiate, which ends in splitting the difference. Indeed, that is precisely what happened last year.
So before the Council started we began building an alliance to take a different approach and insist on 2.9 per cent. I made phone calls to my counterparts in Sweden, France and Germany, among others, and continued to press the case during the Council. Twelve other heads of government agreed with me. We issued a joint letter, which makes it clear that a 6 per cent increase is,
‘especially unacceptable at a time when we are having to take difficult decisions at national level to control public expenditure’.
Furthermore, the joint letter goes on to say that,
‘we are clear that we cannot accept any more than’,
the 2.9 per cent increase being proposed by the Council.
Let me explain what this means. Either the Council and Parliament now have to agree to 2.9 per cent or there will be deadlock, in which case the EU will have to live on a repeat of last year’s budget settlement handed out in twelfths over the next 12 months, an outcome with which we would be perfectly content.
Next, and more important, Britain secured a significant breakthrough on a fundamental principle for the longer term. As well as the individual budget negotiations for 2011, 2012 and 2013, there is also a big negotiation about to happen for the future funding of the EU over the period between 2014 and 2020. We clearly want to make sure that all these negotiations go the right way and what we agreed at the Council was a big step forward. The European Commission was wholly opposed to it, but the Council agreed that,
‘at the same time as fiscal discipline is reinforced in the European Union, it is essential that the European Union budget and the forthcoming multi-annual Financial Framework reflect the consolidation efforts being made by Member States to bring deficit and debt onto a more sustainable path’.
From now on, the EU budget must reflect what we are doing in our own countries and it is quite apparent that almost every country in Europe is seeing very tough spending settlements. This new principle applies to the 2012 and 2013 budgets and the crucial 2014 to 2020 EU spending framework. Just as countries have had to change their financial plans because of the crisis, so the EU must change its financial plans, too.
If you look at the published conclusions, you see that language on the budget formed a very prominent part, even though it was never originally on the agenda. I think that this is an important step forward. In my discussion with Chancellor Merkel at the weekend, we agreed to take forward some joint work to bring some transparency to the EU budget—salaries, allowances and grants. This work has just not been done properly. It is about time that the citizens of the EU knew what the EU spends its money on. This is the spotlight that needs to be shone and that is exactly what we are going to do.
On economic governance, there are two issues. First, there is Herman van Rompuy’s report from the task force on economic governance, which was set up after the sovereign debt crisis. My right honourable friend the Chancellor and the Treasury have been fully involved. Secondly, there is the additional proposal made by the Germans and in principle agreed by the Council for a treaty amendment focusing on putting the EU’s temporary bailout mechanism on to a permanent basis. Let me take each in turn.
On van Rompuy’s report, there are some sensible proposals. For example, the eurozone clearly needs reinforced fiscal discipline to ensure its stability. The crisis has shown that in a global economy you need early warning about imbalances between different countries. Let me be clear on one point about which there has been some debate: the question of surveillance. All member states, including the UK, have participated in surveillance for more than a decade. This is not a new framework. The report is clear that the current framework remains broadly valid but needs to be applied in a better and more consistent way. The report proposes new sanctions, but we have ensured that no sanctions, either existing or new, will apply to the UK. The report could not be clearer. It says that,
‘strengthened enforcement measures need to be implemented for all EU Member States, except the UK as a consequence of Protocol 15 of the Treaty’.
That is our opt-out. It kept us out of the single currency. It kept us out of sanctions under the Maastricht treaty and we have ensured that it keeps us out of any sanctions in the future.
In addition to the issue of sanctions, a number of concerns have been raised. Let me address each of them head on. First, will we have to present our Budget to Europe before this House? No. Secondly, will we have to give Europe access to information for budgetary surveillance that is not similarly shared with organisations such as the IMF or publicly available on the internet? No. Thirdly, will powers over our Budget be transferred from Westminster to Brussels? No.
Turning to the proposal mentioned in the Council conclusions for limited treaty amendment, we have established that any possible future treaty change, should it occur, would not affect the UK and I will not agree to it if it does. The proposal to put the temporary bailout mechanism on a permanent footing is important for the eurozone. Eurozone stability is important for the UK; nearly half our trade is with the eurozone and London is Europe’s international financial centre.
Let me be clear. Throughout this process, I have been focused on our national interest. It is in our national interest that the eurozone sorts itself out. It is in our national interest that Europe avoids being paralysed by another debt crisis, as it was with Greece in May, and it is absolutely in our national interest that Britain is not drawn into having to help with any future bailout. This is what we have secured.
Let me turn briefly to the other business of the Council. On the G20, the Council discussed its priorities for the upcoming summit in Seoul. Again, our interests are clear. We are an open trading nation and we want progress on Doha. This has been going for nearly a decade and 2011 is the year when we must try to achieve a deal. We believe that the world has suffered from economic imbalances. We want countries with fiscal deficits to deal with them and countries with trade surpluses over time to look at structural and currency reforms. We recognise the importance of strengthening global financial stability and that is why we support the recent Basel agreement on stronger banking regulations. We also want global institutions reformed to reflect the growth of emerging powers, so we will see through the work that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has led on reform of IMF votes and board seats. Finally, on Cancun, we are committed to making progress towards a legally binding UN agreement.
This Council demonstrates that it is perfectly possible to deliver for our national interest while protecting our national sovereignty. Tomorrow, the British and French Governments will sign new defence and security co-operation treaties, which will be laid before Parliament in the usual way. These follow the same principle: partnership, yes, but giving away sovereignty, no. At this Council, Britain helped Europe to take the first vital steps in bringing its finances under control. We prevented a crazy 6 per cent rise in the EU budget next year. We made sure that the budget reflects domestic spending cuts in all future years and we protected the UK taxpayer from having to bail out eurozone countries that get themselves into trouble. There is a long way to go, but we have made a strong start. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister in the other place on the conclusions of the European summit last week. Europe is indeed an important issue for this country and we know how vital it is for our economy, for trade and for jobs. But we on this side of the House recognise that it is a difficult issue for the Benches opposite because not only are they divided on the issue itself, they are doubly divided. On Europe, the Liberal Democrats are fundamentally opposed to the formal position of the Conservative Party, as the debates in this House showed so clearly when we took through the Bill to put in place the Lisbon treaty. The Liberal Democrats stood shoulder to shoulder with this party on the Bill and on Europe, to the fury of the Conservative Party, now their partners in government. However, the splitting does not end there because Europe is still a fault line within the Conservative Party itself—a party which can combine the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, at one end of the spectrum on Europe, and in the other House the Member for Rushcliffe, the right honourable Ken Clarke, at the other end of the spectrum. It is, indeed, a remarkable containment, even if the party has to keep them in separate Houses of Parliament to do it.
I pay tribute to the skill of the Prime Minister in keeping the lid on these divisions by the simple stratagem of not talking about the issue of Europe at all. Strange, then, that the Prime Minister should so carelessly abandon this tactic in the way he dealt with last week’s European Council, especially on the question of the EU budget. Far from remaining silent he talked. Indeed, he talked and he talked and he talked. He talked about how outrageous some proposals were and about what needed to be done—clearly much to the puzzlement of other European leaders. They had not realised that they were there to debate the EU budget, principally because they, like the Prime Minster, knew that it had all been settled in August and that therefore there was nothing else to talk about. However, that did not stop the Prime Minister because he mostly talked about the historic triumph he had managed to bring about.
When people talk quite as much as the Prime Minister did about what he, and he alone, had achieved, it tends to make most people count the political spoons. We, on these Benches, do not think that the Prime Minister came back from the summit with quite as full a canteen of cutlery as he implied. Can the Leader of the House confirm that, rather than his being instrumental in holding down the EU Council to a budget increase of 2.9 per cent as the Prime Minister in effect claimed, the Council of Ministers had agreed this increase back in August? I ask the Leader of the House to address this question specifically. Can he confirm that at that time some 20 EU countries voted for that level of increase and that the letter on the budget, about which the Prime Minister showed off so fulsomely, was signed by fewer countries than had voted for the budget in August—13 in all as opposed to the original 20—and that the Prime Minister lost support rather than gained it? Can the Leader of the House confirm that, having voted to oppose the increase of 2.9 per cent in August, the Prime Minister now supports an increase in the EU budget of 2.9 per cent and that this is a clear U-turn? Many in this House, including those on the Benches opposite, know that in trying to talk up as his own achievement something that had already been long agreed, the Prime Minister was transparently and inadequately attempting to appease the Eurosceptic right in the Conservative Party. They know, too, that such posturing not only fools no one but is ultimately damaging to Britain’s credibility in Europe.
I turn now to the question of treaty amendments. The Conservative Party tried in vain during the passage of the Lisbon treaty Bill to attack this party on the issue of a referendum. However much it tries to scream and shout about it, this party’s position on a referendum was clear: we said that we would hold a referendum on a new constitution for the EU and that, because Lisbon was a further treaty like Amsterdam and Maastricht, it was not a constitution and so it was appropriate for Parliament to consider it just as it had done with Amsterdam and Maastricht. Indeed, when we debated this matter and voted on it, a majority in this House understood that point clearly.
In response, the Conservative Party made two promises: it promised to hold a referendum on Lisbon and it promised to hold a referendum if there were, as it likes to put it, any further transfers of power from Britain to Brussels. We know that the Conservative Party has already explicitly broken its promise on Lisbon because there was no referendum. We now see the Conservative Government—I am sorry, the coalition Government—apparently in the process of breaking that second promise by walking away from the pledge to hold a referendum on any so-called transfer of powers. Can the Leader of the House confirm that proposals for change to the Lisbon treaty are likely? Can he confirm that proposals for treaty change will flow from the conclusions of this summit? Can he confirm that if such proposals are made for treaty change, the Government will put these proposals to a referendum of the British people? Can he confirm that if it does not, the Conservative Party will indeed have broken the second promise it has made to the British people on these issues?
I suspect that the EU leaders who attended last week’s summit would be astonished at these being the issues debated in your Lordships' House today and the other place yesterday. They will have thought that they were at a very different summit, one which was about economic governance, sustainable growth and climate change. All are hugely important issues which were almost entirely eclipsed by the rhetoric which the Prime Minister indulged in. I recognise that the Leader of the House touched on them in the Statement repeated today, but they were not the issues about which the Prime Minister was boasting last week.
On the first issue, economic governance, we welcome sensible proposals for greater co-operation to secure economic stability across Europe. In principle, we also welcome the idea of putting in place clear arrangements for providing help to eurozone countries which get into difficulty, rather than relying on a more informal, ad hoc approach. However, we also believe that the right balance needs to be struck between the need for stability and the need for growth in the eurozone.
With regard to the forthcoming G20 summit in Seoul, on the prospects for the world economy, the Leader of the House will know that an increase in trade accounts for almost half the growth that the Office for Budgetary Responsibility forecasts for the UK next year. We shall see whether that prediction is maintained when the OBR brings forward its updated forecast on 29 November. In advance of that, will the Leader inform the House what discussions were had at the European Council on uncertainty in the world economy and what part Europe can play in helping ensure that economic demand is sustained?
Thirdly, on the forthcoming Cancun conference on climate change, the prospects do not look bright for completing the unfinished work of the Copenhagen conference. Will the Leader set out in greater detail than was given in the cursory mention of Cancun in the Statement what the Government will do to advance a deal on finance, which is both a precondition of progress and an essential objective for Cancun?
For the Benches opposite, Europe remains an awkward and embarrassing issue in different ways and for different reasons. But that awkwardness cannot be brushed aside by the bluster which the Prime Minister so unfortunately engaged in last week. Everyone in this country whose job, contract or business depends on Europe knows how important an issue Europe is. It is too important for the political posturing that we saw from the Government last week. We need sensible discussion and proper engagement on Europe from this Government for the benefit of Britain and of Europe. On these Benches, we all hope that the posture on Europe that the Prime Minister tried to strike last week will be a singular folly rather than a sustained strategy. Once is more than enough. The parties opposite cannot heal their divisions on Europe, but no one will be convinced by their attempts to camouflage them. Distraction is not a strategy; proper engagement is. We look to the Government in future to pursue it.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I must congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on having almost comprehensively misunderstood everything that the Prime Minister was trying to do and the way that he went about doing it. I would have hoped, with 24 hours to read the Statement and the exchanges in another place, that she might have made rather a different speech, congratulating my right honourable friend on his achievements.
The noble Baroness teases us for being divided and strives to put a wedge between the Conservative Party—indeed, within the Conservative Party—and our coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats. I assure her that we of course have healthy discussions about a variety of matters to do with Europe, but there is no difference of opinion on this Statement and the direction of travel that the United Kingdom is taking on Europe.
I shall try to answer some of the noble Baroness’s specific questions about the Statement. It is true that the Council agreed in August that there should be an increase of 2.9 per cent in the EU budget. I have to say to the House that this was not our preferred option; we believe that there should have been a freeze. Given that we are not only freezing but seeking a reduction in public expenditure in the United Kingdom, we thought that it was wrong that Europe should spend more money and that 2.9 per cent was too much. However, between August and now, the European Parliament, supported by the noble Baroness’s friends—Labour MEPs did not seek to oppose it—voted for a 6 per cent increase. Therefore, we were very keen to ensure that if we could not rest at nil increase, we could agree at no increase above 2.9 per cent. That is the achievement and the agreement that we have struck with many of our partners—enough of our partners to make sure that that is what will happen.
On the treaty change, I was impressed that the noble Baroness should mention Labour's broken promise on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. We have only to re-examine the manifesto of 2005, promising to the British people a referendum—a promise which was cruelly broken—to see what was undoubtedly one of the reasons why Labour did so badly in May 2010. The Conservative Party promised a referendum on Lisbon if it were not ratified, but it was ratified, and therefore there would be no referendum.
The noble Baroness asked a really good question—and I do not mean that patronisingly; it was a good question, because it goes to the heart of our position on Europe. It was about the transfer of power. We have a strongly held view and policy that any future transfer of power from the United Kingdom Parliament to Europe should be subject to a referendum. The noble Baroness asked if we believe that the current position is that there is a state transfer of power. We do not. If there were to be a treaty change which meant that there was a transfer of power from the United Kingdom to the European Union then, yes, we would seek a referendum.
The noble Baroness also asked questions about debates on uncertainty in the world economy and on the Doha trade round. I have nothing to add to what was mentioned in the Statement. A series of international meetings is taking place over the next few weeks—in the G20, for instance—where all those matters will no doubt be discussed, and I shall report back in due course to the House.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Prime Minister and wish to associate myself and those on these Benches with the words of appreciation to the security services for the protection of the people of this country and elsewhere from the terrorist attack launched from the Yemen.
Turning to Europe, does my noble friend accept that the outcome of the important European Council meeting held early in this coalition Government has demonstrated that those of us in the coalition who are Euro-enthusiasts—I count myself one of them—are not so starry eyed about the European Union that we do not believe that it must be held firmly to account, especially on spending, and that it must share in the relative austerity being experienced by member states and their citizens? The Prime Minister has striven to do that. Does my noble friend also agree that those in the coalition who are more Eurosceptic—the Prime Minister declared himself one of those—also see that a successful European Union and an economically secure eurozone are strongly in the national interest of this country? They are not a matter of disinterest, still less of a threat, but a matter of vital national interest to this country, and so to be followed through with enthusiasm and positive engagement—which, again, I believe that the Prime Minister did on this occasion.
Does my noble friend further agree that not only in the context of the European Union but otherwise directly—we will come to this later in the afternoon— there are opportunities for direct co-operation on a bilateral basis between European Union countries, such as the proposed co-operation between Britain and France, which we on these Benches also strongly welcome?
Lord Strathclyde
I think that the whole House will agree—and if not, they should do—that he spoke with tremendous good sense in support of the Statement and of the Prime Minister. Of course, there are others in this House—in both Houses—who have a division of view between Euro-enthusiasts and Eurosceptics. However, that need not divide us on the broad direction that we should remain part of the European Union and that we should argue for change internally, which is what we have been doing in the past week in laying out a very clear framework for budgetary change over the next 10 years. We will be at the forefront of making those arguments. Following on from what my noble friend said, we are not alone in this or isolated in Europe in wanting a proper budgetary discipline. The noble Lords opposite had an opportunity, over the past 10 years, to get this right and spectacularly failed to do so.
Lord Williamson of Horton
My Lords, on the EU budget for 2011, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for making it clear in the Statement not only that the European Council will not accept more than 2.9 per cent but that if the Parliament and the Council do not agree, there will be no increase at all. I think that would apply not only to EU policies but to the expense rates, travel allowances and things of that kind in the European institutions. Under the provisional twelfths regime, money at this year’s level—but no more—will be available on a month-by-month basis. In view of this, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House keep the House informed on the discussions between the Council and the European Parliament so that we know whether, from 1 January, there will be an increase of 2.9 per cent or a zero increase?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, brings a wealth of experience to the House and real knowledge of the workings of the European Commission and European Parliament. What he outlined is entirely correct; if there is no agreement to the 2.9 per cent then there is agreement on no increase at all. The current spending pattern would be rolled over to next year and it would be paid on a monthly basis—it would be divided by 12 and paid out on those terms. It also includes all expenditure: expenses, allowances, salaries and so forth. We would greatly welcome that result and it would be very nice to hear from the noble Lords opposite whether they would welcome it too.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I had the pleasure of being seated at dinner last week next to our right honourable friend Mr Kenneth Clarke but that he did not talk to me, whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was opposite, was quite chatty? I particularly enjoyed a long conversation with our coalition partner the Viscount Thurso, who is of course a Member of the House of Commons.
Lord Strathclyde
It is immensely interesting to hear of my noble friend’s dining partners and the conversations that he had. I hope that he will update us regularly.
Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, the Statement is in two parts. Might I ask a question about each? On the terrorist incident, perhaps the noble Lord could explain why the Prime Minister was not informed about the terrorist threat at East Midlands Airport until lunchtime on Saturday, when it became quite clear yesterday, in the answers given by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, that other Ministers in the Cabinet knew some hours earlier. I hope that he can explain that to us.
Turning to the European Council, I noticed with great interest that the noble Lord read over it very quickly, without his customary emphasis. He was, of course, trying to divert us from some of its content. First, we have it quite clearly in the Statement that,
“we voted for a freeze seeking to block the 2.9 per cent”.
But then a few sentences later, it says:
“So before the Council started we began building an alliance to take a different approach and insist on 2.9”.
We had the spectacle of our Prime Minister almost trying to deceive the people of this country by standing on the steps of the Council and claiming that he was going in there to fight for a zero increase when, as we now know from his Statement, he had before going into the Council meeting tried to build an alliance for 2.9 per cent. Does he think it an honest way of dealing with Parliament and the British people to try to pretend that he was fighting for a freeze on the one hand when, before he went in to fight for it, he was already seeking an alliance to support 2.9 per cent?
Will the noble Lord concede that if he really wants to get to grips with budget discipline, he should not be arguing just about the size of the budget? It would be helpful if he and his Government took a lead in supporting some of the ideas that came from members of the budgetary control committee—including me when I was there—to start introducing a serious attempt at zero-based budgeting, so that you look at budget lines afresh each year rather than just looking at the budget as it was and adding a bit more to it. That would be a serious attempt at budget discipline.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I cannot help the noble Lord on his question about the terrorist incident. I am sorry that he did not have the opportunity to ask my noble friend yesterday when she made the Statement.
I do not know what the noble Lord has been dreaming about on the role of the Prime Minister, the 2.9 per cent, when it was agreed and so on. I am utterly clear that unless the Prime Minister had taken a firm stand on the 2.9 per cent, we could well have seen what happened before—it happened last year when the Labour Government were in charge—where the negotiation between the Council and the Parliament ended up with a middle way, a sort of halfway house between the two figures. We wanted to avoid that; we wanted to ensure that not one extra pound should be spent, and that is what has happened. I also note that the noble Lord would have been perfectly happy to have signed up to 6 per cent. That is what most of his colleagues did in the European Council, and it is of course the cost that has increased exponentially over the past few years.
As for the question on budget discipline, we are trying to give direction and budget discipline to the European Union by sticking out for the agreement of 2.9 per cent.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, does my noble friend the Leader of the House recall that almost the last act performed by Mr Blair before he stepped down as Prime Minister was to sell this country down the river by surrendering, for nothing in return, a large and growing part of the UK rebate that had been negotiated by my noble friend Lady Thatcher? There were unworthy thoughts that he may have been interested in the job as president of the European Union at the time; I am sure that could not have been the reason, but certainly he got nothing whatever in return. Will my noble friend, who is such an ornament of the present Government, give an undertaking that this Government will not surrender any of what remains of the British rebate?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, anyone would think that I had planted that question with my noble friend, but he will readily confirm that I did not. He is correct on both counts: not only did the former Prime Minister, Mr Blair, surrender a large part of our rebate—worth, I think, some £8 billion—and get absolutely nothing in return, but I can give a firm commitment that under this Government no more of the rebate will be handed back.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, mention is made in the Statement of a military treaty between France and our country. When will we be likely to get the detail of such a treaty? My thoughts go to the fact that every service man and woman in this country gives allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, but it could be that those commanding them do not give such an oath of allegiance.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Martin, asks a good question. It is not that I am trying to duck out of it, but my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever will be repeating a Statement at a convenient moment after 4.30 pm, and I am sure that he will be able to give the noble Lord an answer.
Lord Grenfell
My Lords, I put two brief questions to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. We now know that from now on the EU budget must reflect what we are doing in our own countries. Let us suppose that the debt and deficit position in this country and others in Europe is put back on a sustainable path. Would that mean that a Conservative or a Conservative/Liberal Democrat Government would continue to oppose any increase in the budget, although the situation had changed?
My second question concerns the bailout. We are told that it is,
“absolutely in our national interest that Britain is not drawn into having to help with any future bailout”.
You do not have to be outside the eurozone to share that ambition, but is it not inconsistent with the preceding sentence, which is:
“It is in our national interest that Europe avoids being paralysed by another debt crisis as it was with Greece in May”?
God forbid that the United Kingdom should ever find itself in the same position as Greece, but if it did would it mean that the Government would be ideologically and firmly opposed to anybody helping us out?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, on the second question, if a tragedy occurred and we needed to be bailed out—as we have been in the past, sometimes—there is no reason why we should not go to the IMF. That is what the IMF is for. I think the point behind the noble Lord’s first question was that if we were in a different position and budgetary environment, would we be ideologically opposed ever to seeing an increase in the budget? Some of us would be very opposed to seeing an increase in the EU budget when there are still so many uncertainties and inefficiencies built into the process of budget-making, grant-making and handing out money. We would like to see a comprehensive review of how this money is spent so that there is firm control by member states and the Commission over how it is all done.
Lord Waddington
My Lords, an undertaking was given that the setting up of the European External Action Service would be revenue-neutral. Have the strongest representations been made to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, that the overall overrun that has been announced is quite unacceptable and, if one looks at some of the expenses now contemplated by the European External Action Service, clearly avoidable? If representations are not made about this clear breach of faith, I shall be very disappointed in Her Majesty’s Government.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, my noble friend is right that certain considerations were discussed at the passage of the Lisbon treaty. Indeed, as a party, we rather opposed the setting up of the External Action Service. However, it is a fact that it is being set up. The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, is in charge. It needs to be supported. As part of our general opposition to increase in expenditure, we have made several points about the EU budget. I am not aware that we have specifically raised the EAS annual budget, which will be £5.8 billion—a substantial amount of money. However, we hope that as it is rolled out it will be to the benefit of not just the European Commission but the member states of the European Union.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
My Lords, there is a connection between the first and second parts of the Prime Minister’s Statement. While any genuine attempt to reduce waste and inefficiency in the European Union’s institutions will be welcomed by all of us, can the Government guarantee that the work of the European Union in development activity, peacebuilding and peacekeeping—which will contribute to our security as well as that of the developing world—will not be affected by the decisions that were made last week in Brussels?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I think I can give the noble Lord that assurance. He knows that the Government have given an absolute priority to meeting the target of spending 0.7 per cent of gross national income on overseas aid by 2013. We remain committed to that. We wish to work closely with our European partners so that they also achieve that target. Therefore, I see no reason why there should be any slippage in that aim.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, this is a very short question. The House will be aware that the EU budget has not been approved by the Court of Auditors for 14 years. With the help of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, who knows more about this than I, we raised this matter with the Government in May. I have not, alas, seen the paperwork. That is not the fault of the Government; they have to negotiate with other powers. I have tabled a Question for Short Debate on whether the grounds on which the Court of Auditors has not approved the budget for 14 years should be examined. That will be a matter for the House in due course.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, my noble friend said he had a short question, but it is a huge subject. I look forward to his debate. It is completely unacceptable that the European Court of Auditors has not been able to sign off the EU accounts. I understand that the majority of the errors are not due to fraud but to the sheer complexity of the rules and regulations. We need to address the root cause and press for simplification of EU financial management alongside reform of the budget itself.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Lord about economic governance and the German Chancellor’s proposal to revise the treaty. Why are the Government agreeing to that? Can any country now propose changes to the treaty? Will he assure me that the Government will indeed have a referendum if there is any change in the treaty at all?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, on economic governance, we take very seriously the stability of the eurozone. Some 40 per cent of our exports go into the eurozone and 50 per cent of our exports go to the EU, so it is a massively important market to us and financial stability is important. However, we maintain two things: first, we would rather not see a change in the treaty; and, secondly, we would rather not see any change involving a transfer of powers from the UK to the EU. We are not certain that a treaty amendment is required, but if it is and we are assured that there is no such transfer of powers, a referendum in this country would be unnecessary. If there were a transfer of powers, we would not agree to it.
Energy: Climate Change
Lord Marland
That this House takes note of the future of energy policy in the light of the climate change challenge.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I should like to thank the House and all noble Lords in advance for joining this debate today. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, for giving the debate its name.
The future of energy policy is a question absolutely at the heart of the coalition. Our central theme is twofold: energy security and the low-carbon economy, with value for money for the taxpayer. For years we have relied on the bounty of North Sea oil and not invested in the new energy sources that we will need in the future, or invested the proceeds of North Sea oil to meet our future demands. That must change, and we need to get on with it fast.
I have said in the House many times that the delivery of energy supply transcends many government periods. It is incumbent on us to be part of a broad coalition for the benefit of Britain. Later this year, we in this House will have it in our power to provide a clear pathway to the future, with legislation in the form of the next energy Bill to make that happen.
Since May, many noble Lords have asked recurring questions. Are we serious about nuclear? Will the first cut be CCS? Are we serious about the growth agenda? There are some who think that we should not be serious about the green agenda. Let me emphatically provide noble Lords with the coalition’s response. On Monday 18 October, we announced the key government deliverables that will help pave the way for the building of our new nuclear power. Following the spending review announcement of up to £1 billion for the first CCS demonstration project, last week I started the process of detailed negotiations with Scottish Power on its proposals for that project.
My Lords, whether you like it or not, we intend to be the greenest Government ever. This will require showing leadership and setting an example. Therefore, we will reduce the carbon footprint of central government by 10 per cent this year. Our green agenda will launch the green deal, implement the green investment bank and—through RHI and FITs—encourage renewable development. All of those equal moving to a secure energy supply, new jobs and vital investment.
However, we must do more, and we will. It has been said that we are not providing enough stability to the energy market, so we are pursuing an ambitious energy market reform programme that will support the delivery of a secure, low-carbon, affordable energy mix for the 2020s and beyond. A framework to give a solid carbon price is the first step in providing the incentives for the investment that we so urgently need. Last week, 144 licences were granted to extract oil and gas from UK waters in the 26th licensing round.
My Lords, I could go on, and I will. We have already extended the carbon emissions reduction target—CERT—whereby 3.5 million more homes will be lagged. We have also introduced proposals to accelerate smart meter rollout by comparison with previously published targets. Our wind, biomass, wave and tidal resources make us a natural world leader for renewable energy, but Britain has not realised its potential. We have the highest tidal reach, 40 per cent of Europe’s wind and 11,000 miles of coastline to take advantage of. That is why we committed £200 million in funding for low-carbon technologies, including offshore wind technology. We are providing up to £60 million to meet the needs of offshore wind infrastructure at our ports. We have boosted the UK’s gas storage capability by 15 per cent already, by giving consent for a new facility in Lincolnshire. The renewable heat incentive is the first scheme to provide long-term support for renewable heat technologies and will drive a more than tenfold increase in renewable heat in the UK over the coming decade.
Even with the most laborious of economic circumstances in which to start governing, we have shown that we are open for business and there is a clear pathway. Investors now have certainty about the environment in which they are investing. We must look to build a new kind of economy to ensure global competitiveness and protect ourselves from price shocks.
On our nuclear legacy, public safety is paramount. The funding of nuclear decommissioning will therefore increase by £2.5 billion in 2014-15, so that we really get to grips with our waste legacy issues. I have also commissioned a strategy on how we can further develop our expertise in waste management in the nuclear field.
This debate, though, is our opportunity as the Government to hear your Lordships’ views. We have in this House the greatest brains and experience on this subject covering all sides of the spectrum. All these views will be respected and I hope that I can count on your support to deliver a secure energy supply for generations to come.
Lord Grantchester
There is now general consent that climate change is happening and that human activity is contributing to the change. While there has been debate in the scientific community on this point, and some people continue hotly to contest it, the weight of scientific evidence now firmly supports the analysis. As a result, we as a country urgently need to develop an energy system for an affordable, secure and low-carbon future. This can mean only a clear focus on renewable energy, away from dependence on the finite resources of fossil fuels. I thank Leonie Greene of the Renewable Energy Association and Oliver Harwood of the Country Land & Business Association for their assistance in preparing for the debate today.
Europe currently produces more than 10 per cent of its energy from renewables. In the UK, the figure is just 3 per cent. This country must continue and intensify the progress initiated by the previous Administration. We must push forward to reach the accepted targets and press on with policies to get us there. The coalition Government have confirmed a commitment to 15 per cent renewables by 2020, but this is still behind the EU-wide target of 20 per cent, with several countries exceeding the target, most notably Sweden, which shortly will hit 50 per cent. The coalition Government will have to seriously consider raising their game if they are to earn the title of the greenest Government ever.
Everyone recognises the dynamic advances made in communications over the past few years. In the energy sector we need no less of a step change in our thinking. We need to move away from thinking that energy flow is one-way down pipes and wires from a big industrial complex somewhere over the hills and beyond our influence. The energy sector is regulated by government, and this Government need to make wise choices to ensure that we meet our climate change commitments. These must include public education so that everyone understands the contributions necessary in the home and in the workplace.
I declare my interest as a food producer when I say that the risks of unrestrained carbon emissions are significant for three key reasons. First, the country's food supply is at risk from rising sea levels. Eighty per cent of the best grade 1 agricultural land lies at or below current sea levels. Secondly, rural businesses rely on a secure and steady energy supply. Because of greater distances and vulnerability of supply, these businesses are at an increased risk of interruption from storm events. Thirdly, the agricultural industry is likely to suffer because of the increased risk of water shortage. Recently the University of Reading released a report entitled Water for Agriculture, commissioned by the Royal Agricultural Society of England. Scientists found that climate extremes such as droughts and flooding are likely to reduce the amount of water for agriculture and water culture, which will pose a major challenge to farmers, researchers, plant breeders and policy advisers. Given that agriculture and the food sector are recognisably responsible for a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gases when compared with the value of their production, they have challenged the conventional mindset of being seen as the problem. Instead, they can help to show the change that is necessary by being part of the solution. I am greatly interested in the Government's response to the findings of the University of Reading report, and in how they plan to interact with farmers and food producers to address their concerns, both immediate and long-term.
In the broader economy, energy historically has been a major driver of inflation. A major characteristic of renewables is a stable price, as much renewable energy is ambient and therefore free. The bigger implication of low-inflation energy for economic stability is a huge opportunity to be grasped, especially against the recent background of rises in energy prices of 125 per cent. The need to ensure national strategic objectives can be met by means of an effective planning system, particularly in relation to wind power.
The suspension of the coming into force of the planning infrastructure legislation puts the country back into delay and uncertainty. In addition, many of the renewable projects are under 50 megawatts and are therefore decided at local level. It is unclear how the local planning framework will work. Can the Minister say how this country will be able to meet its targets? The regional spatial strategies are vital for getting approvals granted but these have now gone.
Can the Minister confirm when he will bring into reality the extension of permitted development rights for small-scale renewables—a matter that I understand is on his desk? Will this also ensure planning presumption in favour of renewables outside nationally protected areas and for small-scale—up to 5 megawatt—schemes in national parks and the green belt? This will demonstrate increased ambition for PV, helping to provide clarity for the UK PV industry, where there is a need to address urgently what is meant by “higher than expected deployment” requiring an “early review”. When will this start? Will the Minister also confirm that the coalition Government will not act on the Conservative proposal to bring in a third-party right of appeal to planning consent, which will only increase delay and frustrate investment?
The introduction of feed-in tariffs from 1 April under the previous Administration has provided the opportunity to make a step change in renewable energy. The renewables obligation has supported only the cheapest, very large-scale projects. This feed-in tariff extends support to projects of any scale up to 5 megawatts where individual local co-operatives and developers can get on with their own investments at the small, local level. The benefit that this can bring to renewable supply is best demonstrated by Germany, which has operated in this way for 15 years. There, 80 per cent of renewable power is from small-scale sources and only 20 per cent from major infrastructure schemes. In contrast, in the UK 96 per cent of renewables is provided by the large power companies. This opportunity must not be frustrated by the planning regime of local authorities operating under the present severe financial restraint. The Minister can free up a huge surge in activity.
The feed-in tariff pays different rates to differing project scales and sources of supply, and, generally speaking, pays the correct amount to guarantee a return on investment of between 6 and 8 per cent. First, will the Minister ensure that this support is protected under any future review, that it extends well beyond 2013 and that it will not be subjected to meddling and cuts? Secondly, he is urgently required to review the regime regarding small-scale waste plants, particularly on farm anaerobic digestion schemes. Regrettably, although the price is correct for commercial operations, where plants receive income from waste from commercial sources such as restaurants, this rate is insufficient for on-farm waste plants, where no income is received from farm-generated waste. The industry does not want to wait until next spring. The potential for on-farm AD needs to be realised. Will the Minister say today that he will look immediately at the rate for on-farm AD and biomass, and introduce a higher 23.5p commercial rate?
The Government recently committed £1 billion for the green investment bank. This bank was a policy idea first raised by the previous Labour Administration and it is therefore one that we are happy, in principle, to see adopted. Is the Minister able to clarify the specifics of this policy? How does he see the functions of the green investment bank? Will it be able to raise money on the financial markets? Has the department made any forecasts of the total funding that will be available in each of the next five years, and what leverage will this have with the private sector? Our vision was to have the green bank supported by both public and private funding—a dynamic partnership to champion social and environmental change.
On the carbon reduction commitment, there is the bizarre situation where, if a company claims feed-in tariffs or renewable obligation certificates as a company for on-site renewables, it has to count these renewables as producing carbon in the same way as average grid-mix electricity. The shake-up to the CRC announced in the CSR means that the Treasury will keep all this revenue. If this rule is not changed, we will be in the position of the Treasury taking money from companies investing in renewables for carbon that they did not emit. The situation needs urgent attention as it is vital that the commercial sector also invests in renewables.
Under the Labour Administration, the department instigated a marine energy action plan to which industry contributed enthusiastically. Much valuable data and many useful suggestions were assembled within the four work streams of finance, infrastructure, planning and technology, but the impetus was lost during the general election. The department now faces the challenge of utilising that work with the new policies of the coalition Government, who state that they will introduce measures to encourage marine energy. In the July annual energy statement the department promised to consider how the development of marine energy parks around the British coast can help to support marine energy in the UK. Detailed proposals are expected by the end of the year. The UK cannot afford to lose its lead on marine. We need to see five renewable obligation certificates for wave and tide. Once again we need to catch up on lost momentum.
On the RTFO, we need the mandatory EU sustainability standards to be implemented as soon as possible for both renewable transport fuels and liquids for power generation. They should be implemented by the end of this year but the Government are waiting until 1 April. We would like to see good-quality biofuels, as the UK biofuel industry has risen superbly to the sustainability challenge and has, since the beginning of the scheme, been producing biofuels that perform acceptably well against the RTFO sustainability criteria. The reports from the Renewable Fuels Agency on the first two years of the RTFO 2008-10 show that UK biofuels have consistently delivered carbon savings of 70 per cent and more compared to fossil fuels, and have produced the highest sustainability scores of any biofuels sold in the UK.
Within my sub-region of Cheshire, there have been many projects that can be identified as examples of best practice. Envirolink Northwest is doing excellent work with smaller projects, both on farms and in businesses, supporting the installation of renewable energy technologies. This momentum is in serious danger of being lost with the abolition of the NWDA. It remains to be seen what resources and commitment will be given to the new area local enterprise partnerships. Once again, momentum is being lost. It is important not to take our foot off the accelerator. The department under the Labour Government made some real strides forward. It remains to be seen whether many of the projects and policies mentioned will come to fruition under the coalition Government. It is positive to see that the renewable heat incentive and plugged-in places funding survived the cuts, albeit in depleted form. I think that Envirolink would argue that grid connection and finance are the two real sticking points at the moment. For example, even with the arrival of feed-in tariffs for solar panels, for many people the up-front capital costs mean that they will remain prohibitively expensive. Our loss of the co-ordination role from the North West Development Agency is a real blow as there is no other organisation to take up effectively the mantle of sub-national climate change. The LEPs will struggle to really deliver a low-carbon agenda on the ground without any funding or co-ordination and support.
Developing renewable energies is an integral part of our fight against climate change. Notwithstanding the Government’s slogan of wanting to be the greenest Government ever, it remains behind Scotland’s challenge of 80 per cent renewables and behind the comparatively modest European target of 20 per cent renewables by 2020.
There is not enough urgency in the Government's policies compared with what was in train and proposed under the previous Labour Administration. They are missing a major injection of funding for infrastructure and research. One related planning policy that will undoubtedly impact the future of renewable energies in this country is the Government's plans for the Infrastructure Planning Commission. The commission is proposed to be replaced by the major infrastructure planning unit—a policy that we are anticipating to see in more detail when this House considers the decentralisation and localism Bill. Through this change the Government are promising to continue a fast-track approach to planning applications, for example for wind farms, while at the same time promising the public a greater opportunity for influencing these decisions. We look forward to seeing how they plan to reconcile these two competing parts of the process when the Bill reaches this House.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I very much welcome this debate. This House has had great debates about climate change and energy and I am glad to see that we will focus on it in this Parliament as well. I would say that it is one of the most important subjects—even more important than the UK budget rebate in Europe, which we were discussing earlier, although I am sure that the noble Lord who follows me will probably disagree. Anyway, let us move on with energy and climate change.
One thing that I want to do in my introductory remarks is to say how much I appreciated the work of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in the latter part of the Labour Government. I appreciate his commitment to these issues and what he worked hard to achieve. However, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that the previous Government’s successes in this area are perhaps rather more measured than he might think.
Let us take something as important as the Climate Change Act, a great milestone in addressing climate change for this Parliament and the UK. The previous Government were good at setting out targets and their aspirations for what they wanted to do, but it was rather more difficult to achieve those targets and aspirations. The Labour Party had its own manifesto targets on the carbon footprint, which it failed to meet. From 1997 to just prior to the last year of the previous Government, the United Kingdom’s carbon footprint very much flat-lined and we did not achieve the targets. We met them in the last year, but that was due more to international economic meltdown than to anything else. We had a lot of talk about renewables and some investment in the latter stages, but all we have done so far in relation to the 27 member states is to progress from overtaking Malta to moving ahead of Luxembourg as well. As for carbon capture and storage, we had tenders, we talked about it and we were enthusiastic about it, but we still do not have any commitments on it. Smart meters and feed-in tariffs were delivered in the last Energy Act, which was a great move forward, but it was rather beyond the 11th hour in terms of making the changes that are required for this agenda.
I want to spend my time today looking at the poor relation in energy and climate change—energy savings. I am not saying for a moment that the other areas are not important but I want to concentrate on this one. It is a Cinderella subject that is left out too regularly. Energy prices are currently higher than they have ever been. In fact, retail prices seem to be moving further than they have ever been from wholesale prices, perhaps due to a lack of reform in the way in which the industry was regulated over the past few years. I was speaking two weeks ago with some representatives of the industry, who told me that energy costs in most of industry are still a sufficiently small percentage of the overall costs that the management does not really concentrate on them. That is true of a number of households—though not all households—as well. I will come back to that issue.
The fact is that buildings account for some 40 per cent of our electricity and energy costs. It is one of the biggest challenges that we have. I absolutely agree with one thing that I read in the previous Government’s White Papers—that energy savings are the most efficient and economic way of tackling climate change. Investment in this area produces a bigger return than any other tool for meeting the strategy of decarbonising our economy.
I was in India last month and in China last year. Energy savings are the big headline in climate change there and what people are trying to do. It is an exciting subject. In the previous five-year plan, China had a 20 per cent reduction target from energy efficiency, which I believe it is just about to achieve. Under the Copenhagen accord, the decarbonisation of its economy is largely met through energy efficiency and there is a target of 40 per cent savings by 2020. In the global context, that is a big deal and a major way of moving forward. I think that in the UK and Europe we sometimes understate it. If we look at Europe, under the 2020 package, we had a target of 20 per cent renewables and a 20 per cent reduction in carbon footprint. Both are statutory European targets, but the third 20 per cent— 20 per cent energy reduction by 2020—is only an indicative target. Again, even within the European context, that shows that it is the poor relation.
Here in the UK, we had the important Warm Front scheme, which we debated briefly last week, and the carbon reduction commitment, which was a strange way of moving around what was originally an energy target. I congratulate the Government because over the summer they rather contentiously started to stop the free issue of units under the CRC scheme. That is an important move forward. We had the CERT scheme, under which several years ago we used to receive 10 energy-saving light bulbs in our post nearly every day. We put the energy companies in charge of saving energy, which was rather like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank or perhaps the bishops in charge of Lords reform. It seemed quite inappropriate and something that would not work. I hope that there will be changes in that area.
To me, energy saving is not just a virtuous circle; it is a virtuous spiral. Let me explain why. We have estimates from Ofgem that we need £230 billion-worth of investment in our generating and electricity supply industry over the next few years to meet our energy gap. It is obvious that the more we meet our energy savings targets and go beyond them, the less we need of that investment. In terms of energy savings, we have the planning system, which was mentioned earlier. We do not have to ask for planning permission for energy saving. It can go ahead without delays. In fact, energy saving is one of the ways in which we can meet targets without the great changes that we need otherwise.
Let me take one or two other issues. One of the ironies about carbon leakage is that, although we are about to meet our Kyoto targets at the end of 2012, as measured by carbon production, we will increase our carbon consumption by some 19 per cent over that time in comparison with 1990 levels. By saving energy, we do not have that conflict; indeed, we reduce it. On renewables, I am in favour of them, but we have a problem with intermittence in wind power. Yet with energy saving, we have a completely non-intermittent way of meeting our energy requirements.
However, there are two other much more important areas. The first is fuel poverty. One of the great problems in the past two years was that, with energy prices rising, more people were entering fuel poverty. I know that these figures have been quoted before, but something like 4.5 million households are now in energy poverty. By energy saving, we can tackle that problem head on. Perhaps an even more important question than that in terms of a strategic view and energy security, which the Minister rightly emphasised, is this: what is more secure than not needing energy, or needing less of it and so having to import less of it?
I say to the Minister that the Government should not ignore this poor relation but make sure that they keep focused on it, as well as on the many other technological solutions. I look forward very much to the energy Bill that will be coming through this House, the green deal, which I know is targeted to meet a number of these issues, and the green investment bank, which could provide investment in the right sectors. Energy saving is not a very sexy subject, but it could really help us to meet our climate change targets. It is one area where perhaps we could follow the developing world rather than trying to lead it.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on one of the decisions that they have taken, one which was criticised by the noble Lord who spoke for the Labour Front Bench; that is, the decision to take the £1 billion taxation in effect from the carbon-reduction scheme and apply it to reducing the appalling deficit with which this Government are landed, rather than keep with the idea of the previous Government. The purpose of taxation is to give money to the Treasury for the needs that it has in order to finance necessary public expenditure and to maintain public finances in good order. I congratulate the Government on that.
There is little else on which I feel that I can congratulate the Government. But I begin by declaring an interest as the founder and chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which celebrates its first anniversary later this month. As its name implies, it is concerned above all with the policy aspects, which we are discussing in this debate, of this whole multidimensional climate change issue. I speak, incidentally, for myself and not for the foundation, which does not have a corporate view.
Because various remarks have been made, I should say that the foundation is financed by a range of generous donors. But one thing is absolute: in order to show that there is no possibility of our not being independent, we do not accept a penny of money from the energy industry or anyone who has a significant interest in it. I am glad to say that this is monitored by my excellent board of trustees, most of whom are Members of this House. All the Benches are represented. I am the only Tory. There are two from the Labour Benches, who I am glad to say are in their places. There is one from Liberal Democrat Benches. There are two from the Cross Benches and one from the Bench of Bishops. It is fully monitored that we do not raise any money from the energy industry.
In his admirably brief opening speech, the Minister mentioned two things which the Government generally—I do not want to single my noble friend out because he was just speaking the Government’s policy—are trying to make out. They say that there is a real energy security problem, which we have to meet by decarbonising our economy, and that there are great economic benefits in our decarbonising our economy. Both those things are absolute nonsense. I have some knowledge of the energy scene, having been Secretary of State for Energy in the distant past, but these things do not change completely.
Carbon-based energy has never been more abundant than now. It is commercially extractable because, not least, of the exciting recent technological development of the commercial extraction of gas from shale. This not only increases enormously the commercially winnable carbon energy resources of the world, but it is fortunate that shale is abundant throughout the world—in North America, Europe, South America and so on. We do not have to feel that we are dependent on the Middle East, which may be unstable, or on Mr Putin, who may be unreliable. The development of the liquid natural gas business has also increased security on the gas front very significantly. So there is no energy security problem. In so far as there is an energy security problem, it is because we may come to rely too much on intermittent wind power, when the lights might indeed go out, but that is the only problem we have.
I turn to the idea of raising substantially the price of carbon. It is the essence of the Government’s policy because it is only way you can shift to so-called green energy, which is much more expensive. Somehow, it is claimed that this will produce an economic benefit and create jobs. I am reminded of the distinguished 19th-century French economist, Frederic Bastiat. He pointed out that if you went around breaking windows everywhere, you could create an enormous number of jobs for glaziers, but that did not mean that it was a sensible thing to do. That is a parable of the Government’s policy. When we debated this issue just before the Summer Recess, the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, who I respect and am glad to see will be speaking later, pointed out that the creation of jobs argument is complete nonsense and rubbish.
On this front, I want to mention two of the economic consequences of the Climate Change Act 2008, to which this Government, like the previous Government, are wedded. Perhaps I may quote from an interesting article on energy in the current issue of the Economist. It begins:
“Many factors were responsible for the industrial revolution. But the use of fossil fuels was clearly vital in driving a step change in rates of economic and population growth. So the current rise in the cost of extracting such fuels should be the subject of considerable concern”.
The article concludes with:
“That is a headwind the global economy could do without”.
The increase in the cost of extraction will be nothing compared with the increase in the cost of energy if we go from carbon-based energy to non-carbon energy. We in the United Kingdom do not use carbon-based energy because we have a love affair with or addiction to carbon, and we do not use it because the oil companies are so powerful that they force us to do so. We and the rest of the world use it, quite simply, because it is by far and away the cheapest source of energy. Anything else is more expensive. It may not be so for ever, but for the foreseeable future that is the case.
Despite energy savings, there will be a huge increase in fuel poverty in this country, something I do not want to see, as well as in costs generally. The Minister mentioned the green investment bank. This is what the chairman of the green investment bank commission had to say in an interview published in the Daily Telegraph on 3 July:
“The total estimated cost of meeting our current climate change carbon reduction targets is between £800bn and £1 trillion … There’s really been nothing like this since the post-World War Two reconstruction programme”.
That is the appalling burden we are saddling ourselves with, and what for? The purpose is to decarbonise, as it were, the world economy. My noble friend referred to the objective, which is to reach a global agreement in Cancun in December at the United Nations climate change conference to decarbonise the world’s economies, faster for the developed world, of course, than for the developing world, but it is accepted that it makes sense only if every country—China and India as well as the developed countries—takes its share. This is not going to happen. The lessons of the Copenhagen conference last December should have been clear. Why is that? The reason why the Copenhagen conference was a fiasco and no global agreement could be secured was because of the position of the developing countries, with which I have considerable sympathy. There was, incidentally, a prior meeting between the so-called BASIC countries—Brazil, South Africa, India and China—in Beijing on the eve of the Copenhagen conference, and they agreed that none of them would agree to a binding global carbon-reduction agreement in which they were participants. They were very happy for the developed world to cut back its carbon but they were not going to take part.
Why? Because they have a real problem with poverty and its consequences. Hundreds of millions of their people still suffer from preventable disease, malnutrition and premature death and they know that to get these people out of poverty as quickly as possible they need the fastest rate of economic development. That requires among other things—it is not the only thing—using the cheapest available form of energy, and that is carbon-based energy. That is why they would not agree at Cancun either, and they are absolutely right. That is why China is building a new massive coal-fired power station every week, and why it is the new imperial power in sub-Saharan Africa and is getting its hands on all the raw material resources it can, including gas, oil and coal. It is not making this great diplomatic, financial, economic and political expenditure because it does not mean to use them—it will use them. That is how it sees the future and it is absolutely right. So the idea that there will be a global agreement on this is unwarranted. There may be a global agreement on adaptation aid to the poor countries should that be needed—I would be content with that—but there is not going to be a decarbonisation agreement. As to us going it alone, the total amount of emissions that we are responsible for is less than the growth in emissions from China in one year.
Another reason the global agreement will not happen is because after China the biggest emitter of carbon dioxides is the United States. Unlike George Bush Jr, President Obama came in saying that he was going to get to grips with this issue. What has happened? Nothing. There is a Bill in the House of Representatives which is like a beached whale. After the mid-term elections today, the beached whale will be a dead duck. It is quite clear that if President Obama cannot get legislation through Congress when the Democrats have a majority in both Houses, there is no earthly possibility of it being agreed when the Republicans control at least one of the Houses and, with their friends the coal-state Democrats, effectively control the Senate as well.
There is no way this is going happen. It is complete madness; it does not make sense. As their predecessors did, the Government trumpet that we are the only country in the world to have a Climate Change Act which binds us legally to an 80 per cent reduction by 2050, when some of your Lordships—not me—might even be alive. They say that no other country has this commitment. Of course no other country has this: no other country is so stupid. The policy simply does not add up.
What is it all in aid of anyway? It is a fear that global warming, which has paused for the past 10 years, may resume. I do not know if it will—no one knows—and I am certainly prepared to confess that I do not know. I am one of the few people in this business who does not know what the temperature of the globe is going to be in 100 years. It may be warmer than it is today, but so what? We can adapt, which is what people do in different parts of the world where temperature varies enormously. As economic development takes place, capacity to adapt is greater than ever; as technology develops, the capacity to adapt is greater than ever.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which makes the projections on which the Government ostensibly base their policies, gives certain warnings for the next 100 years. It thinks that the temperature will go up between 1.8 degrees Celsius and 4 degrees Celsius. It says that a rise at the upper end, of 4 degrees Celsius, would mean a loss of global GDP of somewhere between 1 per cent and 5 per cent. We in this country will benefit from global warming, as most of us instinctively and intuitively sense, but there will be parts of the developing world which will not. Let us assume for the developing world a loss not of 5 per cent but of 10 per cent. That would still mean on the panel’s growth projections that living standards in the developing world in 100 years would be only eight times rather than nine times as high as they are today.
Lord Haskel
I draw to the noble Lord’s attention the clause in the Companion which says that it is best to limit speeches to 15 minutes.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
I speak very seldom in this House and I hope that I will be allowed a little bit of a margin on this issue, but I am so grateful to the noble Lord opposite for the reminder. I have often wondered what he spends his time doing. It is obviously reading the Companion, which is a very sensible thing to do. I shall conclude soon.
Noble Lords may say, “Well, surely the panel is being a little bit optimistic in projecting that this century is going to be far and away the best century economically that the world has ever seen”. Perhaps the panel is being optimistic in assuming great rates of growth in China, India and so on. It is perfectly plausible, but it may not happen. If the growth being projected does not take place, you will not get the growth in emissions, and if you do not get the growth in emissions—on the panel’s model—you will not get the warming either. You cannot have one without the other. The huge rise in living standards is an integral part of the projections that the panel makes.
I could say more, but I shall not. The only conclusion that I can reach about the Government’s policy, which is no different from the Opposition’s policy, is that it is both intellectually incoherent and economically illiterate.
Defence: Treaties with France
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier today in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
“First, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Sapper William Blanchard from 101 (City of London) Engineer Regiment (Explosive Ordnance Disposal), who died on operations in Afghanistan on Saturday. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends at this dreadful time.
The Prime Minister and President Sarkozy this afternoon signed two treaties that mark a deepening of the UK-France bilateral relationship. The two treaties will next be laid before Parliament, allowing honourable Members the opportunity to consider them as part of the process towards ratification. Separately, the texts of both treaties will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.
The UK-France relationship is a strategic partnership of sovereign nations working together to tackle the biggest challenges facing our two countries at a new level of co-operation. The treaties do not diminish in any way our ability to act independently when the national interest decides. They provide us with greater capability when we do decide to act together.
The UK has welcomed the recent French decision to rejoin NATO’s integrated military structure. We believe that this is good for NATO, good for the UK and good for France. It makes sense for us now to achieve maximum interoperability, greater commonality of doctrine and more efficient use of equipment. Closer co-operation with France will also provide better value for money for the British taxpayer.
Let me give the House a sense of the scope of both treaties. First, the Defence and Security Co-operation Treaty will develop closer co-operation between our Armed Forces, the sharing and pooling of materials and equipment, the building of joint facilities, mutual access to each other’s defence markets, and industrial and technological co-operation. The treaty provides the framework; details will emerge over time as more detailed work is done.
The second treaty covers collaboration in the technology associated with nuclear stockpile stewardship in support of our respective independent nuclear deterrent capabilities, in full compliance with our international obligations. The treaty provides for the joint construction and operation of a new hydrodynamics facility at Valduc in France and technology development centre at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in the UK. The facilities will be operational from 2015. This programme, named Teutates, will assist both countries in maintaining the safety and reliability of their respective nuclear stockpiles and improve expertise in countering nuclear terrorism.
The facilities will enable each country to undertake hydrodynamic experiments in a secure environment. The hydrodynamics facilities use radiography to measure the performance of materials at extremes of temperature and pressure. This enables us to model the performance and safety of the nuclear weapons in our stockpile without undertaking nuclear explosive tests.
The UK will maintain its independent nuclear deterrent, and will continue to work towards the long-term objective of a world without nuclear weapons.
Today’s summit is only the start of long-term deepening of the UK-France bilateral relationship. France is the UK’s natural partner in Europe for defence co-operation. France and the UK have some of the most capable and experienced Armed Forces and the largest defence industry. We are by a long way Europe’s two biggest defence spenders.
Achieving the envisaged level of co-operation will take time and will require changes to long-established ways of working. We will put in place measures to deliver long-term commitment to joint projects, and we expect to announce new areas of work at regular intervals.
A stronger defence relationship with France does not mean a weaker relationship with the United States, Germany, or any other partner but quite the reverse, as the increased capability and effectiveness that we will achieve through this co-operation will make us stronger partners. In the multilateral context also, our NATO allies and EU partners want UK and French forces, as well as those of other nations, to be as capable and interoperable as possible, which is exactly what the new programme of co-operation is intended to achieve.”
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating to this House as a Statement the Answer given in another place. I start by associating myself and those on these Benches with the tribute paid to Sapper William Blanchard of the 101 (City of London) Engineer Regiment. I see once again the words in brackets “explosive ordnance disposal”. The bravery displayed by those who do that job is, frankly, beyond my comprehension, and I greatly admire them.
Turning to the Statement, I protest once again that we in this House and in Parliament in general are the last to hear about this treaty being signed. The media, the French public, our allies and enemies and, I understand, the French Parliament have heard about it first. Everybody has. I will not go on about it, but we must get to a situation where we and the other place are the first to hear these things. Having said that, we welcome the general direction of what we hear so far. Co-operation with the French is the only practical co-operation that can make a significant impact on our defence capability. Taken intelligently and effectively, it has the capacity significantly to increase the ability of us both to make an impact, particularly in co-operating on defence equipment and its research and development.
Having said that, because of its suddenness and brevity this Statement raises an awful lot of questions. First, there is the very ratification process. The processes for ratifying treaties in Parliament—international treaties which have no impact on domestic legislation—are extremely poor. The previous Government brought forward proposals to improve that, as the present Ponsonby convention is extremely weak, and I see some hint that we are going to do something more. I see that although two treaties have been signed, we are to have an opportunity to consider them as part of the process towards ratification. That seems rather fuller than the convention and I invite the Minister to write to me—or, indeed, to produce a Written Statement—setting out exactly how we are going to have the opportunity to debate this extremely important convention or treaty, whatever the right term for it is, because so many important matters are opened up by the very concept.
The words flowing around in the media are of a 50-year “binding agreement”. Now, what does a binding agreement with the French mean? How are we going to adjudicate when we disagree? Is there going to be some supreme court for us? The history of the French nation over the past few centuries shows a chequered record on binding agreements. Indeed, there is a somewhat dark side to some of it. Of course, that will not be the case in future, but any concept of “binding agreement” has to have behind it some meaningful process otherwise, sadly, it will be just words. It is particularly difficult to envisage—I am not saying that it is impossible—how a binding agreement will survive the five-yearly defence reviews that we support. We think they are a good idea, but what will be the mechanism for those reviews?
Finally, can the Minister explain how this will change our relationship with our allies? We have this complex relationship in NATO; we are developing another complex relationship within the EU. We support those, but in among all of that we are going to have some special relationship with the French. How will that be achieved and not weaken those important relationships, particularly the NATO relationship? People—even, I dare say, of our generation—forget just how important that NATO relationship has been over the decades and how important it is that we do nothing to weaken it.
Turning to the nuclear stockpile, I found this somewhat surprising. I do not mean that it is not right but that I was not privy to the extent of this development. My understanding is that the 1958 mutual defence agreement with the US was special and complex, and that the extent of the co-operation between the two countries was extremely different. The French had to work a lot harder on the outside of that agreement. Since we are told that our American allies are content with this agreement, are we to understand that the French, in terms of support for their weapons, are going to receive the same support that we enjoy from the Americans? Are we going to have some sort of trinational bomb?
We are talking about sharing a nuclear facility with the French. I think that I understand what those words mean, but how can we share that facility without sharing nuclear secrets? Do we accept that the French will have effective full access to our nuclear secrets?
The document seems to imply—once again, I am sorry that I have not read it over and over, but I have had very little time to study it—that we are making a financial commitment to the nuclear facility. This is very interesting. Does it mean that the Government, almost as an aside in this Statement, are affirming beyond all reasonable doubt that we are going to have a deterrent? The facility will not open until 2015; if we have a financial commitment to it, we are clearly going to spend substantial money on the nuclear deterrent over and above anything that we understood from the SDSR.
If this is a Statement about the deterrent, does this co-operation in any way reduce the independence of our deterrent? In simple terms, will we continue to be able to target our weapon and fire it unconstrained by any other nation? I should value the Minister’s confirmation of that.
I turn to the more conventional side. To what extent does this weaken our ability to work alone? Mutual co-operation, almost by definition, ends up meaning mutual dependence. Will that dependence mean that we cannot act by ourselves? Will we, in a sense, only ever go to war again—this may be a good or a bad thing; on balance, I think the House would say that it was a bad thing—if we are in agreement with the French? They are lovely people but, over 50 years, will we always have to have their agreement to go to war, and indeed will they have to have ours? Are we in fact going to have a genuine capability for independent operation?
One cannot in these circumstances do other than reflect on the carrier. If I understand the way that the carrier decisions have gone, we are to lose our Harrier capabilities and fixed-wing strike capability, but we are going to build a carrier on which French aircraft can operate until we get our own. That is great if you say it quickly. Does that mean that, when this carrier is in the vicinity of a place where we want to take independent action, the French fixed-wing aircraft on board will go and bomb the targets that we ask them to, or will they have to call Paris first?
I have questions about the whole picture of the interdependence around the carrier. What happens when it is in refit? What happens when we lend the carrier—do we take all our secret bits out or rub all the symbols of Britishness off? It is very complicated.
We feel that the generality of this effort is a good idea, but we will want to hear a lot more about the detail before the treaty is properly ratified.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s general support. With regard to his opening comments about the sapper who, sadly, was killed and his observation on the bravery of the soldiers of that regiment, I was honorary colonel of that regiment until May this year and I agree with everything that he said about the bravery of those men and women.
The noble Lord asked me about the meaning of “binding”. I confirm that all treaties are binding and that as a country we are fully committed. I will write to him about the opportunity to have a debate in order to look into this matter in greater detail. I agree that it is an important issue; indeed, it is close to my heart, so I would welcome that.
The noble Lord asked why Parliament was the last to hear. I point out that the Prime Minister made a Statement in the other place yesterday, in which he said:
“Tomorrow, the British and French Governments will sign new defence and security co-operation treaties, which will be laid before Parliament in the usual way. This follows the same principle: partnership, yes; giving away sovereignty, no”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/11/10; col. 615.]
Furthermore, the Prime Minister has also laid a Written Statement on the Anglo-French treaties at 12.30 pm today, which will appear in both Houses.
I understood that the noble Lord asked whether the United Kingdom is now giving priority to France over other EU member states. We are working more closely with all our allies; that was obviously one of the key arguments of the SDSR. We are collaborating closely with France because, with the UK, France has some of the most capable forces in Europe and it shares the UK’s level of defence spending and ambition. However, co-operation with our other European allies and partners is also vital and will remain a fundamental part of our approach. Existing co-operation will continue. For example, the UK/Netherlands amphibious force will remain in operation. We are also looking to increase bilateral co-operation with EU partners such as Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, with which we have a history of close equipment or other defence co-operation. We will also increase our engagement with smaller and newer states in the EU.
The noble Lord asked about the UK/France nuclear collaboration and how it might affect the United States. We are satisfied that our proposals are fully compliant with our obligations under the mutual defence agreement and Polaris sales agreement with the United States. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have both made a commitment to renew the deterrent. It does not in any way reduce the independence of use of our deterrent.
The noble Lord asked whether the UK would have to join France if it decided to invade another country. The answer is no. Only a UK Government will ever decide when to deploy British troops, with whom and under what conditions. Article 5 of the treaty confirms that deployment and employment of the armed forces of each party remains a national responsibility at all times. Both France and the United Kingdom will continue to maintain a full spectrum of capabilities. This will allow us to deploy independently, should France choose not to be involved, and vice versa. Decisions by either country to support the other in an operation where only one is engaged will be taken nationally on a case-by-case basis.
I hope that I have answered most of the noble Lord’s questions. If not, I undertake to write to him.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, I join these Benches in the earlier tribute. My noble friend will know that on many occasions I have argued for greater co-operation between Britain and France. Thus, I am very encouraged by the defence treaties signed today. According to media reports, the chief executives of BAE Systems and Dassault have written to their respective Governments, making the point that greater collaboration in the production of future combat aircraft and UAVs is absolutely vital. Does my noble friend not agree that, to make collaboration easier, there has to be greater consolidation between defence industries and, particularly, between British and French defence companies?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am well aware of my noble friend’s views on greater co-operation with the French, which I share. When we were in opposition, I went to France with the Secretary of State. We had a fruitful day’s discussion with French leaders, military and civilian, at the highest level. As far as the unmanned air systems are concerned, these have become central to both our armed forces. We have agreed to work together on the next generation of medium-altitude long-endurance unmanned air surveillance systems. Co-operation will enable the potential sharing of development, support and training costs and ensure that our forces can work together. We will launch a jointly funded competitive assessment phase in 2011 with a view to new equipment delivery between 2015 and 2020. In the longer term, we will jointly assess requirements and options for the next generation of unmanned combat air systems from 2030 onwards, building on work already started under the direction of the UK/France high-level working group. Over the next two years, we will develop a joint technological and industrial road map, which could lead to a decision in 2012 to launch a joint technology and operational demonstration programme from 2013 to 2018.
Lord Gilbert
My Lords, does the Minister understand some of the risks involved in what he has just been talking about? It is clear to everybody that our relationship with the United States makes what he has been talking about pale into insignificance. I have two questions. First, President Obama recently fired his Director of National Intelligence because he recommended that the United States should create with France the arrangements that have existed between us and the Americans for many years, whereby neither country engages in intelligence activities on the soil of its partner. Is it contemplated that we will engage in such an agreement with the French? Secondly, will the Minister be so kind as to tell us exactly what arrangements are being made with respect to our access to the research establishments of the American defence industry? This in my view is by far the most important element in the special relationship. I hope that I can have his assurance that nothing at all will be done to weaken that and therefore that the French will have to be told—will they not?—that we are going to share a whole lot of things with the Americans that we are not going to share with them.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I say to the noble Lord that there are obviously risks in everything. The Opposition when they were in government had similar discussions with the French and I am sure that they would have come up with a similar arrangement to what we have come up with. I share the noble Lord’s views on relations with the United States. I have always expressed those views. In fact, I have just come back from Qatar. I spent all of yesterday with United States forces out there and admire absolutely everything that they do. I give the noble Lord the assurance that we will do nothing to weaken our relationship with the United States. There is nothing here that will weaken that relationship.
Lord Maples
My Lords, I wholly welcome the Statement. If the European arm of NATO is to mean anything, enhanced co-operation between France and the United Kingdom is very important, but the big problem that we both have is over procurement. We cannot afford the equipment that we want and neither of us has a good system for managing procurement projects. The history of this is not very encouraging. The French did not participate in Tornado or Typhoon, while the Horizon joint project to build a frigate—one of the simpler naval vessels—collapsed about 10 years ago because we could not agree on the shape of the hull. The acid test of this agreement will be whether we can make a joint procurement project work. The noble Lord has mentioned UAVs, but that seems to be a research project. Can he say when the first effort between the two of us to develop a major piece of military hardware together will occur?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, it is far too early to be that specific; the treaties were signed only this afternoon. However, all our weapons will need to be replaced at some point. The Typhoon and the Rafale will need to be replaced. There are huge areas where we can co-operate with the French. We start off with the UAVs.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I entirely endorse the comments by my noble friend on the Front Bench that Parliament should be the first body to be told of an important matter such as this, and it is not sufficient for the Minister simply to say that it was trailed by the Prime Minister in the other place yesterday.
However, I certainly welcome the progress that is being made in closer co-operation with our French neighbours. They are our closest neighbour, a good ally and, now that they have rejoined NATO, there is a great opportunity for us to work more closely together. In President Sarkozy we have the first President at the Elysée palace in my lifetime who does not have a problem with the British-American special relationship, and that is good. However, if closer co-operation with our French neighbours is to succeed, three elements are necessary. There must be political buy-in, military buy-in and a buy-in from the defence industries. There will certainly be a political buy-in, and I know that my colleague on the other side, the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, with whom I was recently at a meeting in Paris, agrees. I am also certain that there will be a buy-in from the defence industries. However, after St Malo, we saw that there was not always buy-in from the military. What steps will be taken to ensure that we get a military buy-in to this progress?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, a big effort will be made to get a lot more of our troops to learn French, which will be a good start. I meet a lot of French officers, sailors and air men and women in a lot of different ways, and they tend to speak brilliant English. I welcome anything that gets France back closer into NATO. As the noble Lord said, President Sarkozy has been very brave in bringing France back to the centre of NATO and I will encourage anything to see that that continues.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, I asked a question earlier and I ask it again. My concern is on the military chain of command. For example, every officer in command and all troops in the British Army give an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. Given these new circumstances, can the Minister put information in the Library as to how this will work? There could be commanding officers who have not made that allegiance to Her Majesty. In this day and age, we have to protect our soldiers to ensure that they never face a court martial because they understood that they were entitled to reject an order from someone from another country.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am quite happy to put that in the Library. This concern can be exaggerated. France and the United Kingdom have been in NATO together for many years, we have served happily together, and I remind the noble Lord that the French and the British fought successfully together in World War 1 and World War 2. In World War 1, we served under General Foch. My grandfather was a British commander-in-chief and he was very happy to take his orders from him.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
My Lords, can the Minister say a little more about the implications of strategic co-operation with France on maritime reconnaissance? Can he confirm that there will be a sufficiency of European sea and air resources to combat piracy off Somalia, and that, in particular, when the Nimrods come off the supply line, they will for the time being be mothballed, not dismantled?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend the assurance on his last point regarding the MRA4, but I can assure him that we are working closely with the French on maritime reconnaissance and on how we can help each other on that. As regards piracy, we are part of the EU’s Operation Atalanta, which also involves other nations.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Lee, I have long been a strong promoter of the idea of greater defence co-operation with our European allies, particularly the French. When I was in government I started a number of initiatives along those lines, including the Mantis UAV programme, which I insisted on putting to the French. We made some progress on that before the election and I am glad that it is going forward.
Will the Minister confirm that as the deployment of the Armed Forces under this treaty will be a matter for national decision on a case-by-case basis, the treaty will do nothing to fill the enormous gaps created in our defence capability by the Government's strategic defence review? For example, the fact that we are not going to have any aircraft on our carriers for 10 years will not be compensated for by the fact that the French might be able to fly off the carriers, because they might decide not to take part in an operation that might arise, for example, to defend the Falklands, where purely British national interests are at stake.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord was not here when I read out the Statement. Having said that, I am aware of the part that he played in securing greater co-operation with the French. The noble Lord said that we would have carriers with no aircraft flying off them. The idea is that the aircraft and carrier will come in at the same time. We will put the cats and traps on the carrier when the JSF comes in, in 2019 or 2020.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
My Lords, I recall that, when I was a Minister for Defence a long time ago, the United Kingdom had a certain degree of dependence on the United States, and we were governed by fairly tight treaty arrangements for the maintenance of our so-called independent nuclear deterrent. There were limitations in particular on the sharing of knowledge. What happens to knowledge or material that the United States is prepared to share with us but with no one else?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, that is a very good question. I have reams of briefing on this and it would probably be better if I wrote to the noble and learned Lord in reply, because it is a technical question.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Is there not a danger of misunderstanding with the French on two matters? First, the French are notoriously nationalistic in their defence procurement. How will that square with what the Statement says about mutual access to each other's defence markets? Will the French alter their position, as they clearly have not done, for example, on rolling stock for the Channel Tunnel? Secondly, is there not a danger of a misunderstanding in terms of British and French attitudes? Throughout, the British have stressed independence and sovereignty and have not dared to whisper the name of the European Union. The French, of course, share a brigade with Germany, and will do nothing to stand in the way of closer co-operation within the European Union. Therefore, is there not a danger of misunderstanding, given our Defence Secretary's rather narrow, nationalistic views and the French view of how this will develop?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord’s first question, we are committed to improving access to each other's defence markets. This commitment is clear in the defence and security co-operation treaty. That includes opening up the French market. As for the French being nationalistic, we are aiming to deploy a combined joint expeditionary force, with UK and French forces operating side by side and with both countries engaged in the same theatre. However, a commitment to deploy UK forces will remain a decision for the British Government alone.
Lord Boyce
My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of WS Atkins. Does the Minister agree that there has been a certain amount of overreaction and hype with regard to some aspects of this initiative, especially naval co-operation? Does he agree that we have provided escorts with great success to the French carrier battle group, and vice versa, over the past 15 years or so? However, will he also acknowledge that he has been somewhat complacent when he says that we will maintain a full spectrum of capability to allow independent operations? This simply will not be the case with carrier strike when only one carrier is available. Does he agree that this will be an area of high risk in our ability to operate independently, and in the ability of the French to operate independently, when we are in a one-carrier situation? Does he agree that it is difficult to imagine how we will mitigate the risk in the years to come?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I agree with the noble and gallant Lord about the overreaction and hype. There are a lot of successes. I have been on a number of Royal Navy ships and have witnessed our personnel exercising very successfully with the French and indeed socialising with them afterwards. I have seen warm relations between the two navies; it is the same with the Royal Air Force and increasingly so with the Army. I am looking forward to witnessing Operation Flanders next spring, when our two armies will be exercising together in northern Europe. There are obviously risks in everything that we do, but we have considered this matter carefully and believe that the risk is manageable.
Lord Burnett
My Lords, I am reassured by my noble friend saying that none of this will in any way jeopardise our close links with our allies in the United States. He talked about achieving better value for money for the British taxpayer. Does he believe that there will be any savings and, if there are, will they be retained by the Ministry of Defence? Furthermore, will some of those savings be used to retain our Harrier aircraft, which are vital to our defence capability?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I wish that I could give my noble friend the answer that he is looking for but, sadly, I cannot give him that assurance. As I said last week, this was a difficult decision. We looked at the matter very carefully. The decision to retire the Harrier fleet from next April was taken with the greatest reluctance and only because that was the military advice. As politicians, we have to accept military advice.
Lord Soley
I think that it is the turn of this side—my patience is being rewarded. I welcome the Statement and the two agreements, but I really do not like the spin on this and I should like the Minister to address that. The Statement goes on about our national interests and it is all put decoratively. However, the reality is that we are giving up some of our national individuality and we know it. If we look at this matter in the context of what has been happening in recent times, with far greater co-operation and involvement between British forces and European Union states, and indeed with the deployment for the first time this week of the armed European security police force on the borders of the European Union with full British support, there is an indication that we are moving, however slowly—perhaps over 10, 20 or 30 years—towards a European security defence movement. That is what is happening. This is just like the Tory party of the past when it said that the Single European Act and so on were nothing to do with European emergence. Will the Minister kindly drop the spin and recognise that that is the direction in which he is taking us?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I do not accept the premise that the noble Lord makes and I did not feel that I was putting any spin on the matter. I was simply trying to point out the reality of the situation.
Lord Inglewood
My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the Government have any aspirations to extend this new relationship between the United Kingdom and France to any other countries in the world, be it the United States or other members of the European Union?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we have always had excellent relations with the United States and I know that those will continue. We talk to other countries in the European Union and to our NATO allies at all times, but this Statement was about relations with France, which I very much welcome.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, will the noble Lord promise to put copies of all his letters in the Library?
Energy: Climate Change
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I, too, am all in favour of Anglo-French co-operation and I should like to see some on the climate change agenda, so perhaps we can revert to that. I should be grateful for the break in the debate, otherwise I might have been tempted to respond in detail to the tour de force by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and the last time I did that I got completely slaughtered. However, the House should recognise that the difference between the noble Lord and most of us here is that he does not accept, even with the usual caveats, the burden of evidence of man’s contribution to global warming. I do and I am glad to say that the Government do. I therefore thank the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, for differentiating himself so clearly from the Government and I congratulate the Government on differentiating themselves so clearly from the noble Lord on this matter.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
I accept that there is a possibility and a probability that manmade carbon dioxide emissions have had some impact on the very slight rise in the temperature in the 20th century. I do not deny that. I keep an open mind on the science. Even if that is accepted, the policy decisions do not follow; they do not add up. That was my point.
Lord Whitty
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. Behind his scepticism about the policy, however, there is a doubt about the science. The noble Lord often makes good political and economic points but essentially his assessment of the science and the challenge that the science presents us with is different from the view taken by both the previous Government and this one.
Despite the climate sceptics’ view, there is largely cross-party consensus on the importance of climate change and the present Government’s commitment on the road to 2050 via 2020. There is largely consensus that we need a mix of energy sources from nuclear to renewables, which means nuclear and renewables, not nuclear or renewables. That is a positive sign for this country at a time when, as has been said, there is a danger that in the United States a political veto will shortly be handed to the climate change deniers and when China insists on playing such a dangerous geopolitical game on this most serious of subjects. As a result, any progress at Cancun is seriously in doubt. The fact that I am on the same page as the Government on this does not necessarily mean that I agree with everything that they are attempting to do.
Before getting on to that, I should probably declare a few interests. I am the chair—shortly to retire—of Consumer Focus, which, along with our predecessor organisation Energywatch, has often expressed consumer interests in energy policy. Even a few weeks ago, we managed to gain for consumers about £70 million from one of the major energy companies, only to find out two weeks later that we were about to be abolished. It is important that the consumer interest in this debate should be reflected. I also declare an interest as honorary president of CHPA and chair of a CHP company. As we will refer to Warm Front in a moment, I should say that I have a past interest as an adviser to Eaga, but that is no longer so. I am a member of the Environment Agency board, which reminds me that some departments did not do quite as well as the noble Lord’s department out of the CSR settlement. Measures to adapt to climate change—principally flood defences—failed to get adequate resources in the outcome of the CSR. The noble Lord and his colleagues in DECC are to be congratulated to an extent.
My main concerns in this debate are threefold. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I think that the drive on energy efficiency is still insufficient, not just in the household sense but more broadly. Secondly, there is a serious social and distributional dimension about the issue of who pays for the cost of adapting and mitigating climate change. Thirdly, there is not yet any clarity on the Government’s review of the role of Ofgem.
Energy efficiency applies not only to end use but in the generation system. We have some pretty inefficient generators in the distribution system, in which there is major leakage, and, of course, in homes, factories and offices. I was grateful, I think, to see a commitment by the new Government to increase decentralised energy, which helps to bring energy nearer to its point of use, but in general there has not been a lot of emphasis on the totality of the system and on the improvements in energy efficiency that we should be able to see.
At the household end, the Government are committed to the green deal. I welcome the concept of the green deal, but we need a lot more detail. Who will deliver it? How will householders be persuaded to go for it? Are supply companies to be involved in the delivery? Unfortunately, they are not the most trusted by householders and consumers. The banks clearly have to be involved, but I do not think that they should be the major agent either. There has been talk of Tesco and the other major supermarkets delivering. I am not sure whether that is on the Government’s agenda. There could be specialist managers—indeed, the installers and manufacturers of improved energy-efficiency and insulation materials and gadgets could be the actual deliverers.
The key thing to remember is that the whole concept of the green deal is for an individual householder voluntarily to enter into a deal to make some expenditure on the basis of a loan that will be paid back through lower energy bills. That is key, but it requires trust—trust in the initial audit of the energy efficiency or otherwise of the house; trust in the terms of payback; and trust in how the customer service to that householder is carried out, because it can all be spoilt if a wall is unnecessarily knocked down or even if a carpet is messed up and the installer fails to recognise the interests of the consumer in the household.
There is also a lack of clarity about who potentially benefits from the green deal. Owner-occupiers, in one sense, clearly would if they were in the building for a significant time. Theoretically, at least, they could benefit if they sold the building, because the value of the house should at least reflect its future energy consumption bills. It is not so clear when it comes to tenants and landlords. The question of who benefits depends on who pays the bill and it is not at all clear how this will apply in social housing in local government and housing association properties.
That brings me to the nub of the problem so far as the distributional aspects are concerned. There is an increase in fuel poverty. I was once the Minister who set the targets for fuel poverty and for the first few years we made significant progress on that front. We are now miles off achieving those targets and I think that a realistic reassessment of the targets is necessary. However, we must reiterate and back up a commitment to eliminating, so far as possible, fuel poverty from our society. The Government’s major move on this front has been effectively to run down and abolish Warm Front. There was some criticism of Warm Front and no doubt its delivery and scope could have been improved, but it was a major contributor not only to reducing fuel poverty but also to improving the energy efficiency of some of our least energy-efficient buildings. It is not replaced by the green deal. It is not clear how the green deal applies to those who are fuel poor and would not wish to take out that loan or do not own the property in which they live. Nor is it replaced by the price support system that the Government say will operate within the tariff structure—in other words, there will in effect be some subsidy to the supply companies, bringing on what we might previously have called a social tariff, although I do not think that that terminology is of interest to the Government. That helps—it helps to lower the current price—but it does nothing to improve the energy efficiency of the building and therefore the future bills.
Fuel poverty is growing. In the medium term, it is almost certain that energy prices will rise. They will rise because of world market conditions and they will rise because of government policy in, effectively, placing the cost of greening and decarbonising our energy supply on the consumer. On one level, I do not dissent from that policy, but it has consequences. In particular, it has distributional consequences on the very poor. It is not clear whether the green deal will do anything significant on that front.
The central problem is that this is a regulated industry—a very heavily regulated industry, according to some—and the net effect of the regulation is counterproductive. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what the Government expect from the current review of Ofgem. I have often been critical of Ofgem. The noble Lord, Lord Mogg, who is not in his place, sometimes gets very sensitive about it. However, I am not in favour of the abolition of Ofgem, nor am I in favour of limiting its remit. It has been improving on both the social and the environmental fronts. However, there needs to be a radical if not revolutionary approach to the way in which tariffs are structured in this country. It remains the case that the more energy you use, the lower the unit cost of energy. It also remains the case, either because of the tariff or because of the way in which you pay, that, by and large, poorer households pay more per unit of energy than better-off households. Both on social and environmental grounds, that is counterproductive.
The objectives of energy policy—on security, decarbonisation and affordability, including reducing fuel poverty—must depend on us delivering a step increase in energy efficiency. Unless the Government and Ofgem and the remit that this Government give to Ofgem are directed at producing a tariff structure that encourages energy conservation and energy efficiency and removes the disproportionate burden of energy costs on the poorer households in our society, we will not achieve any of those objectives. I hope that, in the review of Ofgem, the Government will bear in mind that the combination of the noble Lord’s department and Ofgem can deliver a radical change of strategy for us. I hope that they do deliver it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I, too, should begin by declaring a couple of interests. I am the honorary president of two organisations connected with the energy industries—one is the National Skills Academy for Nuclear, and the other is the Energy Industries Council—but I do not think that anything that I am going to say will impinge on their valuable work.
I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on one thing—here I must challenge the view put forward by my noble friend Lord Lawson—which is that I do not think that anybody can now seriously doubt the weight of the scientific evidence about global warming. What I think my noble friend Lord Lawson leaves out of account is the huge cost and damage of the effects of that. If he doubts that, perhaps I may suggest that he read the report of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change, which is a sub-committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who without doubt is one of the most distinguished scientists in this House and indeed in the country.
I do not want to talk about adaptation; I want to talk about mitigation—the measures necessary to try to reduce the human input of carbon into the atmosphere. I think it right that one should be seeking to aim to make the energy industries as carbon free as possible, however difficult that may be. It will take a long time, I have no doubt on that, but I support the view that policy should move in that direction.
Today's debate could cover a very large canvas but I have time in this short speech only to touch on a very few points. The first point that I would like to make and put to my noble friend on the Front Bench is that I hugely welcome the emphasis in 2050 Pathways Analysis—on which my noble friend organised a very useful briefing for a number of us before the Recess—and, in particular, its emphasis on 2050. As my noble friend will recognise, in the past I have argued that energy policy, and indeed even more climate change policy, has to have a very long perspective. It takes a very long time, to use a hackneyed phrase, to turn the tanker round. I therefore very much welcome that.
However, when one looks at the national policy statement for nuclear, which is one of the documents published with the pathways document and contains a large number of changes from the original draft statement, one sees that it concentrates only on the period up to 2025. What is the logic of setting a framework that takes us to 2050 if on one of the most important parts of the whole effort you are only going up to 2025? I am reinforced in this view by a very interesting paper that was published in the journal Science and headed “Generating the Option of a Two-Stage Nuclear Renaissance”. In that paper, Robin Grimes and Bill Nuttall say:
“We suggest that the first stage of this process will include replacing or extending the life of existing nuclear power plants, with continued incremental improvements in efficiency and reliability”—
and that is happening. They continue:
“After 2030, a large-scale second period of construction would allow nuclear energy to contribute substantially to the decarbonization of electricity generation”.
Is it not already implicit in the 2050 pathways paper that there will be more nuclear generation? Nuclear generation is low-carbon, an established technology and highly reliable, unlike wind power, which is intermittent. It cannot possibly be right to be planning on the basis of nuclear only up to 2025. I wonder whether my noble friend will comment on that, particularly if there is to be any chance of achieving the purposes of the longer-term analysis.
I very much welcomed the Statement by the right honourable Chris Huhne on 18 October, which set out the Government’s policy very clearly and has been widely welcomed by the nuclear industry. The Statement makes it perfectly clear that nuclear will be taken forward and must be a major contributor to low-carbon energy production. However, I have one question on this for the Minister. In the Statement, Mr Huhne said that there will be no subsidy for nuclear,
“unless similar support is also made available more widely to other types of generation”.
I am not sure that I quite understand the implications of that.
We are already promised a floor price for carbon, which will help all low-carbon energy sources—in particular, new renewable sources—but I would welcome an indication of what might be done in support of that. There is a growing view that a carbon floor price will by itself not be enough to attract the huge sums of investment that will be necessary. In one representation that I have had, what is being called for is,
“a suite of energy or capacity signals or payments that reward the characteristics required in new generation investment, for example low carbon energy or secure and predictable energy supply”.
Will my noble friend say whether the Government are considering capacity payments? They would be very useful not only in nuclear but, for instance, if we are going to have standby generation to supplement wind power when the wind is not blowing.
That takes me to wind power, on which I want to be brief. I read in the Independent the other day that, for every completed onshore wind farm, no fewer than 18 have been abandoned or turned down. They are hugely unpopular and very expensive. When I look at offshore wind farms, where the costs are several times higher, I seriously begin to doubt whether the huge emphasis placed on wind power by the previous Government and by the coalition Government is wise policy. There are other forms of renewable energy that are every bit as environmentally acceptable but that can operate at a substantially lower cost. One of them is nuclear, but there are others; for example, the use of biomass. I have had a representation from one of the companies complaining bitterly that so much subsidy is going in the direction of wind power. It is subsidy paid by the consumer, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, recognises. One of the problems of the pricing is that the fuel-poor pay the subsidy on wind power whereas other sources based on biomass and so on are a good deal cheaper. I hope that the Government will look at this because I do not believe that it is viable in the long term.
We suffer from a plethora of different incentives and support mechanisms covering widely different forms of energy generation. In a complaint that was reported in the Times the other day, people were saying that it may be that the big companies can steer their way through the complexity of the system, but the increasing number of small and medium-sized companies that are coming into this world find it intensely confusing. As I have asked before, is there not a case for trying to simplify the system? If one is going to provide support, subsidy or incentive—I much prefer the word “incentive”—to encourage the kind of generation you want, it should be as simple as possible and apply so far as possible across the board. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some assurances about that.
Finally, I shall say a word about carbon capture and storage. There was disappointment on the part of the CCSA about the comprehensive spending review. My noble friend will recognise that as a whole the department has done rather well out of the spending review and has secured a number of really important targets and policy statements. The one I particularly welcome is the recognition of the longer-term nature of the spending by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in decommissioning and preparing for the handling of waste. That is something that I have argued for in the past, and I welcome it. It is interesting that not only does it reinforce confidence in the new nuclear programme, which is very necessary, but a recent report by the University of Cumbria has drawn attention to the regional and national significance of this huge programme of decommissioning in which we lead the world. There has been a lot of hype about that in other areas, but in this one we can point to that. The setting up of the NDA by the previous Government was an important step in this direction and it is important for all the supply industries that are based on it.
We are now going to have only one CCS demonstration project. There will be another four but, without funding, what will become of them? I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that. We need a clear statement of the Government’s longer-term policy intentions in the area of carbon capture and storage. As my noble friend Lord Lawson rightly said, there are huge supplies of coal and gas around the world. The other day, I learnt that most of our coal is now imported from huge open-cast mines in Russia. The coal is shipped to Murmansk and then comes here by sea, but that is only part of it. There are enormous supplies. If they are going to be used, and if one is going to try to tackle the problem of carbon, carbon capture and storage seems to be enormously important. I hope that at some stage soon my noble friends will be able to say something about this as their general policy. There was a lot of hype from the previous Government about us leading the world in this field. That is not true. There is carbon capture and storage in America, north Africa, India and China. Unless we get on with it, we will not play a part in it. This is something that Ministers need to take into account.
I have said more than enough. We will have plenty of time and other debates in future on the new statements of national policy that will come before us in due course and on the proposed energy security and green economy Bill, but I have made a number of points to which I hope my noble friend will respond.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to debate government policies about the critical issues of the UK’s future energy supplies and use in relation to climate change. The Statement set out by Chris Huhne, the Secretary of State, is very helpful. Without urgent action, the supply of reliable and economic electrical energy is in some doubt, although we have been hearing that perhaps with extra fossil fuels the doubt is postponed more into the future. But what is in doubt is the UK’s commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions as part of the general international programme in this direction. I declare an interest as emeritus professor at University College London and chairman of an environmental consulting company.
As other noble Lords have emphasised, energy and climate mitigation policies are linked to other equally important policies—health, economic growth and equity, the preservation of the environment, biodiversity, and safety against natural disasters and accidents. Joined-up policies are not just an aspiration with economic incentives, subsidies and endless interdepartmental committees. A systematic approach showing transparently how the critical issues are connected together with uncertainties and timelines is required.
As many noble Lords will remember, the effectiveness of such an approach was first demonstrated in the United States engineering programmes in submarine building and space of the 1950s and 1960s. But in 1964, the House of Lords caught up and sadly noted that the Trend report on the future of UK science, which has not been looked at again in that depth, recommended the synthesis of cybernetics, model systems and computer methods. The Lords noted that they were not given very high priority. Lord Shackleton noted that the degree of co-ordination in science—and, he could have added, government policies—was completely lacking.
Since then, however, the value of these methods of dealing with complex and wide policies has been used extensively by large companies. Now, research is being pushed by the European Community and, finally, the UK research council, the EPSRC. This new aspect, which is being considered in project co-ordination at UCL, is not just about how to construct a monstrous computer programme that includes everything, but about how to construct model systems that are designed to help decision-making on particular policies and how to make use of all the relevant science and technology. I was impressed, for example, by the methodology in the recent report by the climate change Adaptation Sub-Committee, which used the idea of a ladder of measures in its critical examination of the threats to the UK of climate change, such as flooding, heat waves, sea-level rise and changes to the natural environment.
But the most important development in the politics of UK energy has been the acceptance by the Liberal Democrats of the need for nuclear energy as part of the mix of energy supplies. I am sure that EDF Energy—I sat on its advisory committee—and other major suppliers will now be able to build power stations on time and on budget, as EDF is doing in Normandy, provided that all the regulatory arrangements are agreed and provided that they do not change during construction. That was the reason for the delays in the Finnish power station. In the past year or two, when I have addressed meetings in the UK, the United States and Japan, there has been a growing understanding of the need for nuclear power and it has grown in popularity.
The Government should now mount a campaign to explain their policies and how they have a long-term vision of how nuclear policies and science and technology will evolve. A hesitant start will not encourage the best engineers and scientists to specialise in nuclear technology and science. As one sees in France, exciting connections are made between this area of science and technology and solid state physics, applied mathematics and environmental science.
In the old days in the House of Lords, Lord Marshall, former head of the Atomic Energy Authority, and Lord Hinton, former head of the CEGB, were great champions of every aspect of nuclear science and technology. I suggest to the Minister that DECC should encourage its leading civil servants and the chief scientist, Professor MacKay, to have this role again both within the UK and internationally. The only really strong international spokesman is Mr Sokolov, the deputy director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, whom I have met this year. The UK should be much more prominent in the scientific and technical meetings of the IAEA, perhaps holding one of its conferences in London and not leaving it all to France—a reference to this afternoon.
With 20 to 30 new countries about to launch into nuclear energy, there is a real opportunity for the UK nuclear industry, which I understand from DECC has some promising niche areas. One hopes that Sheffield Forgemasters will still be viable to participate in this, despite the damaging withdrawal of the government ban soon after they came to power.
There are two main concerns about nuclear power that the Government should understand. It is essential that the monitoring of nuclear radiation and its effects on human health, even if it is very small, must be open and trusted. The UK had the world-respected, quasi-independent National Radiological Protection Board, which then became the Health Protection Agency, first led by the former chief scientist, Bill Stewart. This was an excellent example of hiving off the policy of dealing with government through semi-independent bodies, endorsed by the Wilson Government and carried forward by the Thatcher Government.
Will the Minister explain how the Government’s decision to merge the Health Protection Agency into the Ministry of Health will not lead to some loss of confidence in the reliability and independence of radiological data and prediction? Professionals are not at all happy about this situation. One asks why, if it is necessary to have a semi-independent body for monitoring economic data and forecasts, and for the effectiveness of clinical treatment, as we heard yesterday, the same does not apply to the activities of the Health Protection Agency. A clear statement is necessary for reassuring the public on this controversial aspect of the environment.
The second issue emphasised by the Government’s Statement is the long-term storage of nuclear waste, which, as is currently planned, will be buried in underground storage. So far there are no explicit plans to ensure that this waste will be able to be retrieved when the technology develops to reprocess the waste. A lot of people will have a different view of nuclear energy if there is some commitment to use technology for this purpose.
Large teams in China are working on combined fusion and fission technology, which could use lower-grade nuclear materials, such as thorium, but could also process existing wastes. It could also be more flexible than pure fission in order to combine with other kinds of renewable energy. I am glad to say that there is now a growing interest in this in the UK. I declare an interest as a member of an advisory committee of Tokamak Solutions, which is aiming to develop this technology.
This and the previous Government’s low-carbon energy policy is to encourage a wide range of methods and to ensure where possible that they are complementary to each other. In the development of offshore wind energy, the UK’s area of international excellence lies in the economic engineering and planning by leading consultancies, and in the great testing facility in the north-east where there is considerable concern that this facility, which is being copied in Japan, is in danger because it was largely funded by the regional development agency. Will the Minister comment on this?
However, there are many other areas, especially manufacturing, where Germany and Denmark are more in the lead. Surely, the rational policy for Europe, just as we heard this afternoon, is to have a network of top-class energy centres that collaborate in pre-competitive research. We have a number in the UK, as do Denmark, the Netherlands and so on. These centres could contribute to better progress in energy efficiency, low-carbon technologies for carbon sequestration, electric cars, large electric batteries for communities and so on. This would not be new. Europe has established extensive collaboration between world-class centres in aeronautical engineering that underpin the great success of Airbus and its adventurous plans for the future. I helped to set up ERCOFTAC, which was one of the European communities supported by industry and universities. We should have the same for energy.
The use of biomass, bioreactors and afforestation, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, are all equally important contributors, particularly at a local level, but connections to these policies are proving very difficult and different parts of Whitehall deal with them. For example, will DfID contribute to the poor communities and local governments worldwide that are preserving their forests, as one sees in the Amazon? We also have to think of our poorer communities in the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned, in the low-carbon energy policy.
Much UK housing has very poor insulation, which is much worse than in social housing in Germany. I was a city councillor and I visited German council housing. German representatives came to Cambridge and were really shocked at our poor council house insulation, which has not got a great deal better. It is clear that significant progress will be made as a result of recent measures, but will the Minister tell us what will happen when insulation and better heating are installed, and if rents increase? Will this lead to families in houses at the upper limit of housing benefit being moved, which would be a very serious matter?
I return to human-induced climate change, which only economists seem incapable of understanding, although the noble Lord, Lord Stern, is a notable exception. Its increase and its impacts on the poorest communities in India and Africa can be reduced most effectively by limiting emissions, albeit over many decades. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, wants to allow emissions to increase unchecked, and therefore I assume ultimately to spend funds on saving these communities from the most damaging effects of climate change. That could be very expensive indeed. The only country that is really following this is the Netherlands, which published a report a couple of years ago. It expects its dykes to rise to six metres, but it has a coastline and an economy that makes it feel that it can afford that. In other parts of the world, areas will simply be abandoned.
The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, was not correct to imply that China is doing nothing. In fact its forest coverage is increasing, it is developing many new areas of technology and it has five or six carbon trading centres to push its industries to greater efficiency. China does not want to follow the rules, as it were, or international agreements, but it is certainly making progress.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to climate change mitigation and adaptation, and their wide-ranging energy policy. I hope that the Minister will emphasise the importance of greater European collaboration in energy technology, again building on what we have heard this afternoon. At the Cancun climate conference, will the Government emphasise the importance of all types of low-carbon energy—including nuclear energy, which was overtly omitted from Copenhagen—and will they also emphasise the importance of integrating energy mitigation and adaptation policies with those of afforestation and the preservation of biodiversity?
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this important debate and have a couple of interests to declare. I am a vice-president of National Energy Action, a charity that works to eliminate fuel poverty, and president of the Micropower Council. Given what most of us in the Chamber today believe about climate change, reducing energy consumption and moving to sustainable sources of energy must be two of the key strands of our energy policy. For far too long we have been profligate in our use of energy and have failed to build energy-efficient buildings to high standards. If we had been doing this over the past 40 years, we certainly would not find ourselves facing many of the problems that we face today. This point was well made by my noble friend Lord Teverson.
It is amazing that British households still use more energy for heating than Swedish households. For too long, we have taken up measures on a rather small scale and have not been clear enough about the long-term direction of our policy. This has meant that many in the energy business and individuals have not always been willing to invest in technologies. This is the case with microgeneration, an area that I want to cover in the rest of my remarks in order to highlight some of the issues preventing the mass take-up of these technologies.
Microgeneration is the small-scale generation of low-carbon heat and electricity by householders, small businesses and community organisations such as churches and schools. By generating their own heat and power, the microgenerator can save money on bills and help to protect the environment at the same time. According to a government-backed report, microgeneration has the potential to produce as much electricity in a year as five nuclear power stations. The report was commissioned by the former Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform in 2008. It also states that with the right incentives, some 10 million microgeneration systems could be installed by 2020. This would provide nearly 5 per cent of the UK’s electricity, saving 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. So it is clear that microgeneration can play an important role in making progress towards our renewable energy targets, as well as in job creation throughout the United Kingdom. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, mentioned this in his speech opening comments.
By supporting the microgeneration sector, the Government can create new jobs, revitalise manufacturing industries, help the UK export market, and of course improve our energy security. Microgeneration also has the unusual benefit of engaging citizens directly in their energy supply. This often heightens their awareness of the UK’s renewable energy targets and encourages surrounding neighbours to consider microgeneration technologies of some sort. Microgeneration would be only part of ensuring Britain’s energy security, but I believe that it does have a place, after energy efficiency measures, to heighten consumer awareness and engage citizens in a way that no other energy supply option does.
What is stopping the potential uptake of microgeneration? The issue of permitted development is a major barrier to both air source heat pumps and micro wind turbines. This was supposed to have been resolved by July this year, but the Government failed to comply with a statutory deadline to introduce micro wind and air source heat pumps into the planning system. At the time, a spokesman from the Department for Communities and Local Government stated that the Government were absolutely committed to laying this right before Parliament and that it would be laid before Parliament before the Summer Recess. However, it was not. This is a major barrier to air source heat pumps and micro wind as it means that those who want to install these products have to seek planning permission first. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister, when he winds up the debate, exactly when this issue can be resolved. It has been going on for a long time, not only with this Government but with the previous Government.
Another barrier to the mass uptake of microgeneration is the uncertainty surrounding financial incentives, although some of this has improved. Before the comprehensive spending review announcement, there was much speculation about feed-in tariff levels and what might happen before the review date in 2013. That speculation arose from the lack of government certainty, and it causes crises for investors, manufacturers and consumers, especially if consumers fear that they will not get the tariffs they were promised. I hope the Government recognise that they need to learn from the past. They must set the post-2013 tariff levels with much thought, and sooner rather than later, because creating certainty is important in that it will allow those affected to adjust what they are doing accordingly.
Clarity around the renewable heat incentive, mentioned by other noble Lords today, is also key. Although the renewable heat incentive announcements were very much welcomed by the microgeneration sector, the detail is yet to come. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to give us a little more detail on this today. I see that he is shaking his head.
A large barrier to microgeneration uptake is the lack of capital among consumers, especially among the more vulnerable fuel-poor ones. It is important that all citizens should have the opportunity to access these technologies, but to achieve this, capital is key. The Government have announced the phasing out of the Warm Front scheme, also mentioned by other noble Lords. I understand that it is largely to be replaced by the green deal, so again we await further information on the details of the policy.
It is clear that energy efficiency will be key, but it is still unclear whether microgeneration will be included in the green deal as the step on from energy efficiency. Given the consumer behaviour-changing characteristics of microgeneration, the opportunity would be lost if it were left out of the green deal entirely. Again, I hope that the Minister can say something about this when he winds up the debate.
The final barrier to microgeneration that I am going to touch on today is the lack of public awareness of the various microgeneration technologies, and of course the benefits of them. This is something that needs to be addressed both by the Government and by the industry. I know that the Micropower Council is working closely with its members to formulate a plan of action in order to reach consumers and demonstrate to them how microgeneration naturally follows on from energy efficiency.
I hope the Minister will agree that microgeneration has an important part to play in an energy strategy designed to combat climate change. It certainly fits in well with his opening comments about the security of supply and a low-carbon economy. I hope when he winds up the debate that he will have time to address some of the issues I have raised.
Lord Giddens
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marland, for initiating the debate and for the commendable brevity of his introduction—it was short and to the point. I also commend him for his commitment to his work in his post as Minister.
I enjoyed the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who is not in his place. I would go so far as to call it a tour de force—if one can have a tour de force where most of what one says, if he will forgive me, is wrong or questionable. The noble Lord seems to question the authenticity of the science. He thinks that climate change has levelled off and most of his subsequent points and claims stem from that view. However, he is definitively mistaken. The most thoroughgoing climate and weather monitoring organisation in the world, in some part based on space and satellite technology—the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States—has shown that 2010 will be the warmest year in sea and land temperatures since reliable records began. It has analysed data from scientists in 40 different countries, using 10 different indices. All show that climate change is happening and is almost certainly caused by human intervention. It is important to recognise that these studies are based not on modelling but on direct observations.
The risks posed by climate change are all too real and, unlike most other global risks, are irreversible. That is an important point because, once the greenhouse gas emissions are in the air, we know of no way of getting them out again. Because of its implacable nature, this problem is quite different from most of the other global problems that we face.
The coalition is absolutely right to seek to institute measures to reduce our carbon emissions and to call on other industrial countries to lead the way in doing the same. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, pointed out that on a federal level the United States has been unable to supply the leadership that the world needs. Fortunately, an enormous amount is going on below federal level in the United States, at a regional level, in cities and in individual states—for example, Colorado has an entirely commendable zero carbon plan that is both realistic and interesting.
Climate change should be seen as much as an economic and security issue as an environmental one. Innovation is going to be at least as important as regulation, and countries and businesses that are in the vanguard will prosper in economic competition. This is one of the points on which I disagree fundamentally with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, as he knows. There is an entire new frontier of economic competition in which the UK must attempt to be at the forefront. The transformations that will occur in the energy industry—not only in renewables but in other areas—will be far reaching and we must not be left behind.
At the moment, this country is absolutely not in the vanguard of these innovations. Even though I sit on the Labour Benches, I have to say that Labour achieved very little in practical change. Of course, the party set up a framework for the future—the Climate Change Act and the Energy Act are important—but in terms of practical achievement there is not a great deal. The UK is currently next to bottom in the proportion of energy mix delivered by renewables.
I applaud the Minister for his determination to change the situation and the coalition for adopting a non-partisan policy. I hope that my party will do the same. It is highly important that climate change should be a non-partisan issue. In the United States, policy has been paralysed by an almost complete politicisation of the issue. Noble Lords will perhaps have seen reported in the Guardian yesterday that only approximately 14 per cent of Republicans accept that climate change is real and caused by human activity, compared to almost 60 per cent of Democrats. We must avoid that political polarisation here. I am pleased that so far we have done so and that the coalition has contributed actively to that. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, I support the overall themes and thrust of the coalition’s policy.
However, there are plenty of problems around and I ask the Minister to comment on a few of them. First, it is distressing—to me anyway—that the budgets of the DECC and Defra have been slashed so radically. How is that compatible with dealing with what, in the introduction to the Government’s report on climate change, is said to be the most fundamental global problem that we face? How is such a devastating cut there and elsewhere compatible with the thrust and commitment that we need, as well as the labour power, from these two key departments?
Secondly, in its letter to Chris Huhne of 9 September 2010 the climate change committee strongly reaffirmed that a step change in policy is necessary. In this document and in its previous report, especially, it calls for a revolutionary change in policy if the country is to reach its 2020 target of 15 per cent of UK energy generation from renewables. I ask the Minister whether the current policies are radical enough. Where is this step change going to come from? I would be grateful if he could identify for me the combination of policies that will produce the step change that the climate change committee has several times restated is necessary.
The Severn barrage, with which the Government have decided not to go ahead, was an area of radical policy that would have contributed to such a step change. In response to a Starred Question in the House on 19 October, the Minister said that the reason for the Government’s decision was the cost, which amounted to £30 billion, but I am not sure that that is the case. I would like him to comment further on that, because there is the upfront cost and the overall cost implication for the country of not going ahead with the project. Cost cannot be measured only in terms of what you pay now; it also has to be measured in terms of potential benefits—and the benefits would have been formidable from this single project. I would like the Minister to explain what the cost benefit showed, because it does not appear in his response to the Question.
Thirdly, how much progress has been made with reforming the climate change levy? As I understand it, the relevant legislation will be in the projected Finance Bill 2011. However, as the noble Lord hinted in his introduction, do not energy companies and investors need clear signposts before this? There are plenty of signs that companies are not proceeding with the kinds of innovations that they might otherwise develop because of the fairly long lapse in the introduction of these changes and because they do not know what the context of their business in the future will be.
Fourthly, how much attention are the Minister and the Government giving to lessons that can be learnt from other countries? I have in mind especially Portugal’s E4 programme, which was launched in 2001 with the aim of creating a consistent, integrated approach to energy. It has been amazingly successful. Portugal is, of course, a small country and it has a little more sunshine than we do, but it now gets 40 per cent of its electricity from renewables. That is an increase of 28 per cent in five years. This is interesting because in the pre-existing cases of countries that get a high proportion of their electricity mix from renewables, such as Denmark and Sweden—they were driven by energy security considerations in response to the oil crisis of the late 1970s—it took something like 25 years for their policies to unfold. Many have drawn the inference that this is difficult to do and that we are therefore talking about a long-term project, but the case of Portugal shows that that is definitively wrong. It is possible to make very large changes in a short time. We should be ambitious. We have a 15 per cent target, which the climate change committee has recently reiterated, but let us look at what Portugal has achieved and what it is planning, which is to source 80 per cent of its electricity from renewables within the next six or seven years. It shows that it can be done.
This being the second time that I have crossed swords with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, on these issues today, he will know that there are many areas where I disagree with him. One is China, on which he is absolutely wrong. China has a developed climate change plan, initiated by its Government. The Chinese Government are very worried about the consequences of climate change, pointing to the melting of the glaciers from which the main rivers of China come, which will affect hundreds of millions of people. It is not right to say that the Chinese are simply blind to this issue—very much the opposite is the case. It is not right to say that China is building one coal-fired power station every week and is simply on a fossil-fuel trajectory. As was mentioned in our earlier discussion, the Chinese are closing down a lot of their older coal-fired power stations because they want to contribute to decarbonising their economy. China is taking the lead in wind power and solar power, not simply, I think, because that is where it sees a competitive advantage—although it certainly does—but because the Chinese Government are conscious of the need to transform their energy mix out of concern for both energy security and climate change issues.
This country has to be in the lead in technological innovation in respect of our energy mix. If we are not, we are likely to be the beached whale or the dead duck in the global competition that is now developing.
Lord Reay
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for enabling us to have this debate. He does not shrink from listening to views that are at variance with those which he as a responsible member of the Government has to advance—as he again made clear today.
I first refer to some good news that has recently come from my noble friend’s department. It really does look at last as though we are likely to see eight new nuclear power stations in operation starting from about 2018. The previous Government, of course, had already started down this road, after having lost 10 years when, despite enormous parliamentary majorities, Tony Blair made no attempt at leadership on the subject. I therefore congratulate the Government on taking us a step further down the road towards energy security and, if one has been persuaded that it is important, towards further carbon emission reduction. I hope that we will one day go further still down the nuclear road.
I was also pleased that the Secretary of State modified the usual mantra of “no subsidies for nuclear power” by acknowledging that a cap would have to be considered for clean-up liabilities, due in part to international treaty obligations. But the Government continue to gloss over the subsidies which wind power, in particular, has enjoyed and, without which, no investment in it would be taking place. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change even said in the other place that studies had shown that there had been,
“a dramatic reduction in the cost of onshore wind. The result is that it is competitive in a free market with other sources of energy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/7/10; col. 875.]
In that case, one might ask, why subsidise it? Perhaps my noble friend could tell us when the Government intend to reduce the subsidies for wind power if it is now becoming so efficient.
So-called wind farms are not wind farms; they are subsidy farms. Developers are promised that they can sell all the electricity that they can produce at about twice the market rate and, if they are offshore producers, at three times the market rate. That is what the ROC system is paying for, or rather what the electricity consumer is paying for, at an annual cost of well over £1 billion. That cost is expected to rise to £6 billion by 2020 or until the Treasury intervenes, whichever moment comes first. Why should the Treasury intervene? It is because those subsidies are effectively a tax on the electricity consumer, both business and private, the proceeds of which go not to the Treasury but to developers, including energy companies, to enable them to carry on an otherwise uneconomic activity. From them, they go to landlords, including the Crown Estate. They remove a taxable opportunity from the Treasury and, in time, will reduce the tax base by making industry less profitable. They will undoubtedly drive parts of it out of the country altogether.
The Government are also fond of saying that wind power contributes to our energy security. The logic of this claim is equally incomprehensible since, as wind is not available on demand, there will always have to be sufficient power available from other sources to meet peak demand, just as there would have to be if we had no wind power.
Apart from disingenuously trying to give the impression that the market will choose between nuclear and wind power on a level-playing-field basis, the Government are insinuating, equally unconvincingly, that a level playing field operates within the planning system. Replying to a debate on onshore wind farms in Westminster Hall last month, the Minister of State at the department, Mr Charles Hendry, said:
“In the spirit of fairness, we all believe that it is right that if an application is turned down at one level, people should continue to have a right to appeal for a redetermination”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/10; col. 138WH.]
This seems very misleading. In the first place, it is not people, in the sense of local communities, who have the right to appeal against local authority planning decisions. If the application by the developer is granted, there is no appeal against that decision. It is only the developer who has the right of appeal if his application is turned down. That might be thought not unreasonable, but any idea of fairness is made a complete mockery of by the subsidy system. If a local planning authority’s rejection of a planning application is appealed against, the issue normally goes to a public inquiry before a planning inspector. That is a very expensive procedure. The inquiry typically goes on for several weeks, with legal representation on all sides. The developer, very likely to be a large foreign-owned energy company, has the comfort of knowing that, if he wins, he will earn in the order of £0.25 million per year per 2 megawatt turbine in subsidy alone, and that, if he loses this appeal, he may win the next. Local objectors, if they organise themselves to oppose the appeal, will have to find in the order of £50,000 to £60,000 to meet the cost of expert witnesses and the very cheapest of lawyers. The local authority will have to find even more, perhaps in the order of £100,000, to fight the appeal. This is an incentive to local authorities to allow applications in the first place.
Nevertheless, despite this pressure applied by the Government through the subsidy system, and despite the pressure applied directly on local planning authorities to get them to accept responsibility for achieving the Government's renewable energy targets, there has recently been a most heartening tendency across the country for wind farm applications to be rejected at one stage or another in the process.
An unpublished report, apparently produced by the Renewable Energy Association, which is the trade association for the wind industry, was referred to in several newspapers last week. It apparently declared that in the face of increasingly organised opposition throughout the country by what amounted now to more than 230 local campaign groups, planning approvals for onshore wind farms had fallen to an all-time low, with only one in three applications getting the go-ahead from councils.
I live in a beautiful part of the country in the north-west, the Lune Valley, in a corridor between areas of outstanding natural beauty and two national parks, an area celebrated by Ruskin and Turner, which has been targeted by wind farm developers. In the past year or so, four applications have been turned down, one of them at a public inquiry, yet still the developers keep coming back. Most recently, an application was made for 20 monstrous turbines on high ground six kilometres inside the area of outstanding natural beauty of the Trough of Bowland. It was emphatically—indeed unanimously—turned down by the planning committee of Lancaster City Council, despite there being two members of the Green Party on it, following a strong recommendation to do so by their planning officer and strong pleas to do so by various statutory consultees, including Natural England.
However, the developers, who have no experience in the business but deep pockets, have appealed. Have they calculated that the local authority, at a time of cuts in local authority grants, will not have the stomach for an expensive full-blown public inquiry and may offer them a compromise? Most probably.
It is a sad sight to see Mammon subverting democracy—in this case, local democracy—and the Government cheering on the sidelines. As yesterday's White Paper on local growth reveals, the Government are proposing to bribe local authorities to grant more approvals by allowing them to keep the business rates so generated. As the campaign groups are for the most part not motivated by money, unlike the developers, they will certainly not disappear, so the effect will simply be to sow even more discord than there is already in local communities.
It will be taxpayers' money thrown with the deliberate purpose of overwhelming those who are trying to protect not simply the value of their homes but our finest landscapes, famous throughout the world, a magnet for tourists, one of our precious national assets. What is that great sacrifice for—of the living standards of ordinary families, of the competitive health of our industries, of our future prosperity, of our scenic fame? It is supposedly in the cause of reducing our carbon emissions, but once you have taken account of all the emissions produced in the manufacture, installation and maintenance of the turbines, and then of the same with regard to the fossil-fuelled power stations, which are being inefficiently ramped up and down in response to the fitful generation of wind power, it is highly unlikely that we will get any carbon emission savings at all.
The wind industry is a subsidy-driven farce, a distraction from the serious pursuit of energy security and a complete negation of what the Government insist is another of their priorities—the promotion of economic growth. The subsidies will cost far more jobs in the rest of the economy by raising the cost of energy than they will ever produce in the wind power industry itself. It is deeply depressing to see the Government still feeling obliged to keep in existence this green albatross.
Lord Haskel
My Lords, I put my name down to speak in this debate because climate change seems to have taken a back seat recently—a back seat to the economics of the comprehensive spending review. I welcome this debate to re-emphasise its importance. I also broadly welcome the Minister's opening remarks about continuing the non-partisan work on the security of supply and the green economy.
The Minister also spoke about value for money. I am not sure what he means by that. Incidentally, I wonder whether he has consulted the 100-page book in the Treasury which lays out the value-for-money rules in public expenditure. To plan future energy policy, it seems to me that there are four things for the Government to do: first, win the climate change argument; secondly, plan a future supply of low-carbon energy; thirdly, forecast the way that we will use it; and, fourthly, learn how to influence our behaviour so that points two and three will work.
The Minister had nothing to say about winning the argument. My noble friend Lord Grantchester hinted at it, and the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, explained exactly why winning the argument is urgent and never-ending. It is difficult, and changing economic conditions encourage scepticism. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, spoke of the USA. I agree that the midterm election in the United States does not bode well for the climate change argument. It is difficult to know how scientists can win the argument in America when the other side claims that it is acting on God's will.
However, the Royal Society, in its helpful document summarising the science, lists those aspects of climate change on which there seems to be wide agreement: how surface temperature has changed; how concentrations of CO2 have increased; and how those effects are related to human activity. The Government have to stick to those basic arguments and make the case that unless we act, this trend will continue. The sceptics argue over by exactly how much the earth's temperature will change, but I do not think that that is an argument for government. The argument for government is the effect that all this will have on sea level, on agriculture, as my noble friend explained, on communities, on ecology, and that it is irreversible, as my noble friend Lord Giddens explained. I know that we already have laws about carbon reduction, but even so, it is necessary to engage with and keep winning the argument.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Whitty. Planning the supply of energy over the next 40 years means having a mix: coal and gas, bioenergy and renewables, nuclear, and anything else that comes along. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said, decarbonising the energy supply will require a substantial and sustained investment in research and in equipment, and investment in a smarter and more efficient distribution method. We need to rethink our whole network to accommodate the electrification of sectors which do not use electricity at present, such as delivering electricity to fuel car cells from offshore wind farms. Does that mean a bigger network or a more local network? Probably, a more local one.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, spoke of microgeneration. I was speaking to people at NASA recently, who are talking about supplying small nuclear generators buried in the ground which will supply a cluster of buildings for 20 years without servicing. The noble Baroness is right. Such green technology is an important area for growth.
Several noble Lords have reminded us how much of our energy is imported, and the security and source of those imports is a matter of constant concern. That and climate change enormously influence our future energy policy. Planning the supply of energy is intimately tied up with our forecast of how we use energy. Most expect a substantial increase in the electrification of heating and transport, but the production has to be decarbonised. At the same time, we must reduce our use of energy and use it more efficiently, which means lifestyle changes and changes in our behaviour. Perhaps the most important sector for decarbonisation is transport—electrification of road transport and, at the same time, getting people off the road and on to rail—but the message in the CSR is mixed. We are promised more rail electrification but, at the same time, fares are going up. Some parliamentarians are campaigning against the proposed new high-speed rail scheme to Birmingham while the Mayor of London, instead of increasing the charge for road use, is reducing the congestion charge area.
Changing and influencing behaviour are most easily done by pricing. It seems to me that the Government are not only missing an opportunity in the CSR but sending out a mixed message which will only make things worse. Influencing lifestyle and changing behaviour are certainly part of energy policy. Downing Street has a special unit studying behaviour change and it will be interesting to hear from the Minister about how that unit anticipates influencing our behaviour so that we use less energy. The acronym it uses for the elements that have been found to impact on our behaviour is MINDSPACE. The Minister will have to be careful with this acronym, as it is going to be easily misinterpreted because there is something rather sinister about it. There is probably somebody blogging about it as we speak.
To influence behaviour, you have to make value judgments and those values are open to all kinds of political interpretations. Is it appropriate for the state to influence behaviour and set the limits of personal responsibility in this way? This is a very controversial area. However, when limited to the effects of climate change, to the use of less energy and to the acceptance of new technologies and the necessary change in lifestyles involved, MINDSPACE could be on pretty safe ground. I hope that the Minister will continue to champion climate change and security of supply as a driver for energy policy and I wish him every success in this important work.
Lord Smith of Finsbury
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as chairman of the Environment Agency. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, because the starting point of this debate has to be recognition of the reality of climate change. In a way, it is also a pleasure to follow on from the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, because he highlighted some of the essential issues that we need to address. He appeared from his remarks to accept that there has been some warming over the course of the past 100 or 200 years. He appears to think that that process has stalled over the past 10 years or so—and with that analysis I am afraid I cannot agree. He also says that he has an open mind on whether the science tells us that there is going to be much more climate change to come. I find the science much more compelling than he does, but the problem I find with his argument is that he says, “Even if that is going to happen, it doesn’t matter”. I am afraid that it does matter.
In the Environment Agency, we are at the very point where environmental and climate change has its greatest impacts on people’s lives. We try and cope with flooding and flood risk. We try and cope with eroding coasts in Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and East Anglia and with the difficulties that are going to face farmers, industry and households in the east and south of the country in 20 years, when river flows are 50 per cent lower in summer months than they are now. These are going to be the realities of climate change. One does not have to look just at the dangers that face people in Bangladesh or the Maldives, or in Kenya or central Australia to see what climate change is likely to bring. We look at what is going to have an impact here, so I am afraid that to stand up and say, “We in this country will benefit from climate change”, profoundly misunderstands the nature of the threat and the impact that climate change is going to have.
There have of course been huge disappointments in the global response to climate change, especially at Copenhagen last year. I fear that the political disaster which I suspect is unfolding in the United States as we speak will make that challenge even worse; on that point, at least, the noble Lord was right. Yet that does not mean that we should simply walk away from the issue here in the UK or ignore our responsibility to continue to do what we can—not just to prepare to adapt to the challenge that climate change will bring us but to do everything that we possibly can, here in this country, to try and contribute to combating the causes of climate change in the first place. That is where energy policy becomes so important.
Any sensible energy policy in the light of this challenge has to be based on the triumvirate of renewables, nuclear and abated fossil-fuel technology. We do not particularly have time on our side in this. If we do not get a move on with renewables, do not develop the carbon capture and storage technologies that we need if we are to abate fossil fuel production and do not get ahead with building a new generation of nuclear power stations, we will end up with an energy gap in between 10 and 15 years that will, I suspect, prompt a dash for unabated gas in the same way that we responded a few decades ago. We do not have that much time to get this right, but we need to do so and the Government, I know, have the right intentions in this.
I want to touch briefly on three crucial issues. First, on nuclear I have to confess that I used to be a nuclear sceptic, but climate change has made a realist of me and I recognise that nuclear has to be part of the answer. However, there is one crucial issue to which we do not yet have the answer; what to do with the high-level, highly radioactive and very long-lasting waste that nuclear fission produces. There are proposals for the creation of a deep, secure repository for high-level nuclear waste, but the Government have been talking about the possibility of that not happening until 2040. That is far too long a timescale for us to be looking at. We need to get a move on, with a much greater sense of urgency, in securing the future safety and safeguarding of that high-level nuclear waste.
Secondly, on renewables we are not doing nearly enough at the moment on tidal and wave power development. The Government made absolutely the right decision not to go ahead with the original proposals for the barrage on the Severn estuary. This is the one point on which I find myself in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Giddens. Building a wall across the estuary from Weston-super-Mare to Cardiff would have caused untold damage to the ecology of not just the Severn itself but the Wye and the Usk as well. Not just the bird life but the fish life and the entire ecological stability of that river basin would have been affected. We have to make sure, however, that we can tap in to the extraordinary power of the Severn Estuary along with other estuaries, and more generally the waves and tides that surround our island. We are almost uniquely blessed with this potential resource of energy generation, and putting in place the research for the reefs, fences and underwater turbines that could be providing us with solutions in this respect is something to which we need to devote much more attention and energy.
Thirdly, there is the development of carbon capture and storage technology for traditional fossil-fuel power stations. We were, of course, going to have four demonstration projects—that is still the Government’s stated intention—but RWE has now pulled out of its development of a coal-fired power station at Tilbury, E.ON has pulled out of a coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth and Powerfuel has postponed its proposal for Hatfield in South Yorkshire, all of them saying that economic and financial considerations have made them either pause or abandon their proposals for abated coal technology. We are left with a small but rather important pilot that Scottish and Southern is putting in place at Ferrybridge and the one large-scale proposal, which is for a retrofit by ScottishPower at Longannet in Fife, adding CCS to an existing and relatively old power station. It is important that that proposal goes ahead, but one project on its own is not enough.
So what will happen now? Have we abandoned the principle of a levy in order to fund carbon capture and storage projects? Are we going to see any other coal-fired power stations with full-scale CCS attached? Heaven forbid that we should see any coal-fired power stations unabated, with no CCS attached. What does this mean for the potential economic wealth-providing export opportunities that the development of CCS technology could bring us as a country?
Perhaps most importantly of all, are we going to see carbon capture and storage developed and supported by the Government for new gas-fired power stations? If gas is indeed going to be the preferred energy source coming forward from the industry, and there appear to be indications that that may well be the case, then the need for CCS for gas to be tested, trialled and put into operation at scale will become essential.
Over the next 10 to 15 years in this country, we face a potential energy crisis if we do not do the right things over the next few years. We face a climate crisis over the next 40 years. There are some solutions to both of these crises, and a synergy is possible between those solutions. The Government must rededicate themselves to achieving them.
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Smith. I must say that I disagree with much of what he said, particularly at the beginning of his speech, but we agree on the need for nuclear, if perhaps not for quite the same reasons.
I do not share the view that the consensus on climate change is the last answer on the science, particularly with regard to the causes of any global warming. I am not a scientist, but I have seen enough alternative analysis posing challenges to the prevailing view to be clear that the consensus is not an absolute one. I do not buy the inevitability of the consequences and therefore the need to act now. I have been heartened that institutions such as the Royal Society are now open to wider debate, and if the IPCC follows the recommendations of the InterAcademy Council—that is a big “if”—its next assessment should be a more balanced one.
In my contribution to today’s debate, I shall not rehearse the arguments that go to the heart of the science. Instead I should like to focus on costs of the policies that are being introduced to combat climate change and on the impact of those costs. Most of the policies that we are implementing today were developed at a time of economic plenty when many, including the previous Government, were convinced that growth and prosperity would carry on indefinitely. Today’s economic circumstances are quite different. We live in an age of budget cuts, rising government debt and expenditure cuts. Businesses are struggling to survive, and the outlook for household incomes is uncertain. There is, I submit, a legitimate debate to be had about whether the costs of action on climate change are affordable in today’s environment.
The previous Government estimated that their Climate Change Act target of reducing CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 would cost £18.3 billion every year for the next 40 years. That is, our country will spend three-quarters of £1 trillion by 2050. To put that in context, that is roughly equivalent to the whole of the public sector debt that we inherited from Labour when we came to power earlier this year. Of course, the costs are not being picked up by the Government. We will not see them as higher taxes; rather, they are being absorbed elsewhere in the economy and will end up with consumers.
I shall take the example of feed-in tariffs. These tariffs benefit those who invest in various forms of favoured small-scale renewable energy by providing a non-market price for that energy. It is certain that these tariffs have skewed investment decisions. The mere fact that a whole industry has grown up around third-party installation, designed to milk the tariffs, is a testament to the effectiveness of the policy of encouraging investment in small-scale renewables. However, the cost of those feed-in tariffs is not borne by the energy companies—they simply pass them to energy users. I applaud the Government’s spending review for acknowledging that the tariffs will be changed from 2013 to make the scheme more affordable. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to return those tariffs to something much closer to market pricing principles.
Of far greater economic importance are the subsidies that are paid to large-scale renewable energy. In particular, the operators of offshore wind farms are rewarded at double the rate of those of onshore wind farms through the renewables obligation certificate system. This clever system pumps subsidy into favoured forms of renewable generation, almost invisibly. The cost, though, is very real and lies hidden within the energy bills of consumers.
Another hidden cost comes from facilitating the use of renewable energy sources. The plain fact is that the wind does not blow all the time—indeed, the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s own figures show that wind turbines achieve only 26 per cent of their capacity. It is normal for our country to have extremely cold days that have no wind during the winter. That means that power from conventional power stations will have to be available, on a highly inefficient basis, to meet peak demand, regardless of how much renewable capacity is installed in the country, so the system bears the cost of capacity twice over.
As my noble friend Lord Reay has said, all of this finds its way into higher fuel bills, which have a direct impact on both businesses and domestic consumers. DECC’s own figures suggest that, by 2020, domestic energy prices could be one-third higher than they would have been without climate change policies. The picture is even worse for businesses, where the figure could be as high as 70 per cent. Businesses currently have to bear the climate change levy. In future they can look forward to the carbon reduction commitment, which the spending review has turned into another carbon tax, raising £3.5 billion over the next four years.
What will all of this do to our economic competitiveness? The UK does not have many natural cost advantages and it can do without being loaded with significant cost disadvantages. It might be okay if businesses around the world were bearing the same costs, but this is manifestly not the case. Are the developing economies adding this degree of burden to their businesses? Are the US or Russia doing so? Is even the whole of Europe so enthusiastic? Of course not. Copenhagen failed to achieve common action and I agree with my noble friend Lord Lawson that Cancun is also likely to achieve no agreement. I cannot blame any country for choosing not to burden its economy today with avoidable costs.
It is already the case that some businesses are ceasing to operate in the UK because of environmental taxes. To take one example, Britain is now a net importer of cement; it used to be a net exporter. Another example is data centres, which are high energy users. Even if they can achieve state-of-the-art energy efficiency, the carbon-related burden of high energy prices in this country, along with other levies, makes the UK an uncompetitive location. The Government are rightly emphasising the need to stimulate growth in the economy, alongside the necessary public expenditure reductions that were set out in the spending review. We will not achieve that growth if the UK is perceived as a high-cost location. We will also not achieve that growth if the regulatory ratchet is not set to reverse. Another regulatory burden comes with the CRC reporting and assurance requirements. Is the Minister aware that dealing with CRC compliance is a new growth employment sector? If that is what green jobs are, I do not think that we want them.
I turn to the impact of these policies on individuals. They will of course be hit by rising prices of goods and services, which will come as high energy costs hit producers. Individuals will also bear direct hits in their energy bills from the costs that the energy companies pick up. As I noted, these could rise by 33 per cent by 2020, and that is without any other real energy price effects in the economy. One impact may well be that domestic consumers are incentivised to use less energy, which would be a very good outcome. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that energy savings are desirable in their own right. However, it is unlikely that this will be enough to avoid a further increase in fuel poverty.
At present, it is estimated that around 6.6 million households in the whole of the UK are living in fuel poverty—more than a quarter of all households. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, quoted the figure of 4.5 million households but that is for England alone. Fuel poverty increased hugely during the last decade as energy costs rose. The impact of climate change costs is regressive because energy costs form a disproportionately large portion of the income of poorer households. The money going into energy efficiency schemes for the poor was reduced in the spending review, with energy companies being told to pick up even more of these costs, for example on tariff subsidy and insulation. That may be convenient for the Government in public expenditure terms but there has to be a limit to how far energy companies can shift costs from one set of consumers to another. It seems implausible that these measures will make a significant dent in the 6.6 million fuel poor that we have in this country.
The Minister will recall that the previous Government were very fond of publishing targets with a great fanfare and then pretending that the job was done. They said that they would end fuel poverty for vulnerable groups by 2010 and completely eradicate fuel poverty by 2016. The 2010 target was missed and general fuel poverty was moving in the wrong direction. What is our new Government’s attitude to reducing fuel poverty, and by when do they think it will be eliminated?
I do not expect an instant conversion from my Front Bench on the imposition of costs in the name of climate change. However, I urge my noble friend to look again at whether wearing a climate-change hair shirt serves the real interests of our nation.
Lord Haworth
My Lords, I thank the Government for staging this debate today; it is certainly timely. Last week I had the privilege of attending a very interesting seminar in London, organised by the Westminster Energy, Environment and Transport Forum, with the title “Nuclear Energy: Moving Closer to New Build”. We may be moving closer but the rate of progress seems glacially slow. Indeed, one might say the glaciers are melting rather faster than we are making progress. The keynote speaker at the conference was Keith Parker, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association. He rightly identified the speech made by Tony Blair to the CBI in 2006 as the turning point in the chequered history of nuclear power in this country and as,
“the moment which historians will recognize as the crucial signal of a change of policy after two decades of gradual decline, after Chernobyl and after the denationalization of the energy utilities”.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Reay, who was rather curmudgeonly on this point, I think that announcement remains one of the bravest, boldest and best decisions taken by that Labour Government.
Two years later, in January 2008, after the lengthy process of the energy review, the White Paper on nuclear power was published. It set the seal on Tony Blair’s far-sighted vision and gave new impetus to the nuclear industry. We are now, however, almost five years on and the best we can say—with last week’s announcement from the Secretary of State for Climate Change—is that eight sites have been formally identified as suitable for the next generation of nuclear stations. It is progress but it is painfully slow. Meanwhile, we are heading rather faster towards something of a cliff edge, with the closing down of substantial generating capacity—starting within the next five years—of old coal-fired power stations and old life-expired nuclear capacity.
I welcome the publication of the whole suite of revised draft national policy statements on energy, which accompanied the Minister’s Statement last week, as I welcome this debate. I am glad that we are getting on with it and I have no wish to pour cold water over welcome progress towards the new nuclear build. However, the conference I attended also raised a major question about the long-term sustainability of nuclear power on the basis of present policy.
The forum heard a presentation from Professor Colin Boxall of Lancaster University. He occupies the chair in nuclear engineering and decommissioning in the engineering department. His talk centred on the availability of uranium worldwide, and how long this finite resource will realistically last. It is not just us who have taken a key decision to develop a new generation of nuclear reactors. Last year, worldwide, there were 436 reactors in 31 countries, providing some 370 gigawatts of capacity. Rather more importantly, there are 50 reactors under construction in countries such as Japan, Korea, Finland, India and China. In addition to that, 137 more are on order or planned and a further 295 proposed—a total of 482 new reactors, which will more than double present capacity. It somewhat dwarfs our proposals for our eight sites. This is a major projected uplift in nuclear capacity worldwide and has big implications for uranium supply. The known resource of uranium in the ground is 5.5 million tonnes. It may well be that there is approximately twice that undiscovered—another 10.5 million tonnes—based on the geological characteristics of known deposits. More than 1 million tonnes of this had already been used up by the turn of the century, way before the great leap forward for nuclear.
I am sure that the House does not want to hear a long string of alarming figures from me based on possible projections of the rate of consumption of uranium. I could do so as I have a lot of figures here in my notes, but let me summarise them very crudely, though I hope without any unfairness or exaggeration. The 4.5 million tonnes remaining equate to about 70 years at the current rate of consumption and burn-up. At the historical growth rate of 1 per cent per annum, even the speculative resource will be exhausted in just over 100 years. At a modest future growth rate of 1.4 per cent per annum, the known reserves will be exhausted within 40 years and, at a wholly plausible growth rate of a little greater than that but still less than 2 per cent per annum, exhaustion of the known reserves will come as soon as 2045 and exhaustion of the speculative reserves before the end of the present century. I am happy to provide the Minister with these figures, but I am sure that they are available to his department and are unlikely to be seriously disputed. Indeed, a number of senior civil servants from both the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department of Energy and Climate Change heard the same presentation as me last week.
For the future of nuclear worldwide, not just in the UK, this is a serious issue of sustainability. Our nuclear programme, going forward, is based on the presumption that,
“any new nuclear power stations that might be built in the UK should proceed on the basis that spent fuel will not be reprocessed and that plans for, and financing of, waste management should proceed on that basis”.
That quotation is taken from the 2008 White Paper, Meeting the Energy Challenge. The consultation document published around the same time by BERR states that the,
“base case for decommissioning and waste management costs associated with new reactor construction assumes that there will be no reprocessing of the uranium fuel, and spent fuel will be disposed of after it has been used”.
In other words, “once through” is the preferred option. This was underlined again in the revised Draft National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN6) at section 2.11 dealing with radioactive waste management. This was published the other day.
On the basis of current policy we are going to run out of uranium rather quickly, probably before we run out of oil. Climate change and future energy policy are long-term issues. The effects will be felt long after we who are discussing these matters and taking decisions now are all dead, but we surely owe it to future generations to use our finite resources as sustainably as possible.
I am not in any way suggesting that the next generation of nuclear stations—the ones just around the corner—should be delayed while other ways of dealing with the uranium issue are investigated. That would be a sure way to see the lights go out in my lifetime. However, I hope that further consideration of issues relating to reprocessing and/or fast breeder technology will come under active consideration for the next generation after that, for stations which might be planned to come on stream after 2030. Fast breeders are likely to be something like 40 times more fuel efficient and would extend the lifetime of uranium fuel perhaps by—again, this is an estimate—3,000 years. Even at higher growth rates for nuclear than previously discussed, this avoids exhaustion. Such technology does something else as well: it significantly reduces the heavy metal residues and the radiotoxic burden which would need to be sent for final disposal in the proposed geological disposal facility. It would be a win-win situation. I do not begin to suggest that fast breeders would not be without associated problems. There is the question of cost, impact on the environment, the issues relating to nuclear proliferation—because of the separated plutonium—and other safety concerns, including transport. However, such technology would extend energy availability from uranium from maybe 80 years to more than 3,000 years. There would be a huge reduction of the waste heat load and radiotoxicity in the proposed repository from a quarter of a million years to 120 years and a reduced dependence on foreign oil, LNG and coal.
In the context of climate change and the long-term use of sustainable non-carbon energy sources, these are surely considerations on which the Government should have an open mind and an active and inquiring mind. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, the scientific findings about humanly induced climate change and the damage that it poses are widely acknowledged, although clearly not by all in this House. It is therefore right that the Government should have stated that they intend to be the greenest Government ever. This ambition is a global necessity.
The record to date on delivering on that ambition is to be applauded and not just by those on this side of the House. Prior to the release of the comprehensive spending review, Michael Jacobs, a visiting fellow on climate change at the LSE and a former adviser to Gordon Brown, posed three tests for the Government. The three tests were: a green investment bank; the development of carbon capture and storage technology; and stimulating a British wind turbine manufacturing sector. We know that on all three the Government gave the green light.
However, with the UK responsible for only 2 per cent of the world’s emissions, greater urgency is required on the international front. The Foreign Secretary recently called on foreign policy practitioners to,
“up our game in building a credible and effective response to climate change”.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is working with European partners to secure a 30 per cent reduction target in carbon emissions. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his reply to my question in the House last week about the Government’s efforts to ensure that China and the United States demonstrate the necessary leadership on this issue at Cancun later this year. As the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said, trying to engender a greater sense of urgency on the international front will be as critical as delivering a sustainable energy policy within the UK.
Many barriers remain to delivering such a sustainable energy policy. I want to focus on just one: public acceptance of new energy infrastructure such as power stations and wind farms. Now is the time to address this issue. If we do not address it at an early stage, we know only too well that we will face public opposition at the last stage when energy infrastructure proposals appear to be dropped on local communities.
We need to move away from debates that pitch respective sides as zealots and reactionaries. As we at last become serious about tackling climate change, we need to find ways in which to bring the public with us on the journey of transition to a low-energy Britain. To that end, I respectfully ask my noble friend the Minister to reflect on two things. The first is to start talking to the public about the choices that we face in a way that people understand. Bluntly, the communication strategy of the Department of Energy and Climate Change can be summed up as one of graphs, charts and gigawatts. We need to give people a positive vision of what a low-energy economy could look like and what the options are in terms of the intensity of land use and the changes that we will make to our natural and built environment. Landscape is the lens through which we see how our country is changing.
Other groups are trying to engage the public in this way, giving options of how Britain might look in the future. One such attempt is that by the Centre for Alternative Technology with its Zero Carbon Britain 2030. Its picture is of a British landscape very different from that which we have now. Now is the time for the Government to give their vision and engage with the public in a debate about what Britain could look like. A 2050 energy pathways calculator may help some to understand the scale of the challenge of decarbonisation, but, frankly, the department needs to do much more, using language and images that the people of our country understand and can relate to.
Secondly, by creating the right planning framework for land use decisions, people can be appropriately engaged while investors are given the certainty that they need to bring forward the right proposals in the right locations. The Government have made a welcome first step, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, in abolishing the previous Government’s Infrastructure Planning Commission, but we now need certainty—and soon—about a reformed planning system. I hope that the Minister will work closely with his colleagues to ensure that the decentralisation and localism Bill gives local communities the ability to shape the places in which they live and work, respecting the value of the country’s best landscapes and natural and historic environments while delivering a renewable energy revolution.
As part of that, continuing support is vital for innovative ways of engaging people in the planning process and for renewable technology capacity assessments at geographic levels to which the public can relate. Good examples of these are PlanLoCal, a programme of the Centre for Sustainable Energy, currently financed by the Department for Communities and Local Government, to encourage greater public access and participation in the planning process. Another example is Herefordshire’s 2026 renewables capacity study. These examples give people a real sense of the physical impact on their communities and landscapes early in the planning process and help them to accept necessary change.
The scientific case is clear for ensuring that our energy policy responds to the challenge of climate change. The Government have shown their commitment to dispensing their international responsibilities and unlocking the infrastructure to deliver low-carbon energy. The time is now to engage the public in delivering the necessary energy changes to ensure that global warming does not change our country for the worse.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I should declare an interest in that I was employed by the Central Electricity Generating Board for 19 years in a power station and I enjoy, if I may put it that way, a very small pension administered by British Energy.
It was welcome to hear the Minister say that he was going to listen to the debate. I hope that he takes heed of what is said and that his Secretary of State will do likewise. The Minister made one of the shortest speeches that I have heard from the Front Bench, which proves that he wanted time for other people to say what they felt about the Government’s policy.
I and many other people are getting fed up—sick and tired—of being described as climate change deniers. That term has a serious connotation and we do not like it. It is associated with Nazism and the Holocaust and I hope that others, including my ex-noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will cease to use that insulting term.
The people who are described as climate change deniers do not deny climate change at all. That would of course be absurd, because there has been climate change for the past 4.8 billion years. Indeed, without climate change, we would not be sitting here, nor would there be many mammals about—if any other life on earth at all. No one is denying that there is climate change. What we say is that, although there will be climate change and some of it may well be manmade, in our view it is not exclusively caused by CO2 emissions. This is the problem that ought to be discussed.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith, said that he disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who made a magnificent speech, and criticised him for saying that there were some benefits from global warming. Of course there are benefits; after all, since the ice age, the global temperature has increased by 16 degrees Fahrenheit. If that had not happened, we would not be sitting here; we would be way down at the equator, because this country was uninhabitable.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
Perhaps I may comment. The Met Office in its computer modelling has certainly studied what would happen if no CO2 was produced by industry. When you take the CO2 out of industry, you find none of the climate change observed over the past 150 years. People have considered the noble Lord’s point seriously; they have looked at it in great detail and that is their conclusion.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
Yes, I understand that perfectly and I accept that scientists are serious and knowledgeable people. However, they can be wrong and they have been wrong. In 1970, the same sorts of scientists were saying that we were going to have a new ice age. Suppose that we had then pumped lots of CO2 into the atmosphere so that we did not have an ice age. What then? The same scientists were predicting that glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear within 50 years. They had to revise that prediction to 250 years. Not all that scientists say can be taken as gospel. That is why there should always be people who study these things and are able to challenge them. Therefore, I hope that the term “climate change deniers” will be dropped from the vocabulary on this question.
The Government have tried to get to grips with the problems that we face, but whether they are dealing with them correctly I do not know. I believe that there is far too much concentration on wind power, for example, because wind is the least viable option on practically every test. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed out, wind power will be expensive for electricity consumers—very expensive indeed. Wind turbines, offshore and onshore, are environmentally destructive. Do not make any mistake: the disturbance to the marine environment from building these monsters out at sea is serious. They affect fish life and the environment of various species and may well affect the industry. I do not know what will happen when the first oil tanker crashes into a wind turbine. I hope that it will not happen, but it may do so.
We have already heard that there is intermittent supply from wind turbines and that they do not usually supply energy when we most need it—when it is cold and in the winter. As regards maintenance at sea, especially in winter and the gale season, it will be difficult to get out there to maintain them when they break down, as they surely will. What is more, we also have to duplicate the power from the wind turbines, because we cannot guarantee that they will meet maximum demand. This happens in January or February, so that when we need them most, they are not available. The savings in CO2 must be balanced against the costs of their construction and of the construction of the backing power that must be provided.
Finally, wind turbines have a short working life. A power station such as Sizewell B provides the same output as 600 wind turbines. It provides a 92 per cent load factor and it has a working life of 60 years. I am glad to say that the Government are embarking on a nuclear programme, but it must be speeded up because, if we are not careful, we will find that by 2016 to 2020 we will be very short of power. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, we need to have a programme beyond 2025 and we must solve the problem of the long-term storage of nuclear materials in safe sites and be prepared to meet decommissioning costs that will be very high.
I have not been greatly in favour of nuclear power. When I was a member of the Select Committee on energy, we visited Three Mile Island, and what we found was very frightening. However, times have changed and in this country the housekeeping of all our power stations, not just the nuclear ones, is very good indeed. I have revised my views and believe that, if we are going to solve our short, medium and long-term problems, we need a programme of nuclear energy.
We are contributing to experimental programmes on nuclear fusion. I wonder whether we are wasting our money. Lord Marshall always told me in our conversations that it was impossible. We might instead, as the noble Lord, Lord Haworth, pointed out, think again about fast-breeder reactors. It was unfortunate that the one at Dounreay was a failure. That was due to circumstances that could have been avoided. However, the matter needs to be looked at.
Finally, I welcome the aim of the Government to increase combined heat and power to 10,000 megawatts. That is altogether good and I hope that it comes about. However, when I was a member of the Select Committee on energy in 1983, we recommended a large increase in combined heat and power. The Government, instead of accepting what we said, set up the WS Atkins committee, which took 10 years to report. The result at the moment is that we have 3,000 megawatts of CHP. Of course, that is a very energy-saving system, which I hope the Government will proceed with quickly. We must understand that that will mean smaller power stations near the urban environment.
Overall, I welcome the Government’s statement. There are some defects in it, but I hope that they have listened to what has been said in this debate, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, today we have a chance to debate two vitally linked issues. An advantage when considering the energy element of policy is that the area can be reviewed and considered statistically and scientifically. Recently, the International Energy Agency estimated that global energy use will triple by 2050. A potential consequence of this is that the energy that we need to buy may become scarcer and even more expensive. Many noble Lords have spoken about the technology of new generating capacity. The noble Lord, Lord Haworth, touched on the question of our existing generating capacity that is becoming increasingly antique. Somewhere in the region of 12 gigawatts that comes from coal and oil-fired generating plants will become obsolete by 2015. Nine out of 10 of our nuclear plants are due to be decommissioned by 2023.
As we heard, the challenge of constructing a policy around the other element, which is climate change, is that the science and statistics move into a much more speculative field. How do we predict from historical and current records how an increase in greenhouse gases will affect the climate in which we live? One element that concerns me is that we are told that currently about half the CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere is reabsorbed by the oceans, presumably producing a balance between the CO2 in the atmosphere and that in the oceans. It would seem that one of the inevitabilities of an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, let alone an increase in temperature, is an increased amount of absorption, and because of that an increase in the acidity of the oceans. This throws up a great many worrying aspects before we even consider whether it will have an effect on changing the climate. My noble friend Lord Lawson was curtailed in his remarks on what he foresees for the world, but that was one element that he did not touch on.
Noble Lords will be aware that consideration that international action might be needed to address this issue led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which contained definitions of a batch of greenhouse gases. Most Governments, including our own, signed up eventually. Following this, the most obvious approach to a remedy, which most countries grabbed hold of, was to increase the production of energy from renewable resources. In the UK, as we have heard from various noble Lords, we now have renewables obligation certificates, the climate change levy and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, and we are also beginning on the carbon reduction commitment. The trouble, as noble Lords such as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out, is that these all add to the cost of our energy. A paper from Civitas that I saw recently reckons that they will add anything from 33 per cent to 43 per cent to our energy bills. I ask the Minister to analyse where we stand in relation to the costs imposed on other countries. If we thought that we should just go on using energy in our traditional profligate manner, this would be a very severe imposition. A number of our competitors are tied to similar schemes, but the other challenge that it gives us is to use our energy even more efficiently than our competitors, if the market that they are working in does not have those charges.
The key purpose of the Kyoto Protocol was to tie countries to a certifiable reduction in their gas emissions by 2012. It envisaged that many countries would meet their targets through national measures, as we have attempted to do. The recently published The Hartwell Paper from Oxford characterises this approach as trying to convince the world that the industrial revolution was sinful and that we must therefore atone, and it says that humanity is unlikely to find this an attractive form of motivation. At a global level, such an interpretation is possible, but that is not where the proposals in Kyoto stopped. First, by linking nations and thereby individual industries into a market mechanism, it added the most fundamental motivation that economics can provide. It added a financial incentive to the simple attraction of a more efficient use of energy through a system of emissions trading. Along with that, it offered two other instruments, in the form of the clean development mechanism and joint implementation, which incentivised countries in the developing world to consider reducing emissions without tying down their future industrial development to actual quotas.
In the event, as noble Lords will be aware, the biggest greenhouse gas-emitting nation in the world— the US—refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol, but the signs are that this is changing. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, might be interested to know that there are a growing number of state-led initiatives in the US—he mentioned one—which culminated last Friday when the California Air Resources Board published the final draft of a market-based system to cut the state’s emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As the saying goes, where California leads, perhaps the rest of the US will follow.
In the rest of the world generally, the mechanisms provided by Kyoto did receive implementation. In accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”, the developing nations, which happen to include three of the world’s larger economies, were not obliged to take on emissions reduction targets during the Kyoto period. They were, however, granted the right to participate in the clean development mechanism and they were encouraged to reduce emissions through payments for certified emissions reductions. My noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, were praising China for its energy-saving activities; as things stand, according to the UN framework convention, China has registered projects that will reduce emissions by 239 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum. The figure for India is 44 million tonnes per annum. These efforts are not insignificant and in themselves are equivalent to half the UK’s annual emissions. Of course, this is not an excuse for us to do nothing but it is already 30 per cent greater than the reduction that we are committed to achieve by 2020.
This is not just an issue involving the developing countries. As my noble friend on the Front Bench has done this afternoon, my right honourable friend in another place, in his speech on the comprehensive spending review, made clear his purpose for,
“Britain to be a leader of the new green economy”. —[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/10; col. 962.]
By the efforts of the UK enterprise and financial sector, London is now the foremost world centre for trading within a global carbon market. The value of this market in 2009 was reported to be $144 billion, and it is capable of earning valuable finance for the UK.
Given that there was failure to reach any kind of replacement agreement at Copenhagen in December 2009, there is every chance that the architecture for these promising international markets could lapse. Further, since Copenhagen, speculation about the future of this market has been rising and there are signs that the enterprise and enthusiasm are beginning to drain away.
It was most reassuring this afternoon to hear my noble friend state the Government’s commitment to look for a framework for a solid carbon price. Can the Minister tell the House whether one of the Government’s priorities at Cancun will be to put in place some successor to those market mechanisms? Further, will the Government push to ensure that Cancun provides an immediate message to stakeholders in this market that private sector financial and entrepreneurial resources will be further harnessed under any post-Kyoto agreement? The stance taken by Her Majesty’s Government will be critical for injecting some much-needed confidence into those who participate and for continuing to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of global carbon markets.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
My Lords, we seem to have reached the point in this debate where everything that could be said has been said but not everyone who could say it has already said it, so I am going to offer a few more points.
There are always three guiding rules in energy policy: first, security of supply; secondly, affordability; and, thirdly, environmental sustainability. It is significant that the last of these three has assumed the almost overarching significance that it currently enjoys. However, it would be wrong to suggest that this is something of a novelty. In the past, we have had clean air Acts and the fiscal triumph of taking lead out of petrol, which was achieved by the Labour Government in the late 1970s, when Denis Healey—the noble Lord, Lord Healey—imposed taxes to make it inconvenient and expensive to have lead—
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I think that it was started by Denis Healey, as well as by the noble Lord. That of course gives some credibility, at least in part, to the environmental credentials of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, although some of the points that he made earlier today might draw that comment into question. However, we will move on from there.
Certainly, British Gas’s great programme of changing from town gas to North Sea gas and linking up all the households was in some ways far more ambitious than the metering programmes that we have been talking about this afternoon. Opportunities have consistently been taken by Governments, state enterprises and others to take account of opportunities, some of them environmental. However, now we do not have the luxury of taking advantage of opportunities, and I think that we are required to be socially and environmentally responsible in taking account of changes in our climatic conditions.
It is certainly true that in the past we have been rather complacent in the UK. Nye Bevan once said that Britain was self-sufficient because it was an island built on coal and surrounded by fish. The common fisheries policy put an end to one, and the other was the demise of the coal-mining industry—for reasons that we do not need to go into tonight, but some of us still carry the scars from personal and constituency experiences. The coal industry in the UK is not currently in a position to re-emerge. It may at some stage if new technologies are properly developed to take advantage of the stocks that remain, but we are dependent on coal imports and at the moment the prices are relatively reasonable. However, by 2015 we will have to confront the large plant directive requirements and put to one side a number of the coal-fired stations. Alternatively, if we keep them going, we will do so at considerable expense because of the charges that will be imposed.
Certainly, our oil and gas supplies from the North Sea, which are often forgotten, will continue to make a sizeable contribution. They will not so much add to self-sufficiency but they will put us in a relatively better position than a number of the countries, particularly on the continent, that we hold up, sometimes unrealistically, as the whited sepulchres of renewables and the like. They had to go for renewables in the way that the French had to go for nuclear in the 1970s when they realised that they were going to be dependent on neighbours on whom they could not always depend for oil and gas. At the end of the Cold War, Germany had the industrial imperative to find something to fill that gap in its economy, which had been filled hitherto by the need to defend the country and to service the troops.
Therefore, while to an extent the UK can be accused of a degree of complacency, I think it is fair to say that, at least in part, our exploitation of our North Sea oil resources, perhaps rather foolishly in the late 1980s and early 1990s when we had the dash for gas, was understandable. However, we have to take account of the fact that we will not have as much oil and gas as we had before and that it will be difficult for us to secure those commodities in the world market in the way that we have been able to do in the recent past. The jury must still be out on the optimism of some people in relation to the significance of the Shell reserves and whether they will be exploited, and with regard to the attitudes of some of the countries that have them.
Certainly it is fair to say that we need to address the issue of gas storage in the UK. In his commendably short speech the Minister referred to the fact that permissions have been granted for new exploration, usually in areas of the North Sea that are a bit less hospitable. We have gone for the low-hanging fruit. It will be more expensive and more difficult, and it may not necessarily give us what we want. Equally, we have to recognise that while we do not need the 90-day supply that the Federal Republic might require in terms of gas storage, we need more than we have at present. We are getting to the stage where the Government have to make a choice. Will they stick with a market-driven solution or will they try to set a target for the amount of storage facilities that we require? Frankly, the market cannot be left to work this out on its own and I do not think that Ofgem has done us a great deal of good in that area. It has not been sufficiently robust or rigorous in its thinking. The Minister could come back to us on that in his reply.
I speak as the chair of the Nuclear Industry Association and I welcome the Government’s commitment to the programme of replacement build. I realise that there are some problems and we will have to agree to disagree at this stage on the uncertainties of the planning regime. There are some questions about the national policy statement but that will be for another day when we can have a detailed debate. I am a little disappointed that at present at least two of the 10 stations have been put into the long grass. I realise that there were problems. It was a greenfield site and there were planning considerations, but there could have been a bit more boldness on the Government’s part in relation to these two stations, which were relatively short distances from one of the hubs of the north-west nuclear industry at Sellafield.
At the weekend at the Scottish Labour Party conference, Iain Gray MSP, leader of the Scottish Labour Party, who may well be the First Minister after the next election in May, made it perfectly clear that he wanted Scotland to continue to generate nuclear power in the foreseeable future. Will the Minister talk to his coalition colleagues in the Scottish Office and tell them that there are sites at Hunterston and Torness which should be considered? I am not arguing for both of them as we could probably have too much nuclear power in Scotland, but if both of them close we will not have enough. Certainly, the optimistic noises that come out of the Scottish Government relating to renewables are fanciful, to say the least. We know that there are tremendous opportunities for wind, provided that we can secure planning permission and provided that we can get the infrastructure and supply chains organised to get into the North Sea. I do not think that they have been properly addressed or studied with the rigour that such challenges will require. Nevertheless, they are important, and tidal power could be as well. The idea that Scotland could somehow provide 80 per cent of its energy requirements from what are at best maturing technologies is fanciful.
At the same time, I recognise the contribution that Longannet, for which I have a great affection, has made. It was the power station to which the miners in my constituency delivered the coal 24 hours a day, just about 365 days a year. It has been the powerhouse of Scottish electricity generation—2,400 megawatts. It is a massive station which at the moment has flue gas desulphurisation equipment installed. That was very important when we were dealing with acid rain considerations, as we were 20 years ago. That reduced the thermal efficiency and output of the station. We have to remember that, whatever form of carbon abatement or carbon capture and storage kit that we install, it will be expensive and reduce the efficiency of the station. Therefore, it will make the electricity coming out of that station ever more expensive. It will have fairly long payback times as well. We have to be a wee bit cautious when we look at the economics of CCS. The consensus is that this technology will become available around 2020 or 2022. That is perhaps only one of the forms because of the way in which the Government have structured the competition. I am a little cautious about the CCS option there.
Anything that involves massive capital expenditure in utilities requires a stable regulatory framework. As yet I do not think that investors have confidence that the Government have it right—they have not got it right because they have said very little. I know that in future we will get it but, for the investment to be achieved at the scale we want, we will need to get a degree of investor confidence that will come only from clear regulatory intentions that will give us the stability for peace of mind.
I realise that I am almost out of time but I want to make one last point as a national office bearer of fuel poverty charities. At present, we see that £80 is accounted for in every domestic bill by subsidies to renewables. That is imposed in a rough and ready fashion and it is not fair to disadvantaged households. The Government need to look again at the question of social tariffs and how they will be provided in future. Equally, when we consider the green deal, as we will when the legislation is introduced, the devil will be in the detail. A lot of reassurance needs to be given and the Government have gone part of the way by announcing that they will be rigorous in their approach to private landlords in the implementation of certain aspects of this policy. The Australian experience is helpful in indicating what not to do. There is a lot of worry and anxiety among the fuel poverty lobbies and the most disadvantaged about what will happen to their fuel bills. They think, with some justification, that it is not fair that they should have to pay a disproportionate price for the recognition that we all have to accept of climate change and the need for carbon abatement.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I suspect that I am not alone when I say that I have enjoyed today’s debate. I have greatly appreciated the expertise, experience and the huge amount of knowledge and commitment from noble Lords from all sides of the House. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing this debate forward today. I suspect that it is a bit of a taster for the debates to come on the energy security and green economy Bill.
The debate has made clear the widespread and overwhelming evidence of the man-made impact on climate change. It is one of the most challenging problems facing us and has the potential to devastate nations and reshape the world as we know it. It is clear that we must determine energy policy in light of these challenges. Notwithstanding the views and comments of the noble Lords, Lord Lawson and Lord Stoddart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, we cannot see energy policy just in terms of the financial costs. There are social and environmental costs which bring with them different financial costs.
Tempting as it is to respond on each and every point of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, I believe that other noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Giddens and Lord Smith, have already addressed them with ample scientific evidence. I will, however, challenge one point. If we take no action on climate change, who will pay the highest price? It will be the poorest and the least able to cope and respond, whether at home or abroad. Extreme impacts will take the greatest toll on the poorest in the world. If we do nothing, the worst scenarios will come true. People around the world will be displaced by freak weather conditions and floods and then it will impact on everyone across the world. We should bear that in mind.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, commented on having to persuade the public and to bring home to people the message about what we are facing. We should take the opportunity to thank the individuals and organisations that are working tirelessly in seeking to educate the public and lobby governments and other organisations about climate change and related issues. This is a continuing process. We do not have all the answers and it requires a proper assessment by Government of both the national and international interests. Governments must be prepared to work with everyone to meet our international commitments, and to step up and take a leadership role when required.
Despite scepticism in some quarters, we support the Government in trying to make progress at the Cancun climate change talks. The Government will need to have the courage of their convictions. I know that the Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, has offered Chris Huhne, the Secretary of State, the benefit of his experience and expertise—indeed, he says, of the scars he received from the previous talks in Copenhagen.
I was rather surprised at one of the Minister’s comments—when he said that the Government have stated their aim to be the greenest Government ever “whether you like it or not”. Can I assure him that we do like it and that we hope they achieve it? In our role as an Opposition we will support measures that seek to achieve it, and scrutinise and press for action where the Government fall short of that objective. I would also add that resources must follow promises, otherwise those promises are worthless. So we look forward to seeing and scrutinising the energy security and green economy Bill which will seek to address some of the issues raised today. However, we on this side of the House find it reassuring that many of the Government’s policies in the coalition agreement were first undertaken, initiated or planned by the Labour Government. For example, the targets that have been set for moving to a low-carbon economy have remained. The commitment to smart grids and smart meters, the need for an energy mix, the commitment to zero-carbon homes by 2016, the creation of the green investment bank, the renewable heat incentive and feed-in tariffs and substantial investment in the development of low-carbon technologies, including offshore wind and manufacturing at port sites—all these and other commitments remain, and we welcome that.
However, as has been highlighted in the debate today, there are some areas that remain unclear and give us cause for concern about either policy or implementation. Where we have concerns, we will press the Government to address them. I hope that the Minister will be able to be address the points raised in today’s debate, and I am sure that we will return to them when the Bill comes before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, emphasised that we have to win over hearts and minds in order to change behaviour. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, pointed out some contradictions in government policy in this regard. I think that there is a far greater awareness of the issue, but it is still very difficult for the individual to appreciate that their individual actions can and do have an impact. I hope my noble friend Lord Giddens will not mind me mentioning that in his book The Politics of Climate Change he describes what he very modestly calls the Giddens paradox. This paradox is that for most people the dangers posed by climate change are not visible or tangible in normal everyday life—but if we wait until they are, it will be too late. Both he and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton succinctly and eloquently spoke of the scientific evidence and the economic implications of the opportunities.
As my noble friend Lord Giddens made clear, that makes it even more imperative that Governments take action and take the lead. There has to be a policy thread that runs through Government and not just through the actions of one department. For example, when Ministers in DECC are working with the energy companies on the green deal, I hope that they are at the same time talking to their colleagues in DCLG about building regulations and about the private rented sector. When DECC is developing proposals for increasing renewable energy, there needs to be—as we have heard from a number of noble Lords tonight—ongoing discussions with the DCLG about planning issues and consultation. If the Government are to have any measure of success in their stated aim of being the greenest Government ever, policy development in DECC cannot be taken in isolation.
I want to touch on two of the key issues raised today by a number of noble Lords—security of energy supplies and the cost of energy for consumers. There are twin goals to secure the nation's energy supplies, as the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord O’Neill, pointed out. We need to ensure new investment for a low-carbon future in both renewables and nuclear and we have to maximise the potential of our remaining coal, oil and gas resources in a way that meets the renewable targets set by the Labour Government and supported by this Government. We need to remove carbon from our electricity supplies. Our response to that challenge when we were in government was the mix—the trinity of clean coal, renewables and nuclear. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that we are pleased to see the continuing support for this principle from the coalition. As always, however, the devil is in the detail, and there are some matters on which we seek further clarification.
On coal, there are great advantages to coal-fired power stations and the role they play in electricity generation, but only as part of the mix of a low-carbon economy. That is why the investment in carbon capture and storage is so important. My noble friend Lord Smith of Finsbury raised a number of questions. It would be helpful if the Minister could also update the House on a couple of other matters as well: the details of the levy to fund CCS and also whether he intends to deliver more than one commercial-scale CCS demonstration project. It would also be very helpful if he could tell us what progress there has been on the energy performance standard. We will want to scrutinise this because the Government have to ensure that they do not impede investment by creating uncertainty.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, also raised the changes made to the carbon reduction commitment which are of great concern to industry. This is due to start next year and was intended to be a self-financing fund designed to reward companies with high energy consumption that reduce their energy use. Under the CSR the estimated £3.5 billion raised will go directly to the Treasury. The Minister will understand the concerns about this. We would welcome his assurance that this amount will not be swallowed up by the Treasury—which the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, indicated would be a good thing—but that the full amount will be used for its intended purpose. This was not meant to do anything other than pay to reduce carbon.
The nuclear issue has featured high in our debate today and has been welcomed by noble Lords across the House. It has been a difficult issue for the coalition, but the Government have confirmed their support for the nuclear power industry. It is clear that very powerful arguments were made to overturn the entrenched opposition expressed by the Secretary of State, Chris Huhne, before he was in Government. On 9 May he said,
“Our message is clear. No to nuclear, as it is not a short cut, but a dead end",
but everyone is entitled to change their mind, and that is to be welcomed rather than criticised. Where I remain puzzled is on the position on nuclear subsidy, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. It would be helpful if the Minister could bring clarity on this issue.
In May, the Secretary of State, Chris Huhne, wrote that:
“No private sector investor has built a nuclear power station in anywhere in the world without lashings of government subsidy, since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl”.
However, on 18 October, when announcing the potential sites for new nuclear power stations, he said on subsidies:
“To be clear, this means that there will be no levy, direct payment or market support”.—[Official Report, 18/10/10; col. WA 56.]
Then Charles Hendry, the Minister of State at DECC, said in a speech last week:
“We published what we mean by subsidy because we've been absolutely clear that there will be no subsidy and we want to set out now what that means".
If it is so clear, why does the Minister need to explain what it means? Given the Secretary of State's previous statement that it is not possible to build nuclear power stations without lashings—his word—of government subsidy, the Minister will understand the confusion being created on this issue. It would be helpful if he would clarify what no subsidy means. Does it mean no subsidy or does it mean some subsidy at some point? I encourage the Minister to take on board the comments and suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton about promoting and explaining nuclear energy to a wider public and taking an international lead on this.
There are two other crucial areas—reforming the electricity markets and regulating carbon emissions from coal-fired power stations—that are unlikely to be in the Bill, but to be subject to consultations. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case and, if so, how long they will take?
My noble friend Lord Grantchester used his experience and expertise on renewables and emphasised the investment required and the wider commitment of government that is needed. He particularly referred to small-scale projects, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. The target is that renewables should provide 15 per cent of energy supplies by 2020, yet it was reported in the Independent that there are 230 separate groups against wind farms and that only one-third of applications get consent. I understand that part of the Government’s answer to this is a cash incentive for councils that give planning permission, but the impact may be on the residents of another council area. I understand concerns about this, so I ask the Minister: what other action is being taken to address the concerns of those who have raised objections? It would also be helpful if the Minister could address the issues around planning consents and planning issues for small-scale generation.
Other issues that have been raised several times in the debate, particularly by my noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, were the cost of energy for consumers, energy efficiency and energy savings. Unlike the Government’s welfare reform plan, we are very clear that the poor should not pay the most. Pay-as-you-save through the green deal is generally welcomed, but the Minister will know from our debate on Warm Front last week that we would like greater clarity on how this will operate. One of the observations about Warm Front was that more needs to be done to reach the poorest and those in the least fuel-efficient homes. Warm Front has helped over 2 million households but now, following government cuts, the money for this year will run out in December and the next two years will see the budget cut by two-thirds. I think we all agree that further measures are needed to protect the fuel poor. Given that the green deal will be consumer-led, what plans are there to ensure that it will be taken up by those in greatest need and in the least fuel-efficient homes? We also want to be reassured on the financial arrangements which will need to be in place before the green deal gets under way. For consumers to engage, they will need some certainty and guarantees about the costs, the savings and the payback period.
We also look forward to progress on smart grid and smart meters. They are already being brought in by British Gas, but is the Minister aware that, although the technology is available, the meters are not interchangeable between energy companies? Without legislation to ensure that meters can be made interchangeable, there will be no competition between companies because people will not be able to switch suppliers. I know that the Government will not want to bring in an anticompetitive measure, and I hope that this will be addressed in the forthcoming Bill.
Finally on consumer issues, can I express the very real concern from this side that Consumer Focus is being lost in the cull of quangos? The work of this organisation is invaluable. Since its inception, it has recovered £1.4 million for energy consumers, npower has had to repay a total of £70 million to 1.8 million customers who had overpaid in 2007, many consumers have saved money by using the accredited price comparison sites and many vulnerable consumers have been protected from having their energy supply cut off. I understand that Ministers intend Consumer Focus’s responsibilities to be transferred to Citizens Advice. As a former Third Sector Minister and a strong supporter of Citizens Advice, I am well aware of the invaluable work it undertakes, but there are serious questions to be answered about how this will work in practice. Consumer Focus is a statutory body with a board and a chair appointed by the Secretary of State. It is answerable to Parliament and audited by the NAO. It has legal powers contained in statute. Citizens Advice is a charity. As such, does the Minister intend that Consumer Focus’s legal powers should be transferred to Citizens Advice? Was any other way sought or consulted on for funding the invaluable work that CF undertakes? What discussions did departments have with Citizens Advice regarding the financing and expertise required?
While I am sure that Citizens Advice will be able to advise on individual consumer issues, it is a lot to expect for it, on top of its existing work, which is increasing, to understand the intricacies of how the energy market works. The Minister may recall that, at the time of British Gas privatisation in 1986, in the “Tell Sid” adverts, there was a commitment from the then Conservative Government that there would be a consumer watchdog. I urge the Minister to discuss this with his ministerial colleagues and to think again. I do not require an answer this evening, but it would helpful for a considered reply at another time because we feel strongly about the role of the organisation.
In conclusion, the new energy security and green economy Bill to come forward shortly will seek to address many of the questions and issues that have been raised today. I welcome the annual energy statement in which the coalition seeks to be measured and held to account on the actions promised in the statement. We share objectives with the Government on this and where they set out actions to improve energy security, we want to test the effect and efficiency of those policies, the environmental impact, and the social and economic impact. The poor must not pay the highest price for actions that need to be taken.
We will not seek to oppose for opposition’s sake. We will seek to be constructive at all stages. It is in the interests of everyone in the country that the Government meet the energy and environmental challenges that face us. We will support the objective of the Government to be the greenest government. We will use our role—for now—as the Official Opposition to challenge, to test and to evaluate in order to make progress and to make improvements. Climate change is real. It is a huge challenge. But if we get this right, there are huge rewards. There will not be just a cleaner and more stable environment, but also a cleaner and more stable economy. That is a challenge we want to meet.
Lord Marland
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their excellent speeches. I believe that the House is at its best in a debate like this. Any outsider who might ask about the purpose of the House of Lords need look no further than this Chamber where we have heard some of the finest speeches in the past few hours. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who has had to sit through the debate and assist me at every corner, which is a great support. At one point, I thought that he was going to lose the will to live.
I said that I wanted to hear from noble Lords and I have. I grasped one or two remarks very closely to my bosom because they were complimentary. One or two were not, which was not so pleasant. We have all listened to this debate and we can draw our own conclusions on the rights and wrongs of the subject matter and the views of noble Lords.
Many questions have been asked which I will not be able to cover tonight. Noble Lords would not expect me to because they will form part of our energy Bill. They are part of the research and consultation being carried out at the moment. I am afraid that I cannot address those points, and I will not. This debate is to give noble Lords the opportunity to tell me of the issues that concern them, and for us to address them. We should be prepared to work together on the energy Bill when it passes through this House first, which is fantastic. I consider this debate to be a card-marking exercise.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, obviously has a great knowledge on the farming front. He quite naturally is interested in small-scale anaerobic digesters and biomass. We in the Government share his interest in this area and in supporting it. But many of the issues, such as localised planning and some of the noble Lord’s farming issues, are not subjects for our department. They are subjects for Defra and CLG, particularly the small planning issues, which were also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. Noble Lords will have to address those to the relevant Minister at a separate time and debate.
Without any question, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, was a tour de force. Animals and mammals were mentioned. I was very interested in the remarks made by Bastiat, who was not someone of whom I had heard. The noble Lord is on very home territory when he reasonably says that CRC is money for the Treasury. The Treasury will make decisions about that money as it so wishes. It has been left with a substantial hole in its resources. There is no point in the opposite Benches tut-tutting because we cannot live on bread alone. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, also mentioned the development of shale gas. He is right, but shale gas is not in the UK, so it does not give us a secure energy supply.
I have to chastise my noble friend Lord Jenkin a little bit for his scepticism about carbon capture and storage, a subject also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, in what was a superb speech. The point about CCS in a climate of economic hardship is this. We have negotiated with the Treasury some £1 billion of national funding, taxpayers’ money, to develop what is considered by some to be a high-risk technology. If that technology pays off, it means substantial jobs and opportunities that will lead to further CCS endeavours and to CCS on gas because it has become a proven technology. Personally, I am happy to say that I am leading the negotiations with ScottishPower, and the initial reactions are very positive.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, or I would be if he was in his place, for his comments on cross-party support. He raised, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, the subject of Warm Front and the impact on fuel poverty. The fact is that fuel poverty has gone up under the support of Warm Front. The figures have risen from 3 million to 3.5 million in fuel poverty, so it is not working. That does not mean that it was a wrong endeavour. It was a genuine effort to try to improve fuel poverty, but it has not worked and therefore we have to improve on it. In our view, the green deal is an improvement. We will have the benefit of noble Lords’ advice on this subject over the next few weeks, and it is incumbent on us all to work to improve the numbers in fuel poverty, which have gone out of control.
My noble friend Lady Maddock quite rightly talked about microgeneration, and we welcome her views on the renewable heat incentive. Again, we will discuss this in the coming months as the energy Bill makes its passage. I was disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, a man I admire enormously, said in his excellent speech that he felt that we had not negotiated a good deal with the Treasury on our spending review. I do not think there are many in government who would share that view. We are keeping our heads low at the moment because in fact we have had an increase of over 30 per cent in capital expenditure and a very modest reduction to our budget. I would draw his attention to the government figures on this.
In the debate we have heard two views on the benefits or not of the Severn barrier, and I am afraid that the Government have sided with the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, in thinking that it will cause untold damage to the environment, and at a huge cost. We are grateful to have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, about his first-hand experience and are delighted to learn that even now he is earning a pension from his former toiling. My noble friend Lord Reay raised his concerns about the proliferation of onshore windmills, but as he said himself, he must be gratified that it is very much down to local planners who listen to local people and communities. These are issues for local communities, and as he pointed out, the conditions have been tightened.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made a learned speech. Normally he says “Get on your bike” to me, but today he was more generous in his comments and made the valid point, along with other noble Lords, that we have to have lifestyle changes in order to bring about a reduction in energy use. That is the easiest way to reduce the risk of climate change. We intend to push out smart meters and to accelerate the programme quite dramatically.
I return to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury. He is right about tidal and wave power, of which he has first-hand knowledge better than that of anyone else in the Chamber. This is another area that we should be pushing hard, and we will do so. We also intend to grapple with nuclear waste. I have been out to see a MOX plant in France to see whether it is suitable for purpose in Sellafield, and we are doing a lot of cost-benefit analysis on that to see whether it makes sense to reprocess the huge amount of waste.
My noble friend Lady Noakes took a measured approach to this debate. She rightly talked about costs to the taxpayer and whether that is being considered. It is of absolutely primary concern to this Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, quite rightly said that we should consider the choices and educate people. We do, indeed, educate them. As I go round schools—probably not to the same extent as other noble Lords—I find that people are fundamentally educated about climate change and about not using electricity. Smart meters will educate them further. I have been given something by E.ON, which I should probably declare but they have been given to quite a lot of people, which shows how much electricity we are using in our house. It is shocking. We now have a penalty system where my children have to cough up some money if they leave their lights on.
My noble friend the Duke of Montrose made some excellent points about China and India. We must continue to progress our discussions with them in Cancun. I do not consider that Cancun will be a conclusive event, but it will continue the soft negotiation that is required to achieve all our ends.
The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, whom I consider to be Lord Nuclear, has quite rightly been gratified by some of the steps that we have taken on nuclear. I hope they have sent out strong language to the industry. On gas storage, I personally signed the planning permission for a 15 per cent increase in gas storage at a new facility in East Anglia, as I mentioned earlier.
I am not dealing with every point as perhaps I should because time is running out. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and welcome her to her task. Her involvement in this her first debate has been a pleasure. As she said, it will be one of many more.
A good many questions have been asked which I hope I have answered. I continue to be available to the House to answer questions at any juncture as we make progress through the winter months on the energy Bill, which I hope will be a triumph for the House.
I hope noble Lords will agree that we have moved at speed to deal with many of the issues with which we are confronted. I am concerned that some noble Lords do not understand the enormity of the task in front of us: we have an antiquated network; there has been a lack of investment in the good times and an overreliance on fossil fuels; and the increase in the price of oil by 80 per cent between 2004 and 2008 was outside our control. However, we must not be moaners; we must think positively. It is incumbent on us to all work together to provide a secure energy supply for a low-carbon economy in the future.
We must also be mindful of the fact that we are custodians for future generations. We must not look at this issue in isolation and by ourselves. I am heartened that those on all sides of the House indicate a testament to our collective doctrine and demonstrate a passion for getting our energy policy right. For our part, we intend to deal with the huge infrastructure issues that confront us and look forward to working with noble Lords during the winter months to progress and conclude the energy Bill.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, an enormous amount of questions have been put to my noble friend. Will he write to noble Lords with the answer to any point he may not have covered?
Lord Marland
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, but I have answered a lot of questions. However, if any are unanswered that I can answer, as I pointed out earlier, I will answer them. However, I do not see the point when we are about to have a considerable lock-in on the energy Bill and various debates, which will provide answers to these questions. However, if noble Lords feel that their questions have not been adequately answered in this exhaustive debate, I shall be happy to write to them.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I apologise for delaying the House. A number of questions were asked and not all were answered. I appreciate that some questions will have to wait for the Bill, but there were others that related to measures that will come into force before the Bill takes effect. It would be helpful if he could look at those—I am happy to remind the Minister if he is unclear as to which they are—and provide answers that could go in the Library.
Lord Marland
As I said earlier, I am happy to answer questions that noble Lords feel have not been answered and that are within my remit. The noble Baroness asked several questions that were not within my department’s remit: for example, about Consumer Focus. I answered her questions on smart meters, but I am very happy to respond further if she or any noble Lord wishes to write to me.
Transport: Bus Industry
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bradshaw
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their proposals for the bus industry.
Lord Bradshaw
My Lords, I should declare two interests: I am a concessionary bus pass holder and a regular bus user—I come 13 miles each day to the station to catch my train.
The issue that currently concerns bus operators the most is receiving fair compensation for the costs of concessionary fares. Any consideration of this issue must take account of the fact that, in 2012, the bus service operator grant will start to fall. Also, the reduction in local authority bus budgets will take effect next year, at the same time as the new arrangements for concessionary fares come into effect.
The consultation document about the future funding of concessionary travel, which the Government published in September, asks for very prompt responses, by 11 November, with a view to guidance being issued to local authorities by 1 December for implementation in April. That is going some, given that guidance often takes something like a year and a half to emerge.
The research was carried out by the Institute for Transport Studies at Leeds and is extremely theoretical. Understanding the consultation document and the supporting paper is well beyond the capability of the smaller bus operator. The report is based on survey data collected in August—not the best month for a survey. I shall give your Lordships a few extracts from it, because, in my view and that of the bus industry, they are almost incredible. For example, on the impact on bus passengers, it states:
“No direct impact from changes in reimbursement guidance or regulations. Potential disbenefit from small reduction in services and/or higher fares if operators respond to lower reimbursement rates”.
Well, operators are bound to respond to lower reimbursement rates. It continues:
“The assessment of the impact of the preferred option is particularly sensitive to assumptions about how the new guidance is applied and the reaction of operators (in relation to fares and service levels)”.
Well, obviously. If you reduce the money going into the bus industry by the amount proposed, there will be a reduction in service levels.
The research talks about the ongoing effect of the reduction in bus service operator grants. I shall quote one more paragraph—there are 35 pages of it, and it is in very small type:
“As noted in the main body of the impact assessment, it has not been possible to model the impact of changes to the concessionary travel guidance on service levels and fares”.
That is in the paragraph headed “Rural proofing”. I really believe that the changes have not been rural-proofed.
If the proposals as outlined in the document go ahead, bus fares will rise and, more importantly, services will be reduced, hitting both concessionary travel and fare-paying passengers. The scope of services—the length of the day or the length of the week that they cover—will be reduced. Jobs will be lost both within and outside the bus industry.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith was reported recently as saying, “Get on a bus and get a job”. That would be all right if there was a bus to get on. In 10 years, one rural bus operator has created 280 jobs in his area of operation, which has little other local employment. There will be real and lasting job losses as services are withdrawn. How much practical consultation has taken place with smaller, independent operators? Does this really matter to the Department for Transport? One might say that the documents are considering the formula isolated, comfortingly, from the real world. However, the TPPs published for rural areas call, as we heard during the previous debate, for greener travel arrangements and less congestion. Most of the people with whom I travel on the bus, as I do regularly, would rather see a good service maintained and make a contribution themselves to the concessionary fare support—say, a flat rate of £1 a journey. They would rather do that than have a worse service or no buses at all, because if there is no bus to take you where you want to go, what is the use of a free bus pass?
The bus service operator grant has been reduced because the Treasury believes that that will lead to people buying more fuel-efficient buses. I have been involved in the operation of the bus service and I know of no operator that buys vehicles that are not fuel efficient. However, we have to bear in mind that air conditioning, disabled access and emission controls add to the weight of a bus and lead to higher fuel consumption. Soon, local authorities will have more discretion over how they disburse the reduced funds. How do we ensure that buses get their fair share of that money? There will be many other pressures on local authorities which they may consider to be more important.
I turn to the burden of regulation. The OFT and the Competition Commission are the two bodies involved with the bus industry. I ask the Minister how many inquiries each has held into the bus industry since deregulation. It will amount to tens, if not hundreds. Do those bodies appreciate the huge amount of work that they cause to the industry? The remedies that they propose are often ineffective. I cite an example where Arriva was told to sell off two of its garages in Liverpool to an outfit called Glenvale, which went bust after having run some pretty rotten buses in the mean time. The simple remedy of a traffic commissioner who is able not to accept registration of services that are predatory in nature is the obvious answer to all this interference from competition authorities.
I turn to the EC regulations. The working time directive was forced on the bus industry by the previous Government. Can the Minister give us any assurance that the United Kingdom Government will continue to resist the extension of the proposed passenger rights objective to local bus services? This matter is very active in Brussels and needs a great deal of push.
In the past five years, the bus operators have invested £1.6 billion in the bus building industry, yet orders now are scarce, as operators are not ordering buses because they believe that they will have to cut services severely—obviously, they have enough buses. The effect of this on the bus building industry is quite awful. We have to remember that this is one of the British manufacturing industries that we want to preserve.
In conclusion, I implore the Government to take serious notice of the representations of the bus industry. They still have time, particularly for those bus operators that serve rural areas, before they go ahead with the proposals for the reimbursement of concessionary fares.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, local bus services have three essential economic and social functions: they get people to work and education in support of economic growth; they help to reduce congestion and carbon emissions; and they improve social inclusion for those without a car by providing them with links to local services and access to work and leisure. However, there is a conflict today between the important role that bus services play and the unregulated way in which they are operated outside London.
Bus services here in London are wonderful. I am impressed by their frequency, the reasonableness of the fares, the newness of the vehicle fleet and the wide range of routes which extend access and availability. While commercial operators do a good job in some other parts of the country, the overall picture is nevertheless mixed. Investment in modern, cleaner and more accessible vehicles varies from region to region, as does the extent of networks, reliability of services and maintenance standards. I regret in particular that there is no public service obligation on bus operators as there is on other public utilities. Unlike a domestic electricity or gas supply, a neighbourhood’s bus service can be cut off at 56 days’ notice, without consultation, by its commercial operator.
The context today is one in which bus services will come under greater strain in the years ahead as a result of the reductions in public spending, as 47 per cent of bus company income is derived from national and local government in various grants and subsidies that now amount to some £2 billion. As this is reduced, there is a real danger that services will decline in some areas. This is already the case with shire counties cutting the number of routes that they subsidise. As examples of cuts to bus services starting to take effect, North Yorkshire County Council is consulting on plans to save £600,000 by withdrawing its subsidy for evening and weekend bus services, and Durham County Council has been consulting residents on which of the bus services that it subsidises—20 per cent of all routes in the county—it should cut as it seeks to reduce spending.
According to Spending Review 2010, the 20 per cent reduction in bus subsidies paid directly to operators will save over £300 million by 2014-15. That, coupled with a reduction of 28 per cent in overall local authority funding over the next four years, will inevitably put pressure on to the subsidy system. In addition, the special grant top-up for concessionary travel funding is being withdrawn and, from next April, that funding will be subsumed into the formula grant alongside the rest of the funding for concessionary travel.
It is interesting to note that the total cost of subsidising bus services has grown since 1986 from £850 million to around £2 billion. This subsidy includes bus service operators grant, public transport support and concessionary fare reimbursement by local authorities. There is now a very real danger of a salami effect on bus services, with bus companies withdrawing their own marginal routes as the bus service operators grant is reduced at the very same time as councils are forced to reduce subsidised routes. This attrition of an essential public service must be curtailed, given that in the UK the total number of bus trips today is still twice the number of rail and underground trips.
So, what should we do? Local authorities need to be encouraged to look at new models of service delivery, including forming strategic partnerships with operators and introducing quality contract arrangements with local franchises offered to a single operator in a particular area. As part of that, the Government should ensure that local authorities and passenger transport executives retain the powers to determine how bus services are delivered in their communities, using the full powers of the Transport Act 2009, and are incentivised to do so, where possible, by secondary legislation and government guidance.
Under quality contract franchising, private sector companies would be invited to bid to operate a specified network. Once a company was appointed, it would face no on-road competition and would be free to concentrate on developing the local market for bus travel. With franchising, you get what you are prepared to pay for, but a market testing exercise by passenger transport executives has shown that, even with the existing level of public subsidy to the industry, franchising should provide a better network than currently exists. At a minimum, those networks would be: more stable, with less frequent changes to fares, times and frequencies; possibly more reliable, because services would be monitored and good performance would be incentivised; better integrated, with one brand, one network, one ticket and simpler fares; and cleaner, because dirty old buses would be sent to the scrapyard and contracts would require bus operators to provide newer, cleaner buses and to maintain them to a high standard.
If in time more resources became available, whether from national government or from the local authorities themselves, quality contracts could be used to make a further step change with more state-of-the-art low-emission or no-emission buses. Fares could be simplified and held at current levels, or even reduced. The network could be made more accessible more quickly by making every bus low-floor, with easy access for wheelchair users. New services could be added to help link people to vital destinations like jobs and hospitals. More buses could be provided in rush hours to help reduce traffic congestion. This would all help reduce car dependency, improve air quality and contribute to the quality of the environment.
We should note that franchising of services, with the public sector specifying and regulating and the private sector delivering, is now the norm in the rest of public transport provision in Britain and across Europe. It is time that it became the norm with our bus services. Indeed, a growing number of bus operators, particularly those who have forged a good reputation in providing franchised public services at home and abroad, are supportive of franchising proposals. For the private sector, the advantage of franchising is an open, competitive framework and a long-term and stable return on investment with which they can invest in new vehicles and build customer numbers. Those in the private sector know that bus ridership can be increased because latent demand exists, and that is what has to be generated.
We can see from Transport for London how ridership can be increased. First, in the 20 years from 1986 when bus services outside London were deregulated, bus patronage in urban areas has declined by 46 per cent, while London has seen bus patronage increase by 81 per cent. In the past year, while ridership dropped 3 per cent outside London, London’s buses saw 0.5 per cent growth. Secondly, in the same period bus fares in urban areas have increased by 94 per cent in real terms, but in London fares have risen by just 54 per cent over the same period. Thirdly, even though local bus service vehicle kilometres fell by 13 per cent in the 10 years to 2008 in urban areas, they rose 31 per cent in London. Crucially, the higher load factors achieved in London have led to a significant fall in operating costs per passenger journey, by 22 per cent in real terms since 1985 compared with an increase of 7 per cent outside London.
It is all about generating new customers on our bus services. London has shown what can be achieved, and the rest of the UK must be empowered to follow.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have contributed so much to this debate already, especially the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for initiating it and bringing to the issue his customary expertise and trenchant questions. I am sure that the Minister noted them carefully and will respond to them accurately in his speech, which we await in a few moments. The noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Shipley, have identified key issues that affect and face the industry at present. I particularly liked the points that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made. His optimistic and constructive perspective was that ridership could increase and that, if the correct strategies were followed, we could improve bus services and see more people using them.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, I use a bus daily, but I am afraid that mine is a London bus. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, indicated, London is atypical in these terms, although I hope that it points to what can be achieved if there is sufficient commitment to increasing bus ridership and making the service efficient. In terms of efficiency, of course the quality of the buses and the hours that they run are important. We all know what dogs people when it comes to bus services. Without punctuality, people feel forlorn. They feel exposed to a position over which they have little control and one that is severely disappointing.
We all recognise why London’s experience cannot be readily translated, certainly to our rural areas, although in our major cities a great deal from London could be followed. There is no doubt that, in the example that London offers, the great success is the frequency and regularity of the buses and the knowledge that, when people go to catch a bus, one will arrive. That is important. That is why investment in the information that is available to bus passengers is of the greatest significance. After all, none of us expects to try to catch a train without some accurate information. However, people often wait for buses in much more inclement positions than they ever do at railway stations. Not even the most derelict of our railway stations fails to offer some shelter, but people using buses are often exposed to the weather conditions and wait for buses in very inclement circumstances.
The point that we need to emphasise—I hope that the Minister takes this on board—is that we are concerned with fairness, as far as support for buses is concerned, because buses are used by the less well-off in our population. It is people who cannot afford cars who travel by bus. We all remember the famous statement in the 1980s that, as far as one Prime Minister was concerned, it was only those who had failed who travelled on buses. That caused some resentment in the wider population. I am sure that that sentiment is not held by this Government today. They will be judged on the kind of services that are provided by the Department for Transport for those who are least well-off in our society and most dependent on effective public transport. The bus is of great importance in those terms. That is why the 20 per cent cut to the bus subsidy that is to be introduced by the Government is of great significance.
I have no doubt that the Minister has erected his defences well and no doubt that one of those defences is that we must wait for the Competition Commission’s report. The Competition Commission has many virtues and I am sure that we will learn a great deal from its report, but the question that we are asking the Minister is: can we wait that long? If cuts are coming that will affect bus services dramatically, significantly and early, waiting for the Competition Commission will, I am afraid, mean waiting for advice on how to plug a gap that will already, by then, be a great, tearing hole in the quality of our bus services. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will not erect that defence and that he will appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, introduced the debate this evening because of his sense of urgency and concern about bus services, which is shared across the industry and, of course, by passengers and the wider public.
We note that Iain Duncan Smith—a Minister with significant responsibilities given present circumstances—thought that getting a job involved merely taking a bus ride from Merthyr Tydfil to Cardiff. That journey lasts an hour and the service is not particularly frequent, although it is regular. However, an unemployed fellow was featured in a television programme taking a bus to Cardiff only to find that the most desperate circumstances prevailed in terms of the likelihood of being able to land a job, given that the jobs available were so few and the number of applicants so great. If employers have a choice between employing a local person who can come in and meet their demands at short notice and someone who has an hour’s travel to get to work and an hour’s journey home, the latter has a pronounced disadvantage. Therefore, it will not do to give glib answers about unemployed people using buses to travel to get a job. The Government should think seriously about the nature of the support for the industry. I am sure that the Minister is seriously considering the proposals of the Local Government Association as regards the necessity of providing a single grant for buses. It identified where the weaknesses lie in the present situation. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, identified a very important dimension of that with regard to concessionary fares.
The LGA argues that reform is necessary. After all, we have seen the subsidy increase over the past decade by a very substantial amount. The LGA knows that money is scarce. Before the Government carry out their full depredations on the grant, the money is already pretty scarce. However, the LGA is concerned that the Government should look at the nature of the grant in different terms and think of it as a model for a single pot. I know that that proposal poses all sorts of challenges for the Minister and that it will require serious consideration. However, I make a plea from this Dispatch Box that unless he thinks radically about the way in which we organise our support for buses in circumstances where resources are so scarce, and unless clear reforms are carried through, we will see a deterioration in a service which in many parts of the country is already not good enough to meet the public’s needs, and certainly will not be good enough for those several hundred thousand of our fellow citizens who will need to be mobile in order to get a job.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bradshaw for introducing this Question for Short Debate. He made his points very well with his usual expert style, as all noble Lords would expect.
Buses provide an essential public service and improve the quality of many people’s lives, providing cost-effective gateways to work, shopping, education and leisure. The best bus networks are built on partnership. Local government needs to work closely with operators, community organisations and the travelling public to ensure a local transport network that works for everyone. Transport operators need to listen and respond to the views of their passengers.
Central government needs to provide an appropriate legislative framework that enables innovation and creativity from bus companies and provides local authorities with the flexibility to use their local knowledge to support their bus networks in a fair and logical way. The traditional bus service with a fixed timetable is not always the right answer. Flexible, demand-responsive solutions, often provided by communities themselves, can be the better, more efficient and cost-effective option.
As I am sure your Lordships will be aware, the Competition Commission is currently investigating the bus market. As an independent organisation, and thanks to its information-gathering powers, the Competition Commission is best placed to come to a decision as to whether there are features of the local bus market that prevent, restrict or distort competition. During the inquiry, the Competition Commission is looking at a wide variety of issues and evidence relevant to the assessment of competition, including the profitability of bus operators. The Government will await the outcome of that inquiry with interest and subsequently decide on whether any changes to the legislative framework for buses are needed. In answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, the Competition Commission is due to report next summer, so it is sensible to wait before deciding whether changes to legislation need to be made.
My noble friend Lord Shipley talked about the future benefits of new technology. He speaks with great authority and I will certainly study Hansard carefully tomorrow in order to pick up all his points.
One of the first things that the Government announced was an additional £15 million investment in low-carbon buses though a second round of the green bus fund. This will help bus operators and local authorities to buy around 170 new hybrid and electric vehicles. This builds on the success of the first round of the green bus fund where, in 2009, £30 million was allocated to help to buy around 350 new low-carbon buses. As a result of both rounds, by April 2012, there will be around 500 new low-carbon buses on the streets of England and we hope that this will encourage other operators to make the switch.
Contrary to some predictions, we are not calling time on the concessionary travel scheme. Instead, concessionary bus travel will remain, so that older people can continue to enjoy the greater freedom and independence that the scheme gives them. However, we are looking at ways of ensuring that we get the best value for money from the scheme. We are currently consulting on reforms that lead to simplified and more efficient reimbursement arrangements and reduce the scope for disputes between local authorities and bus operators. This will ensure that the scheme remains sustainable in the future.
The Government have consistently said that reducing the country’s deficit is our main priority. Reductions in public spending will have to form part of this. The Chancellor announced that from 2012-13 bus subsidy will be reduced by 20 per cent. While I appreciate that any cuts will be unwelcome, it is only right that bus subsidy takes a share of the cuts—and this cut is lower than for most other local transport revenue grants. However, I fully accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about the need for buses for the less well-off. That is precisely why we have left the BSOG in place. Following the Chancellor’s announcement of 20 October, my honourable friend Norman Baker spoke to the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, which represents the bus industry. It was hopeful that, in general, the small reduction in BSOG could be absorbed without fares having to increase.
The Chancellor also announced that the majority of local transport resource funding will now be paid through formula grant. This will simplify funding by moving from around 26 grant streams to just four.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, touched on the administration of funding. It is for local authorities to decide how this funding is spent according to their priorities. We have also established a Local Sustainable Transport Fund worth £560 million to help local authorities support economic growth and reduce carbon emissions. Even after the spending review, the public funding allocated to buses will remain at significant levels.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, made important points about the importance of punctuality. He was absolutely right in his explanation. Today's passengers demand and deserve a public transport system that is efficient and modern, and that meets the challenge of using new technology. Some operators have invested in technology that can tell them the location of their buses at any given time. This gives operators a wealth of data to help deliver a good service to passengers, and sharing data brings other benefits. Sharing data with local authorities will help to identify traffic management issues that are making it difficult for buses to run to time, both on a day-to-day basis and in the long term, by benchmarking punctuality and enabling agreement on joint actions to help deliver the punctual services that passengers want. We know that real-time information can make a big difference in encouraging potential passengers to choose the bus. It certainly does for me. That is why we are supporting operators who share data with local authorities so that they can provide real-time information systems, by paying them a higher rate of bus service operators grant.
A further example of technology offering real improvements for passengers is TfL's Countdown system. This provides real-time bus arrival information for passengers throughout London, using electronic signs at bus shelters. From 2011, a new, improved Countdown will be introduced that will show bus arrival predictions for every one of London's 19,000 bus stops. As well as using electronic signs at bus shelters, it will take advantage of a range of information channels, including text messages and the web.
One of the most important technological advances towards a more joined-up transport network is smart and integrated ticketing. We want this new technology to be rolled out more widely across England, so we have provided £20 million of grant funding to the nine biggest English urban areas outside London, and have offered a higher level of bus service operators grant payment to support this. I am pleased to say that some major bus operators are in the process of rolling out smart ticketing across their fleet, but we are eager to see even more achieved, particularly in terms of integration between modes and services. The vision of my honourable friend Norman Baker is for seamless travel on one card throughout the country, whether on the bus in Bristol, the Tube in London or the Metro in Newcastle—a card that lets you hire a bike or join a car club, that can be topped up in shops, online or by phone, and that makes travel easier and cheaper.
I have several questions to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked why cuts to bus subsidies are being made. I have talked about the need to reduce the budget deficit, but the saving is 28 per cent lower than that being made from other transport revenue grants, reflecting the benefits that bus services bring to the economy and the environment, as well as the fact that many people rely on bus services to reach education and healthcare.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, also asked about consultation with small operators. Representatives of local government and the bus industry in the Reimbursement Working Group were actively consulted throughout the research process and the development of the draft DfT reimbursement guidance. The Confederation of Passenger Transport, the trade organisation for the bus industry that represents both small and large operators, was a member of the working group.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, also asked about the Competition Commission's inquiry. The commission is a public body, entirely independent of government, and all of its inquiries are undertaken following a referral by another authority, most often the Office of Fair Trading, which referred this market inquiry in January of this year. It is important to note that the commission's legal role is clearly focused on competition issues rather than on the wider public interest.
Lord Bradshaw
I wonder whether the Minister will pause there for a moment. The Competition Commission is very much concerned with the definition of a market in any field. The commission’s approach to the bus industry has been very narrow indeed—for example, it excludes consideration of the fact that the car is a competitor with the bus. However, I do not believe that that is logical because people often have the choice of using a car or a bus, and not bringing the two together is perverse.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think that I touched on the point that the Competition Commission is looking at the profitability of the bus industry. However, I will draw all the noble Lord’s points to the attention of my honourable friend Mr Norman Baker.
I return to my answer. On the other hand, this Government are committed to getting the best deal for bus passengers and taxpayers alike. With around £2.5 billion of taxpayers’ money spent on bus services and passengers each year, it is only right, as in every other area of public spending, that we should question whether the bus market is delivering the best service for bus passengers and the best value for the taxpayer.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about quality contracts. He will know that the legislation is still in place and that local authorities are free to use quality contracts when they wish to do so. We are already seeing plans in west and south Yorkshire. We think that partnership is a better approach but, ultimately, it is a matter for the local authorities to make a decision based on their circumstances.
I acknowledge that there are big challenges confronting the industry. Beyond any question, these are testing times for an industry that matters and that makes a difference, but it is an industry that, with our support, can grow and flourish.