House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
1. What progress he has made in resolving the dispute between race course owners and race course bookmakers on pitch tenures.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
I am sure that the House will remember that in 2009 the previous Government brokered an agreement in principle between race course bookmakers and race courses. It is fair to say that progress since has been stately rather than swift, but I am pleased to report that so far 17 race courses, including Towcester and those owned by Northern Racing and Arena Leisure, have agreed terms of one kind or another.
Philip Davies
The Minister is right that some progress has been made, but there is very slow progress, if any at all, with some other race courses. He will be aware that the Select Committee report issued in the previous Parliament found very firmly in favour of race course bookmakers. I hope he will take steps to encourage race courses to give a fair settlement to race course bookmakers who felt that they were buying their pitches in perpetuity.
John Penrose
I am sure that most Members, and people in the racing family more widely, would agree with my hon. Friend. I think that everyone is collectively anxious that this matter should be resolved quickly. I am sure that as a good free marketeer, my hon. Friend will agree that it is better for both sides to agree this between themselves rather than have political interference to push it along. The official form of words is that all options remain open to me. I would say to those involved that they do not want politicians of any stripe turning up to try to do this for them, because the chances are that the result will be less good than one they have brokered for themselves.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on using his powers, because he might have to. Seventeen out of 59 courses have signed up already, but that is not enough. There is a time constraint, and some courses hope that the time will lapse and that they will not have to do anything. I hope that he will keep his eye on the situation and make sure that he reminds them that a deal was about to be done.
John Penrose
That is absolutely right. A deal was agreed in principle and, as I said, all sides in racing expect a solution to be reached. I am keeping a close eye on it, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would expect.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that I had a question on the Order Paper about the grand national, which was transferred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Will he explain why betting on horse races is the responsibility of his Department, but what happens in the race, including horses being ridden to their deaths, is not? Before he says that the welfare of horses is an animal welfare matter, will he explain what would happen if I had asked about the welfare of jockeys?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure that the Minister will not forget the relevance of pitch tenures when answering.
John Penrose
Thank you for that reminder, Mr Speaker.
As the hon. Lady is pursuing the point specifically about animal welfare with DEFRA, I will not go into that. More broadly, matters to do with racing governance generally, which will include health and safety for jockeys, are part of this Department’s responsibilities. The historically close link between racing and gambling is the reason the two areas are linked in the same portfolio.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
3. What assessment he has made of the effect on participation in sport at youth level of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review.
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
The comprehensive spending review period started only on 1 April, so no formal assessment has yet been made. However, the increase in lottery funding for sport and the inspirational effect of hosting events such as the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics should encourage more young people to participate in sport.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Without the Newham-Barnsley partnership, London 2012 would be having little impact in my constituency. Will the Minister look at ways of using the example of the Newham-Barnsley partnership as a means of increasing youth participation in sport?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that holding the Olympics in London inspires youth participation in sport across the whole country?
Hugh Robertson
Again, the answer is simply yes. Of course, there is not only the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics: in its wake a serious number of major events are coming to this country, including the rugby league world cup, rugby union world cup, cricket world cup and a number of competitions such as the world canoeing championships, which we have just secured. A host of sports events are coming to this country after 2012 that will have exactly that effect.
Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Will the Minister agree to study carefully the results of the survey that my right hon. Friend the shadow Education Secretary and I have undertaken on the expectations of sports partnership development managers regarding the impact of funding cuts on school sport? Does he share my concern that partnership development managers expect a decrease in the number of competitive events and sports in which children can participate? A significant number of them, some 90%, consider that that there will be a reduction in the number of children taking part in sport. Does he share my concern that if those predictions materialise, it will put at risk the legacy promise of transforming a generation of children through sport?
Hugh Robertson
Yes. As with anything the right hon. Lady says or gives to me, I will consider it extremely carefully. We have to be absolutely clear about the matters to which she refers. They are matters for the Department for Education, not this Department, although clearly we keep a close eye on them. Everybody recognises that we are delivering this against a troubled economic backdrop and that there has to be less money available than there would have been. That would have happened whichever party was in power. Set against that, we have to make the most of the opportunities available to us. I am convinced that by safeguarding the whole sport plan funding and by introducing the schools Olympics, we are doing everything we can against a challenging backdrop to make the most of this fantastic opportunity. However, I will look at what she says carefully.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
4. What recent discussions he has had with the chair of Arts Council England on the provision of live theatre in rural locations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I regularly meet the chair and chief executive of Arts Council England to discuss a wide range of issues. A number of organisations based in or serving rural communities will receive Arts Council funding. Rural areas will also benefit from the £18 million of lottery income earmarked for touring from April 2012.
Sir Alan Beith
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the organisations that take theatre to village halls in rural communities are disproportionately hit in the Arts Council review? Many are losing 100% of their funding, including the excellent Northumberland Theatre Company, which is based at Alnwick Playhouse. Is the Arts Council not failing to meet its objective of bringing theatre to new audiences by making that decision in this difficult situation?
Mr Vaizey
I know that the Arts Council carefully considered funding for Northumberland Theatre Company, and it will still have funding next year. It is worth noting that the Maltings centre in Berwick-upon-Tweed received a 300% increase in funding—the fourth largest funding increase; that the Berwick film and media arts festival will become a national portfolio organisation; and that Queen’s Hall Arts and Highlights, which tours in the area, will continue to receive funding.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
May I begin by paying tribute to officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who have done so much to support the arrangements for tomorrow’s royal wedding, and to the thousands of public service workers, police officers, community support officers and emergency service people who will keep the streets safe so that the occasion can be joyous? Members from all parts of the House wish the royal couple a happy day. Of course, they were not responsible for aspects of the guest list in terms of the DCMS.
Like many arts activities, live theatre in rural communities faces a bleak future. Does the Minister regret the following statement made by the Secretary of State just before the election:
“People have had certain assumptions in the past about Conservative governments…that appeared to say public spending on the arts was something you might want to progressively reduce. That isn’t where the modern Conservative party stands.”?
Is the Secretary of State still in denial when hundreds of arts organisations have suffered cuts, some are going to the wall, others are increasing ticket prices at a time when people’s incomes are being squeezed, and many are scaling back their educational and outreach programmes to the most disadvantaged communities? Is not the modern Conservative party the same old Tories?
Mr Vaizey
Perhaps I, too, may use this opportunity to thank officials in my Department for the hard work they have done on the royal wedding, and to wish Prince William of Wales and Catherine Middleton great joy on their day? I know that the Secretary of State is looking forward to attending the wedding tomorrow. It remains to be seen whether he will tweet throughout it.
I hear what the shadow Secretary of State says, but I do not regret what the Secretary of State said. We have achieved a fantastic settlement for the arts, with an 11% decrease only and a significant increase in lottery funding of 43%.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
5. What proportion of sports funding provided by his Department was allocated to promoting exercise and fitness for women at grass-roots level in the latest period for which figures are available.
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
Promoting female participation in sport is a key priority for the whole sport plans. In addition, a number of projects have exercise and fitness elements to help create a stepping stone into sport. Examples include British Cycling’s breeze and sky ride programmes, England Athletics’ informal running networks and the Lawn Tennis Association’s cardio tennis.
Jo Swinson
Despite record investment in governing bodies, women’s participation in sport continues to fall. There are welcome initiatives such as the £10 million active women fund, but they still represent a tiny proportion of sports funding. Should we not switch funding more towards grass-roots initiatives and learn from mass-participation events such as race for life, which this year will see 1 million women walking, jogging and running 5 k?
Hugh Robertson
Yes. I absolutely understand the hon. Lady’s point. About two years ago, the previous Government, supported by the Conservative party, set in place the whole sport plans, which are allowing sport governing bodies to drive up participation. They have now been running for two years, and I think we are starting to see the benefits, although it is like trying to turn a juggernaut around. When the half-time analysis is done, we will ensure that we concentrate on areas in which the plans have not succeeded as well as in others, and that will be one of them.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
No one doubts the Minister’s personal commitment to sport, but what assessment has he made of the extent to which opportunities for women, and indeed everybody else, to take part in grass-roots sport will be hugely reduced because sports staff are being made redundant and fees to hire facilities and entry charges to pools, sports halls and leisure centres are being increased? That is a result of cuts to local council budgets that are going too far and too fast, for which both he and the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) voted.
Hugh Robertson
The first point about that is the obvious political one. It is pointless to pretend that cuts have been made because the coalition Government are in power and would not have been made had the Labour party been in power. There would have been cuts whoever was in power. We have put in place a series of programmes to ensure that the effect of the cuts is mitigated, including the Places People Play programme and the work that we are doing with the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government on the Localism Bill. That will allow sports clubs to place all sports facilities on which they play on a local community asset register, so that the facilities are offered to them directly before being put on the open market.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
6. What steps he is taking to ensure scrutiny of expenditure by the BBC.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
In September last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) announced full access for the National Audit Office to the BBC accounts, and I am confident that plans will be in place to allow that to happen by November this year in accordance with our departmental business plan.
Stephen Phillips
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. At the moment, funding for the World Service comes from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget, as a result of which it is subject to scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee. When funding for the World Service transfers to the BBC, how will he ensure that those arrangements remain in place?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and that is exactly why it is important that the National Audit Office has full, unrestricted access to the BBC’s accounts, including the ability to examine its spending on the BBC World Service. I have a meeting with the incoming chairman of the BBC Trust on 9 May, and I will discuss that very point with him then.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
Before the election, the Secretary of State said that it would be perverse for local television to receive public subsidy, yet he is forcing the BBC to provide £25 million of licence fee payers’ money to subsidise local TV. Does he not agree that it is perverse, at a time when he is promoting local TV, that the BBC is considering cutting local radio, which is so vibrant and so central to the heart of many of our communities? Can we try to achieve cross-party consensus and have a dialogue with the BBC about the importance of BBC local radio to many of our communities?
Mr Hunt
The question is about value for money and how the BBC spends the licence fee, and I am very confident that the agreement that I secured with the BBC last autumn will lead to efficiency savings and better use of licence fee payers’ money, but should not lead to reductions in core BBC services. I would be very concerned if any plans announced by the BBC were to lead to any such reductions.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Although I welcome the moves to increase the NAO’s access to the accounts of the BBC, the Secretary of State will be aware that the Comptroller and Auditor General has written to him to say that he will still not have the ability to decide what to do and when to do it. Does he agree that that ability is essential if the NAO is to have the genuinely unfettered access that he has promised?
Mr Hunt
I agree that the NAO should have unfettered access to the BBC accounts. I take heart from the comments that the incoming chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten, made to my hon. Friend’s Committee, when he said that he wanted the NAO to have full, unrestricted access and to be able to go where it wished to ensure and scrutinise value for money at the BBC.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
7. What steps he is taking to promote women’s football.
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
I spoke at the launch of the new FA women’s super league at Wembley on 11 April to show my support for the new league. My Department also remains committed to investing in all levels of the women’s game. Of the £25.5 million funding allocated to the Football Association to grow the grass roots, £2.4 million is exclusively for the development of girls and women’s football over the four-year period 2009-13.
Tracey Crouch
Given the successful launch of the FA women’s super league and the positive impact it is already having on the women’s game, does the Minister share my frustration that, as it stands, there will be no mainstream broadcast coverage of this year’s women’s world cup in Germany? Will he do all he can to secure an agreement between those involved in broadcast negotiations, so that that situation can be rectified as soon as possible?
Hugh Robertson
The simple answer to that is yes, of course I will. There are two very important elements to that: first, the establishment of the women’s super league; and, secondly, ensuring it receives the necessary profile. Now that the league is established, I hope that the profile, and very soon in its wake a broadcaster, will follow.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
8. What plans he has for the future of the statutory duty on local authorities to make adequate provision for public libraries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
By encouraging reading, providing access to information and representing a focus for community activity, public library services contribute significantly to the national cultural landscape. They deserve statutory protection. There are no proposals to remove the duty on local authorities to provide a comprehensive and efficient public library service.
Yvonne Fovargue
Many older people in Makerfield who signed petitions to save their libraries told me that their introduction to the internet, and indeed their subsequent use of it, was at their local library. How will the Government ensure that library closures and cuts to the library service do not adversely affect people who otherwise do not have access to the internet?
Mr Vaizey
The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. People access internet services in the library, and I hope that local authorities take that into account when they consider changes to public library services. Of course, UK Online centres and many other community services also provide access to the internet.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Is the Minister aware that prudent, Conservative-controlled councils such as Wiltshire county council—my council—are, far from cutting library services in these difficult times, expanding them, and expanding the hours for which libraries are open?
Mr Vaizey
I am aware of Wiltshire county council’s effective stewardship of its library services, and indeed of its ambitious plans for broadband, if I may combine the two points made by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). Local authorities of every political persuasion up and down the country are keeping their libraries open, and understand what an effective public library service can bring to their community.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
9. What recent assessment he has made of the economic effects of the London 2012 Olympics on the regions of England other than London and the south-east.
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
The whole of the UK stands to gain from the wide range of opportunities created by the London 2012 Olympics. The Olympic Delivery Authority has 53 suppliers in the north-west alone, including Broughton Controls Ltd just outside the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, which supplies CCTV systems in the park. Many more form part of an extensive supply chain. However, opportunities extend beyond that. So far, six national Olympic and Paralympic committees have signed contracts to train in the north-west, including the Australian swimming team and the USA basketball team, so the north-west is making a massive and important contribution to London 2012.
Graham Stringer
I am sure that the Minister is right on those specifics, but the previous Administration commissioned a report by Dr Adam Blake of Nottingham university that showed that overall there would be a net negative impact on the English regions of £4 billion—the look on the Minister’s face tells me that he has never heard of the report.
The report was produced at a time of prosperity. Is it not time that the Minister had it updated so that the Government can take action to right that undoubted economic wrong?
Hugh Robertson
I have been rumbled—I was looking at the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) in the hope that she might help me out, but she is looking pretty blank. The best thing I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I will dig the report out. It was not part of the handover brief that I received. Anybody who suggests that Manchester and the area around it is anything other than a vital part of the sporting infrastructure of this country is talking nonsense. The north-west, and particularly Manchester, will be at the centre of this great national sporting celebration.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
10. What mechanisms his Department has used to identify efficiency savings since May 2010.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
My Department has one of the most ambitious plans for efficiency savings in Whitehall, having committed to reduce our costs by 50%. By doing that, we have been able to reduce our cuts to the majority of front-line cultural and sporting organisations to just 15%.
Mr Hollobone
Is it the Secretary of State’s ambition to make his the most efficient Whitehall Department and, if so, how confident is he that he will achieve it?
Mr Hunt
It is absolutely my objective, and I wish to pay tribute to the officials in my correspondence department who have managed to increase the proportion of correspondence replied to within 48 hours to more than 60%, which is incredibly impressive. My hon. Friend sets an example for all of us with his own frugality and Labour Members who were Ministers in the previous Government should perhaps pause and reflect on the way in which they used taxpayers’ money. In this Department they spent more than £300,000 on ministerial cars: we spent just £8,000 on minicabs. They spent more than £100,000 on hospitality: we halved it—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State must resume his seat. The general point has been explicitly made. Question time must not be abused and I know that the Secretary of State, who takes Parliament seriously, will not try that with me.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
11. What discussions he has had with the BBC Trust on the contribution of the BBC to the provision of high speed broadband.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Following discussions at official level with the BBC and BBC Trust, the BBC agreement is being amended to reflect its new funding obligations arising from the television licence fee settlement, including the obligations related to support for broadband roll-out. The draft text of the amended agreement is currently with my Secretary of State for approval.
Mr Foster
May I take this opportunity to congratulate all the staff who have worked so hard to help to ensure that tomorrow will be a great day for the royal family, especially the royal couple, as well as a great boost to UK tourism? Does the Minister agree that, with only 1% of households currently having high-speed broadband, if we are to achieve our target of being the best in Europe by 2015, we have to drive up demand? Does it therefore make sense for the BBC to use some of its ring-fenced licence fee money for that very purpose?
Mr Vaizey
The right hon. Gentleman makes an effective point. May I also take this opportunity to thank the many people I met in Bath for making my visit to his constituency at the beginning of the month so enjoyable? As he knows, Martha Lane Fox is leading the Race Online 2012 campaign to encourage as many people as possible to get online. Public libraries, through the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, have set a target of getting 500,000 people online, and I know that the BBC is pushing forward interesting initiatives to encourage people to get online, which I discuss with it regularly.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Government have abandoned the commitment to universal broadband by 2012 and instead trumpet their achievements in rolling out superfast broadband. However, in recent correspondence, I was told that the only way to monitor the progress of the delivery of superfast broadband was to check the website regularly. Will the Minister explain how progress on the delivery of superfast broadband can be monitored, and how it is being publicised?
Mr Vaizey
We will regularly monitor progress on superfast broadband on several fronts, including cost, access, take-up and speed. British Telecom deserves to be congratulated as it is now rolling out superfast broadband to 90,000 homes a week, which I think is the fastest roll-out anywhere in the world. I hear what the hon. Lady says, and I hope that she will soon be able to have a meeting with Broadband Delivery UK to raise these issues directly.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
12. What financial support the Government plan to provide for the 2013 rugby league world cup; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
I met with the executive chairman and chief executive of the rugby football league on 7 April to discuss the 2013 world cup. I am keeping the funding situation under review pending the decision by the Northwest Regional Development Agency, which is due by the end of May.
David Mowat
The Minister will be aware that funding from the Northwest Regional Development Agency is in jeopardy. If that funding does not materialise, can the Minister assure the House that he will stand behind the coalition agreement and continue to support the world cup from his Department?
Hugh Robertson
Broadly speaking, the answer is yes. At the meeting we discussed the various options that would be available. At the moment, I want to concentrate on getting the funding that was promised, and committed to, by the Northwest Regional Development Agency for the rugby league world cup—[Interruption.] No, it has the funding to cover the world cup, if it chooses to do so, and I hope that it will because of the benefit to that region.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
When I raised this matter in October, the Minister, as I recall, promised me that he would treat both codes equally when allocating funding for the two world cups. Will he pledge to stick to that promise, and will he ensure that towns such as Warrington benefit from the world cup by hosting some of the matches?
Hugh Robertson
Absolutely. I made the commitment to the hon. Lady, and I have stuck by it. I followed it up with a letter to the rugby football league. It has been down to see me, and there is no question of our treating the two codes differently. The issue here arises from a tranche of funding that was promised by the Northwest Regional Development Agency, but which it has now threatened to withdraw. Clearly I want to get that money out of it, and we will do everything possible to bring this home.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
13. What discussions he has had with the BBC Trust on the future of local radio.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
15. What discussions he has had with the BBC Trust on the future of local radio.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
16. If he will discuss with representatives of the BBC Trust future provision of daytime local radio services; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
No discussions have been held with the BBC Trust on the future of local radio, and nor are we planning any such discussions. However, this issue was the subject of a recent lengthy debate in the House, and we urge the BBC to take account of the views raised by many hon. Members.
Tristram Hunt
It is absolutely right that BBC operational independence remains, but the BBC Trust needs to understand that when so much money is spent on over-inflated BBC manager and presenter salaries, particularly those imposing super-injunctions, cutting excellent local radio stations, such as BBC Stoke, which are so vital to community identity, is simply not acceptable.
Mr Vaizey
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Had that statement been made by a Conservative, it would have been seen as an unwarranted attack on the BBC. However, I am glad that there is cross-party agreement on concerns about the level of BBC salaries, even if he has ruled out further appearances on the Andrew Marr programme.
Luciana Berger
Of the 40 BBC local radio stations, BBC Radio Merseyside is the most listened to outside London. We know that the Secretary of State has shown his passion for local media in his promotion of local television. What are he and the Minister doing specifically to ensure that 24-hour BBC radio programming continues?
Mr Vaizey
This is the second time this month that the hon. Lady has praised BBC Radio Merseyside in the House. I hope that she is reaping the benefits as a result. As I have said, it is not for the Government to tell the BBC what to do. However, my understanding is that some of these reforms, which are only proposals—and I genuinely think that the BBC does listen to hon. Members’ views—are driven more by concerns about content than concerns about saving money.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Is the Minister saying that Coventry and Warwickshire radio, which provides a valuable local service in the Coventry area, will not be amalgamated with Radio 5 Live? Can I take it from his answer that that is what he is saying?
Mr Vaizey
What the hon. Gentleman can take from my answer is that the BBC is making a series of proposals that would need to be approved by the BBC Trust, and that I know from my own campaigning to save 6Music that the views of hon. Members can have some influence on BBC decisions.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I understand what the Minister is saying about it being for the BBC Trust to make decisions about how to cut and organise services, but will he send out a message loud and clear to the BBC Trust that it should not be cutting BBC local radio, which is listened to in Cornwall by more people than listen to BBC Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 3 or Radio 4?
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
We did, indeed, have an excellent debate in Westminster Hall on this subject the other week. Does the Minister agree that in Corsham, Melksham, Winsley, Holt and across rural Wiltshire people appreciate that in BBC local radio they have programming that gets out of the cities and reflects the varied interests of people in the countryside of our fine country?
Mr Vaizey
My hon. Friend made similar points in the debate at the beginning of April, and again I hope that he has reaped the rewards. That debate was also an important opportunity to congratulate him on his then forthcoming nuptials, although I am not on top of them enough to know whether they have now occurred—[Laughter.]
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
14. What steps his Department is taking to support youth development in professional football clubs.
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
Why is it me who has to follow that answer from my hon. Friend? I am not on top of anything!
My Department’s priority is to continue to invest significant sums in grass-roots football—very important as it is—and between 2009 and 2013 we will invest £25.5 million via the Football Association’s whole sport plan and £47 million in the Football Foundation. This funding will help to strengthen youth development programmes.
Hugh Bayley
I am pleased that Sport England is spending £25 million on football youth development, but all the money goes to richer clubs in the Football League. None of it goes to the seven non-league clubs that have professional youth development programmes. In November the Minister advised me and colleagues from all parties representing the other, smaller clubs to raise the matter with Sport England and the Football Association. We have done so, but we are no further forward. Would the Minister be willing to meet a cross-party delegation of MPs representing constituencies covering those clubs to discuss the matter further?
Hugh Robertson
In theory, yes, of course I would. However, the important thing is that these funding decisions are made, very properly, by the sport’s national governing bodies. That was the central point of the whole sport plan: they are given a sum of money that is measured against a set of direct objectives, and it is up to those bodies to decide how to spend it. So in theory, yes, I am prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman, but I would need extraordinarily good evidence to try to contradict a professional judgment made by a sport about where best to spend its money to drive up participation.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
T2. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
This House has already expressed its good wishes to the royal couple for tomorrow’s events. I know that we would also wish to express our good wishes to the 500,000 people planning to go to street parties who are anxiously looking at the clouds. After my earlier slap on the wrist I hesitate to crave your indulgence, Mr Speaker, but as Culture Secretary, I would like to read a couple of lines from the nation’s greatest playwright to honour the happy couple. These come from sonnet 136 by Shakespeare:
“Make but my name thy love, and love that still,
And then thou lovest me for my name is ‘Will’.”
Dr Huppert
I am not sure that I can follow that quite so elegantly. I understand the argument for controls on ambush marketing in the forthcoming Olympic games, but what assurances can the Secretary of State give the House and the general public that they will be treated sensitively and that people will not be dealt with heavy handedly if they happen to wear clothing with the wrong label, eat food of the wrong brand, or try to pay for things with the wrong credit card?
Mr Hunt
I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that we will apply the rules sensitively. Everyone wants the Olympics to be a success, as they want the royal wedding tomorrow to be a success. Peer pressure from crowds is one of the best ways of ensuring that people behave sensibly on such occasions, although I fully take on board his points.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
When we are cutting spending on everything outside the House of Commons, will the Minister consider freezing spending on the House of Commons and Government art collection for the lifetime of this Parliament? Surely what money there is would be better spent on struggling libraries, theatre groups, galleries and other cultural organisations across Britain that are enjoyed by millions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
We have frozen spending on the Government art collection for two years. However, let me take this opportunity to say that the Government art collection is a great jewel in the crown of this nation, and I would urge the hon. Lady to go and see it. It is inimitably British, and was set up in the 19th century because the Clerk of the Works decided that it was cheaper to buy paintings to cover the damp on the walls than to replace the wallpaper.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
T6. What is the Secretary of State’s initial assessment of the success or otherwise of the ticket application process for the London Olympics?
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
The ticket application process has been an outstanding success. More than 20 million Olympic tickets have been applied for, with more than 1.8 million people applying.
Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)
T3. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that more people have broadband access at home? Thousands of my constituents still do not have access, despite the Government’s warm words.
Mr Vaizey
I hear what the hon. Lady says. The Government have set aside £530 million of funding to increase the roll-out of broadband. We have four pilots already announced that are up and running, and we have received, I think, 25 applications for a second wave of pilots, which we are due to announce at the end of May.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I am sorry to say that many colleagues and Members may have missed the extraordinary sight of nearly 100 Morris dancers, Green men and Bogies up from Hastings to make the point that we do not want to move our bank holiday, because it is so important to tourism and the commercial reality of Hastings. Does the Minister agree that this strength of feeling demonstrates that he should reflect carefully on whether to move that bank holiday?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
I was delighted to accept a petition from the assembled throng of Morris men, Green men and everyone else from Hastings, and I made the point to them at the time that the Government are determinedly neutral on this issue. We want to consult on the various options. The country has not had a proper debate about this for decades, if not longer, and we are therefore consulting from a neutral position, rather than with a preferred option at this point.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
T4. The Secretary of State mentioned that the Olympics were going to help the whole country. May I ask what is going to happen to the surplus tickets for Olympic events and suggest that he look towards the state secondary schools, so that children who might not normally have access to such events can have a chance to go to them? This could help with the legacy that he hopes to create.
Hugh Robertson
Providing tickets for children is a key priority of the ticketing process. There is a pay-your-age scheme, and I tried it myself on Sunday night. I have a three-and-a-half-year-old who will shortly be four, so I paid £4 for his ticket. There is provision within the process. A ballot will take place, and anyone who is unsuccessful will get preferential treatment in the next round.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
During the recess, I met Mr Owen Taylor, the owner and operator of a number of family amusement arcades in Cleethorpes and other east coast arcades. He is concerned about the changing face of those resorts, with higher stake money and larger prizes creating a risk of drawing young, vulnerable people into the gambling habit. Will the Minister agree to meet a delegation consisting of Mr Taylor, myself and others to discuss this matter? During such a meeting, we could perhaps discuss other initiatives that the Government have in mind for resorts such as Cleethorpes.
John Penrose
We take any concerns about gambling, particularly problem gambling, very seriously. When considered on an international basis, British levels of problem gambling are comparatively low, although there is obviously no room for complacency. I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and his constituents as necessary.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
T5. The current BBC experiment to have all the local radio stations in Yorkshire carrying the same programme at lunchtimes is not local, and we already have regional television. Does the Minister agree that the licence fee should be used for programming that would not otherwise be broadcast, and that that should include BBC local radio?
Mr Vaizey
Hon. Members have made their concerns very clear about reforms to local radio by the BBC, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s remarks will be heard. I am afraid I do not know the specifics of what is happening in Yorkshire. At the beginning of April, I made a very interesting visit to BBC Radio Norfolk in Norwich, and the working of a local news operation was a wonder to behold.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State join me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field)—and, no doubt, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis)—in congratulating Bury FC on its promotion at the weekend, and in wishing it well in division one?
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
There is significant support among players and supporters in Wales for the creation of a Welsh national cricket team to compete in the one-day world cup and the Twenty20 world cup. A Welsh national team competed in the 1979 International Cricket Council trophy, so there is a precedent for this. Will the Minister raise this matter with the England and Wales Cricket Board to see whether this ambition can be achieved without endangering Glamorgan’s first-class status or the SWALEC stadium’s status as a test venue?
Hugh Robertson
The answer to that lay in the question. We have an England and Wales Cricket Board, and it would also be extraordinarily difficult to do that without endangering Glamorgan’s first-class status or the ability of the ground to compete for test matches. Traditionally, for many years, Welsh players have competed for England, although there are none at the moment. I imagine that Robert Croft was the last one to do so, and I hope that there will be many more in the future. Hugh Morris, the director of cricket at the ECB, was a Glamorgan player.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that the London Mozart Players, one of the finest chamber orchestras in the country, is facing closure. Will he agree to meet Hilary Davan Wetton, the associate conductor, whom I know through his connection with the equally fine Milton Keynes City Orchestra, to see whether a short-term solution can be found to allow the orchestra to survive while we work out a long-term solution?
Mr Vaizey
I know Hilary Davan Wetton of old, and have the utmost respect for him, but I have to say that I do not think it would be appropriate for me to have such a meeting. These decisions are taken by the Arts Council at arm’s length from the Government, and the right people for Mr Davan Wetton to meet would be representatives of the Arts Council.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
T7. In the light of the considerable concerns arising from the ongoing criminal investigations into phone hacking in the News International stable, is the Secretary of State now minded to postpone his decision on the future of BSkyB until such time as those criminal investigations have been concluded?
Mr Hunt
The decision I have to take about the Sky merger relates to media plurality, and we are in the process of taking that decision. I am very concerned about the news about phone hacking. It is a criminal offence. Two people have already gone to prison and three people have been arrested. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the police must follow their investigations wherever they lead because the public must have confidence that, with a free press, the press use that freedom responsibly.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
1. If he will bring forward proposals to implement the recommendations of the Procedure Committee relating to ministerial statements.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
I have sent the Government’s response on its report to the Procedure Committee, which will be published in due course. It would be for the Backbench Business Committee to find time to debate proposals to reform ministerial statements.
Mr Bone
Under the last Government, it was routine for ministerial statements to be leaked to the press. There was a media grid and they were leaked, before a statement was made, in a routine manner. Unfortunately, that has continued under this Government. Until we have sanctions against Ministers for leaking, we will never get the problem under control. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether he thinks the proposals of the Procedure Committee go far enough?
Sir George Young
I recall the sanctions that my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech of 20 July: one was to string Ministers up from the roof and the other was to put them in stocks in Parliament square. I think even the Whips would agree that that was going slightly over the top. The Government’s view is that there are enough sanctions at the moment. A Minister can be summoned to the House in response to an urgent question; he can be grilled by a departmental Select Committee; and, under the arrangements we have just introduced, the Backbench Business Committee can table a motion for debate, including a motion deploring a Minister’s behaviour. Our view is that enough sanctions are already available.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
May I remind my right hon. Friend that the circumstances surrounding the preparation of this report were rather unusual in that it was, in effect, commissioned by the House, following a debate and a motion before the Chamber, which he supported? One does expect the Government to be accommodating on this matter. In an attempt to move this issue forward, may I invite him to return to the Procedure Committee for further discussions—hopefully sooner rather than later?
Sir George Young
I would be delighted to respond to my right hon. Friend’s invitation and attend his Committee at the earliest possible convenience.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
2. If he will assess the merits of the provision of training on the procedures of the House for hon. Members who are former Ministers.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
No such assessment has been made, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I would be happy to receive representations on the issue.
Greg Hands
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) has spoken only once in this Chamber in the past year—
Mr Speaker
Order. I simply want to establish that the hon. Gentleman has notified the Member in question because that is the proper course of action. It needs to be made clear to the House, rather than simply privately, that that has been done.
Greg Hands
Thank you for that ruling, Mr Speaker; I copied you in on the notification.
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me repeat the point. It is not a matter of private communication, but the responsibility of the Member to notify the House that the Member in question has been notified. Private considerations and communications do not come into it.
Greg Hands
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
That was in stark contrast to the former Prime Minister, Sir John Major, who used to speak monthly after he stood down. You will know, Mr Speaker, that yesterday saw the installation of the official photo of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath in No. 10 Downing street. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would agree to acquire a copy of the photo for identification purposes to use in this Chamber in case the former Prime Minister decides to come down and participate.
Mr Heath
I am not sure that we necessarily need to go into that. I did see the picture and thought it looked rather nice; there was almost a smile. On the serious issue of training for former Ministers, I am sure that support could be made available if it were requested, and it might be welcomed, because when people leave office they often find that they forget some things.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
3. What plans he has for pre-legislative scrutiny of legislation proposed by the Government; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The Government have made clear our intention to improve the quality of legislation. We have already published the draft Defamation Bill and two draft Detention of Terrorist Subjects (Temporary Extensions) Bills. We have also informed the Liaison Committee of our intention to invite pre-legislative scrutiny on the Financial Services Bill, the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, the House of Lords Bill, the Parliamentary Privilege Bill, and the Political Reform Bill.
Simon Hughes
I welcome that reply, but can I establish that the Government intend all Government legislation to be published in draft as well as, later, in substantive form for the remainder of the current Parliament, so that pre-legislative scrutiny can take place all the time? That is clearly the best practice.
Mr Heath
We are committed to publishing Bills in draft whenever possible, but the aspiration to publish more of next Session’s potential Bills in draft must be balanced against the need to devote sufficient resources to getting this Session’s Bills right. We hope to increase the proportion of Bills published in draft during the current Parliament, and by the end of this Session we expect to have published more Bills in draft than the average number under the last Administration.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
As the Government are so keen on pre-legislative scrutiny, can the dear Deputy Leader explain why they did not use the procedure in the case of the Health and Social Care Bill? Would that not have had numerous advantages? It would have prevented the Government from introducing legislation that had not been thought through, it would have allowed the Liberal Democrats to pretend that they were being listened to, and, more important, it might have saved the NHS. Will the hon. Gentleman now apologise for that abject failure, and ensure that the House is given proper time to debate the amendments to the Bill when the Government present them?
Mr Heath
I rather like the idea of being a dear Leader, or a dear Deputy Leader. I think it lends a certain cachet to the office.
The serious response to the hon. Lady’s question is that, with a new Administration, it is inevitable that some Bills will not receive pre-legislative scrutiny because they must be put into action. In the case of the Bill that she mentioned, however, a period of reflection is now being entered into, and I think that it will be extremely valuable. It will ensure that we hear the advice of everyone who is concerned with getting the Bill right.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
4. What recent discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on the implications for the House of Commons of the Government’s programme for reducing the cost of politics.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The Leader of the House and I regularly discuss such issues with ministerial colleagues. Since the general election the Government have cut ministerial pay by 5%, steered through legislation that will reduce the size of the House of Commons, cut the cost of special advisers, and scrapped the use of dedicated ministerial cars in all but exceptional cases. The House has played its part, with Members agreeing to the freezing of their salaries, and the Commission is overseeing a programme to save at least 17% by 2014-15 while ensuring that the House remains able to scrutinise the Executive effectively.
Brandon Lewis
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that answer, and particularly for his comment about ministerial cars. Like many other people, I believe that if we take care of the pennies, the pounds take care of themselves. Will the Deputy Leader of the House say a little more about the impact of the change in the ministerial cars system?
Mr Heath
As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, on 24 May 2010 the Government announced that in all but exceptional cases Ministers would no longer have dedicated cars and drivers. That is not to say that no cars are ever used—there are times when Ministers require the use of a car—but I think I can modestly say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I set something of an example in that we hardly, if ever, use ministerial cars: we prefer to use our bikes or walk.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
If Members of Parliament base their staff in their constituencies they must pay rent, rates and telephone, heating, lighting and photocopying bills, but if they base their staff at the House of Commons, all those assets come as a free resource. Will the Deputy Leader of the House consult representatives of the other parties, and try to find a way in which to get rid of the perverse incentive to base staff in London, where they cost the public purse rather more?
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
5. What assessment the House of Commons Commission has made of the potential for use of renewable energy technology on the House of Commons part of the parliamentary estate.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
In 2005, a study was conducted on the potential for solar photovoltaic and hot water systems on the roofs of the Palace of Westminster. However, it was ruled out because the financial payback was 125 years and the equipment had a life expectancy of 30 years. The current mechanical and electrical project has already installed new energy-efficient pumps and motors, and the medium to long-term plans include solar photovoltaics, greywater harvesting, borehole water cooling, and combined heat and power.
John Mann
We do not want windmills here just as much as I do not want them cluttering the landscape of Bassetlaw, but there must be scope for solar energy, and not least for air source heat pumps, in the Palace of Westminster. Is it not time that we got our act together and started using renewables far more on the parliamentary estate?
John Thurso
I am very happy to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman and to inform him that these issues are at the heart of the project that is ongoing within the Facilities Department. All of these options are considered for ongoing programmes and where repairs and renewals are undertaken or where capital investment is made.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree both that much has changed since the earlier assessments, not least the Government’s recent announcement that public bodies will be able to benefit from feed-in tariffs, and that rather than looking to the medium to long term, we ought to be taking a much more urgent approach to achieving renewable energy for the parliamentary estate?
John Thurso
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and, indeed, the infrastructure to accommodate the measures I referred to in my first answer will be installed to take advantage of the technologies as they mature and as paybacks improve, as they currently are doing.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
6. What representations he has received on the use of hand-held devices during proceedings of the House and its Committees.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I am very conscious of the fact that anything I say on this subject may be tweeted and used in evidence against me. The Leader of the House has received no representation on this matter, which is ultimately a matter for the House. The Procedure Committee has produced a sensible proposal in its report. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wrote to the Chair of the Committee saying that we would both support a motion in the terms proposed by the Committee to be debated in Back-Bench time.
Kevin Brennan
I commend the report of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) and his Committee on this matter. Would it, however, be technically possible to install a screen in the Chamber so MPs could follow a live Twitter feed during the course of our debates and therefore be able to see what people are saying about us, including our own colleagues?
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
While I broadly support the use of electronic devices for urgent messages and the like, I divided the Procedure Committee on the matter and voted against the report, simply because I took the view that if we were all to be sitting here tweeting, checking our e-mails and reading newspapers on screens, we would not be paying proper attention to the debates we were sent here to engage in. I therefore ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether he is ready to respond to the Committee’s report, and let me add that I hope his response will be more considered than the report’s conclusions.
Mr Heath
I do think this is a House matter, and a matter for you, Mr Speaker—and you have given an indication of your own thoughts on it. I understand that the Chair of the Committee has asked the Backbench Business Committee for time to discuss the report, and I think it is appropriate that the House has a debate on the issue, takes on board the contrary views on either side of the argument, and then comes to a decision.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
7. For what reason the time allocated to questions for oral answer to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been reduced to 45 minutes; and if he will review that decision.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
Following a request from the official Opposition, the Government increased the time allocation for questions for oral answer to the Deputy Prime Minister. As a consequence of the pressures on the time available for oral questions, it was necessary for changes to be made to the rota. The status of the oral questions rota will, of course, be kept under review.
Miss McIntosh
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. I know that you, Mr Speaker, and, indeed, the Leader of the House and the whole House, put great store on there being sufficient supervision of Departments of State. In asking the Leader of the House to review his decision, I would suggest that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is a Department whose responsibilities bear greater scrutiny than 45 minutes allows. We have had the unfortunate incident over the sale of forestry and a number of delayed decisions, which we on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee are not able to consider because of the delay before the summer recess—I am thinking here of bovine tuberculosis, the natural environment White Paper and the water White Paper. Please will the Leader of the House review his decision and give proper scrutiny of that great Department?
Sir George Young
May I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does, as Chair of the appropriate Select Committee, in holding that Department to account? Of course we will keep this matter under review, but I just say to her that the time available for DEFRA questions is longer than that for 10 of the other oral questions sessions.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
8. What recent progress the House of Commons Commission has made in improving the recycling of paper and other materials used on the House of Commons part of the parliamentary estate.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
The amount of waste recycled in 2010-11 was 49.2%, and the amount of paper and cardboard that has been recycled has more than doubled since records started in 2002. The two Houses are due to let a new waste collection contract this summer, and this will require the contractor to work in partnership to meet the waste reduction and recycling targets set by the House. The new contract will also include a pilot scheme to recycle compostable waste.
Mr Hollobone
What are the recycling targets set by the House, and can we not do far better than we are doing at the moment?
John Thurso
Parliament’s recycling target for office waste was set at 60% for 2010-11. The actual recycling rate achieved in the year was below target, at 49.2%, largely because of a significant reduction in the recorded amount of glass waste and, thus, in the proportion of total office waste recycled. The House is looking to recycle 75% of office waste by 2020-21.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
9. What the cost to the House of Commons Service of the rifle range on the parliamentary estate was in the latest year for which figures are available.
John Thurso
The range is situated in the House of Lords, so there is no direct cost to the House of Commons other than in respect of that percentage of the estate which is paid for by the House of Commons.
Diana Johnson
Given the continued sniping about some of the family-friendly measures that have been introduced, such as the crèche, and the need for the House of Commons and the House of Lords to make cuts to their budgets, are we not shooting ourselves in the foot by continuing to pay for a rifle range in the House of Lords?
John Thurso
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her attempt to brown the covey, but I suggest that she has to take a more targeted approach. This is a matter entirely for their lordships.
Petition
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The petition is from more than 7,500 readers of the “Falmouth Packet” newspaper and others.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Falmouth,
Declares that the petitioners believe that Falmouth Coastguard must be retained as a 24 hour a day operation, because the experience and expertise of the Falmouth Coastguard could not safely be transferred elsewhere.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to require the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to take into account the views of residents of Falmouth in the course of its consultation on the future of the Coastguard.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000919]
Business of the House
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
The business for the week commending 2 May will be:
Monday 2 May—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 3 May—Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No.3) Bill (day 1).
Wednesday 4 May—Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No.3) Bill (day 2).
Thursday 5 May—General debate on social housing in London. The business has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
The provisional business for the week commencing 9 May will include:
Monday 9 May—Opposition day [unallotted day] [half day]. There will be a half-day debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve an instruction relating to the Welfare Reform Bill, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to trafficking.
Tuesday 10 May—Second Reading of the Energy Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 11 May—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.
Thursday 12 May—Business nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 13 May—Private Members’ Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 5, 12 and 19 May will be:
Thursday 5 May—A general debate in which Members may raise any issue. This debate, nominated by the Backbench Business Committee, will follow a similar pattern to the pre-recess Adjournment debates in which Members were able to raise any issue. Members are advised to consult the Order Paper to seek information on how to provide advance notice of the subject they intend to raise. The debate will be responded to by the Deputy Leader of the House.
Thursday 12 May—Subject to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Thursday 19 May—A debate on the Severn crossings toll, followed by a debate on the constitutional implications for Wales of the Government’s proposals for constitutional reform.
Finally, I am sure that the whole House will want to wish Prince William and Kate Middleton the very best for tomorrow and a long and happy life together.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. On behalf of the Opposition, I join him in sending best wishes to the happy couple for tomorrow.
Members welcomed Tuesday’s statement from the Foreign Secretary on Libya and the wider middle east, including the very disturbing developments in Syria, which I am sure those on both sides of the House will wish to condemn. I trust that we will continue to be kept informed.
Will the Leader of the House tell us when he will announce final sitting dates up to the next Queen’s Speech and on what date it will be held? Will he tell us when he expects the Health and Social Care Bill to return to the House following the current pause? As the Public Accounts Committee warned this week that there is no plan to deal with the risks being taken with the health service, and virtually everyone at the Royal College of Nursing conference expressed no confidence in the Secretary of State for Health, even this Government must realise that they have a very big problem on their hands. Mind you, Mr Speaker, the nurses were only taking their lead from the Prime Minister, who lost confidence in the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) quite some time ago. The Health Secretary must be desperately hoping that his famous mantra,
“no decisions about me without me”,
will apply to his own career prospects.
Will the Leader of the House clarify the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister at this week’s listening event on the NHS reforms? He is reported as having said:
“We will make changes, we’ll make significant and substantive changes to the legislation which at the moment is—if you like—it’s suspended in the House of Commons”.
Will the Leader of the House tell us how long this suspension will last, whether there will be an oral statement on the outcome of the listening exercise before Report and when the Prime Minister will finally admit, as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has now done publicly, that NHS waiting times are rising as a result of these botched plans?
Talking of which, when can we expect a statement from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on university tuition fees, given that for some reason he did not take part in yesterday’s debate? The Government’s promise to students and parents could not have been clearer: fees of £9,000 would be charged only in exceptional circumstances. Now we know that that was another broken promise. Of the 80 universities that have so far revealed their plans, more than two thirds propose to charge the £9,000 maximum fee for some or all of their courses. Such is the incompetence of the Government that it seems never to have occurred to them that that would happen, so as well as qualified applicants losing out on university places this year, in future years universities are likely to face either more reductions in funding or fewer places for students as the Government desperately try to balance the books. When are we going to see the long-promised White Paper on higher education? Does its continued absence not prove the folly of pushing through a policy on fees before having determined a policy on higher education?
May we have a debate on Government policy on placements in Whitehall for those who would not normally get the opportunity to work there? I ask, of course, because a number of Liberal Democrats who have been given work experience as Government Ministers seem to be very unhappy about the way in which they are being treated. Tuesday’s edition of The Times reported that they are being frozen out of decisions within their Departments. One Lib Dem Minister was quoted as saying that he has “no idea” what his boss is doing, a Tory member of the Government has described his Lib Dem colleagues as “yapping dogs” and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has threatened to sue fellow members of the Cabinet. I think the deputy leader of the Lib Dems got it right recently when he admitted:
“The coalition…is not a love affair, or a marriage or even a meeting of minds.”
Whatever it is, it is going horribly wrong.
I wonder whether the Leader of the House could suggest to the Prime Minister, notwithstanding his well-publicised concerns, that he might in this particular case consider taking out a super-injunction to prevent any more of these unseemly revelations and so protect this relationship from further public embarrassment. While he is at it, the Prime Minister could also seek one to cover the news this week that someone is making a musical about the Deputy Prime Minister. I would not wish that breach of privacy on anyone, least of all the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg).
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. The fact that over six months he has not really pressed me on the forthcoming business shows, I think, a general level of satisfaction with the way in which the Government are conducting the business of the House.
On the serious issue of keeping the House in the picture, the right hon. Gentleman generously recognised that on Tuesday we had a statement from the Foreign Secretary. On the last day before the recess we found Government time for a debate on north Africa and the middle east. Next Tuesday is Foreign Office questions, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will want to keep the House in the picture on the disturbing position in north Africa and the middle east.
The dates that the right hon. Gentleman asked for will be given in due course, although it may be some time before we announce the date of the end of the Session. I seem to remember asking my predecessor for the dates of the Easter recess right up until the February before, so for him to press me on the date of the possible Dissolution next spring is perhaps just a little premature.
On the Health and Social Care Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will have seen that we are not planning to have its remaining stages within the next two weeks. There will be adequate time for the House to reflect on any amendments. May I say to him that the building blocks for that Bill were in position under the previous Government—foundation trusts, practice-based commission, patient choice and use of the private sector?
The right hon. Gentleman then asked a number of questions that were also asked in yesterday’s half-day Opposition day debate on higher education. The issues raised by the Opposition spokesman in that debate were replied to by the Minister for Universities and Science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), and it seems to me entirely appropriate that he should deal with that issue.
On waiting times, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to look at the 2010 annual report from the Department of Health, but it makes it absolutely clear that for admitted patients,
“The median time waited has been relatively stable around 8 weeks since March 2008, but is subject to seasonality with previous years showing increases in average waiting times in the early part of the calendar year.”
Likewise, for non-admitted patients,
“The median time waited has been relatively stable around 4 weeks since March 2008, but is subject to seasonality with previous years showing increases in average waiting times in the early part of the calendar year.”
The statistics published a fortnight ago for the period up to February confirm that position.
Concerning the coalition, we have a coalition Government with two parties, and it is my view that there is more cohesion in government between those two parties than there was in the previous one-party Government when the two previous Prime Ministers were at war with each other.
I was interested to hear what the shadow Leader of the House was up to during the Easter recess. Like many of us, he was campaigning for local government elections, and I see from the Lincolnshire Echo that he was in Lincoln on 22 April. I am not sure what he was wearing, but the report said:
“The Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP visited the city to support Labour’s local election candidates. She joined Birchwood candidate and local campaigner Rosanne Kirk”.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not sure that we require any further references to the Lincolnshire Echo or to matters of sartorial taste. What we do need are some questions about the business of the House, and I know that a fine example will be set by Mr Sajid Javid.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
In February, I visited Syria in a delegation of MPs and we urged Government Ministers there at every opportunity not to ignore the cries for freedom that are sweeping through the region. Sadly, but predictably, they have resorted to violence against their own people. May I ask the Leader of the House to urge the Foreign Secretary to pursue international sanctions immediately against Syria and to urge our ally Turkey to do more? Also, can we have a debate on it?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that the Syrian ambassador’s invitation to the royal wedding has been withdrawn.
My hon. Friend will have an opportunity on Tuesday to ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about the issue, but he will have seen reports in the press of the discussions that we are having with our allies about the possibility of sanctions against Syria.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I acknowledge that the Foreign Secretary will be asked parliamentary questions when we return on Tuesday, but does the Leader of the House not recognise the need for another debate on the Libyan situation, bearing in mind the general unease about the fact that mission creep and regime change seem to be taking place despite denials by Ministers?
If I heard rightly that the invitation to the Syrian ambassador—the ambassador of that blood-stained regime—has been withdrawn, I very much welcome that.
Sir George Young
That invitation has indeed been withdrawn. A statement was made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at 11 o’clock.
The Government are prepared to find time, where appropriate, for debates on the middle east and north Africa. Indeed, we have already found time for such debates. We want to keep the House informed and to give it opportunities to make its views known, so I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will be prepared to find time for a further debate if necessary.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I have reports that in the Balderstone and Kirkholt ward in Rochdale someone is going around collecting postal ballots, opening them, removing and throwing away the Lib Dem local election vote while leaving the AV vote inside, resealing the envelopes with Sellotape and sending them off. Does the Leader of the House recognise that there remain concerns about the integrity of the postal voting process, and should the law be changed to deal with the Electoral Commission’s recommendations?
Sir George Young
That sounds rather like a criminal offence, and if there is any evidence that it is going on I hope that it will be referred to the police.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May we have an urgent statement next week about the call by France and Italy to reform the operation of the Schengen treaty? Although Britain is not part of Schengen, successive Governments have asked for greater border checks before people reach the UK border. May we have a statement on that very important matter?
Sir George Young
I cannot promise a statement next week, but as I said a moment ago, the Foreign Secretary will be answering questions on Tuesday. If the right hon. Gentleman does not have a question down, he may catch your eye, Mr Speaker, during topical questions. I will forewarn the Foreign Secretary that a question on the subject may be forthcoming from the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
With 3.5 million people in the UK—one in 17—suffering from a rare condition at some point in their lives, may we have a debate on how we can support those people and have better care and medical expertise at their disposal in order to help build on the excellent work done by rare disease charities, such as CLIMB in my constituency, which does excellent work on behalf of those with metabolic diseases?
Sir George Young
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising that subject, which strikes me as an appropriate matter for a debate in Westminster Hall. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will want to join him in raising the profile of some of the rare diseases that are often ignored within the medical profession and by medical research. Alternatively, the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is in her place and will have heard his request, so he may wish to present himself at her salon at 1 o’clock on a Tuesday to bid for such a debate.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Two hundred manufacturing job losses were announced in Darlington yesterday. When can we have a debate on the Chancellor’s understanding of the word “growth”?
Sir George Young
I am obviously sorry to hear about the loss of jobs in Darlington, but as the hon. Lady will know, 400,000 new jobs have been created in the private sector over the past 12 months, and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts a net increase in employment of 900,000 over the next five years, so there is evidence that the private sector is replacing the jobs that are lost in the public sector. I believe that the economy is on the right track.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
On Good Friday, I had the great pleasure of attending an outstanding performance of the mystery plays at the Playbox theatre in Warwick, which is designed specifically to support young acting talent. It is an excellent example of how theatre can help to engage young people and develop their confidence and other skills, which is extremely valuable for their future careers and contribution to society. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on how we can support and fund such initiatives?
Sir George Young
I applaud the Playbox theatre and the work that it is doing. My hon. Friend is right that we need to do more in that area, which is why the Government recently commissioned Darren Henley to lead an independent review of cultural education.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
May I thank the Leader of the House for finally getting a Minister to reply to my persistent questions on the disgraceful claim made by Baroness Warsi that the Conservatives failed to win an overall majority at the general election because of electoral fraud, predominantly in the Asian community? The claim was completely refuted by the Electoral Commission, which reported only two prosecutions and one conviction. However, the reply was from not Baroness Warsi but another Minister, and it did not apologise for, defend or mention her outrageous claims. I realise that Baroness Warsi is a serious embarrassment to the Government, but will the Leader of the House arrange for an oral statement from the Government to come clean about this shabby episode?
Sir George Young
I reject the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about my noble Friend. He has had a reply from the Minister responsible for electoral administration, who was the appropriate Minister to reply to the allegations he made. He has received that letter, a copy of which I have in front of me, but if he believes that there are further issues he needs to raise, I am sure that he will reply and get a further answer.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Can we please have a debate about the achievements of Mrs Thatcher, so that we can kindly educate our coalition allies about how she turned Britain into a nation of home owners, restored our place in the world and crushed militant trade unionism?
Sir George Young
As someone who played a modest role in Baroness Thatcher’s Administration, with a slight hiatus at one point, I disagree with the reported comments of the president of the Liberal Democrat party. The two reforms that were highlighted in the speech, namely the right to buy and the privatisation of the utilities, were actually continued under the succeeding Labour Government, so they cannot have been all bad.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I would like the Leader of the House to return to the question of Libya and the middle east. I acknowledge that the Government have made a number of statements on the situation in Libya, but it is very obvious that there has been an enormous amount of mission creep, that British military personnel are now involved in Libya and that increased arms supplies are going to what is now termed the transitional government. We need not just statements to the House, but a debate and a Government motion that can be voted on, because what is happening now is clearly a huge extension to the terms of the motion that we voted on a few weeks ago. Can the Leader of the House assure us that there will be such a debate, with a voteable and amendable motion?
Sir George Young
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have provided time for a debate on a motion, so our good faith is there for all to see, but, as I said in response to an earlier question, I would not rule out a repetition of such a debate.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given that the number of children’s heart surgery units will be reduced from 11 to six or seven, and that an NHS consultation document places Southampton in the top two of those 11 for quality ratings, can we have a statement from a Conservative Minister—an appropriate Minister—about why only one of four options being put forward includes the continuation of Southampton’s children’s surgery unit for heart problems? We would not want—would we?—a competition in which the people who won were actually declared the losers, in this field any more than in the general election.
Sir George Young
Like my hon. Friend, I have a constituency interest in Southampton general hospital and I have received a number of letters about the review of children’s heart surgery. Clinical experts consider that one of the core standards for improving care is to undertake a minimum of 400 child heart operations per year and an optimum of 500, and there is uncertainty about whether the Southampton centre can meet that key criterion. The review team is taking evidence about whether Southampton can achieve that in collaboration with the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford, and at this stage it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of individual centres.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I do not know whether the Leader of the House has noticed this, but around the back of the Cabinet Office there is a bit of a whiff as the bonfire of the quangos smoulders on. Occasionally, a few things are dragged off and raked from the embers, but serious issues are starting to emerge as a result of some of the quangos that are being absorbed back into Government, given their statutory duties to provide independent advice to the Government. I have had representations from several people from several organisations, including the Health Protection Agency, stating a lack of clarity about how the Government are going to deal with the matter. Can we have an urgent debate about that important issue? I believe that the integrity of scientific advice, in particular, could be jeopardised if we do not have the correct formula.
Sir George Young
In one sense we can have an urgent debate, because we will shortly have the Second Reading of the Public Bodies Bill, currently in another place, in which the “bonfire of the quangos” to which the hon. Gentleman refers is taking place. There will be an opportunity to debate our proposals for public bodies and to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Can we have a debate about the performance of the retail sector? The high streets in places such as Halesowen, Blackheath, Cradley Heath and Old Hill in my constituency are vital to the local economy, and I am not aware that we have been able to hold a specific debate about the retail sector.
Sir George Young
I welcome the information yesterday that retail sales in volume have increased by 1.3% over the past 12 months and in value by 4.5%. That is some evidence of the recovery to which the Prime Minister referred yesterday, and I should welcome such a debate. There will be a debate on the Finance Bill next week, and there may be an opportunity to debate some of the Government’s measures to promote economic recovery.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The New Art Gallery Walsall, in my constituency, has an amazing collection that was started by Jacob Epstein and his family. The gallery is now closed on Sundays, the very day when people can visit, but it costs only £35,000 for it to open then. I have asked the relevant Minister to intervene, but he has refused, so can we have an urgent debate about what powers the Minister has to keep that vital resource open?
Sir George Young
I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was present during Culture, Media and Sport questions, but it strikes me that that would have been an appropriate question to have put during that session. I will pass her suggestions on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and see whether there is any role for him, the local authority, the Arts Council or some other funding body to play.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Can we have a debate about local government finance? My local councils, including Staffordshire county council, have succeeded in freezing the council tax while protecting front-line services, yet people throughout the country are rightly concerned about those councils—and we know which party runs them—that are cutting public services while sitting on a huge cash reserve.
Sir George Young
I agree that the purpose of reserves that local authorities hold is to see them through difficult and challenging times such as these. I have noticed that authorities such as Manchester and Liverpool have been cutting services while sitting on very substantial reserves, but I commend the performance of my hon. Friend’s local authority.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Can we have a debate about the effects of the Chancellor’s Budget on social and working men’s clubs? Clubs such as the TA club in Guisborough in my constituency provide an affordable venue for working people who need a meeting or reception space for christenings and weddings, and for other community groups. The 20% rate of VAT and the added duty on alcohol have had a severe effect on how much profit the club can bring in to keep that community space open, so can we please have a debate on the Floor of the House about the issue?
Sir George Young
We have just had a very substantial debate about the Budget, and we will deal with parts of the Finance Bill next week, so it might be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to raise those subjects then. I commend the work done by the working clubs in his constituency.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Small and medium-sized businesses play a major role in the economy of Great Yarmouth, particularly with reference to the importance of tourism, and I welcome the Government’s work to target the sector, recognising that it can drive growth. We can do more, however, particularly with regard to regulations, so can we have a debate in the House about the specific needs of SMEs?
Sir George Young
I commend the SMEs in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which are doing such heroic work, and measures have been announced in the Budget. A new capital fund is being set up to help SMEs to access capital, as identified by the Rowlands review; we have announced a moratorium exempting micro-businesses and start-ups from new domestic regulations for three years from 2011; and we are going to drop proposals for specific regulations that would have cost £350 million a year to implement. I am sure that SMEs in my hon. Friend’s constituency will welcome that.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the Government’s programme to reduce regulations on business, but the Government’s consultative Red Tape Challenge website asks the public whether the Equalities Act 2010, which is primary legislation, should be scrapped. Can we have an urgent statement in the House if that is the Government’s intention?
Sir George Young
We have no plans at the moment for primary legislation on that subject.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Earlier this month Cheshire fire and rescue service was crowned fire service of the year at the inaugural emergency services awards. Cheshire has seen a 73% drop in fire-related injuries, a 64% drop in business fires and more than 300,000 home safety assessments completed over the past five years. Can we have a statement on fire service performance from the Minister responsible, allowing me to highlight the hard work and commitment of Cheshire fire and rescue service staff and to congratulate them?
Sir George Young
I join my hon. Friend—I am sure all Members in his county will—in commending the work of Cheshire fire and rescue service in bringing down fire-related injuries. I am sure that because of the fantastic work of that particular service there are people who are alive today who might not otherwise have been.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
You will recall, Mr Speaker, that I have previously raised with the Government the excellent report on firearms by the Home Affairs Committee. Can I press the Leader of the House to state whether the Government, when they get round to replying to the report, will simply issue a statement or publish a White Paper on firearms?
Sir George Young
I commend the work that the Home Affairs Committee has done on this important subject, in which I know the hon. Gentleman has a particular interest. The Government will be responding in full to that report, and I expect that to happen at the end of May or in early June. The response will take the normal form of a publication that will be available, and it might then be up to the Backbench Business Committee to decide whether it wanted a debate on the subject.
Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Councils and local authorities are working particularly hard to increase recycling rates in their areas. Is the Leader of the House aware that trade waste is not currently included in recycling rates? Can he advise on what measures the Government have to change that anomaly, and may we have a debate on the wider issue of recycling generally?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. I will take up the matter with the Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government to get a detailed response to the proposition that my hon. Friend has shared with the House.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May we have a debate on reforming Prime Minister’s questions? The current Prime Minister sometimes seems to be quite casual—some might even say careless—with the facts at Prime Minister’s questions. If there was a hooter at the Clerk’s desk that sounded every time the Prime Minister made a factual error, that might help to prevent the patronising of people who are just putting him straight with the facts.
Sir George Young
But why should the hooter just be confined to the Prime Minister? Why should it not apply equally to Labour Members?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Last Sunday, we heard the very sad news that Sathya Sai Baba had died in India. Sai Baba was a unique Hindu ascetic who was renowned among millions of followers worldwide and hundreds of thousands within the UK. There has been no Government statement issuing an expression of sympathy to the hundreds of thousands of followers in this country who are praying for his soul and for his return. Will my right hon. Friend prevail on the appropriate Government Minister to issue a suitable message of sympathy?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would like to share his comments with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is probably the Minister who has responsibility, to see whether an appropriate tribute might be made.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I was recently contacted by my constituent Beryl Wilkinson about the distress caused by the mismanagement by Places for People and Hull city council in dealing with the cuts to the Supporting People grant. May we have a debate on how this coalition cut is hitting councils, housing associations and voluntary groups, but most importantly the vulnerable people whom the grant is supposed to support?
Sir George Young
I am sure that the management of the city of Hull is in much better hands than it was under the previous Labour Government, when it was one of the worst administered local authorities in the world—[Interruption]—or rather, in the country. The hon. Lady regularly raises issues about that local authority, but we had a debate on the revenue support grant before the amount was settled, and other local authorities have been able to cope with the allocations that were made without coming to the difficult decisions to which she has referred.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Many patients in my constituency will have been listening to Labour Members’ comments about NHS waiting times with increasing concern. May we therefore have an urgent debate on NHS waiting times so that I can have an opportunity to reassure my constituents and put facts before politics on this most emotive of issues?
Sir George Young
I very much hope that the Opposition choose the subject of the NHS for their half-day debate on Monday week. I commend to my hon. Friend’s attention the document I have here—the 2010 annual report—which has the statistics, and the press release that was put out earlier this week which brings waiting times up to date. He will also see in a separate publication that there are more cataract operations and more hip replacement operations, and I hope that his constituents will find that reassuring.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
May I urge the Leader of the House seriously to consider having a debate on Libya? The circumstances have changed, as we are now talking about regime change rather than a ceasefire. It would be helpful to the Government to have that debate and to have the support, or otherwise, of the House.
Sir George Young
I have listened to the representations that have been made in all parts of the House for a further debate in Government time. Without giving any assurances now, I would like to share that strong feeling in the House with my colleagues and reflect on whether it might be appropriate to have another debate in Government time on Libya and related matters.
Point of Order
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning in my constituency, a group of 40 police officers arrived at a site, handcuffed one of my constituents and forcibly detained a group of them in a building on the site. They then undertook a search of the site, supposedly for materials that could be used for criminal damage. It appears that raids like this are going on across London at the moment as some form of pre-emptive strike before the royal wedding. The constituents who were detained in my area were to meet me this morning; they are from a group called Transition Heathrow. They are a group of environmentalists who took over a derelict site as part of their campaign against the third runway and have transformed that site into a market garden. It is supported by me and by a number of local councillors and local residents.
I believe that this disproportionate use of force is unacceptable, and I would urge that a Home Office Minister comes to this House to explain exactly what is happening today and what are the grounds for that action, and also contacts the Metropolitan police commissioner to explain that many of us feel that this is disproportionate and no way to celebrate this joyous wedding.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his point of order. He will understand, and the House will appreciate, that I am very loth to comment on a matter that might be, and probably is, the subject of continuing police inquiries. Moreover, it is not a procedural matter for the Chair. Nevertheless, it is a matter of extreme importance to the hon. Gentleman, and probably to a great many others besides, about which he has registered his concern in the presence of Ministers. I do not know whether a statement will be forthcoming. However, the hon. Gentleman is an extremely experienced Member. There will be ways open for him to pursue this matter through the House, and I rather imagine that he will do so.
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Since 2006, when the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill was passed, enormous progress has been made in preparing London and the rest of the UK for the games. There is, rightly, huge cause for confidence as we look forward to next summer. Politically, the games continue to enjoy broad cross-party support from all parts of the House in the way that was first evident at the time of the bid and subsequently during the passage of the original Bill. I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) for her continued support and for all the work she did to promote the Bill and during the early part of the Olympic process. I am also grateful to our coalition partners—and I was going to say to Members from the other, smaller parties, but they have clearly left early to enjoy the royal wedding.
I will briefly update the House on progress. The build programme is now 70% complete and, I am glad to say, on time and marginally below budget. The Lee valley white water centre, the first of the newly built 2012 venues, was completed last year and opened to the public earlier this month. The construction of the first Olympic park sporting venue, the velodrome, was completed in February this year and handed over to the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games last month. The remaining facilities are on track and nearing completion. If hon. Members have not yet had the opportunity to tour the Olympic park, I strongly encourage them to do so. The scale of what has been achieved, particularly for anybody who remembers the site in 2005, is genuinely impressive. I should like to place on record my thanks to John Armitt, David Higgins—the recently retired chief executive—and the whole of the Olympic Delivery Authority for what they have achieved.
The deadline for applications for Olympic tickets closed two days ago. We have seen unparalleled levels of interest from people right across the United Kingdom, with over 20 million ticket applications, and public support for the games remains high, particularly in comparison with the experience of previous host cities. Almost a quarter of a million people have applied to be London 2012 games-maker volunteers. I have no doubt that the same atmosphere of celebration that we are seeing for tomorrow’s royal wedding, and which will be seen again in next year’s diamond jubilee, will be seen once again in the build-up to, and during, the games.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
A concern that has been raised about other sporting events is that, despite high ticket sales, the stadiums have not been full. What guarantees can my hon. Friend give to those who hope to receive tickets that they have the optimum chance of attending the events and, more importantly, that those who wanted to go but cannot do not see empty seats when they watch the Olympics on television?
Hugh Robertson
Given the almost unparalleled level of interest in ticket applications, it is pretty unlikely that anybody who has gone through the process of securing a ticket for London 2012 will not turn up. I think that anybody who has a ticket is disproportionately likely to turn up. We must also remember that these Olympics are different from any others in that 75% of the tickets are available to the general public. There will therefore not be the problems that are seen at some events that have large numbers of corporate seats. We are all well aware of the negative impact that empty stadiums would have. I suspect that we will face the reverse problem and that there will be so much demand for events that there will be a lot of disappointed people who cannot get tickets, and that there will not be empty seats on the day.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
To pick up on that point, will the Minister make clear what arrangements there will be for a secondary market for tickets? I appreciate that there are draconian measures to stop ticket touting, but presumably there will be an opportunity for a legitimate secondary market for those who have applied, in the rather complicated way, and who by July or August 2012 realise that they will not be able to take up their allocation.
Hugh Robertson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There is the quid pro quo that if one has tough anti-touting regulations, one has to make it as simple as possible for people who buy tickets in the legitimate expectation that they will attend an event, but who then cannot do so, to exchange their tickets and get their money back. That is what happens in major sporting events the world over. There are a number of sporting events across the United Kingdom where that already works well. There is a very good system at Lord’s for test match tickets, and Wimbledon has a smart system in which people hand in their tickets as they go out and they are simply recycled. LOCOG is absolutely clear that there has to be an efficient, easy and simple mechanism for exchanging tickets legitimately in order to discourage touting.
Turning to the business before the House, the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 sets the legal framework.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to raise this issue before the Minister moves on to the terms of the Bill. It relates to the Olympic legacy, and in particular to the main stadium. The Minister has received a letter from Tottenham Hotspur football club regarding the arrangements for the decision relating to West Ham United. I wonder if he can say whether he has responded to that letter, and what he believes to be the latest position regarding the stadium.
Hugh Robertson
I have to tread a little carefully in answering that question because we are under threat of judicial review and the lawyers on all sides will be watching what I say carefully. [Laughter.] I hear knowing chuckles from former Ministers on the Labour Benches. I am confident that the process we followed was absolutely in line with what was expected, and that the process followed by the Olympic Park Legacy Company under Baroness Ford was correct. The hon. Gentleman is right that we have received what is technically called a pre-application letter from Tottenham Hotspur, and indeed one from Leyton Orient. We have responded to the letters within the terms advised by the lawyers and we wait to see what happens next. I am entirely confident that the correct process was followed.
Mr Love
I thank the Minister for that reply. Tottenham Hotspur has raised concerns about transparency in relation to these matters, and about the procedure that was used. Does he believe that he has satisfied those concerns, and has he made public the issues that Tottenham Hotspur was concerned about?
Hugh Robertson
I have not made those concerns public, and that is, rightly, a matter for Tottenham Hotspur. I am confident that the process followed by the Olympic Park Legacy Company was robust, correct and inside the law. As I said, we have responded to the letters and wait to see what happens next. At this point it is difficult, and very possibly dangerous, to say a great deal more. Suffice it to say that if we can get to a stage where the legal threat is lifted, I and everybody else in the process will do all that we can to help Tottenham Hotspur find a new ground.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Is there an allocation of tickets for disabled ex-servicemen and women, perhaps through the Royal British Legion? If not, is that a possibility?
Hugh Robertson
My hon. Friend raises an extremely good point, which I will answer peripherally before coming on to the main question. He knows that, like him, I spent a bit of time in the armed services. I am sure that everybody in the House wants to ensure that injured servicemen in particular are properly looked after in this process. We have concluded an agreement that the armed forces will conduct the flag raising at the medal ceremonies, so they will be very much at the centre of the games. The organising committee has also agreed to take on a number of injured servicemen for work experience. We are trying to set up a similar agreement within the Government Olympic Executive. If I remember rightly, although this happened some months back, there was an allocation of tickets through one of the service charities—I think it was Help for Heroes.
Most encouragingly, through the Battle Back programme, a number of servicemen—although not yet servicewomen, but I hope that that will change—have got on to the Paralympic training programmes run by a number of sports as part of their rehabilitation. A couple of months ago, I met two young men in Manchester—one of whom was injured in Iraq and one of whom was injured in Afghanistan—who are training with British Cycling for the Paralympic team. That was impressive and incredibly inspiring, because instead of dwelling on the unfortunate nature of what had happened, they had found a way to move forward through sport. I took Lord Coe to Headley Court last summer, where we found a young Scots Guardsman who had had both his legs and his left arm blown off, and who was hoping to compete in the Paralympics as a javelin thrower. Lord Coe, who despite being a runner knows a bit about javelin throwing, was able to take him through it. I think that he is now about seventh in the world. There is every expectation that as he gets fitter and better, he will have the opportunity to compete in the Paralympics. I am sure that Members from across the House wish all people in that position well.
The 2006 Act sets the legal framework within which organisations such as LOCOG, the Olympic Delivery Authority and the Mayor’s office are empowered to deliver the games. It also provides the legislative means through which we will meet Government commitments given to the International Olympic Committee on how the games and the games environment will be managed. The Act includes powers to regulate advertising and trading in the vicinity of Olympic and Paralympic venues, and to manage traffic on the Olympic route network and around games venues. It also makes the touting of Olympic and Paralympic tickets an offence.
As we move into the operational phase of preparations, building on the excellent work of LOCOG, the ODA, the Government Olympic Executive and others, the Bill brings forward amendments to ensure that the original intention of the legislation can be effectively delivered in practice. This is entirely normal as the delivery of an Olympic games moves through its cycle, and the amendments are small in comparison to those made before previous games. The Bill is limited in scope: it is confined simply to amending sections of the original Act and contains no new issues.
Mr Mark Field
Although I accept, as the Minister says, that the Bill makes minor amendments to the legislation that came in some five years ago, does he share the concern that has been expressed by some constituents, with which I have sympathy, that because of the nature of the agreement with the International Olympic Committee, we risk having almost a state within a state in the vicinity of the Olympic park during August 2012? There will be rights of seizure of infringing articles, essentially to protect the interests of the sponsors who, I accept, have put significant amounts of money into the games. Does he share the concerns about the undermining of fundamental liberties that we all take for granted because of the agreement with the IOC to stage the Olympics here in the UK?
Hugh Robertson
I think the best way of answering that is to say that I note the concerns. There is a fine line, and we knew what we were getting into when we bid for the event in 2004. All of us who supported the bid recognised that there would be one or two uncomfortable moments over matters such as that, but believed that it was worth having those uncomfortable moments for the greater good that would be generated.
We will be the only city in the modern Olympic cycle that has hosted the games three times—we did so in 1908 and 1948, in case Members get caught out at the pub sports quiz. The Olympics will be a fantastic opportunity to showcase this country in a way that almost nothing else can provide. I touch wood as I say this, but there is every chance that they will be a fantastic shop window for this country—not only for our ability to deliver major construction projects but for how we host people, for our tourism industry, for businesses and for sport in this country.
We need only look at the number of sports events that are coming to this country in the wake of London 2012 to realise that the good of hosting the Olympics is incalculable. That is even before we consider the fact that the Olympic park site was the largest industrial wasteland anywhere inside the M25 and it now has a brand-new Westfield shopping development springing up on its doorstep, the largest shopping centre built anywhere in Europe and the only one in which Westfield is investing outside the Australian sub-continent. We can also consider the traffic and transport changes. The price is that when we are staging a world event of such a nature, we have to have restrictions to preserve the £700 million that sponsors have put in. I absolutely acknowledge that that is a little bit uncomfortable, but I think it is a price worth paying for the greater good.
Mr Field
I accept that the 1908 and 1948 Olympics were nothing like as commercialised as next year’s will be. Such commercialism probably goes back to the Olympiads in 1984 in Los Angeles and 1996 in Atlanta. There is a sense that there has been creeping power in the hands of large commercial interests, with ever more draconian measures being put in place. For example, particular brands of soft drink will be barred within a particular radius. Has that always been the case in the modern Olympic era since there has been more commercialisation, or have commercial interests used an increasing amount of strength to ensure that we have the draconian measures that we will debate today?
Hugh Robertson
There is no sense at all that the requirements of the London Olympics are any more draconian than has been the case in immediately preceding games. The starting point for that train of events was the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, which were an advertising free-for-all. One sponsor paid a huge amount to the organising committee to be a tier 1 sponsor, or whatever the equivalent of that was, and then its immediate commercial competitor took one of the teams out for a press conference and emblazoned it with the company’s logos. Those Olympics, with all the ambush marketing around them, led to some of the regulations that now exist.
I am personally very comfortable with the regulations, because the great success of the London Olympics has been in raising more than £700 million from commercial sponsors. That is a remarkable effort in the teeth of the type of recession that we are hopefully just coming out of. To get that amount of money from big multinationals, we have to give them some confidence that their brand is being protected. That is why they have invested the money.
Such regulations are not a particularly Olympic phenomenon. Exactly the same things happen at almost every other major sports event, including a host of events that we are trying to attract to this country. They happen at cricket world cups, and I am pretty sure that they happen even at highly commercial events such as the Indian premier league. Exactly the same regulations apply at football World cups. They are standard, and they are in place to protect the vast amounts of sponsorship income for such events.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), the Minister referred to the ability that the games give us to showcase British success stories. He mentioned in particular the remarkable achievements of the construction projects, particularly on the Olympic park site. Does he agree that it is a shame that visitors to that site will not be able to see the names of the British companies that have constructed the venues and done such a fantastic job? The regulations prevent advertising of the companies that have completed the venues.
Hugh Robertson
That is an interesting one. I think it is pretty much a fact of public record who has built the various stadiums. The construction company responsible for the Olympic stadium, for example, has done a fantastic job, as anyone who has been down there will say. I would be very surprised if that company thought it was getting squeezed out of the action, because everybody will know who it is. There may well be a stone somewhere or other that records who built the thing—I do not know—but my hon. Friend is right that the company cannot emblazon the outside of the stadium with advertising logos. If it had wanted to do that, it could have applied to be a tier 1 sponsor, and it has not done so. I guess that is because it thinks the building speaks for itself, and having watched it appear from start to finish, I have to say that it does.
Any more takers for interventions? Then I will get back to the 2006 Act and the Bill. This amendment Bill addresses three main matters: advertising and trading, ticket touting and the enforcement of traffic management regulations. Regulating advertising and trading near Olympic and Paralympic games venues is a requirement of hosting the games in the host nation contract. Parliament recognised during the passage of the 2006 Act that tailored provision was needed for the games, both to act as a stronger deterrent to ambush marketing and illegal trading and because existing powers alone were not adequate for such a major event.
The 2006 Act set out the broad framework for regulations that would provide the details. We need those regulations not only to fulfil the guarantees given to the IOC as part of the bid but to protect public space, so that spectators can access venues and we can maintain a celebratory atmosphere around the games. Following the ODA’s general notice about the regulations in June 2009 under the previous Administration, my Department launched a consultation on the proposed draft regulations on 7 March. The regulations will be reconsidered in light of the responses to the consultation before being laid in Parliament in draft and subject to the affirmative procedure later this year.
However, the 2006 Act provides the ODA and the police with powers to enforce the regulations, including the power to seize articles that are used to contravene them. We want to amend the Act to provide that any article seized by either ODA enforcement officers or the police is dealt with by the ODA instead of the police. The effect of that change will be that during the games, police time will not be spent filing and dealing with seized property. I hope that everybody can see the sense of that—the police will have better things to do. Instead, officers designated by the ODA, who are likely to be enforcement officers from local authorities who are familiar with dealing with street trading and advertising offences under existing law, will deal with breaches of advertising and trading regulations and handle any articles that are seized. Protection, and I hope a sense of proportionality, will be assured by the fact that the ODA is a statutory corporation established by the 2006 Act and, crucially, is subject to the direction of the Secretary of State.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend tell the House the extent to which the ODA will have control? Olympic venues are not confined to east London. They cover the whole of London, and Olympic football events will be held all over the country and the sailing will be down in Weymouth. Where will the ODA limits apply, and what will happen to people who cross those boundaries?
Hugh Robertson
My hon. Friend asks a very good question. The key thing in dealing with people in that respect is applying a sense of proportionality. The regulations are designed to address big, corporate ambush marketing stunts, not individuals who through some error, act of omission or forgetfulness, or otherwise through no fault of their own, take the wrong thing into a venue. They will simply be asked to hand that over, as is normal.
Any venue that is an Olympic venue will be affected—effectively, there is a curtain around every venue, meaning not just the park, but anywhere that an Olympic event takes place. All football stadiums used for the football competition are covered. Outside London, the venues for sailing at Weymouth, for rowing at Eton Dorney, and for white water rafting at Broxbourne, and the mountain biking venue, are covered. If that is a pub quiz question, I think I have got the lot.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister says that local authorities will have an enforcement role. Has he estimated what additional costs they will incur in enforcing the regulations?
Hugh Robertson
I apologise if I did not make that clear. The enforcement officers will, if possible, be drawn from local authorities precisely because those people have the expertise. We are in the process of working out the full costs of that as part of the consultation.
Hugh Robertson
Provision has been made in the budget for extra support to be given to local authorities for a variety of services—the Mayor has control of that budget and the local authorities affected are happy with the settlement, which may surprise the hon. Gentleman. There is contingency funding precisely for any large bills. If a case is made, and if we think there is real hardship, we could look at using that.
Hugh Robertson
There is a distinction between the costs that the hon. Gentleman originally asked about—the costs for enforcement officers—and more general costs. Some of those general costs are covered by the extra funding made available, but others are not, precisely because local authorities knew what they were getting themselves into when they made bids for those events. They knew what the likely cost would be at the bidding stage. It would be ridiculous for anyone who made a bid, for example, for the Olympic sailing event, to say that they did not know that there would be some associated security costs.
Mr Mark Field
Will the Minister clarify the situation in respect of powers of seizure over individuals, rather than powers to deal with corporations? Essentially, is the ODA stepping into the shoes of local authority enforcement departments, or will it use powers other than those that would be exercised by a local council officer?
Hugh Robertson
The answer to that is, “Not quite.” The powers would normally be exercised by the police. Obviously, because of the considerable security obligations on the police at the time of the games, which my hon. Friend will understand, we have decided in the Bill to pass responsibility for enforcement officers to the ODA. The ODA will use only trained people who understand what they are doing and who will act proportionately. The suggestion is that those people are most likely to come from local authorities, which have such enforcement officers anyway. They have the necessary expertise and—I hope—sense of proportionality to carry out those functions satisfactorily.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
The Minister spoke of the ODA being the enforcing authority in respect of ambush marketing, but then spoke of the venues. However, the ODA controls the venues, so it would not need the power to enforce. There is therefore an inherent exclusion zone around the venues. How big is the exclusion zone in which the ODA protects against ambush marketing?
Hugh Robertson
If I understand my hon. Friend correctly—he can ask again if I do not answer him—the venues are not controlled by the ODA. The ODA hands the venues over to the London organising committee as part of the preamble to the games. At the time of the games, there is a clean area around each of the venues, for all the reasons we have discussed. If there are any contraventions of the advertising regulations in those clean areas, the enforcement officers come into play.
Mike Freer
To clarify, is it true that there will be no further enforcement outside those clean areas?
Hugh Robertson
Correct—yes.
Infringing articles seized will be dealt with in accordance with clause 1, which sets out rules on how long articles can be held, when they must be returned, and conditions that must be met before they may be disposed of. Clause 2 will introduce a quicker procedure for making any amending advertising and trading regulations. The first and hopefully final set are out for consultation now.
Finally, the 2006 Act does not give us the ability to amend the regulations quickly once they have been made, but requires the ODA to give lengthy notice of any regulations at specified times before they come into effect, and provides that they must be laid in draft and approved by Parliament before being made. Effectively, that means that we are unable to alter the regulations in exceptional circumstances, for example if a games venue or road event changes at the last minute for security or other reasons. To resolve that, we propose to change the procedure used for any amending regulations under the 2006 Act to the faster, negative resolution procedure. The procedure for the principal regulations will remain as it is now.
On ticket touting, the games will be the largest sporting event this country has ever staged, with around 11 million tickets on sale. Unfortunately, ticket touts may seek to exploit the opportunities that that presents to profit at the expense of genuine sports fans. That is why the 2006 Act made the touting of games tickets, by which I mean selling or offering to sell tickets in public or in the course of business other than with LOCOG consent, an offence that attracts a maximum fine of £5,000.
The Bill contains a provision that will increase the maximum penalty for touting of Olympic and Paralympic tickets from a fine of £5,000 to a fine of £20,000. That increase is driven by the support of the Metropolitan police as a way of providing a more effective deterrent to the touting of Olympic and Paralympic tickets. In effect, it means that the police have recognised the threat of organised crime, rather than individual ticket touts, to the London Olympics. In doing that, we are not criminalising any new conduct; we are simply increasing the maximum penalty available to the courts in response to the obvious threat that touting poses to the games and to the UK’s reputation.
Visitors will come to the Olympics and Paralympics from all over the world, and we want to encourage them to do so. We would not want their visit, or their memories of the experience, tarnished by being confronted by strings of ticket touts, as has happened at some previous games. We intend to make the disincentive very strong and want to send a clear signal to touts that their activities will not be tolerated.
I should emphasise that this measure is aimed squarely at touts. Nothing in the law at present, or as a result of this change, prevents those who have games tickets from selling them at face value to family and friends. LOCOG will also run an official ticket exchange—this answers a point that was made earlier—so that people who find that they can no longer use tickets that they have bought legitimately can dispose of them.
Therefore, the law-abiding public have absolutely nothing to fear from this measure. The people who will—I hope—think twice are people and organised gangs who might be tempted to engage in touting and whose threat has been identified by the police. They should get the very clear message that the Government and the police take this matter seriously, and that the financial penalties for this conduct are severe, and indeed sufficiently severe to disincentivise them.
Bob Blackman
This is a key issue for the large numbers of people who have purchased tickets in the proper way. During my search for tickets—I hope I am successful in the ballot—I noted that a large number of unofficial websites are attempting to market tickets in advance of anyone receiving them. Clearly, they will seek tickets from those who are successful in the ballot. What action can be taken against those organisations and companies and to get those sites removed from the web?
Hugh Robertson
Two things come to mind. During my time as a Minister, I have become aware that some of these sites encourage people to subscribe even though they do not have any tickets at all and the whole thing is a blatant con trick. I recall the tragic case of some New Zealanders who came over for a rugby match at Cardiff Arms park on the basis of a set of tickets from one such website. It was a complete sham, but they had travelled all the way over here and gone to pick up their tickets, only to find there was nothing there. The point about the Bill is that it will enable us to take more effective action. A disincentive of £20,000 to someone perpetrating large-scale commercial ticketing fraud is likely to be much more effective than a disincentive of £5,000.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
Will the Minister join me in praising those in the police who are involved in Operation Podium and who managed to close down more than 100 websites even before the start of this year?
Hugh Robertson
I absolutely agree, and I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. As he says, Operation Podium has already started and it will continue as we get closer to the games.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I apologise for missing the beginning of the Minister’s speech, but this is the issue on which I want to ask a question. Can I assume that when the allocation of tickets by ballot is made—and I am one of many hoping to be lucky—the data on who has been allocated tickets, especially large numbers of tickets, will not be made publicly accessible, in order to prevent the abuses that he and others have mentioned? There is a chance that—as with the telephone hacking—people could obtain that information and start illegally reselling tickets. Some assurance about the security of the process would be helpful.
Hugh Robertson
I can absolutely give my right hon. Friend those assurances. The firm conducting the ticketing operation was selected precisely because it was able to give those assurances. Nobody wants any breach of security, and the ticketing process has several features—although I do not want to go into details—that will make it extremely difficult for people to operate in that fashion.
Mr Love
May I press the Minister on the illegal use of the internet? Although some sites may have been closed down, I expect that 10 times as many opened up the next day. What specific measures have been taken and what publicity is planned to ensure that what happened to the New Zealanders does not happen to other people coming to this country?
Hugh Robertson
The short answer is that that is what the Bill is intended to do. The advice from the police is that there is a threat that organised gangs will target the London Olympics precisely because they will be such a prestigious global event. It is that threat that warrants the increase in the fine from £5,000 to £20,000. That threat has been identified in a way that was not apparent when the original Act was passed, and the advice is that a much meatier fine is required to address it.
A key issue for the games is the effective movement of the games family to and from venues. Before Members seek to intervene, I should point out that that does not mean the IOC; it means the athletes and the officials who need to get to the events. At the risk of going back to the pub quiz, the Atlanta games in 1996 had a significant problem with athletes and officials being able to get to events on time. We can imagine the frustration of any young man or woman who has trained for some 20 years to reach this seminal athletic moment, but cannot get there in time because of a traffic jam because the host city cannot shift people around the city to order. The 2006 Act allowed for the creation and enforcement of traffic management measures specifically for the games to enable their smooth running and to deliver journey time commitments made to the IOC on the movement of athletes and other games family members.
These included powers to create an Olympic route network, and I am grateful for the work done by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) when he was a Minister to enable the ODA and local traffic authorities to make traffic regulation orders for defined Olympics purposes, and for the ODA to set levels of penalty charges, in accordance with guidelines and subject to consultation and approval. The Act also relaxed, for London Olympic events, the restrictions on the making of special event traffic orders.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The A31, which is the main route to the Weymouth venue, has a bottleneck at the Canford Bottom roundabout. The Highways Agency proposes to replace the roundabout with what is described as a hamburger junction. Can my hon. Friend assure me that that work is not time-sensitive to the Olympics, given the powers to which he has referred? At the moment, the Highways Agency proposes to go ahead without proper consultation on this sensitive issue which could waste a lot of taxpayers’ money.
Hugh Robertson
After some six years with this brief, I thought that I had come across almost everything, but the Canford Bottom roundabout and the hamburger junction are new to me. I would be interested to learn whether the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood is an expert on either of those issues. The best thing would be for my hon. Friend to write to me and, with the Department for Transport, I will try to provide him with an answer.
Hugh Robertson
With all due respect, my hon. Friend has been in Parliament long enough to know that other Ministers cannot jump into debates and I will stick by the commitment I have just made. Everybody knows that the traffic issues in and around Weymouth are testing, to put it mildly, and if my hon. Friend writes to me, I will make sure that he gets an answer.
Hugh Robertson
My hon. Friend can have another go, but he will not get a different answer.
Hugh Robertson
Yes. There will not be a blanket restriction in force throughout the games. It will only be in force when required for the purposes of the games.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his kind words. When we launched the Olympic network consultation some years ago, there was general acceptance by the public—apart from an outcry in the Evening Standard, which was quickly contained—that athletes and officials need to be assured that they can be where they need to be. The only concern was the potential for abuse by those who think that they are more important than they are. Can the Minister reassure us that only those who are entitled to priority through traffic management will get it?
Hugh Robertson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for the initial work he did on this issue. I can give him that absolute assurance. In the early days of the Committee on the original Bill there was a lot of talk about Zil lanes for plutocrats and other such things. The message has now got through that this is a necessary measure to ensure that we can deliver athletes and officials to events on time so that they can take part in the games. I am about to come to the necessary enforcement measures, which were due to be in traffic legislation that never made it on to the statute book. We thought that this would happen in 2006, but it did not and it is now being tightened up as part of this Bill.
As with the Bill’s other provisions, since 2006 further detailed planning has been undertaken and further information has become available, leading to a number of technical amendments that are needed to ensure that the intentions of the 2006 Act can be properly implemented. The first of these, in clause 4, will expand the power conferred on the ODA and traffic authorities by the 2006 Act to make temporary traffic regulation orders at short notice for Olympic purposes, as set out in the 2006 Act, by removing the usual requirement to make such orders for immediate changes to traffic, especially for Olympic purposes. On the point made by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, clause 5 will allow for civil enforcement in relation to contraventions of those notices, and will clarify the provisions allowing the ODA to set the levels of charges, including penalty charges, for the enforcement of orders made for Olympic purposes both within Greater London and outside.
Gavin Barwell
Can my hon. Friend give the House an idea of the level of those penalty charge notices? Has the ODA reached a view on that?
Hugh Robertson
No final decision has been taken, but I can assure my hon. Friend—if this is what is worrying him—that it will be proportionate. There is quite a large ceiling in the 2006 Act. It is fair to say that this point caused us some concern back in 2006 on a cross-party basis. The application of charges will be proportionate. I think that this clause was called the granny clause, because nobody wants a little old lady straying briefly into one of these lanes by mistake and then getting hammered by an enormous fine.
Bob Blackman
One of the principal concerns of residents in my constituency is that the whole of Harrow and Brent could be turned into a very large car park for the duration of the games, with people coming from outside London, from the north and north-west, parking their cars and getting on the Jubilee line to Stratford. What regulations is the Minister proposing to allow the local councils to implement appropriate parking controls to prevent that from happening?
Hugh Robertson
No such provisions are proposed in the Bill. I could see that being quite a controversial power to grant. It is a matter for the local authority, and if it thinks that there is such a threat, it should take action. However, I hope that I can put my hon. Friend’s mind at ease by saying simply that the central tenet of the transport ban is that these are public transport games, and that the connectivity to the Olympics site is now fantastic, either via the Javelin train at King’s Cross—the area most likely to see the problem he mentioned—or through the upgrades to the tube lines. As I said, however, we suspect that the vast majority of visitors from outside London will probably come in to King’s Cross St Pancras and transfer on to the Javelin train. One can get to Stratford in seven minutes from there. I thus hope that the availability of public transport, and the ticketing system itself, will ensure that that problem does not occur.
Bob Blackman
If my hon. Friend came to Stanmore and Queensbury when Wembley station was in operation, he would find that all the residential streets are jam-packed—people come off the M1, park as soon as they can, and get on the Jubilee line to go to the stadium. The suspicion is that that is precisely what will happen for the duration of the games. At the moment, the local authority in Harrow has failed to take any action, and I am concerned about whether the Bill gives any special powers to enable the local authority to act for the duration of the games, rather than having to impose draconian measures for longer .
Hugh Robertson
There is no such measure in the Bill. I would need to take the advice of the drafting clerks, but my hon. Friend is putting before me a general problem that arises when there are large-scale sporting events. I am not sure, therefore, that it would not fall outside the scope of a Bill that is purely for the Olympics. All we could do with the Bill—and I am not even sure we could—would be to provide measures for the period of the Olympics and Paralympic games afterwards. What he raises sounds like a more general problem driven by sporting events at Wembley stadium and elsewhere. If the problem is worrying local residents—I presume he would not have raised the matter otherwise—it is for the local authority to take action.
Mike Freer
On the general point about the extent of the Olympic route network, especially the alternative network, which includes the north circular in my constituency, can the Minister confirm what traffic impact studies have been undertaken? Obviously, a commitment has been given to suspend all roadworks on the network, but what about in the neighbouring areas? If there is a problem and traffic is diverted, we need to ensure that the surrounding streets can cope with that diverted traffic, so we need measures to ensure that all roadworks in the area are suspended.
Hugh Robertson
I can confirm that part of the commitment on the Olympic route network is that there will be no roadworks on that network. It would be slightly self-defeating otherwise. However, the Mayor, with whom we have discussed the matter at great length—we also discussed it with his predecessor—is aware that London’s reputation hinges on keeping the city moving during this very busy period, when the eyes of the world will be upon us. Everybody involved knows that a logjam would have serious national implications, so roadworks will be suspended on the ORN and, I hope, in the areas around it.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I seek some reassurance. While we are on the question of reputations and the Jubilee line, will the Minister have a quick word with his former hon. Friend the Mayor of London and ask him to get a grip? The Jubilee line’s reputation at the moment will be a huge disincentive for anybody thinking about using it to get to Stratford. It is a really important artery, but its reputation is suffering more and more each week.
Hugh Robertson
I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I know that the Mayor has for obvious reasons made the smooth running of the Jubilee line during the Olympics one of his top priorities. We are aware of the need to ensure that it runs efficiently.
Clause 7 makes the necessary provision for civil enforcement in relation to moving-traffic contraventions—for example, banned U-turns and no-entry routes—in Greater London, including the procedure for setting penalty charge levels for such contraventions. This provision is needed because the 2006 Act was drafted on the assumption that the moving-traffic parts of the Traffic Management Act 2004, to which the 2006 Act refers, would be implemented in time for the games. That has not happened, however, so we have introduced the clause to fill the gap.
Clause 8 makes the necessary provision for civil enforcement in relation to moving-traffic contraventions outside Greater London on bus lanes, the definition of which will include “games lanes” on the ORN. Again, this includes the procedure for setting penalty charge levels for such contraventions. As with clause 7, this provision is needed to fill the gap that would otherwise be left by the non-implementation of the moving-traffic parts of the 2004 Act. Finally, clause 6 addresses the current limitations on the special event powers in section 16A of the Road Traffic Regulation (Special Events) Act 1984. Although all these were relaxed to some extent by the 2006 Act to allow for road closures for London Olympic events, this clause further relaxes them to enable other types of restrictions to be imposed by an order under section 16A of the 1984 Act, such as parking controls or one-way streets. Clause 6 also allows for civil enforcement in relation to the contravention of such orders. There will be events during the games where the special event powers are usually used, such as for the marathon, and using familiar powers will make the process run more smoothly. That is important.
In conclusion, I began by saying that the enormous progress made in preparing for the Olympic and Paralympic games is a cause for national celebration.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
I apologise for intervening during the Minister’s conclusion, but I wanted to catch him before he sat down. Will he say something about the public disagreement over funding between the British Olympic Association and LOCOG? I suspect he hoped that this would not come up, but it was a surprise to many of us that it had not been resolved. If there is surplus money to made out of the games, why is it not going back to the taxpayers, in particular the council tax payers of London who are paying more than the rest of the country?
Hugh Robertson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—I nearly got through, didn’t I? I am glad to say that the dispute between the British Olympic Association and LOCOG, which was covered extensively in the media, has now been resolved. If there is any profit from the games, it will be divided by a formula that is set out in the host nation contract, which means that 20% goes to the International Olympic Committee, 20% goes to the national Olympics committee—in our case the BOA—and 60% is invested in community sport.
I started doing this job in opposition in 2004, and it is fair to say that in nearly six years on the beat I have not seen a single budget forecast for the games that produces an outrun profit. Without revealing too much of the inner workings of the Olympics budget, I fear that the worry has been on the other side of the equation—that we might not be able to balance the thing. That is now not an issue; the budget is balanced and will work well. At one stage I thought that the whole dispute was a slightly arcane argument about a minor part of the contract and a profit that will most likely not exist, so I was slightly perplexed as to why it had become such a big issue. Frankly, I think that it became a big issue because there was so little else to write about, as the construction and the organisation of the games were otherwise in such good shape. I am delighted that the thing has now been resolved and that we can all concentrate on rather more sensible matters.
As I also said at the beginning, the increasingly refined planning work that is now being carried out had identified a small number of technical issues that needed to be addressed to ensure that the legislation passed in 2006 worked as intended. It is also my intention—an intention that will be shared across this House—that the enforcement of the measures in the Bill and the 2006 Act will be sensible and proportionate. The issues that the Bill seeks to resolve are minor and technical, but they are also essential to providing the building blocks that will underpin a truly memorable games-time experience. On that basis I commend the Bill to the House.
Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Let me begin by saying that the Opposition are delighted to support the legislation. I thank the Minister and his officials for the opportunity to be briefed ahead of this debate. As he clearly indicated, the provisions in the Bill will allow us to discharge the obligations that we undertook when, five years ago in Singapore, we won the right to host the Olympic games. I also welcome, as he did, the extent to which we have managed to maintain the contract for cross-party support for the Olympic games. For eight of the 10 years of this project I had the privilege of being the Minister with whom the buck stopped. It is not often in government that one is dealing with a project one knows will extend beyond a general election, and which therefore must be beyond the interests of the governing parties at the time, and held in trust for the people of this country. The Olympics are one such project.
Let me turn briefly to the provisions in the Bill, which the Minister dealt with in considerable detail. The Bill builds on the 2006 Act, which was passed by the Government of whom I was part, updating and refining that legislation in light of operational understanding based on the enormously impressive planning, modelling and further consultation that has taken place since. The Bill updates the legislation in relation to advertising and trading regulations—crucial for public confidence—increases the maximum penalty for ticket touting, and deals with the management and enforcement of the Olympic route network and the additional traffic flows that the Olympics will create. This legislation represents another piece in the overall jigsaw of a multitude of measures that have been put in place to address the complexity of the logistical planning for the event and the degree of discipline required for operational delivery.
As we know, the Olympic park was the largest public sector building project in the whole of Europe. In its success lie many of the tests that should be applied to future developments on such a scale. However, even at this stage, before the park is finally complete, we can have growing confidence that it is a statement about the confidence and competence of UK plc. I pay tribute, as the Minister did, to the leadership of the Olympic Delivery Authority, and in particular to John Armitt and David Higgins. Their partnership needs to be remembered for many years to come, as they are the people who made these Olympic games possible. I would also like to include all the staff of the Olympic Delivery Authority, which is, quite frankly, the best public service organisation that I have ever had the privilege to work with. Every single member of staff should take credit for that. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who were my officials—they are now the Minister’s officials—in the Government Olympic Executive. They have done an outstanding and professional job in dealing with some of the difficult issues with the LOCOG budget and in maintaining both budgetary control across government and logistical consistency.
There is still some time to go, so this is not a moment for over-congratulation on the achievement, but we can take satisfaction from the extent to which the UK Government, working with their partner agencies, have done a reasonably good job of confounding the chorus of scepticism that usually accompanies such major projects. Just to recap on progress, as the Minister said, this great project—the biggest and most complex construction project in Europe—is, at this point, on time and under budget. The building work across the park is almost complete. Two or three weeks ago the final piece of turf was laid in the field of play in the Olympic stadium. I will return to this point, but I believe that the final sod came from Scunthorpe—a powerful statement about how the whole of the UK has contributed to the effort in the Olympic park.
At the end of July the Olympic Delivery Authority will hand over the stadium, the aquatic centre, the handball and basketball arenas, the international broadcasting centre and the main press centre. The white water park at Lee valley is now complete, and the work at Stratford station will also be completed. The anticipated final cost of the construction and development of the park now stands at £7.3 billion, with around £500 million of contingency available. However, another tribute to John Armitt and David Higgins is the fact that something like £780 million of savings have been made.
I should also like to refer to the importance of sustainability in the park, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has made many speeches in the House. When I last visited the park, I realised that the wetland area looked just as it did on the PowerPoint presentations that I used to make five or six years ago. That is a measure of just how professionally this project has been realised. Trees have been planted that were indigenous to the lower Lea valley 200 years ago.
I would also like to remind the House that once the games are over, more than 2,000 great crested newts will be repatriated from the sanctuary further up the Lea valley that they have been given during the construction process. I am not sure whether that fact will become an issue in the forthcoming mayoral contest, but there will be a post-games moment of celebration with the newts’ homecoming.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I hesitate to ask, but does my right hon. Friend think that one of the mayoral candidates is more favourably disposed towards newts than the other?
Tessa Jowell
The passion of our former hon. Friend, the former Member for Brent, East and former Mayor of London, for newts and many other great issues relating to London is well known.
One of the disciplines that has shaped the Olympic project has been confounding what would otherwise have been inevitable. This shows the importance of the Government working with the private sector and other agencies, because it is only the Government who can turn the tide in relation to those inevitabilities. The first example is the importance of bringing benefit not only to London but to the whole of the United Kingdom. A report that I commissioned showed that, had we done nothing to diffuse the benefits around the UK, the disproportionate benefit through displacement from other parts of the country would have been in the region of £4 billion. That would not have been new growth, but displacement to London, with a net additional growth benefit to London. It was because of that that, in the early stages of letting some 1,000 contracts, members of the Olympic Delivery Authority and many of us who are here today toured the country beating the drum to raise awareness of the need to bid for Olympic projects.
There was a considerable degree of success. To illustrate that point, the basketball arena—the largest temporary structure ever built—was constructed by a firm in Glasgow; Neath provided the steel for the aquatic centre, which will probably be the iconic symbol of our Olympic park; Bolton provided the steel for the Olympic stadium; Doncaster provided the steel cabling for the roof of the stadium; and the turf came from Scunthorpe. So 1,000 companies around the country, two thirds of them small and medium-sized businesses, won contracts to help to build the Olympic park and the Olympic village, with hundreds more involved in the supply chain.
I shall now turn to the second “inevitability”. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is a passionate advocate of the benefits for the people who live in the five Olympic boroughs, including her own constituents in Newham. There was a great fear that the Olympics would be an oasis that had very little relation to the five boroughs, and that the opportunities provided by the games—not only the construction process and the availability of jobs, but also the legacy—would simply pass the communities of the east end by. We are still to be judged on how far we have succeeded in that regard. The risk of falling behind the expectations of local people in east London must be a continuing spur to us all to ensure that those expectations are realised.
By the time the park is complete 30,000 people will have worked in it, 20% of whom will be residents of the six host Olympic boroughs, including Barking and Dagenham. That is well above the original target of 10% to 15%, but we must always believe that we can go further. Local people will have access to more than a third of the apprenticeships, and will be well placed to qualify for the more than 50,000 jobs that will be created in the area once the commercial development is complete. New homes will be built, and Stratford City—the UK’s largest retail centre—will be open in 2011.
For those who are sceptical about regeneration, it is worth placing on record the fact that half the original investment in the Westfield centre has now been recovered through the part-sale of the asset by Westfield to a pension fund and other investors. That is regeneration in action. That is what east London needs, but it would not have got it if we had not won the right to host the Olympic games. The Minister talked about engaging the rest of the country. We have seen the enthusiasm for tickets, and it is important that we recruit volunteers from around the country and that the regional benefits of the games are widely enjoyed.
We are pleased to see that the Bill’s provisions on advertising and trading during the games are pragmatic and reasonable. It is also sensible to reduce the burdens likely to fall on the police during the period, particularly given the pressures that they will have to cope with as a result of the cuts in their numbers in 2012. The provisions in the Bill are only a small part of the overall proposals on advertising and trading, many of which are being dealt with through secondary legislation and consulted on at the moment. I am confident that the Government are doing what is necessary to ensure that the regulations are appropriate, allowing the majority of businesses to continue to operate as normal and allowing freedom of movement for people coming to the games. We welcome the proposal to raise the maximum penalty for ticket touting at the Olympics from £5,000 to £20,000. The fact that tickets for the opening ceremony in Beijing were on sale at five times their face price provides all the persuasive evidence that we need that this provision is important.
We will obviously seek to probe further in Committee into the application of the provisions. The key determinant of whether they will be seen as draconian and disproportionate, or appropriate for facilitating the smooth running of the games, will be the way in which they are applied in practice. When the Bill comes to Committee we might give further consideration to how the non-legislative aspect of the application of these powers can be achieved.
We know, of course, about the controversy associated with the Olympic route network, and we have all made it clear that this is a prerequisite of becoming a host city. The choice of whether to have it is not one available to us—a point of which the people of London need constant reminding. Those people also need to be persuaded by the evidence of the reasonable way in which this will be policed.
When the Minister winds up the debate, will he consider whether the final approval of the violation charges for abuse of the Olympic route network should lie not with the Secretary of State but with the Mayor of London, which would be more directly consistent with the Mayor’s other powers? The potential fines might be controversial across London and for Londoners, so it is right for the elected Mayor of London to have a say over the level at which the charges are set.
In just 456 days, Britain will host the opening ceremony for the London 2012 Olympic games. Already in the Minister’s speech and in the interventions we have heard so far, representations have been made for those in our country who should enjoy special consideration. I think everybody will want to see that special consideration, whether it be to injured members of the armed forces or others, properly respected. I hope the House will also acknowledge the close anniversaries of winning the right to host the Olympic games and the terrorist bombings on London, which followed the day after our great success in Singapore. I hope there will be a place to recognise and honour the victims of 7/7 and those whose lives were changed for ever.
In 456 days’ time, 4 billion people will turn on to watch the opening ceremony in the Olympic stadium in east London, and we will have the chance of a lifetime to demonstrate what it is about our great city of which we are so proud, as well as our competence and our capability to deliver for the people of this country and visitors from around the world the largest peacetime logistical operation. I believe that we can have every confidence in looking forward to that. Perhaps the most important way of maintaining that confidence is to maintain a degree of humility at the privilege bestowed on us and at the responsibility we have on behalf of the international Olympic movement. We should remember that, in doing this, we are helping to honour the dreams and ambitions activated by the prospect of the Olympic games for every single citizen across our country.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
As a London Member of Parliament, as a mad sports fan and, indeed, as an owner and friend of newts—they cropped up in the previous speech, and they are not a monopoly interest of the previous Mayor—I am delighted to take part in this Second Reading debate. In acknowledging the commitment of previous Ministers in bringing the Olympics to London, I would particularly like to pay tribute to the present Minister for Sport and the Olympics, who told us in his opening speech of being six years on the beat. He is certainly a reassuring presence as he helps to guide us through the preparations for the Olympics.
Earlier this week, I got into the mood and experienced the emotions associated with the Olympics. I experienced frustration, anxiety, disappointment and then a final adrenalin push as I wanted to get to the end of the line before time ran out. Obviously, I am referring to applying for my tickets to attend the Olympics. We shall get a taste of national celebration tomorrow with the royal wedding, and we look forward to the Olympics when we will again have the opportunity to raise this country’s flag and be proud of what we can produce.
Next year’s Olympics and Paralympics will provide a great opportunity for the people of London and of this country to celebrate sportsmanship and sporting excellence—sportsmanship of which, sadly, we saw too little evidence in last night's champions league semi-final. The dedication and focus of athletes from across the world will set a fantastic example to young people. The investment that this Government and the previous Government have put into new facilities across the country will revive interest in fitness and games at every ability level and inspire the next generation of sportsmen and women, as well as promote a generation of more physically active people. In my neighbouring constituency of Broxbourne, the Lee Valley white water rafting centre is already open to the public, in advance of what will prove to be an excellent facility for canoeing and kayaking.
Furthermore, 2012 will provide an opportunity to celebrate Britain, our culture and our values. As we welcome thousands of visitors to London, we have an opportunity to showcase what it means to be a free country, which can ensure that an event of great size runs smoothly, successfully and enjoyably—without resorting to overbearing methods or controls. The world is watching, British taxpayers are watching and London council tax payers are certainly watching, and we must make certain that all those who support the Olympics can be proud not only of the performance of team GB, but of the manner in which the games are held and our infrastructure copes.
There are real challenges to achieving that. Some will seek to sell tickets illegally, as has already been mentioned, or fob people off with fakes, thereby cheating fans and supporters out of their money and tarring the spirit of the games. Some may try to advertise around Olympic grounds and spaces in a way that unfairly and misleadingly associates their products with the games, tricking those who view them into thinking that the companies or individuals involved are sponsoring or are officially endorsed by athletes or the Olympic games. We saw an example of that at the recent World cup, when orange-clad women were advertising the beverage that they wanted to push. Such ambush advertising is unfair not only on consumers, but on those who have donated and contributed towards the holding of the events that we will be able to experience and enjoy next year. We can look at the criticism of monopoly branding, but we should recognise the immense financial impact of the games—as the Minister said, £700 million is no mean amount of money, which has helped to reduce the burden on taxpayers.
Those representing London constituencies—I see several of my hon. Friends in their places—will be especially aware of the need to ensure careful planning and flexible powers, so that the sheer size and scale of both the Olympics and our city do not interfere with our commitment to provide accessible sites and quick transport links to and from Olympic venues. This needs to be done proportionately, without inhibiting the free flow of normal business in and around London.
The Bill will help to ensure that our 2012 celebrations will be unmitigated by those challenges in a way that is simple, efficient, targeted, transparent and affordable. The Bill contains simple solutions such as increasing the maximum fine for the unauthorised sale of tickets from £5,000 to £20,000—a serious deterrent to those who would take advantage of other people’s enthusiasm for the games—without creating any new offence or a complicated set of procedures. The Bill will give the responsibility for dealing with property confiscated under advertising and trading regulations to the Olympic Delivery Authority enforcement officers, allowing them to make use of powers and procedures tailored for the period covering the Olympics, removing an unnecessary burden from the shoulders of the police.
The key principle, as has already been mentioned, is proportionality, particularly with respect to clause 1, which concerns the removal of infringing articles. As we know all too well, labels are part and parcel of the everyday lives of young people in particular, and the labels on their clothes and the bags that they carry around might technically fall into the classification of infringement. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that proportionality will be applied. I am not talking about planned and organised ambush advertising in contravention of the rules; I am talking about inadvertent advertising by people who attend the games with labels all over their bodies and the articles that they are carrying.
When I referred to proportionality, I did not mean just that officials should not seek to prosecute such people—indeed, we would not expect them to do so—but that the games should not get off to a bad start with the confiscation of articles. For instance, a young person might be carrying the latest man bag with a label emblazoned on it. We should bear in mind that, while it may be appropriate in some respects for local authorities to carry out the task of enforcement, they are, sadly, sometimes guilty of over-zealous application of new powers.
Hugh Robertson
Obviously I explained the position very badly in my speech. Not all enforcement officers will come from local authorities. The ODA will naturally look to them when recruiting officers, because they have some expertise, but anyone who is suitably qualified can do the job. As for the point made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, I have been told that under the contract that will be in force, local authorities will be reimbursed for the cost of losing officials if they are selected to act as enforcement officers.
Mr Burrowes
I am grateful for that clarification. Certainly all available expertise should be used, but I hope that there will be proper and clear guidance so that the public are aware of the application of those powers in advance, and can be reassured that we mean it when we speak of proportionality. I am thinking particularly of the seizure of articles to prevent future contravention of the rules. We do not want people to lose their possessions through inadvertent contravention because they did not know the rules. Common sense must be applied.
The measures in the Bill are efficient. They allow the ODA to make decisions quickly about traffic control, and enable ODA officers to respond speedily to any emergencies that require unplanned traffic control and road closures. I am sure that all Members welcome those powers, which will free up the police to focus on protecting the public and preventing serious crime. We are all aware of the extra risk of human trafficking and terrorism posed by the games.
The measures are also properly targeted. They will facilitate flexible application and enforcement of traffic control and advertising notices in specific, well defined areas, tailoring the force of notices to the times when those areas are being used for Olympic events. The north circular road runs through my constituency, and it is renowned for being viewed at a very slow pace by people sitting in traffic jams. I am pleased that the improvements introduced by the Mayor will be in place and that the roadworks will have been sorted out in good time for the Olympics. However, the north circular has a direct impact on my constituents and people in neighbouring constituencies, and although the improvements have helped road safety, it has been acknowledged that they will do little to deal with current congestion, let alone the additional impact of the Olympics. It is important for the traffic management orders to be dealt with proportionately and carefully to minimise the impact on my constituents and others in the area.
Crucially, the Bill will make the procedures surrounding the Olympics more transparent. The rules governing the way in which seized property will be treated, and how and when it will be returned or disposed of, are set out in detail in new sections 31A to 31E. I welcome that transparency, but I feel it should be taken further. Guidance should make clear to those who may consider advertising, trading or using their vehicles in a way that ignores the Olympic notices what penalties they can expect and how their cases will be treated.
At a time where we are making necessary cuts in expenditure to revive our economy and make it secure, the House should note that the amendments in the Bill are affordable. The ODA has estimated that it will incur only an additional £22,000 in costs by taking responsibility for confiscated property, a move that will save the police considerably more money. The loss of business revenue expected from the provision of amended advertising regulations along the games road race route is expected to be no more than £15,400, which is a small price to pay for the maintaining and enhancement of the integrity and success of our Olympic and Paralympic games.
This is a common-sense Bill which responds practically to the challenges that accompany the privilege of hosting the games. It does small things to ensure that the big and positive effects of the games—economic, social and sporting—are unhindered. It will, I believe, protect the interests of the many people who want to enjoy the games without losing time and money to those who seek to take advantage of what will rightly be a national celebration, surpassing even tomorrow’s national celebration to become the greatest show on earth.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
This is not my first speech on the Olympics. I remember being in the House on the day that London won the Olympic bid, and describing my pride in the fact that it had been chosen and my excitement at being the Member of Parliament representing the area where the Olympic park would be based. Just in case any Government Members imagine that the Olympic park is an MP-free zone, let me state emphatically that it is not.
I am not sure whether any Members who are in the Chamber today have visited the Olympic site, but I agree entirely with what the Minister said earlier: the progress that has been made in turning what was effectively an industrial wasteland unto a beautiful park has been amazing. I am not the type of woman to wax lyrical about beautiful buildings, but I must say that I have become quite misty-eyed when looking at the buildings that we have managed to produce in the Olympic park. If Members have not been there, I urge them to go. It really is rather beautiful.
Before I deal with the provisions in the Bill, let me, as the local Member of Parliament, put the debate in context by speaking of the communities who will be most affected by the games, and who were promised when we placed the bid that they would benefit from them. I will not go into a long and detailed explanation or a statistical analysis of the poverty in London—a London which, despite City bonuses and high incomes, is also a place of real economic deprivation and hardship—but we should bear it in mind that the Olympic park is sited in the fourth poorest part of London, next door to Hackney and Tower Hamlets, which are respectively the poorest and second poorest parts.
The bid for the games was predicated on the leaving of an important legacy for my constituents and those of my hon. Friends representing east and south-east London constituencies. The bid document stated:
“By staging the Games in this part of the city, the most enduring legacy of the Olympics will be the regeneration of an entire community for the direct benefit of everyone who lives there.”
The ambition of the bid was big, but I did not and still do not believe that it is unachievable. The games present us with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a real and positive difference to an entire community in what is arguably the poorest area in the country. It is for that reason that the Olympic and Paralympic games must not be simply a fabulous sporting and cultural spectacle for a few weeks in the summer of 2012. They must become a mechanism for leaving lasting improvements in the health, housing, employment and skills of Londoners. To spend that much money and not achieve a lasting and positive legacy would be obscene. In years to come, the success of the 2012 games will be judged in two ways. It will be judged by the people’s experiences of the games during the fortnight—the warmth of our welcome, the quality of the competition, the slickness of our organisation, and the sheer excitement of the moment as we cheer our Olympic hopefuls to victory. Most importantly however, especially in the east of London, the games will be judged by what they leave behind—by whether or not they have managed to kick-start a sustained regeneration and renewal of that part of the poorest area of the country. The test applied by local people will be how many new homes and jobs have been created, and how much prosperity has been generated.
We made some big promises on those matters to the International Olympic Committee; indeed, many say the ambitious vision we offered for the future was what led to our winning the bid. We made equally big promises to the people of east London about what it would be like to host the Olympics and what the long-term benefits would be, and we now need to make sure we fulfil those commitments.
The people of the east end, including the people of my constituency, talk to me about how excited they still are at the prospect of the games coming—and they are excited. Young children have been engaged rather well in the process of putting on the games. Children at schools in my constituency have come along to watch the building process as it happens, and they feel part of it. That excitement is still with the local people I represent—and, fortunately, local polling evidence supports that too. I must tell the Minister, however, that there is still a slight feeling of unease in the constituency. People are becoming worried that the games might steamroller them, instead of helping to advance their interests, and they wonder if the promises we made for the future will actually be realised, and whether the benefits will remain after the Olympic torch has moved on. That is the context in which we are discussing the Bill.
I note the Minister’s assurance that the Bill does not make any significant policy changes, and that it is designed to deliver the intentions behind the original legislation. In the main, that is a good thing, although I admit to having been a somewhat critical friend of the former Government as we created the framework to deliver the games and its legacy. I am also pleased to note that the consultation on the Bill runs until 30 May, and I look forward to considering the results. However, I am sure Members will agree that the sensitivity and intelligence with which the provisions are implemented will be of greater importance than the details of the provisions themselves. It is crucial that local communities feel respected and engaged in all the planning and arrangements before the Olympics, to ensure that there is genuine access to the good things that they expect to come afterwards.
I understand that the consultation results will be published on the 2012 website, and I hope that they are made available very soon after the close of the consultation period, alongside a plan of action, so that those who will be most affected will know what is to happen. To be honest, I do not think that a notice on the website will achieve that end. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that the fabulous local campaigning newspaper, the Newham Recorder, is involved so that it can fully inform its readership and my constituents of the results of the consultation and what actions might stem from it.
The Bill’s provisions on advertising, trading, ticket touting and traffic management during the games period appear to be pragmatic and reasonable, and I wholeheartedly support the increase in the maximum fine for ticket touting from £5,000 to £20,000 and gently ask if we think that that is high enough given the potential profitability of illegal touting. If we do not think it is high enough, might we put in place an elastic higher end to cover those who might profit more than hitherto expected from such illegal activity?
Businesses in Newham—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises—have not all felt that it is easy to participate in the supply chain. They still see London 2012 as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity however, and I do not want any unreasonable or poorly designed measures to undermine it for them, or to lead to their incurring additional costs. I would hate to see them embark on a course of action that they then have to change or abandon because it does not accord with the branding rules or other measures we might introduce at a later stage. As the Minister has acknowledged, the Olympic branding regulations are complex, and local businesses located in the regulatory zone that are not official outlets could have their goods seized if their activities contravene them. I understand the need for the regulations, but local traders could find themselves in trouble simply by selling Coca-Cola to thirsty visitors.
Hugh Robertson
I can immediately set the hon. Lady’s mind at rest on this point. There is a very tight exclusion zone around the venues that will absolutely not stretch into the areas in which many of her local businesses operate, so there is no chance at all of that happening. Also of course, all these regulations will be well publicised before the event. I do not think there is anything new in this set of amendments that would cause difficulty. Businesses do have to pay close attention to the provisions of the original 2006 Act, which includes a series of relevant measures under which if they were to start to advertise their business on the back of London 2012, they would almost certainly contravene regulations. Those regulations were contained in the original Act however, not in this set of amendments.
Lyn Brown
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I agree that there was substantial debate on the previous regulations, but local businesses have raised issues with me to do with what brandings they can use outside the exclusion zone and whether that might contravene the rules. I understand that no official advice has yet been issued. If it has been issued, I would be grateful to be told that I am wrong, but if it has not yet been issued, I urge that it should be so and that it should be publicised in order to prevent future misunderstandings that could generate local resentment.
Traders are also anxious to see the detail of the fair compensation that will be available to them if their businesses are adversely affected. When the Minister sums up, I would be grateful if he could give an indication of when that information might be made available. It says in the consultation that tackling unauthorised trading within the regulated zones will probably be undertaken by council staff experienced in dealing with similar enforcement issues, but the level of unlawful trading, especially in the Olympic zone, is likely to be far higher than ever experienced locally before. I understand that additional funds will be made available to provide for enforcement officers, and I hope that those officers will come from local councils. It is essential that local enforcement officers are employed in order to ensure that there is appropriate sensitivity in the enforcement of regulations at the games—that refers to a point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes).
I also expect that the enforcement officers will need additional support from the local police. Given that we are facing cuts of 8% to the local police force in 2012, I would be grateful if the Minister could guarantee, either today or at a later date, that that support will come from the local force. It is from the local force that I would particularly like to see the support coming.
We know that the designation of the Olympic park zone is likely to displace illegal activity to the adjoining areas. That will potentially have an impact on pedestrian safety and on legitimate established traders, with implications for council and police resources too. Again, I ask that finance be put aside to deal with that effectively.
London’s bid for the 2012 games was brilliantly conceived and executed, and was predicated on a long-term legacy. In order to shape those outcomes, the reality needs to live up to the words, and there is still much more to do. The scale and nature of worklessness in Newham, where nine jobseeker’s allowance claimants are chasing each vacancy, means that there is a need for additional support if local people are to develop the skills to take the jobs that will become available. I welcome the positive results from initiatives such as the Workplace project in Newham but I, like my hon. Friends in east London, have long argued that more needs to be done to ensure that the entire Olympics project creates new kinds of jobs, not only in construction, important though that is, but in hospitality, media, retail, sport and other sectors. Both local and central Government, including all Departments, must continue to work together to exploit the once-in-a-lifetime chance of marketing the area internationally during the games to bring long- overdue private sector investment and create prosperity in our region.
I wish briefly to discuss other things that are on offer but that we are perhaps not exploiting, and these relate to the tourist trade in east London. The area must be ready to play its part in London’s offer to tourists from all around the world. The Olympic site, Stratford City, Canary wharf, maritime Greenwich, Brick lane, The O2, Greenwich peninsula and the Royal docks are obvious jewels in east London’s crown that are ripe for marketing to businesses. We also have some less obvious tourist assets, which are perhaps unknown to many hon. Members and to many Londoners but which include: the Asian one-stop wedding shop in Green street, in my constituency; and the creative hubs at Three Mills, where “Bad Girls” was filmed, Whitechapel and Leamouth. The east end of London has a great history and a vibrant and hugely diverse local culture. It is well placed to attract the various types of, and the share of, tourists from this country and abroad, if only people knew about it.
I am grateful for your indulgence in widening the parameters of this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that I can advocate properly on behalf of my constituents, and I offer a final thought in summation. The history of recent Olympic games offers many lessons. It shows that hosting this type of global event can renew local areas and transform the life chances of the people in them, as happened in Barcelona; it can leave underused stadiums, as happened in Athens or Sydney; or it can lead to local populations being priced out of the attractive new housing, as happened in Atlanta. The experts are clear that the legacy momentum is the single most important factor determining the extent to which the games drive the transformation of the host city, with a significant element of that legacy needing to be delivered before the games begin. So the Government need urgently to take these lessons to heart. They must get a move on and galvanise the actions needed to secure the long-term benefits from the games if we are to emulate the success of Barcelona, as we should all sincerely hope we are able to do.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am allowing a bit of latitude and I hope that Members will still remember to refer to the Bill. I recognise that it is important to raise constituency interests and I will keep allowing this latitude.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) told the House that spending on the Government art collection would be frozen for the next two years. However, in a written answer given to me by the same Minister I was told that spending on new works of art for the Government collection would total £298,000 for the next two years. Could you arrange for the Minister to come back to the House to clarify what the true position is?
Mr Deputy Speaker
It is not a matter for the Chair to do that. The hon. Lady has rightly put this on the record and I am sure that the Government will have taken her comments on board. If clarification is needed, I am sure it will be forthcoming. I now call Mr Don Foster.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
I am not only particularly grateful to you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who represents one of the Olympic boroughs and, as such, has rightly adopted a critical friend approach. What she could not disguise was her enthusiasm for and excitement about the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics, which my party shares. Liberal Democrat Members were delighted to be supporters of London’s bid and we were highly pleased with its success. We continue to be full supporters of the work that is going on and we are absolutely confident that not only are we going to have a brilliant sporting and cultural extravaganza in London and elsewhere in 2012, but that it will bring a lasting legacy to all parts of the United Kingdom.
I am also pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), who was right to say that we owe a debt of gratitude to all the staff who have worked in the Olympic Delivery Authority and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. They have done fantastically well to ensure not only that the games look almost certain to be on budget and on time, but that they deliver the sporting and cultural extravaganza that we are looking forward to seeing. It would be remiss of this House if it did not also thank her for the work that she has done during the major part of the period leading up to the bid and since. Although she was successful in achieving many things, two stand out in my mind: the setting up of an organisation that is delivering so well and, in particular, the work she was able to initiate to ensure that we are using these Olympics to inspire young people, not only in this country but all over the world, about sport; and the remarkable but undersung achievement of obtaining, for the first time ever, permission from the IOC for another type of branding—the Inspire mark. It has inspired many people to undertake activities linked to the 2012 games that might otherwise not have happened, and she deserves full praise for that.
The right hon. Lady was right to say that there is cross-party support for the games and it would be wrong of me not to illustrate that by saying how delighted I am that this Minister has responsibility for the 2012 games. He not only provides a very safe pair of hands and is extremely knowledgeable but, as he rightly says, he has been round the block on this issue for as long as many of us have. This excitement is not confined to us in this Chamber, but it is shared all the way around the United Kingdom. That is demonstrated by not only the fantastic success of the ticket sales, which I shall discuss further in a moment, but the very large number of people, which is far in excess of the number we need, who have applied to be volunteers—games makers—for the Olympics and Paralympics. That illustrates people’s real enthusiasm. In retrospect, we got one thing wrong: I am referring to the fact that at the moment many people do not know whether or not they have been chosen to be games makers and, thus, whether or not they should have applied for tickets. I know that a number of these people would have preferred the games makers to be appointed ahead of the ticket application process, but I say that with the benefit of hindsight.
We are proud supporters of the Olympics and the Paralympics and we support the measures in the Bill. We are all huge fans of the wonderful and brilliant briefings that we get from the House of Commons Library. The one on this Bill is no exception. In its opening sentence, it makes it very clear that this is not a major Bill but merely one that
“makes a small number of technical amendments to the advertising and trading, ticket touting, and traffic management provisions of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006.”
You have been very generous, Mr Deputy Speaker, in allowing people to range on much broader subjects than this not very major Bill, which deals with a few technical amendments.
Those amendments are important, none the less, but before I deal with them, let me say that I am particularly delighted that the Bill’s title includes the word “Paralympics”. As the former Secretary of State and Minister with responsibility for these matters, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood will know, during the passage of the 2006 Act, on which many of us spent many happy hours, it was necessary for me to table an amendment to ensure that the word “Paralympics” was included in the title and got the same prominence as the Olympics. My zeal for the Paralympics at that time has paid off more recently because the British Paralympic Association has agreed that it will base its pre-games training camp in the wonderful city of Bath and the fantastic facilities of Bath university’s sports training village. To follow the tradition established by the hon. Member for West Ham, I can reveal that that news was announced in my wonderful local newspaper, The Bath Chronicle.
The measures in the Bill—to stick to your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker—deal with advertising and trading provisions, as the Minister has rightly said. The 2006 Act sought to ensure that we have measures in place that meet the IOC requirements and that, crucially, protect the important sponsors for the games from things such as ambush marketing. Any Member who has seen the draft version of the relevant regulations, which, as we have heard, are out for consultation, will be pleased, I am sure, that the proposals offers a light-touch approach while meeting our obligations. It is sufficient to deter illegal activity while avoiding the heavy-handed approach that has marred some previous games. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State confirm in answer to a question earlier today that the measures will be used “sensitively” whereas the Minister, using a different phrase, has said in this debate that they will be used “proportionately”. I think we would all agree that whether the approach is light touch, sensitive or proportionate, that is what we want it to be—we want all three.
It was probably not sensible for the 2006 Act to suggest that the police, with their myriad other concerns, should be responsible for dealing with goods confiscated from illegal street trading, so it makes sense for that responsibility to be transferred to the ODA. Notwithstanding the large number of interventions that the Minister had to deal with about who the ODA officials would be—I suspect that largely they will be trading standards officers from local councils—the Bill deals only with who will look after the confiscated goods and the rules for handing them back.
Another reason it makes more sense to move that responsibility to the ODA is that the rules used by the police for handing back such goods are incredibly bizarre and come from a Victorian era. The rules that these measures are based on—the ones used by trading standards officers—are much clearer and much simpler and will therefore be easier to follow. It is right that we should have clear rules about when goods—even vehicles—must be handed back and the Bill provides them for us.
It also makes sense to have measures in place to ensure that we can deal with changes made at short notice to games venues or the timing of events so that we can continue to meet our obligations to the IOC and our sponsors. Given that Parliament has already agreed to such procedures for the Commonwealth games in Glasgow, I see no reason why we should not be doing exactly the same for London 2012.
The need for contingencies for last-minute changes to venues or event timing applies equally to transport and the Olympic route network. That is what these small technical measures deal with. It makes sense to address traffic regulation orders, traffic regulation notices and special events notices to ensure that everything that can be done is done to keep London moving during the Olympic and Paralympic games. As other Members have said, particularly the hon. Member for West Ham, we must be ever vigilant to ensure that everybody in London is aware of the implications of the imposition of the Olympic route network. The last thing we want is a lot of bad publicity from people claiming that they were not given notice that their regular car parking space would disappear for a few weeks during the Olympics and Paralympics, or from a corner shop that finds that trade drops remarkably because people cannot stop outside it. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said that Londoners are well aware of the need for such measures, and although that may be true, every single person needs to be given plenty of notice not only of why these changes are important but of what the impact on them will be.
Incidentally, I also welcome the huge amount of work that the ODA is doing on traffic demand management, which is rarely talked about in these debates. It is all very well to put in place all the measures to find routes, but we have to remember that businesses in London must continue to operate. It is crucial that we work with those businesses and try, for instance, to persuade them to move the operation of their business to different times so that they are not moving around at a time when we need the route network and other roads in the vicinity to get people to and from the games.
As we have heard, the final measure in the Bill concerns ticket touting. The games provide a wonderful opportunity for many people to see a wide range of both Olympic and Paralympic sports performed by the best athletes in the world. For many games goers, this will be a real opportunity to engage with sports that they might not necessarily know much about. Having seen a demonstration of one Paralympic sport from the British Paralympic team, training in Bath, I am convinced that it will be the new hit sport in the United Kingdom. If any right hon. or hon. Member has not yet come across goalball, I strongly recommend that they go and find out about it. It is an amazing event with three people in a team who simply have to get a ball into the net of the opposing side. The only twist is that all the participants are totally blind and judge how to play entirely by hearing the sound of a bell inside the ball. It is fast, furious and exciting, and given that Channel 4 has the rights to film the Paralympics, I hope it will focus on that sport and that it will become a national winner.
As so many people are going to be excited by the games and are going to want to apply for tickets, not just in the recent round but in subsequent rounds—1.8 million people have applied, the statistics show that many of the sports are sold out, 20 million applications have been made for just 6.6 million tickets and more than 50% of the 650 sessions have been oversubscribed—pickings will be ripe for ticket touts unless we take appropriate action. Given the experience of previous games, for example the allegations in Beijing in 2008 that meant that not only outsiders but Olympic officials and the families of competitors were caught up in ticketing scams, it is absolutely right that we should do everything we can in that regard.
I referred in an intervention to the excellent work of Operation Podium, which has already closed down a large number of illegal sites and will no doubt continue to do so. It was interesting that people working on that project said categorically that the £5,000 fine was insufficient to deter the ticket touts. More recently, the Minister has said that we need to do more about this issue, as has the Home Secretary. I think it is absolutely right that we are increasing the fine from £5,000 to £20,000. I am told that in a top-flight football match it is possible for ticket touts to get away with about £100,000, so a £5,000 fine will be seen merely as a business expense whereas a £20,000 fine will make it much more likely that touts will stop and think.
I think that what is proposed in the Bill is absolutely right and that the level is right, but I say gently to the Minister that if we are doing this for the Olympics, why are we not beginning to do something about all the other sporting events? The Lawn Tennis Association is already asking us why, if we can do this for the Olympics, we are not applying it to Wimbledon. I know that there are complications because we desperately want to get the legitimate, secondary ticket exchange market operating more effectively. I know it is not easy, but the House has to spend a bit more time discussing what we are going to do about ticket touting.
It is absolutely critical that for the Olympic and Paralympic games we have a robust, efficient, speedy and effective ticket exchange scheme. Many people who bid for tickets in what was meant to be a marathon not a sprint, but which ended up being a marathon with a sprint ending, have overbid because they did not think they would get the full amount. A lot of people are going to be worried about having a lot of tickets on their hands and will not want to use ticket touts but to do things legally, and we have to assure them that a system is in place. It is regrettable that details of the official ticket exchange scheme have not yet been made fully public and it is important that that is done at the earliest opportunity.
Hugh Robertson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I can see the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) twitching in her seat, given her private Member’s Bill, so I thought it might be helpful if I cleared up this point. We have brought the regulations forward in response to a specific threat that has been identified by the Metropolitan police as part of Operation Podium. We also asked the police about ticket touting more generally and they have not identified a more generalised threat. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, this issue was considered by the previous Government and the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in the previous Parliament and they both said that there was insufficient evidence of the need to go for a more general ban on ticket touting.
Mr Foster
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I apologise to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson)—I hope that she is going to say a little more about this issue and I think she was absolutely right to bring forward her private Member’s Bill. On its Second Reading she referred to this very specific point and no doubt she will expand on that in a few minutes.
As I have said, the Bill contains a relatively small number of technical adjustments to the largely excellent 2006 Act and it has my full support. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said that we had 554 days, I think it is, before the Olympics begin, but I will be getting excited sooner because the torch parade will begin 70 days before that. That is when the real excitement will begin for what is going to be a wonderful sporting and cultural extravaganza in this country, bringing real and lasting benefit to businesses, sport, culture, tourism and many other aspects of our life. I am confident that it is going to be a great spectacle that will have a lasting benefit and I think that these small additional measures will ensure that it will be even better than it might otherwise have been.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), who I wish had been able to attend the Second Reading of my private Member’s Bill, as I would have had another supporter in the House for what I was trying to achieve.
I welcome the Bill, which makes some very sensible amendments and additions to the 2006 Act. I am pleased that the Government have so far demonstrated that they are as committed to delivering a vibrant and memorable games as the previous Government were, even if they are not quite so keen on parts of the legacy side of things. I am referring specifically to the free swimming and the school sports partnerships, which have been scrapped.
Hugh Robertson
I am going to take this only so far, as this has been a consensual debate thus far and I do not want change that. I am absolutely prepared to take criticism from the hon. Lady about this if she will tell me what she would have cut from the sports budget had that not been done.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I have allowed latitude but I do not want us to get into a political row. This has been a good debate so far and I am sure that the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) will think about how her speech is going to continue.
Mrs Hodgson
I did not intend to expand on that point, but if I had responded, without your intervention, Mr Deputy Speaker, it would have been only to say that such decisions were above my pay grade.
I want to place on record my praise for the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and the Olympic Delivery Authority for the excellent way in which the preparations for the games are coming together. It would also be remiss of me not to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) again on the integral role that she has played in securing the games. The fact that we have them here in the UK in the first place is one of her greatest achievements. We talk about legacies, and that is her legacy to the country from her time as the Olympics Minister.
As we have heard, this week saw the close of the application process for the tickets. I had planned to apply for tickets but then decided that I would wait and test out the resale forum that the right hon. Member for Bath was just asking for more details about. I am interested in seeing how that works, and hon. Members might be aware why I am so interested in that issue. I believe that that mechanism could be rolled out to tackle ticket touting across the board for all major sporting, cultural and live entertainment events, as I suggested on Second Reading of my Sale of Tickets (Sporting and Cultural Events) Bill. I am sure that the Minister and other hon. Members will not be surprised that it is on the subject of ticket touting, and therefore clause 3 of the Bill, that I wish to concentrate my comments today.
I agree wholeheartedly with the provision to increase the fine for those prosecuted under section 31 of the 2006 Act. I know from my own meetings with officers from Operation Podium that touts caused serious problems at the Beijing games, and it is absolutely right that the Government and the police should do everything within their power to ensure that the same does not happen here. As I told the House on Second Reading of my Bill in January, those officers from Operation Podium told me, when I met them to discuss my Bill, that a fine of £5,000 would be seen as an occupational hazard by the real hard core of touts, particularly as it is possible to make that much profit or more on a single ticket to one of the premium sessions, such as the opening or closing ceremony.
The right hon. Member for Bath has mentioned Wimbledon, which happens every year but for which debenture tickets have been known to sell at mark-ups of £10,000 each. The Olympics takes place every four years, but it is not in the UK every four years or even every 40 years, so for many of our constituents, even the relatively well-off ones, being able to go to them is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It would therefore be no surprise whatever to see tickets going at astronomical mark-ups. That prompts the question that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) asked—whether even a £20,000 fine would be seen as nothing more than an inconvenience to some of the hardcore, criminal, organised touts. However, I understand that Ministers have to draw the line somewhere, and I am fairly confident that £20,000 is sufficient to deter the touts at the bottom of the pyramid—the kind of chancers who might ordinarily get half a dozen tickets to a gig to sell on. I hope that when big operators are caught, the prosecution will assess the offence as a lifestyle crime and claw back more substantial amounts of money by using the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that issue in his closing remarks.
The next key part of the drive to stamp out touts from the Olympics is to remove their market as far as possible. By that I mean making sure the public know that tickets they buy from anywhere other than the official website—and, from next year, I believe, the official resale or exchange forum—have been sold to them illegally. For many, although not all, this will serve to change their attitude to buying from a tout. Of course, the task of changing attitudes might be difficult, because touting for almost every other form of live entertainment, as we heard in response to the right hon. Member for Bath, is still allowed and condoned by this Government—as it was, it must be said, by the previous Government. Indeed, some Opposition Members came along to the Second Reading of my private Member’s Bill to say that they thought ticket touting was a classic case of the free market in action and that touts were nothing more than entrepreneurs. It is good to know that the spirit of Baroness Thatcher is still unashamedly alive on the Tory Back Benches, but it makes one wonder whether the Minister might have a small Back-Bench rebellion on his hands today.
However, I notice that some of my main adversaries during the debate on my private Member’s Bill are not present today. Perhaps the Minister has already neutered their free-market tendencies—I hope that they are recovering well. Presumably, they might say that Olympic tickets are indistinct from tickets to a 200-capacity U2 gig, and are an asset to be traded like any other. Either way, I am pleased that the amendment is being made today and that touting’s parasitical nature and criminality are being taken seriously by both the police and the Minister.
During the course of the conversations that the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues will have had with police and officers on the inclusion of clause 3 in this Bill, I hope that they will have been sufficiently convinced of the egregious nature of ticket touting to engage with me now and look for ways of ensuring that fans of other sporting and live entertainment events will enjoy similar protection. After all, Ministers must have been very convinced by the evidence presented to them, as we have already heard.
A Home Office press notice on 10 March stated, in a direct quote from the Home Secretary:
“The focus of the government and everyone involved is to deliver a safe and secure Olympic and Paralympic Games that London, the UK and the world can enjoy. It will not be spoiled by ticket touts.”
That is great, and I could not agree more. Allowing touting, either by not legislating or by not enforcing that legislation, would be hugely detrimental to ordinary fans who want to get along to the games. We know that because we can see how detrimental it is every night of the week in towns and cities up and down the country to fans who want to go to gigs, matches, festivals and shows.
In the Home Office press release, Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison, the national Olympic security co-ordinator, stated:
“We do not want our Games blighted by touts....Touts are part of organised criminal networks, often involved in other crimes, and we are committed to dismantling them layer by layer.”
The Minister intervened on the right hon. Member for Bath to say that that relates in particular to the Olympic games, but I have been presented with evidence showing that those criminal networks are not only set up to take advantage of the Olympic games, but that they already exist and are taking advantage every time a bout of tickets goes on sale.
Hugh Robertson
I made an undertaking on Second Reading of the hon. Lady’s Bill to look at that issue again, notwithstanding the advice of the Select Committee and, indeed, the position we inherited from the previous Government. It was made abundantly clear to me that there was no such evidence. She told me on Second Reading that there was evidence, but when I asked the Home Office directly I was told that there is no evidence of a more generalised threat. There is evidence of a specific threat towards certain high-profile events, of which the Olympics are one.
Mrs Hodgson
I do not want to get into an argument with the Minister—heaven forbid—but when I met officers from Operation Podium and from the Met’s team on money laundering, I was told that they had evidence and that they were dealing with touts on a large, organised criminal basis and in relation to all touting. They said specifically that they were working towards the Olympics, and there have already been arrests under Operation Podium, but this concerns gangs that were already operating and making large sums of money; the industry runs to £10 billion.
I could not agree more with what Chris Allison said, but it is interesting to note the difference between the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on this issue. The Minister committed on Second Reading of my Bill to looking further into the matter, and I am pleased that he has done so, as obviously his conversations have led to clause 3. I hope that Ministers now see that there is a problem. The Minister is still saying that the problem relates specifically to the Olympic games—
Mrs Hodgson
“Specific high-profile events”: that recognises that the problem could go beyond the Olympic games. If the Minister does not mind, I will take what he just said as a very positive sign that perhaps my campaign could still catch hold, and I could go some way towards convincing him of the need for further legislation.
I am aware that the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) spoke to the Secretary of State’s office on 17 March about setting up a meeting with representatives from the live entertainment and sporting industries, him and myself to discuss this matter. I believe that he is yet to receive a response to that request, but I hope that it will find its way into the Secretary State’s red box soon. Many prominent entertainment and industry professionals are very keen for a chance to put their case to the Secretary of State, and could perhaps bring the further evidence that he might require on the criminality, and how widespread the problem is, not only for major sporting events but for festivals and music gigs.
To conclude, I support the Bill and its aims wholeheartedly and look forward to it reaching the statute book in good time, preferably before people get to hear whether their ticket applications have been successful, because they may then be tempted to tout them. Clarification on whether the Bill will be passed before people find out whether their ticket applications have been successful would be very helpful. As I said, I hope that in the course of arriving at clause 3 the Government’s position on touting more generally will have shifted sufficiently to mean that they will now engage meaningfully with me and other hon. Members from both sides of the House who want more action to be taken to protect fans of all live entertainment, sporting and cultural events from exploitation by touts.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
One of the noticeable features of today’s debate is the largely all-party spirit in which it has been conducted. The Minister has been though this for many years, in opposition and now in government, and forms a formidable trio alongside the right hon. Members for Bath (Mr Foster) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell). I pay tribute to all three for the way in which they have maintained the all-party consensus on the subject.
One of the Secretary of State’s smarter decisions was to reappoint the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood to the Olympic Board, which I suspect was largely because of her non-partisan approach when in government, which she has continued in opposition. She has left us, however, with the ultimate sports quiz question: “Why did the last sod come from Scunthorpe?” I do not know the answer to it, but I suspect that it may not just be a sports quiz question; it may appear in lots of comedy shows. Perhaps the Minister can inform us of the answer when he winds up the debate. Anyway, the right hon. Lady has left the question tantalisingly there.
The games are a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and that has resonated through the debate. Everyone recognises that point, and those who are hostile to the games seem to be fading away as the Olympics get closer and the obvious enthusiasm for them continues. As a London Member, I am proud of my city’s ability to put on the games, and my constituents are beginning to join in the enthusiasm around them.
The games present a huge opportunity for London, and for the United Kingdom as a whole. I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is not still here—[Interruption.] Oh, she is still here, but she has moved on to the Opposition Front Bench. She spoke about the way in which her constituency has been regenerated, and I look not just at her constituency, but at the east end of the capital, of which I am a part. For it to be regenerated for £9 billion is a pretty good deal, because it involves not just that £9 billion, but what it is levering in, and the regeneration that the Minister and the shadow Minister mentioned. I join them in paying tribute to the way in which the Olympic Delivery Authority has brought that about.
I remember John Armitt saying that there was never a better time to build the site, because he had a competitive materials market in which to operate and plenty of labour at the time. We should be grateful for large mercies in that respect, but he took his opportunity and has done a great job. The stadium was, I think, completed a few weeks early and on budget, which is tremendous, and all those concerned are to be congratulated.
I congratulate also the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games on its continued meticulous planning over the past few years. Its attention to detail has paid off, and it culminated in a very successful ticketing exercise. I am hugely impressed by the statistics, which show that more than 20 million tickets have been applied for by 1.8 million people, and that it is the biggest ticketing exercise ever undertaken in the United Kingdom. That is sensational stuff, it bodes well and I, like others who have spoken, will be very surprised if there are empty seats in virtually any stadium during the games. I will not follow the right hon. Member—my right hon. partner—for Bath in his enthusiasm for specific sports, but some will obviously be more attractive than others.
While I am on the subject of LOCOG, as chairman of the all-party London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games group I welcome its co-operation with that group. Thanks to LOCOG, the House has had briefings which many Members have attended; indeed, it has been probably one of the best attended all-party groups. We have had meetings on volunteering, ticketing and the Paralympics, and we have an upcoming meeting on the education programme, a very important briefing on 23 May on the torch relay route and another briefing planned on the cultural Olympiad. It is thanks to the co-operation of LOCOG that the meetings have been so successful, and I also congratulate the Minister and his Department on the seamless transition before and after the election, which has been maintained throughout.
I welcome this important Bill. It might be a small, logistical and technical Bill, but its impact will create ripples across everything that is being done, so in truth everything that has been said today has been in order, because of the Bill’s knock-on effect. For many years I was involved with the British Paralympic Association, whose headquarters were in Croydon. The association has now moved, and I am well aware of its difficulties involving advertising and trading, and the fact that after the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 it had to cease trading because of the use of the Olympic and Paralympic symbols. It is relying on a grant for the period of the games, and one of my concerns is that afterwards it will have to start raising funds again but will have lost its database and its hard core of sponsors and suppliers who have helped it over the years. I recognise, however, the importance of the advertising and trading features in the Bill.
I recognise also the importance of the traffic management proposals. The Minister said that these are “public transport games”, but that was a reference to public transport access to the games. The knock-on effect in the rest of London will be quite profound, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) pointed out. London is very sensitive to traffic. It will flow quite normally during a holiday period, but just a small bottleneck can have a huge and profound impact, causing jams throughout the capital, which often knock on into the outer suburbs.
I therefore welcome the proposals in the Bill. The use of the Olympic lanes will be very important. Perhaps the Minister could clarify when they will be introduced and removed, given the knock-on effect. I believe that there is to be a moratorium on roadworks throughout this period—in fact, I think, for most of next year. Can he confirm that?
Richard Ottaway
The Minister is nodding, so there is no need for him to deal with that when he winds up.
Let me draw to the Minister’s and the House’s attention the report by the Foreign Affairs Committee entitled “FCO Public Diplomacy: The Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012”, which has quite a cross-over into the Bill. Unusually for a Select Committee report, it is fairly uncritical of the Government because it expresses the belief that they are on the right track in enhancing the perceptions that the rest of the world has of Britain—a responsibility of the Foreign Office.
It is interesting to learn that in the world’s perception, the UK is seen as
“fair, innovative, diverse, confident and stylish”,
but we are also seen as
“arrogant, stuffy, old-fashioned and cold.”
The games present us with an opportunity to change the world’s perception of this country. We want to be seen as a welcoming, diverse, tolerant and generous nation, and the games give us a huge opportunity to illustrate that we are just that. At the Barcelona and Sydney games, people were able to change the world’s perception of those countries to their benefit, whereas the Beijing games, with the surrounding human rights issues, and Athens, with the lateness of the construction programme, formed an adverse perception. Germany’s hosting of the World cup hugely enhanced the world’s perception of that country.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is a football supporter, but does he remember the similarly good impression of this country that Euro 96 gave to football fans across Europe? I remember the event quite well; it was a football odyssey that portrayed British football grounds and football supporters in a good light.
Richard Ottaway
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a risk involved in this. If we get it right, it enhances perceptions; if we get it wrong, it is very dangerous. All it would need is a serious traffic snarl-up or a security issue for the world to form a very different perception of Britain. That is why the measures in the Bill are rather important. The way in which we deal with an adverse situation will be very significant. Let me give a small illustration. The situation with the trapped Chilean miners was a disaster for Chile, but the Chileans turned it round completely in the way that they dealt with it and got the miners out. If we have a difficult situation during the Olympic games, how we deal with it will be as important as ensuring that it does not happen in the first place. One of the proposals in the Select Committee report is that a rapid rebuttal unit should be established to deal rapidly with an incident during the games. That is important, and I believe that it is in hand.
The Olympic games present a huge opportunity. The world can come together and, just for a few days, speak with one voice focused on a single event. I understand that we will have nearly 100 Heads of State coming here next year, which in itself presents a logistical exercise in how on earth we deal with them. Let us show the world that we can do this in style. Let us demonstrate that we can put on a good show and show the world that we are tolerant, diverse, welcoming and generous—great British values that are of huge importance. It is well within our ability to do so.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I am delighted to speak in this debate as a Member of Parliament from one of the host boroughs, the London borough of Tower Hamlets. I join other hon. Members in welcoming the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) highlighted the positive sentiments and great pride that were felt by people around the country on the wonderful day when we celebrated winning the Olympic bid. The bid highlighted London’s diversity, dynamism, creativity and youth. It will be remembered for the wonderful, imaginative image that Britain showed the world of a city that is incredibly exciting, a place that is incredibly welcoming, and a place in the east end that is famous for its heritage, resilience and character.
Many of my constituents in Bethnal Green and Bow can see the Olympic stadium at the end of their streets, and the games have already started to impact on their lives. Many communities in London rightly expect to have a central role in the games, and they deserve a stake in the Olympic legacy, whether in the areas of employment, environmental impact or sport. My constituents, like me and other people from the host boroughs and across London, feel passionately about the games and want them to succeed. We are proud to be a host borough and to host the Olympic park, and look forward to showing the world the east end of London at its best.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) has recalled Labour’s original vision of the games as an engine for physical and social regeneration in the east end. It is a great opportunity to showcase a vibrant and proud London, and the great opportunities that it has, especially for young people. We hope that the games will inspire them for the rest of their lives, and that in years to come many of them will recall next year’s Olympics as the thing that inspired them to become sportsmen and women and to make their country proud.
There are of course deep concerns. There are well-founded concerns in my constituency over the recent cuts to school sports funding, youth facilities, and community and elite sports facilities. Some of the organisations that are losing funding are working to get volunteers engaged in the Olympics.
Hugh Robertson
Just to be absolutely clear, there are no cuts to elite facility funding. The money that the previous Government pledged to UK Sport, which deals with elite facilities, has been honoured in full. Community facilities, which are delivered through the whole sport plans, were protected by raising the amount of money that sport gets through the lottery.
Rushanara Ali
I thank the Minister for that response, but he should consider visiting my constituency and some of the organisations that will be affected by the cuts. As I was saying, one of the organisations—[Interruption.] If the Minister will let me, I will finish my sentence. One of the organisations that I visited recently, which is engaged in preparing young people to be volunteers, is losing funding and will struggle to get people into those opportunities. There are many other examples of funding cuts that are affecting young people. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me that funding will not be cut—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am going to help reassure the hon. Lady. We are dealing with the Bill and I have allowed a lot of latitude for Members to stray off it. However, we should not be scoring political points when dealing with the Bill. By all means, the hon. Lady may mention her constituency and the benefits of the Olympics, but I will not allow this to stray into a political row that has nothing to do with the debate.
Rushanara Ali
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that I will not stray beyond the Bill, but I would like to turn to the subject of employment.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sure that the Minister is going to wait, and that if he wishes to intervene, he will do so in the correct way.
Rushanara Ali
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
There is great concern in my constituency about the need to ensure that the opportunities that will be offered as a result of the Olympics, such as the 100,000 job and volunteering opportunities, can be taken up by local people. Although that is not specifically related to the Bill, it is important to those of us who represent constituencies in the east end of London that local people, particularly young people, can receive such benefits, especially given the current unemployment situation. I hope that more effort will be made to encourage and support young people and others to get into those jobs.
I turn to policing and enforcement, on which I welcome many of the clauses in the Bill. In the face of the resource constraints on local police services, can the Minister assure us that there will not be additional pressure on the police in constituencies such as mine, and that every effort will be made to ensure that they are properly supported?
May I also ask the Minister for clarification of the level of input and support that might be required from local authorities such as Tower Hamlets in the logistical and preparatory work, including on policing, alongside the work that will be done by the ODA? That is particularly significant for my constituency, because the local authority is facing major cuts—some £72 million over the next four years. I hope that the Bill will not mean any hidden costs for host boroughs, but I know that there are concerns about how the costs will be met.
I reiterate the point that other Members have made about ticket touting by welcoming the suggestions in the Bill to do with penalties. All possible measures should be exhausted to ensure that those who are involved in organised crime and seek to exploit local people are properly fined and punished.
I turn to the subject of traffic regulations. People in my constituency understandably feel let down and disappointed by the changing of the Olympic marathon route away from the east end areas of Tower Hamlets and Poplar and Limehouse. Despite that change, local people will still experience some of the disruption associated with the games during the weeks when they are taking place, and I hope that their sentiments are recognised. I have had hundreds of letters from constituents, particularly young people, who feel that the change was a betrayal of the original commitments, and it is right that that sentiment is recorded today.
Tower Hamlets is the only host borough that will not be hosting any of the games. It is a source of great pride that the other host boroughs will host events, but there is a great deal of disappointment in Tower Hamlets. I hope that the Minister will take on board the need for every effort to be made to ensure that people in constituencies such as mine are engaged in the games and have the opportunity to take part in other ways. The marathon was going to be a free event available to people in one of the poorest boroughs in the country. I hope the Minister takes that on board.
As other hon. Members have cited their local newspapers, I ought to do the same to keep in tradition. The East London Advertiser, one of the great east end papers, which recently had to move from my constituency, ran a spirited campaign, working with local young people, London Citizens and TELCO—the East London Community Organisation—to try to get LOCOG to change its mind. Unfortunately, the campaign was unsuccessful, but local people might have an opportunity to organise and hold an alternative community marathon so that they can be involved. I hope we can rely on support for that from the Minister and from LOCOG if that goes ahead.
LOCOG has responded by welcoming that campaign and by trying to create other opportunities for the area by way of early access to job vacancies and so on. However, unfortunately, those initiatives fall short, and I hope the Minister takes on board some of those points so that we can have a proper legacy and make the most of the Olympics. Showcasing Brick lane and business opportunities are welcome, but as many young people have pointed out, there is more to the east end and Tower Hamlets than curry houses.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
The hon. Lady can help on legacy by championing the school Olympics principle locally, which I have been doing recently. That is a tangible way in which MPs, as community leaders, can make a big difference and encourage a legacy for young people.
Rushanara Ali
Colleagues and I are working with LOCOG on that, and a number of schools have engaged, which is welcome. However, the hon. Gentleman will understand that a host borough which expected a high-profile event, was willing to put up with disruptions and so on, and was so optimistic, was clearly greatly disappointed when the proposed marathon route was cancelled. Given the poverty in the borough, and its enormous enthusiasm, much more could be done. We have just under 500 days before the Olympics, and opportunities could be seized in that time. I therefore ask the Minister, and LOCOG and other agencies, to use the final few months to do everything they can to create a genuinely lasting legacy.
On pollution and the environmental consequences of the games, given the previous Government’s clear ambition and focus on employment, the reduction in pollution and investment in public transport, recent reports have caused deep concern. I hope that we will be reassured that every effort will be made to ensure a reduction in congestion and that there are no unnecessary disruptions to local people as they move back and forth from work and so on during the weeks of the Olympics.
In conclusion, I reiterate my support for the Bill, but I felt it important to emphasise the wider issues of employment and the sporting legacy and others that affect constituencies such as mine. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the many people who live in constituencies such as mine. They are incredibly excited and passionate about it, and they want a chance to get involved. I hope that, as we move towards the games, the Government will ensure that the people of London have the chance to make the most of these wonderful and exciting games.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
The Olympic and Paralympic games are events like no other. To have them happening here in London is a once-in-ae- lifetime experience. I may be biased, but I believe that London is the best city in the world and I am confident that we will deliver a world-class games.
Andrew Bingham
On that point, does my hon. Friend hope to emulate the Manchester Commonwealth games of a few years ago, which were excellent?
Mary Macleod
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Although London is the best city in the world, Manchester comes a close second and I am sure that the success of those games bodes well.
The hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and for West Ham (Lyn Brown) talked about the pride felt at winning the bid, and that was shared across London and the country. It will be an opportunity to show what London and the UK can do. The Olympic games is the ultimate sporting event in the world, bringing together competitors from almost every nation. It is synonymous with the almighty struggle to be the best in each sport, as encapsulated in the Olympic motto, “Citius, Altius, Fortius” or “Faster, Higher, Stronger”.
Hosting the Olympic and Paralympic games in London provides an unrivalled opportunity to showcase the best of what our country can offer—a world-class sporting event, fantastic venues and accommodation, open and welcoming hospitality, and creativity and quality from the opening ceremony to the overall look and feel of the event, including the marketing, food and drink and merchandising available. Get it right and the London Olympics and Paralympics will provide the very best advertisement to the world of why London, and the UK as a whole, is the place to be for business, hospitality, tourism, sport and entertainment.
But the games are also about creating a lasting legacy, not just in east London but elsewhere in London and across the country. There will of course be many physical legacy elements from the games. The Olympic park will give an exciting new impetus to east London and will generate new housing and business opportunities. All Londoners will benefit from the improved transport links that have been put in place for the games.
However, to get the most out of the games, we also need to focus on the non-physical legacy aspects. In particular, we must ensure that the good work that has been done to encourage children to participate in sporting events linked to the Olympics continues and helps to foster a renewed interest in sport before, during and after the games. In London, and especially in the Hounslow area of my constituency, we have a significant and growing problem with childhood obesity. The best legacy we could have would be a long-term increase in the number of young people taking part in regular sporting activities. The Mayor of London’s Get Set programme aims to address this and I am pleased that the majority of schools in Chiswick, Brentford, Isleworth and Hounslow are already signed up to it. Schoolchildren can focus on how they can demonstrate the Olympic values of friendship, excellence and respect, and the Paralympic virtues of courage, determination, equality and inspiration. The programme is also continuing to develop sporting ambassadors, which has been successful across the borough of Hounslow.
As a London MP, I believe that it is important to get local Londoners involved. The volunteering scheme has seen all ages and backgrounds offering to take part in what is a great community cohesion scheme. It is also important that London residents benefit from the games as they have contributed to the cost. I hope that people across London—and especially in west London—feel those benefits.
The Bill builds on and strengthens provisions put in place in the 2006 Act and addresses some important matters. On advertising and trading, it is vital that we safeguard the look and feel of the games and avoid the potential for the over-commercialisation of the event. I welcome therefore the measures to extend the powers to seize unauthorised and fake merchandise. Many companies have contributed to the success of the games by developing official products and services, and their rights need to be protected, so we cannot allow ambush marketing to infiltrate the areas around the venues. We also need to take a sensible approach to implementation and focus on the mass sale of merchandise, not on seizing items of clothing worn to the event.
The presence of ticket touts is unwelcome. I am sure that the increase in the fine to £20,000 will help greatly to deter them. The ticket sales approach for the Olympics was a new one to most people, and such was the desire to attend the games that many people registered for significantly more tickets than perhaps they could afford, so I was glad to hear from the Minister that it will be possible for people to resell tickets at face value to family and friends without the prospect of being criminalised. Given the issues near the deadline, it would be good to provide the opportunity to buy tickets to those unable to get the ones they wanted.
My hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about traffic management, which is critical to the games’ success. The sheer size and scale of the games is daunting. It has been suggested that the Olympics is equivalent to hosting 26 world championships simultaneously, so it is a huge challenge to implement. Clearly a top priority is to ensure the safe and smooth-running of the games. That is critical for the games family and spectators. At the same time, however, we must also keep London moving and working smoothly for residents, workers and businesses. It is not just the east London area directly around the Olympic park that will feel the impact of the increase in people; there are competitive venues and training camps across London, and the route to and from Heathrow airport, which runs through my constituency, will also form a significant part of the Olympic route network during the games.
Companies such as Fuller’s brewery in my constituency have expressed concern that they need to have as much notice as possible of the details of planned road closures across London. For example, significant changes to working practices, such as night deliveries, might be required to keep our pubs fully stocked with beer, and it will take time to develop new contracts for drivers and resolve issues such as noise in residential areas. We should also consider those who drive in and around London and the possibility of allowing cars still to come into London, perhaps between 7 am and 10 pm. It would be worth ensuring that those who work and need to use the roads can still do so.
I am sure that local authorities will be involved in the detailed planning of traffic management and road closures, particularly where there are known traffic issues. Everywhere in London has them to a greater or lesser extent. An issue for me will be along Chiswick high road, where the right turn into Sutton Court road coming off the A4 will be closed, forcing more traffic on to the high road. I will be speaking to my local team to ensure that they are considering the matter closely and not creating traffic problems in areas around London.
In summary, I welcome and support the Bill. The London Olympics and Paralympics provide us with an outstanding opportunity to showcase the best that we have to offer to the world, and I look forward to 2012 with great excitement. Let us make these the best games ever and show what can be achieved on such a great scale. Let it help young people aspire to go on and do great things; let us create a strong feeling of Britishness and community cohesion; let us do all we can to create a strong, lasting legacy for the whole of London; and let us use this as an opportunity to get more people re-engaged or involved in community and competitive sport, creating stronger communities, a greater team spirit and a healthier nation.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) in speaking about the important Bill before us today. I rise as someone who, in a former guise, served as the Conservative Olympics spokesman in the Greater London authority, during the formative period when much of the work was initiated. I was also the deputy chairman of the GLA’s economic development, culture, sport and tourism committee for four years. We were responsible for the scrutiny of the Olympics and the development of the whole process.
I well remember the initial scepticism felt by most people in London when we began bidding for the games. That changed to wild enthusiasm when we heard the wonderful news on 6 July 2005, which followed that brilliant presentation. I compliment Lord Coe and Tony Blair, the Prime Minister at the time, who did so much excellent work to ensure that we were successful. However, we then woke up on 7 July to the horrors of the bombings on London transport and the security alert. That made us think of what could happen during the Olympics if we are not properly prepared, serving as a terrible early warning for everyone.
I well remember the early concerns about the site. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) encouraged people to visit the site. I have been there on many occasions, the first time when there was absolutely nothing there. It was an industrial wasteland, and one needed great vision to imagine what would happen in the interim period—something that has indeed happened, and which I welcome. We had concerns about financing the Olympics and in particular about the budget. We should remember that the redevelopment of Wembley stadium was an absolute fiasco. At the same time, we were considering the development of a vast range of venues. It is therefore extremely good news to everyone concerned that the completion of the various venues is coming in on budget, or possibly even below budget.
We were also concerned about the cost to Londoners. I well remember the previous Mayor announcing to the assembly that the cost to a Londoner would be no more than the daily cost of a Walnut Whip. The only problem is that the daily cost of a Walnut Whip over 25 years is likely to lead to diabetes and long-term health issues, which is precisely the problem that London is facing in having to pay for the games over an extended period. Londoners have also felt a great deal of frustration, particularly in west and north-west London, at having to pay for the cost of the games, while those living close to the edge of east London are experiencing the benefit, yet incurring none of the costs. That will be an important issue later.
We were also concerned that the costs had escalated, so it is good news that the budget is coming in the right way. The other concern that I would like the Minister to consider is the fact that national lottery funding was diverted to assist the games, as a result of which national lottery funding for large areas of London was removed. We were promised at the time that this funding would be returned from the profits from the subsequent land sales. We must not lose sight of that opportunity.
Part and parcel of this whole process has been the regeneration capability in that part of the world. The legacy of the games will not be just a sporting one, but a real legacy for the lives of east Londoners in particular. The key challenge will be to ensure that we do not allow what are, quite frankly, rabbit hutches to be put up at the Olympic park, leading to low-cost housing, thereby building in all the problems that were once part of the east end and which we are now addressing. I trust that the powers that be will ensure that that does not happen.
The venue development has been a wonder to behold. The fact that the venues are coming on stream much more quickly than expected and will be ready for public use and test events as early as this summer is an excellent testimony to all the hard work done by the ODA and LOCOG. I remember grilling the leadership of the ODA and LOCOG and feeling comforted that we had such excellent people at the helm making all this happen. I am delighted that the decisions taken by the appropriate people at the time to employ those people has borne fruit, and we should pay tribute to them.
Turning to the Bill, I want to raise an issue relating to the sporting events. We should remember that most people think of the Olympic games as consisting of the swimming, for about a week, and then the athletics. We are talking, however, about a broad range of events—about 26 of them—taking place throughout July and August, and into September, in the Olympics and Paralympics, that can create an explosion of great sporting legacy for the people of this country and encourage young people, in particular, to take part in sporting events that they would never have dreamed of taking part in.
I pay tribute to the ticketing arrangements so far. When I signed on to the website to bid for my tickets, I was sceptical about whether it would work. I found it very easy to access and to use, however, and the people who designed the process should be complimented on it. It is sad that there were problems on the last day, given the extended period of time in which people could apply for tickets. The fact that the advertising would lead to an increase in the number of people applying at the last minute was predictable, and it is sad that there was overloading of the system towards the end. However, I think that we have got the ticketing arrangements right.
I have one fear in that regard, which is that, if we are not careful, we could see rows of empty seats at the qualifying events, which are being sold at lower prices. I know that many sessions are oversubscribed, but I suspect that that will not apply to the qualifying events. I hope that schoolchildren across London will be given access to any such unsold tickets, so that they can have an opportunity to attend some of those undersubscribed events. That would have the dual purpose of filling the empty seats and encouraging young people to participate.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for West Ham about the fines for ticket touting. I draw a distinction between people who have bought tickets and pass them on to friends or family if they are unable to use them, the tout in the street who is trying to make a turn on tickets, and the seriously organised individuals who are making this a business. The proposal in the Bill to raise the fine to £20,000 is welcome, but I would ask the Minister to consider in Committee introducing a much higher upper limit, particularly for those who are turning ticket touting into a business. We could perhaps fine those involved in organised ticket touting £100,000, with tiered levels of fines for those involved in the various other aspects of the activity, and with clear guidance as to how the fines should be implemented.
On travel arrangements, we must remember that London has to keep moving and that other sporting events will be taking place while the Olympics and Paralympics are going on. There will be a full programme of premier league football throughout most of the period of the games, as well as champions league matches and a wide range of other sporting events taking place across London. We must remember that spectators going to those events will not want to be inconvenienced by the fact that the Olympics and Paralympics are taking place. The potential closures of roads and lanes presents a risk to regular drivers, as they could be seriously inconvenienced, particularly if they are not aware of the arrangements that are in place.
Let me repeat a point I mentioned in interventions. There is a massive danger that large parts of London, particularly west and north-west London, become glorified car parks for people wishing to use the tube network for the last part of their journey to the Olympic venues. I believe consideration needs to be given to encourage local authorities to introduce temporary measures for the period of the Olympics, rather than imposing potentially draconian measures unnecessarily throughout the whole year. Experience around the Wembley stadium area suggests that residents are severely inconvenienced when a minor event is going on at the stadium and draconian traffic control measures are implemented. Local authorities should be given the opportunity to address that issue in a particular way.
I believe we have the potential to run a very successful and brilliant event in 2012. I think we have an opportunity to create a lasting legacy for the east end, for the whole of London and for sport in general. I look forward to the newly re-elected Mayor inviting his predecessor, Mr Livingstone, to come along and play a part in the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympic games, as we celebrate London at its best.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I want to make just a few brief remarks about the ticket tout element of the Bill, which I fully support. People like myself who have applied for tickets often sit with fingers crossed, hoping for the best. Like others, I applied for more tickets than I would like in the hope of being lucky in the ballot and getting enough to go to watch what I would like to see. We are told that any tickets we do not want should be given back for re-sale. I am a little concerned, however, at the capacity of the website to deal with all this, as extra tickets will all be returned in a very short time. We saw what happened at the deadline earlier this week. That reinforces my concern: when people want to send their tickets back, if the web capacity is not able to handle it, they might take them elsewhere and hand them to touts.
Like many Members, I am a keen sports fan and I have been to many sporting events. Time after time, fans run the gauntlet of people outside the venues wanting to sell or buy tickets. True sports fans, or indeed music fans, might not have been able to get tickets for an event, yet the touts always seem to have a fistful of tickets.
I applaud the Bill and the increase in the fine, which I think will help to eliminate the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) commented on the increase in the fine, and I wonder whether we could increase it to £20,000 per ticket touted, which would be a severe deterrent, particularly to serial touts. As I said, my only concern is that the web capacity for ticket reallocation be sufficient to prevent people from getting fed up and selling their tickets to whoever it might be who then stands outside the grounds, selling them at a premium. That is my only concern; otherwise, the Bill is excellent.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I wish to address my relatively brief remarks to clause 4, which deals with traffic and is entitled “Orders and notices relating to temporary prohibitions etc. on roads”. Under paragraph 15 of the schedule to the Olympic Route Network Designation Order 2009, the A31 from its junction with the A35, going east to junction 1 of the M27 is part of that network. It includes junctions, slip roads and roundabouts. Under section 11 of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, the Secretary of State is allowed to designate roads
“for the purpose of facilitating travel… to and from London Olympic events”
and for “other purposes connected” thereto.
I have a number of questions to put to the Minister, particularly about the interaction of this order and proposed works to the Canford Bottom roundabout, which is a notorious junction in the vicinity of Wimborne. It is encountered by people travelling west on the A31 after a period of travel on a single carriageway and it then continues with a single carriageway on the other side. Four other roads join it, so there is an intersection of six roads around one roundabout. I can confidently predict that at this time, on the eve of a bank holiday, it will already be clogged with traffic, particularly in a westerly direction. That is the situation during the holiday season, and of course the Olympic games will take place at the height of the holiday season next year.
Although we in Dorset are delighted that the Olympic sailing venue will be in Weymouth, for my constituents in the east of Dorset, Weymouth is at least an hour’s drive away in normal conditions. We are not talking about a local venue, but about a venue some distance away.
The Minister and the Government have said all along that the intention is that the activities of local people and businesses should not be disrupted by the establishment of the Olympic route network. What concerns me is the interaction between these proposals and the Government’s proposals to change the layout at the Canford Bottom roundabout. There has been a long-standing campaign for a flyover at Canford Bottom, but it would cost well over £10 million and is apparently unaffordable in the present circumstances. The Government have therefore produced an alternative proposal to replace the roundabout with what is described as a hamburger junction. There was a consultation meeting in my constituency on the subject at the end of last month. A hamburger junction is something of a rarity in my part of the world, and when I asked where one could be found, I was told that the closest was in Cardiff. Replacing a roundabout with a hamburger junction is certainly a novel approach.
Mr Chope
I wish that I could. When asked to describe it at the meeting, the officials said that they preferred to refer to a “plan”. However, I understand that it is a junction that looks like a hamburger. The main A31 carriageway—the meat in the hamburger, as it were—would go through the middle, and there would be light-controlled crossings for the four side roads. That is what is described by the Highways Agency as a hamburger junction. I hope that in due course the right hon. Gentleman will be able to have one in Bath, but perhaps before he commits himself he should have a look at the one in Cardiff to see whether it works.
Members’ interest in this subject is becoming apparent, but, as will be appreciated, the people who live close to the proposed junction are even more interested in knowing whether it will achieve the objective that the Highways Agency says that it will achieve, which is to improve the operation of the junction on the A31. What worries local residents is the possibility that their ability to cross from one part of the constituency to the other—into Wimborne—will be impeded by the junction, because extra priority will be given to through traffic at the expense of local traffic.
In order to tease out such issues, there would normally be a fairly long period of consultation on a major highway proposal such as this. The project will cost £5.7 million. However, the Highways Agency tells me that there will be only a three-week window of opportunity for written representations, starting immediately after the local elections. The explanation seems to be that this junction needs to be changed as part of the ODA’s remit to ensure that the Olympic route network delivers people from London to Weymouth within a specified time frame.
I am enthusiastic about clause 4 as it will enable the ODA to ensure that emergency action can be taken to deal with congestion around the Canford Bottom roundabout or anywhere else on the network without the need for major roadworks to be rushed through between now and the time of the Olympic games. In responding to the debate, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to assure me that the construction of this hamburger junction is not a crucial part of the Olympic route network, and that the network will be able to deliver its objectives even if this hamburger junction is not constructed. My constituents are sceptical about this solution; they think it may be the wrong one. They are concerned that it might be a cheapskate solution to a very serious problem, and that it would put back for many years, if not decades, the prospect of having a proper flyover at that junction. I hope we will get some clarity on this, and that I will be able to go back and say to my constituents with the authority of the Minister, “It doesn’t matter whether or not we have a bit of delay in the consultation process. It doesn’t matter if the construction of this hamburger junction as a replacement for the roundabout starts after the Olympics. It does not have to be completed before the Olympics.” That would remove one of the major causes of suspicion among my constituents, which is that this solution is a means of trying to ensure that a few Olympic officials can travel through Dorset more quickly than they might otherwise, at the expense of the long-term inconvenience of local people.
When my hon. Friend ably opened this debate, I noted that he kept emphasising that these traffic management measures are designed to facilitate competitors and officials getting to the venues. As he will know, Weymouth is a long way from Canford Bottom—more than an hour’s journey away—and I think a wise competitor or official will base their residence much closer to Weymouth. I therefore wonder what timetable might be put in place for the operation of this Olympic route network on the A31 during the games. Is it going to operate for 24 hours a day, or is it going to operate only when it is actually needed and competitors or officials are travelling to a venue? I ask that because at present it seems as though it is designed to enable all the Olympic organisation hangers-on to be able to travel at speed in their limos from London to Weymouth, when everybody else is being told that they will have to travel by public transport. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give us some assurances on that.
This point is also of relevance in respect of the proposal to close off the junction at the Merley roundabout, which leads towards Poole. My hon. Friend will understand that if one closes a junction on a busy highway and prevents people from turning towards a major destination such as Poole, it will lead to considerable inconvenience for local people. It would be helpful to have an assurance that that inconvenience will be limited to times when it is absolutely essential to facilitate the transport of officials and competitors to the sailing events in Weymouth.
Paragraph 84 of the explanatory notes to the Bill states that one of the Government’s objectives is
“to ensure the safe and reliable movement of athletes, officials and other members of the Games Family”—
capital “G”, capital “F”.
What causes me a bit of concern is what we mean by the “Games Family”. Does it mean Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all, with the exception of local residents and potential spectators? Who does it mean? Paragraph (b) states that the objective of the Government is
“to deter workers and spectators from driving to the venues”.
One way of deterring those people from driving to Weymouth is to ensure that the existing congested roads are kept around the Canford Bottom roundabout and that they are improved only after the 2012 Olympics.
The Government also clearly say that they want
“to minimise the impact of the 2012 Games on local businesses and residents going about their everyday business.”
That is why I have sought the opportunity of this debate to seek these assurances. There is an argument for saying that clause 4 should be amended in Committee to make it clear that these traffic regulation orders are to enable the objective of moving athletes and officials around on the road network to be met more easily and that the wider “Games Family” should not be used as an excuse for inconveniencing people with the orders under this clause.
When some of my colleagues saw the reference in the Bill to pedlars they thought that I might wish to direct some remarks in that direction and to ticket touting. I could easily do so, but I wish the focus to be on the constituency issue to which I have drawn the Minister’s attention. I would not want to detract from that particular matter, but I am sure that people will be able to look more closely in Committee at whether there is proportionality on the touting offences. I would like the Bill to contain something that makes it clear that people who sell their tickets, particularly any from LOCOG, will be penalised and will not be able to claim privilege when confronted by the forces of the law. I suspect that, as has happened during previous Olympic games, quite a lot of the people who are privileged to be given free tickets then sell those tickets for their own ends and the tickets get on to the secondary market. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the provisions on touting will also apply to all Olympic officials and that there will be no opportunity for them to avoid the full force of the law if they are found to have contravened the Bill.
I hope that I have been able to put the Canford Bottom roundabout on the map, so to speak. This Minister is responsible for the ODA and so I hope he will realise that this is a significant issue and will be able to assure us that the best solution for the Canford Bottom roundabout is not dependent on its implementation before the Olympic games and the sailing events in Weymouth.
Tessa Jowell
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to contribute to the conclusion of this debate. Since last year’s general election, I have at no time felt a sense of relief that I am no longer the Minister responsible for the Olympics, but when I realised that I will not have to find a solution to the agony of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) over the hamburger junctions, I may for that alone have had a small moment of gratitude.
As we conclude this excellent debate, I am sure that hon. Members from all parties will want to thank Mr Deputy Speaker—your predecessor in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker—for his patience and for the latitude he gave to so many speakers. That does not suggest any degree of indifference among Members to the small number of technical changes proposed in the Bill, but rather an appetite for further opportunities to debate in the House the exciting prospect of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
We have covered a wide range of important issues that will have a material bearing on public enjoyment and the enhancement of the UK’s reputation as we host these games. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) has developed great understanding and expertise on the subject of ticket touting. My hon. Friends the Members for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), who represent Olympic boroughs, gave moving speeches, full of passion, about the impact of the games. It is very easy to forget that impact, but they can see the faces and hear the voices of the people whose lives are diminished or enhanced by our hosting of the Olympic games. We should never forget that there are people in Newham and Tower Hamlets dealing every day with more disruption and disappointment as well as preparing for the excitement of being at the centre of this great global event. Many hon. Members also referred to the importance of maintaining confidence in the manner in which these small technical amendments will be applied in practice.
I thank the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) for his leadership of the all-party group on the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. As he rightly said, it embodies the enthusiasm across the House for the prospect of the games in little over a year’s time.
We know that this event will change our country in a variety of ways, some of which we can predict, some of which we cannot. We are hosting these games because we want to see more young people—indeed, people of all ages—taking part in and competing in sport, because we want this to be a celebration for the whole of the UK, because we are proud of our city and our country, and because we think we can showcase this great event to the world. We are hosting this great event because we want to see it bring lasting change. Much of that change will be in the private experience of villages, towns and cities around the country and of individuals who resolve to do different or perhaps greater things for themselves and their families as a result of their participation in the games.
Let us not forget when we visit the Olympic park, as I hope all Members will, that we will see before us change which without the Olympics would not have happened for 30 years. The tough job of turning that into a lasting legacy and bringing in inward investment, new jobs and new confidence will begin when the last of our visitors goes in 2012.
Finally, I would like to thank the Minister, the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) for the way in which they have worked to maintain the cross-party agreement on the Olympics which it has been so clear from this debate the House wants.
Hugh Robertson
With the leave of the House, I will close the debate, which has been interesting. I am extremely grateful to hon. Members for their contributions and for debating the issues in the Bill in such a helpful and constructive manner. Let me run briefly through the questions and issues that have been raised. In an intervention, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) asked me to confirm that the cost of enforcement officers will be reimbursed by the ODA via contracts with local authorities, and I can confirm that.
May I thank, once again, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) not only for her positive contribution this afternoon, both at the start and the end, but for her contribution to this process from start to finish? I think there is wide recognition inside the Olympic movement that had it not been for her championing of this event at the very beginning we might not have been standing here debating it this afternoon. For that and so much else, we thank her. The comments that have been made today should tell her all she needs to know; her efforts on this front are genuinely appreciated across the House and in the wider world.
The right hon. Lady raised a number of points, the first of which was about how the regulations are applied. I think that we are at one on this issue. Indeed, the body of opinion across the House is very clear: the regulations need to be applied sensibly and proportionately and we will look at all the ways in which we could do that. As she correctly said, communication of what is required is absolutely key to making them work. We will consider whether it will be the Secretary of State or the Mayor who has the relevant powers. In nominating the Secretary of State, we were simply following the guidance set out in the original 2006 Act. Of course, a number of the powers concern things that take place outside London, so there is that element to consider. We will certainly make sure that Transport for London and the relevant local authorities are fully consulted. On the right hon. Lady's point about the victims of 7/7, I think that all of us who were in Singapore will have that seared on our minds for ever. That point was well made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) talked about a number of sports events in and around his borough. He will no doubt be delighted that next door we have also now secured the world canoe championships for 2015, which is yet another world-class event to look forward to. He asked about proportionality and the enforcement of regulations. I can confirm that the regulations will make express provision to exclude those who inadvertently wear logos to events. Clearly, there is a fine line to tread, because if a lot of people who “inadvertently” wear a logo all meet up in the middle there will be a replay of what we saw in South Africa, so the provision will require sensible application, which it will get.
The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) as always made her case powerfully for her constituents. She was the first person to mention her local paper and I should think there is no better advertisement for the Newham Recorder than her. She asked about the £20,000 fine, which we will consider. Let me make it clear that the level of the fine was signposted in the original Act. With the £20,000 figure we are simply following the advice of the Metropolitan police and if that advice changes we will be prepared to alter the fine. The ODA will undertake an extensive campaign to publicise all the regulations for local businesses. There is already quite a lot more detail than there might originally have been on the London 2012 website. I hope that will help, but if the hon. Lady feels there is a further issue to address, I hope she will come back to me.
For the first time in the six years that we have been debating this issue I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) managed to get through an entire contribution without advocating Bath university over Loughborough, which is the normal course of things. I thank him for his contribution and for his support for the project. We are also grateful for the contribution that his party is making through one of its former leaders to the promotion of the school games. He emphasised the importance of communication about the Olympic route network and he was absolutely correct. Work has already been started by TfL in London and by the ODA outside it. I am told that already 60,000 letters have been distributed on the issue and 12 drop-in sessions have been held. That communication will continue as we move forward.
If the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), my favourite sparring partner on ticket touting, thought that I was a little fierce earlier, I will put her mind at rest: I have a very open mind on the matter. There are arguments on both sides, as she knows and experienced during debate on the Sale of Tickets (Sporting and Cultural Events) Bill she promoted in January. The key thing is the level of threat identified by the police. After the debate in January, I asked about that again. I was told that a specific threat had been identified, but that it related to specific events, of which the Olympics is one such event, hence the need for this legislation. However, we will keep an open mind on this as we move forward.
The hon. Lady asked about the timing of the Bill’s progress and of ticket re-sales. It is very difficult to give assurances on the timing. If we get it out of Committee according to the time scale currently envisaged, we hope that it will then proceed to the other place, where there is quite a legislative logjam. The plan was to try to achieve Royal Assent by the end of the year so that the preparatory work can be done to set things up, but I fear that the timings will not quite work. We will try to get the legislation through as fast as possible.
I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) not only for his speech and his enthusiasm for this project from the start, but for his chairmanship of the all-party group and the sensible and helpful way in which he has supplied advice and guidance as the process has gone on. I do not know how many Members know this, but he has also personally been extraordinarily generous and helpful to potential yachtsmen and women trying to contribute in 2012 and to our rowing squads. I thank him for that as well as for his help to the British Paralympic Association. He really has been a true friend to this process.
My hon. Friend asked about the Olympic route network, among a number of other things. The idea is not to have it open any longer than is absolutely necessary. We all realise that it will be disruptive to some extent or another, so it will be open only when necessary and expedient for the efficient delivery of the games. I thank him finally for his Select Committee’s report on public diplomacy. He said that he thought that 100 Heads of State might attend, but the last estimate I saw indicated that there will be more than 150, such is the popularity of London, so there will an opportunity for considerable public diplomacy.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) spoke, and I am sorry, because she is absolutely key to the delivery. Huge benefits are accruing to the east end of London through the Olympics. There are 12,500 people currently working on the site who would not otherwise be there. Next door, in Stratford, the largest shopping centre in Europe is being built. The Olympic park will be the largest new urban park developed anywhere in Europe. There are huge training and employment benefits for people in the east end. I absolutely understand why she wants to fight as hard as she can for her constituents and get as much as she can for them, but it would help the process of delivery if she was prepared to advocate more positively the benefits it will bring.
We all know the current public funding position. The Government have fought very hard to deliver the Olympic games budget and keep it intact, and we have been successful in doing so. We will do exactly what we have promised to do, but local people must also play their part. I hope that the hon. Lady will step forward and be slightly more positive about this in future.
As far as policing is concerned, up to £600 million is available for policing the Olympics and a further £238 million is available in contingency funds, so there is, or should be, no shortage of money available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) talked very passionately about the legacy for sport and exercise of this whole process. That was a key part of the bid in Singapore and she is absolutely right to highlight it. She made the same point that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate made about the proportionate application of the regulations, and I hope that I have given her some reassurance on that front.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned in an earlier intervention local authorities and traffic problems. We can confirm that local authorities have such powers already, which they can use if they perceive that there is a problem. I confirm that the national lottery will be repaid on receipt of the land sales. I thank him for encouraging people to attend some of the less well-known events. Indeed, the early evidence from the ticketing process is that that is exactly what has happened, so I thank him for his advocacy of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) made the point about the resale capacity of the website, and he is absolutely right. With the exception of the relatively small blip on Tuesday night, the website has performed extraordinarily well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South said earlier, this is the largest ticketing exercise that this country has ever undertaken, and there was one tiny minor blip at the very last minute which was quickly corrected, so it has been a fantastic success. The resale issue is crucial—the Government are absolutely clear about that—if we are to have tough ticket-touting regulations.
Finally, I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and the Canford Bottom roundabout. Despite some encouragement from both sides of the House, I am not going to get into that issue this afternoon. I am going to stick to the line that I gave him during the many interventions that he tried me with earlier, not least because I, like him, am not entirely sure about a hamburger junction. We wondered whether it might be round and where the filling might be—all the various possible permutations.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) was here earlier, and the best we can offer is that we will look into the issue and get back to my hon. Friend. We are not entirely clear that the Canford Bottom roundabout alterations are directly funded through the Olympic transport budget. Local authorities are carrying out a series of projects of their own accord in order better to host events, and it may well be that the Canford Bottom roundabout improvements are one such example, but we will find out and let him know.
This has been a good debate with many interesting contributions from all parts of the House. At the beginning, I said that the provisions in the Bill serve to ensure that the original intentions of the 2006 Act can be delivered. The commitments given to the International Olympic Committee on the restriction of advertising, trading, ticket touting and traffic management all play a major part in the delivery of a safe, successful and memorable games, and this Bill goes a long way to ensuring that those assurances can be effectively delivered.
I think that I speak for the whole House in putting on the record our thanks and gratitude to the many people who have worked in the many organisations that are seeking to deliver this project. The Olympic Delivery Authority has worked such wonders with the construction and, as several people said, finally laid to rest the ghost that we cannot deliver major construction projects on time and below budget.
The organising committee has met the various organisational challenges. Indeed, only fairly recently, one major media figure said to me, “It’ll be ticketing. That’s the one that’ll go wrong,” but that is yet another challenge that the games have met and—so far, as far we know—conquered.
The legacy is a difficult issue, and nobody would pretend otherwise. Everybody naturally talks it up a lot at the start of a process, but it can be quantified and formed only as we reach the end of the process. We are in the middle of the process at the moment, but I think that there is a real shape to the legacy now.
There is an enormous amount to be proud of in terms of what has been constructed on the park, what will be left on the park and in the surrounding area, and its effect on Olympic and Paralympic sport in this country, on people who play sport in their communities, on school children who will have the new schools Olympics, and crucially—we always tend to forget this—on 10 million young children in 20 countries throughout the world who have been touched by the really innovative and powerful international inspiration programme. So, to all the people who have been involved in the delivery of the project and, indeed, to our own civil servants and the Government Olympic Executive, I put on the record our thanks.
We meet at a good time in London’s Olympics: the budget has held, the construction effort has gone well and is 70% complete, the organisational challenges have thus far been met and the legacy is taking shape. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood was absolutely right to say that it has gone well thus far, but let nobody forget for a moment that construction is at its peak and a large number of challenges are yet to be met if we are to deliver a successful Olympics. Complacency is no part of the process, and there is a great deal to do, but at this moment the London 2012 project is in great shape. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill (programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill:
Committal
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 19 May 2011.
3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed. —(Mr Goodwill.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Coastguard Services (Falmouth)
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The petition is from more than 7,500 readers of the “Falmouth Packet” newspaper and others.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Falmouth,
Declares that the petitioners believe that Falmouth Coastguard must be retained as a 24 hour a day operation, because the experience and expertise of the Falmouth Coastguard could not safely be transferred elsewhere.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to require the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to take into account the views of residents of Falmouth in the course of its consultation on the future of the Coastguard.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000919]
Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his attendance. I know that he has been looking forward to this Thursday afternoon with two and a half hours ahead of him in a warm Chamber. Looking at his smile, he is not taking that too seriously. I need to declare an interest in case there is any knock-on effect from the debate. If the Government were kind enough to go ahead with some of the suggestions I might make, there could be a negative financial effect on me personally, as I am a very part-time dentist.
I have been interested in this issue for a number of years, and I have raised it through questions and in an Adjournment debate. I am hoping that now we have a new Government and a fresh set of eyes on the issue, we might get some progression towards a little more prevention. Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease—commonly known as variant CJD, and it will be from now on so that my tongue can get round it—is a fatal neuro-degenerative disease originating from exposure to bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy-like prions. Prions are small particles of protein. Prion infections are associated with long and clinically silent incubations and cause a spongy degeneration of the brain with a horrible and untimely death. There is no cure. The number of asymptomatic individuals with vCJD prion infection is unknown. It poses a risk to others via blood transfusion, blood products, organ or tissue grafts, and contaminated medical and dental instruments.
The emergence of vCJD and the confirmation that it originates from exposure to BSE raised a glut of public health concerns affecting endoscopy, surgery, dentistry, organ transplantation and blood transfusions. Exposure of the UK population to BSE was widespread, with over 181,000 cases in cattle and estimates of total infections of 1 million to 3 million cattle beasts. About 200 people, mostly from the UK, have been infected, although many more could be. Because of this, the UK is the largest reservoir of vCJD prions in the world. Much of the UK population born before 1996 has potentially been exposed to BSE-contaminated food, and the number of people who carry the infection but remain healthy is unknown.
The issue is particularly relevant in the light of recent deaths. For example, Jonathan Simms, who died aged 26 in Belfast, was given only months to live following his diagnosis in the summer of 2001. He had won a High Court battle which enabled him to receive controversial treatment with an experimental drug called pentosan polysulfate. He remained disabled, but his family and doctors said that his condition had not declined any further, and a slight improvement was recorded. However, he finally lost his battle in March.
From 1990 to February 2011, 170 people in Britain died from vCJD. Although the current wave of vCJD is apparently fizzling out, after peaking in 2000 with 28 cases, a big worry is whether there will be further waves a considerable time in the future.
I wish to touch on three topics in this short debate, and I assure the Minister that my speech will be short. The first is the development of a new blood test for vCJD; the second is the approval of a red blood cell filter that can catch vCJD, which we seem to be running around in circles about without coming to a conclusion; and the third is the use of cold sterilisation solutions on surgical and dental instruments, of which three are potentially available, including Rely+On. I would like to ask why those are not being used.
First, on the new blood test, the number of asymptomatic individuals with vCJD prion infection is unknown. Because of that, it poses a risk to others via blood transfusions, blood products, organ or tissue grafts, and contaminated medical instruments. A blood test for vCJD has been an important goal of medical research laboratories and companies around the world for many years. It has been very difficult to achieve because the infectious agent that causes vCJD has unique features that mean that the sensitive methods that doctors usually use to detect the presence of a germ, or other such agents, do not work.
Professor Collinge and others at the Medical Research Council’s prion unit have recently developed a blood test to detect vCJD, or at least the prions. It exploits the powerful attraction between abnormal prion proteins and some metals, in particular some stainless steels. The test was applied to a number of patients, including those with vCJD, sporadic CJD and a number of other neurological diseases that are easily confused with vCJD, and to a number of healthy blood donors. As vCJD is rare, only a relatively small number of samples were available for testing. When the new test was run on 21 samples from different vCJD patients, 15 of the 21 samples from people with clinical CJD tested positive. So far, all samples from other neurological diseases or healthy blood donors have tested negative. The test is quite dramatic. Although it is at an early stage, it is able to correctly identify the majority of patients with symptoms of vCJD and has not yet given any false results for patients with other brain diseases or for healthy individuals. That is important both for early diagnosis of the disease in patients and for the development of a screening test that may detect silent infection in healthy individuals.
The initial studies provide a prototype blood test for diagnosis of vCJD in symptomatic individuals, which could allow development of large-scale screening tests for asymptomatic vCJD prion infection. If a screening test can be developed, it will be possible to estimate the number of infected carriers in the UK population and potentially to reduce the risk of accidental transmission of infection through medical and surgical procedures such as blood transfusions, and through dental instruments, which I must mention.
Variant CJD has predominantly been diagnosed when the patient has had the disease for some time and has developed symptoms that are coupled with extensive damage to the brain. The early symptoms of the disease, such as anxiety, depression and tingling pains in the legs, are regularly mistaken for many more common causes. Understandably, doctors do not jump to the serious conclusion of vCJD until other symptoms show forth, such as difficulty with movement or balance and loss of mental abilities.
Due to the rapid and crippling nature of the disease and the length of time it takes to carry out the series of tests required to reach a diagnosis, more often than not the patient’s symptoms are well advanced before a definitive diagnosis is reached. A blood test will enable patients to establish a diagnosis early, or at least earlier. Although there is no cure yet, experimental drugs are being developed at the MRC’s prion unit and elsewhere, with a view to holding clinical trials in the next few years. The unit wants to try such treatments on patients at an early stage, before irreversible brain damage has occurred. Early diagnosis would also give the patient and their family a quick and definite answer, allowing them to use the time that they have left as best they can.
Although the blood test is a monumental step forward in the fight against vCJD, it is important to be mildly cautious about the news. The results so far are encouraging, but further research needs to be taken forward. The researchers need to examine blood samples from much larger numbers of healthy people and those with other brain diseases, to get a better idea of how specific the test is in practice. That is vital before a version of the test can be considered for the routine screening of healthy blood donors.
Two steps need to be taken now that the blood test has been tested successfully in the initial study. The first is the planned testing of 5,000 American blood donors, which I understand has been set up. That will enable Professor Collinge and his team to eliminate the possibility of false positives. However, there is a stumbling block—a lack of funding. As I understand it, the Government are not keen to fund the research. There is a possibility that the MRC will fund that stage of it, but then the researchers would need to move on to seek funding for the next step, which would be to test 50,000 UK donors. That would give the Government an indication of whether vCJD was as widespread as feared, which would make it possible to consider whether the costly procedures that are currently in place to offset its spread are really necessary, or whether their use should be increased.
From the answer to a recent question by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), we know that the Government have taken a number of steps to offset the spread of vCJD, including the removal of white cells from donated blood; the massively expensive importation of plasma used to manufacture fractionated blood products; and disallowing recipients of blood transfusions from acting as blood donors. Those are all extremely expensive steps, and at a time of spending cuts it would make sense to spend a little bit of money to get the test that I have described moving, to discover once and for all whether vCJD is as widespread as feared, and in turn whether those expensive procedures are really necessary.
Whether the test on 50,000 UK donors shows a prevalence of vCJD prions or a lack of patients with them, it is a crucial step in the fight against vCJD and should, without doubt, be a priority for Government funding. At the moment, the test does not work on other forms of prion disease such as sporadic CJD, but there is some hope that with further work, it will be available for such conditions in future.
I move on to the issue of blood filtering. Following an anonymous study of archived tissue specimens, the Department of Health uses in its risk calculations the estimate that 1 in 4,000 individuals may be silently infected with vCJD prions. Professor Collinge and his team believe that there is considerable uncertainty about that figure, and that the true number could be significantly higher or lower. It is also unknown how many of those infected will actually go on to develop the disease, the problem being that the incubation period in humans can be as long as 50 years.
Those unknowingly infected individuals could be active blood donors, and they could pass on the infection to other people, including through medical and surgical instruments used on them. Although the National Blood Service has taken several actions to try to minimise that risk, such as removing white cells from blood, a process known as leucodepletion, and spending millions of pounds on importing blood serum from the US, it is uncertain how effective those methods are in reducing the risk, or indeed whether they will really be justified should the number of infected people turn out to be exceptionally small.
ProMetic and MacoPharma are two firms that strongly recommend that the Department of Health implement the CE-marked P-Capt prion reduction filter as a matter of urgency, to safeguard the UK blood supply. It is a tailor-made medical device that has been developed by the medical technology company MacoPharma. It is a blood filter that removes all infectious prion proteins that carry vCJD, thereby dramatically reducing or eliminating the risk of transmission through infectious prions and ensuring as far as possible that all blood is safe for transfusion. It has been proved safe and effective and is ready to use, with more than 350 patients having been transfused with P-Capt filtered blood with no adverse effects. The filter has been CE-marked since 2006, meaning that it has passed the EU safety and efficacy test required for it to be used in the UK. The filter has been designed to work with existing technologies and procedures used by the UK National Blood Service, and its introduction would be simple and probably cost-effective. The P-Capt filter could also be used to protect against other transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, including prion diseases that have not yet been identified and named. However, the previous Government appear to have stalled on introducing prion filtration, which is proven to protect people against vCJD transmission through blood transfusions.
Blood contamination is a disaster well known to thousands in this country. Many people with haemophilia were infected with HIV and hepatitis in the ’70s and ’80s because they received contaminated blood from the NHS that was not particularly well screened, or not screened at all, for those viruses. Not only were people infected, but they unknowingly passed the infections to their families. Nearly 2,000 individuals have died as result of that blood calamity, and the figure is increasing.
The vCJD situation is potentially a ticking time bomb—a similar blood disaster could be waiting to happen. Like those who were infected with HIV and hepatitis, those infected with vCJD could be unwittingly passing it on to others, including those who receive their donated blood. To date, at least five people have been confirmed as contracting vCJD after receiving contaminated blood and blood products.
A number of researchers in the department of haematology at Cork university hospital investigated the filter’s operational use and the quality of the filtered components, as well as whether the filtration resulted in any significant changes to blood group antigens. They found that 99% of “top-and-top” units, and 58% of “bottom-and-top” units, had a haemoglobin content of more than 40 grams. Haemolysis increased immediately after filtration, but units remained within UK specification throughout storage. Prion reduction resulted in the loss of 7 to 8 grams of haemoglobin, and reductions in haematocrit of 6% to 9%, due to the filter containing 40 ml of saline, adenine, glucose and mannitol. There is no evidence of any immunologic changes of clinical relevance to the red blood cells membrane after filtration.
The Cork university researchers concluded that prion filtration does not appear to have a detrimental effect on basic in-vitro measures of red blood cell quality or on blood group antigens as assessed by in-vitro methods. However, prion filtration using the P-Capt filter results in some loss of haemoglobin, as I noted. The researchers also found during their study that the filter provides encouraging data on the safety of filtration, which means that it could be used, as was planned and recommended, in adults and children, but particularly the latter.
The Health Protection Agency findings that up to 40,000 people in the UK may be incubating vCJD without knowing it highlights the ongoing threat of prion diseases and the need to filter transferred blood to ensure that donors who are carrying latent prions do not infect recipients. P-Capt has been extensively and independently tested for more than three years. It has been proven not only to work, but to be safe and effective, for a wide range of prion proteins, and its implementation has been recommended by an independent UK safety committee.
As I mentioned, deaths from vCJD continue, and I suspect that there will be more. Only last year, researchers from Case Western Reserve university in the US identified a new human prion brain disease—similar to vCJD—that is also associated with a fast-advancing form of dementia. It is now more than a year since the UK’s Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs—SaBTO—recommended that the Department of Health adopt the P-Capt filter. It is abundantly clear that those crucial safeguards against that vicious disease should be implemented without delay.
The SaBTO recommendation of the use of the P-Capt filter was subject to the completion of the prion-filtered versus standard red cells in surgical and multi-transfused patients study, which is known as the PRISM study. For those who are not aware, PRISM is the third safety study that has been performed on the filter. The two previous investigations, both of which demonstrated the clinical safety of P-Capt, showed absolutely no adverse events. The PRISM process was initially due to conclude in spring and summer of 2009, but it appears to have dragged on for much longer, which has caused considerable concern. The process should be progressed much more rapidly.
A recent parliamentary answer suggested that the tests would not be expected to conclude until mid-2012, although the original deadline was 2009. An interim report is due this summer and I hope that the Minister will confirm that. As the filter has been deemed safe for use since 2006, such a delay seems unnecessary and potentially dangerous for those currently receiving unfiltered, and therefore unprotected, blood.
Following the publication of SaBTO’s recommendations, the Department of Health informed MacoPharma that an impact assessment was being prepared for Ministers, to help make a quick decision on implementation. This was in October 2009, but the impact assessment appears never to have been published and it has been increasingly difficult to understand the decision-making process. Given the potential impact of failing to protect the blood supply from vCJD contamination, such a lack of transparency is deeply worrying.
In Ireland, P-Capt is being used routinely in one pilot hospital and is currently undergoing a health technology assessment in relation to national policy and adoption. Of all places, Macau has a blood transfusion service that has started to use P-Capt to remove vCJD from red blood cell concentrates donated by Caucasians thought to be at risk of carrying the prion. Globally, over 90 million blood units are collected annually and MacoPharma is committed to providing solutions that safeguard this blood supply. The present process of leucodepletion used on UK-donated red blood cell concentrates is not sufficient to prevent people from being infected with vCJD. It is shown to remove only 42% of the total transmissible spongiform encephalopathies infectivity.
In terms of the financial costs of the filter, full implementation to filter all donated blood would cost around £1 per person in England. I think—and I hope that the Minister agrees—that that is a small price to pay considering the consequences if the problem escalates. Despite the fact that some people’s genetic make-up may protect them from this disease, at least 89% of the population may be susceptible to vCJD if infected.
Lastly I would like to discuss briefly the situation relating to dental and surgical instruments. As we have seen recently in the news, there have been two separate incidents—one at Queen’s hospital in Essex and another in Wales—in which patients have been told they have been put at risk of contracting CJD through surgery. Details have not been released about the case in Wales. However in the Essex incident, the mother of a patient who had an operation in the same operating theatre as those who have been contacted had developed an inherited form of CJD. That patient has since been tested and found to be carrying a gene that meant that she too could go on to develop the disease. Although the risk of the individuals concerned actually developing the disease is probably very small, it is of course extremely distressing for them, and in the interest of public health safety they will not be allowed to donate blood, organs or tissue.
Professor Collinge and his team believe that such incidents are not uncommon and that although the risk to patients from contaminated surgical instruments is believed to be small, it has not yet been quantified. His research team, working with Dupont, has recently developed an effective prion deactivation soak called Rely+On. However, despite actually having a commercial partner, it is not being used in hospitals and in fact DuPont is no longer manufacturing Rely+On. This soak is one of three—another was developed at Edinburgh university and another was produced by the Government-sponsored Health Protection Agency. None has been used in a hospital setting. The reason for this is that the Government have not given hospitals or commercial partners the incentive to use and invest in these products. If the hospitals were under pressure and the cleaner was provided at a commercially viable cost, the cost would be lower because there would be a huge market to sell it to and production could recommence. The Government need to give commercial firms the green light to go ahead by explaining to the companies that they will have a commercial market. That will inspire them to carry out the final tests and make changes to make the product more viable for hospitals to use. I understand that a qualified clearance has been given to Rely+On. It is qualified only at the second level because it froths in washer disinfectors. If a commercial green light was given, I am sure that DuPont and others would produce a product that did not froth. A future requirement could be set through a change to health technical memorandum 01-05 or even through the dreaded Care Quality Commission.
I ask the Minister to act now on these issues and not to let this valuable research sink without trace or these products go to waste. We are lucky in that vCJD does not seem to have had an enormous effect on our generation. However, it is the next generation and the one after that we should be thinking of and trying to protect. They are the ones who could well feel the ghastly effects of this crippling disease and who will be pointing the finger at our generation—and perhaps specifically the Minister—and asking why we did not get stuck into the problem and introduce more prevention now.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on securing this important debate and on his thoughtful and well-informed comments on a matter of public concern and genuine importance. I also pay tribute to his ongoing commitment to keeping the issue of variant CJD in the public consciousness, not least through his various debates on the Floor of the House and his questioning of Ministers.
My hon. Friend asked about the Government’s response to vCJD, and I am happy to have this opportunity to update the House. Thankfully, the incidence of cases of clinical vCJD in the UK remains at a very low level, with a total of 175 cases recorded. Since a peak of 29 onsets in 1999 and 28 deaths—sadly—in 2000, the trend has fortunately been continuously downward. In 2010, there was only one new case. There have been no cases presumed to be associated with surgical or dental procedures and no known transmissions presumed to be associated with blood since 1999. The reality contrasts with some predictions that surrounded early discussion of vCJD in the late 1990s. Some people forecast large numbers of infections and deaths far in excess of what has come to pass. However, this is perhaps understandable given the uncertainties that still remain around the disease.
Although we can be pleased that the worst-case scenario has not materialised, we must remain vigilant and continue to do all we can to reduce risks to patients through potential transmissions via blood or surgical procedures. Many aspects of this condition remain unknown, and because of the unusual nature of the presumed infectious agent—the prion—are likely to remain so, as my hon. Friend alluded to. Existing measures have been put in place to reduce the risk of secondary vCJD infection passed from person to person, and it is vital that these are maintained unless evidence becomes available to indicate that they are no longer necessary or are otherwise ineffective.
Some measures put in place to protect against the transmission of vCJD also provide additional benefits to patients. One example is the continual improvement of decontamination practices across all of health care. This is vital to ensure that care is delivered safely with low levels of infection risk from all manner of infections, including vCJD, bacterial, protozoal and viral risks. The maintenance and improvement of existing, and the development of new, decontamination systems are essential for maintaining patient safety.
The Government take high-quality decontamination very seriously, and I can announce today that the Department of Health is commissioning a new programme of decontamination-related research. The Department will make available £2.4 million over the next four years to fund this research, which will include support for the development of cold plasma decontamination technologies, specifically for use in narrow channelled instruments such as endoscopes. Another study will aim to optimise the effectiveness of automated washer disinfectors used to wash and sterilise surgical instruments. Other projects will address new methods for detection of residual protein contamination on instruments following routine washing and disinfection.
In addition to decontamination, another vCJD risk-reduction measure that provides additional health benefits is the removal of white blood cells from all blood for transfusion. The removal of white blood cells not only reduces the risk of vCJD transmission, but reduces the risk of cytomegalovirus transmission, transfusion-associated lung injury and transfusion-related fever, and has other benefits. The provision of synthetic clotting factors for the treatment of all patients with bleeding disorders such as haemophilia is another measure associated with both reducing the risk of vCJD transmission and improved patient care.
Sir Paul Beresford
I thank my hon. Friend for his announcements and I note his repetition of some of the points that I have already made. Does he accept that there are already three commercially available materials that can be used for cold sterilisation—but which are not being used and to which the Government have given only semi-recognition—and could also be introduced extremely quickly? Secondly, I note his point about white cell depletion, but a filter has been available since 2006 that would take red blood cells out as well, greatly improving the restriction of the prion.
Mr Burns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. If he bears with me, I will come to both those points. I want to outline what the Government have been doing, but towards the end of my speech I have a number of comments to make in response to some of the valid points that he raised in his speech.
As I was saying, the provision of synthetic clotting factors for the treatment of all patients with bleeding disorders such as haemophilia is another measure associated with both reducing the risk of variant CJD transmission and improved patient care. Those products, although not suitable for all patients, eliminate all variant CJD and other blood-borne infection risks to those patients.
All the health care actions taken to reduce the risks of person-to-person transmission of variant CJD have costs. Estimates of the annual cost of blood-related protection measures alone amount to approximately £40 million. However, many costs that are badged as variant CJD risk-reduction measures would be incurred even without that specific risk. Without a variant CJD risk, many of the blood-related measures, including leucoreduction and the use of synthetic clotting factors, would continue because of the wider safety and other benefits that they confer. The Government also continue to support payments to those affected by clinical variant CJD through the Variant CJD Trust. The trust has paid out approximately £39 million to patients and their families over the last 10 years.
In the latter part of his speech my hon. Friend talked about the risk of contamination via dentistry, which I would like to address now. There have been no known, or indeed suspected, cases of variant CJD transmission arising from dental procedures. However, there are still considerable scientific uncertainties that prevent us from quantifying the specific potential risk. The Department of Health has focused on improving standards of dental decontamination over the last decade, as the risk from blood-borne viruses—especially hepatitis B and C, and HIV—is a recognised risk in dental practices. Approximately 500,000 people in this country are infected with those viruses, and there are more than 1.5 million patient contacts every week in NHS dental practices. It is essential that the quality of local decontamination in practices must be of the highest standard.
The available equipment for and knowledge about decontamination is constantly changing, as my hon. Friend is aware. We update our policies to keep pace with those technical and scientific developments. An essential feature of the British Dental Association guidance, published in 2004, was the importance of both the sterilization and pre-sterilization cleaning components of the decontamination process. Indeed, the essential quality requirements in the Department’s guidance, as set out in “Health Technical Memorandum 01-05”, were similar to those in the British Dental Association’s original A12 document.
Guidance from the Department of Health states that all dentists should use automated washer disinfectors as part of best practice. There are three reasons for this. First, they provide a consistent and reliable cleaning and disinfection process. Secondly, they contain the washing and disinfection process within a sealed unit, which helps to minimise the risk of spreading microbiological and chemical hazards. Thirdly, there is strong evidence that automated washer disinfectors are effective in removing the worst of the contamination from dental instruments and that they deliver a much greater degree of consistency in cleaning. This will reduce the worst-case risks to subsequent patients.
Also, following the recently commissioned research on optimising the efficacy of washer disinfectors, we expect their performance to improve significantly in the coming years. Initial research indicates that the use of automated washer disinfectors can reduce general protein contamination on instruments by a factor of up to 10,000. The reduction in hydrophobic proteins, similar to prion proteins, is roughly a factor of 100. Automated washer disinfectors are therefore very useful in improving the quality of instrument cleaning and reducing risk.
Sir Paul Beresford
I was not picking on dentistry specifically, because washer disinfectors are also used in hospitals. They are an excellent idea. They are very expensive, but we are going down the right road. The problem is, however, that the prion sticks to certain stainless steel instruments used in dentistry and elsewhere in hospital services, and the washer disinfector will not remove it. However, if the Rely+On, or one of the other two products, were utilised either in the soak beforehand or in the washer disinfector, that would make the process much more effective as far as the prion is concerned.
Mr Burns
Again, if my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will come to these points when I deal with a number of the issues that he raised in his speech.
The guidance encourages the purchase of automated washer disinfectors. However, no time frame has been stipulated and they were not part of the essential quality requirements that all practices had to meet by the end of 2010. A 2009-10 national survey on policy, equipment and procedures used by local dental practices in the decontamination of their instruments showed that more than 70% were at or above the standard required by Department of Health guidance. That figure is likely to improve further, as many other dental practices are close to the required performance level.
The British Dental Association was fully involved in the development of the guidance, and is supportive of the principles underpinning it. The guidance is also consistent with the BDA’s advice sheet A12, “Infection Control in Dentistry”, published in 2004, which states:
“CJD and related conditions raise new infection control questions because ‘prions’, the infectious agents that cause them, are much more difficult to destroy than conventional micro-organisms, so optimal decontamination standards need to be observed. As a universal precaution, all instruments should be thoroughly cleaned before autoclaving, in order to remove as much matter as possible.”
During 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Department of Health made £100 million of capital funding available through PCTs for use in primary dental care. One of the areas identified as suitable for that money was the improvement of standards of decontamination in primary dental care. Many PCTs have provided grants to practices to support the roll-out of automated washer disinfectors in primary dental care.
These and other variant CJD risk reduction measures will remain in place and we will continue to consider all other options where there is evidence of their overall efficacy, safety and cost benefit. For example, we closely follow the development by commercial and academic organisations of potential blood screening tests. While recent progress—as exemplified by the recent publication in The Lancet of the Government-funded prion unit’s development of a prototype diagnostic test—is promising, there remains no test suitable for screening blood donations.
Another possible technology is, as my hon. Friend mentioned, prion filtration, which aims to remove the presumed variant CJD infective agent from blood. In early 2012 on completion of a clinical trial, Ministers will consider the possible use of prion filtration in addition to leucoreduction to reduce further the potential risk of infection from red blood cells. I trust that that helps to answer one of my hon. Friend’s points.
Sir Paul Beresford
I thank my right hon. Friend again for giving way, and for his tolerance. His statement is interesting, although under the previous Government there was a demand by the Department to provide an impact assessment on the P-Capt filter, which should have been ready for Ministers in October 2009. Will he inquire whether that is available, and if so have a look at it? It would speed up the decision making.
Mr Burns
I can answer my hon. Friend instantly on that. I said just before his intervention that we expect the trial results in 2012, and the impact assessment will be completed only when the trial is completed. The impact assessment, then, will not be available until 2012 when the trials have been completed. I hope that that explains it, and satisfies my hon. Friend.
I would like to enter a note of caution that, as with all new technologies, it is important to consider all the potential costs and benefits to ensure that, as far as possible, the benefits they offer and the costs they incur—both financial and clinical— are fully understood. One example was when single-use tonsillectomy instruments were introduced in 2001 to reduce the risk of variant CJD infection. The instruments were withdrawn within a year, after the death of a number of patients. This clearly shows that no matter how good the intentions, there can, sadly, sometimes be unintended consequences with the introduction of thoroughly assessed new technologies.
My hon. Friend raised a number of issues, which I would like to go through methodically. He talked knowledgeably about prion filtration and effectively asked what was the Government’s position on its use to reduce the risk of variant CJD. I can advise him that the independent Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs considers that there is evidence that a particular filter is able to reduce potential infectivity in a unit of red blood cells and has recommended—subject to satisfactory completion of the clinical trial—the introduction of filtered blood to those born since 1 January 1996. The Government are undertaking an evaluation of the costs, benefits and impacts to inform a decision on whether to implement that recommendation. As I said to my hon. Friend a few moments ago, that is expected to be completed in 2012, when we will also have an impact assessment, which could be studied.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of funding. The current funding by the Department is for studies led by Professor Collinge. Between 1996 and 2012 the Department of Health will have provided more than £18.2 million for studies led by Professor Collinge, which is in addition to his funding by the Medical Research Council. Through the RDD policy research programme, the Department currently funds two studies that underpin and are integrated with the MRC Neuropathogenesis Unit funding. The National Prion Monitoring Cohort funding is worth £3.04 million between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2012. Secondly, the development of an effective treatment for prion infection by humans is funded to the value of £7.2 million from 1 February 2006 to 30 June 2012, in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline.
Sir Paul Beresford
First, I am astonished that the PRISM trials have taken so long. They were supposed to finish in 2009, and they have dragged on for a further three years. We really should be worried about the potential development of infection in the intervening period.
Secondly, the Minister has delighted us with the research figures, but they pale into insignificance in comparison with the volume of expenditure by the national health service on imports of blood products and blood serum from the United States in particular. Collinge’s team have produced the test and one of the three soaks, so he has achieved positive results. It would be a mistake to stop now, rather than investing a little more funding to support the next stages of the test so that the tree that was planted initially can bear fruit.
Mr Burns
I always welcome any justified lobbying for extra funding, especially if it is for research. I do not think it appropriate for me to promise my hon. Friend the earth from the Dispatch Box this afternoon, but I will promise him that I will ensure that his request and his justification for the provision of further funds are drawn to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton). No doubt she will consider what he has said and write to him in due course.
Sir Paul Beresford
I thank the Minister sincerely, because it is unusual for Ministers to give way with such regularity. Perhaps it is also unusual for them to receive requests.
I understand that the Under-Secretary of State has considered the matter, and is looking to the private sector to fund the advances and further testing. The private sector is unlikely to do that because it has no incentive, but, as a Minister in the Department of Health looking after the nation’s health, my right hon. Friend has every incentive, as has the Under-Secretary of State.
Mr Burns
I admire my hon. Friend’s persistence and congratulate him on it, but I fear that it will not push me any further at this moment. I hear what he says about the meeting between my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and Professor Collinge. I cannot comment on that, but I reiterate yet again that I will draw my hon. Friend’s comments to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State so that she can reflect on them. No doubt she will be in touch with him once she has had time to do so.
My hon. Friend mentioned the three decontamination products. They have not yet been proven suitable for use in the standard decontamination cycle in health care, and we must therefore await the conclusion of the research. Once we have seen the results of that research and, in one case, the impact assessment, we shall be able to seek to make positive progress.
Let me reassure my hon. Friend that the Government take the risks of variant CJD very seriously indeed. Because of the uncertainty surrounding it, we cannot be satisfied that we can stop looking for ways of improving and enhancing the protection of members of the public, and minimising the development and spread of this particularly horrendous medical condition. Successive Governments have introduced a wide range of precautionary measures focused on reducing risk to protect public health. I assure my hon. Friend that we will maintain them and keep them under review as new evidence emerges, and that we will ensure that any new measures under consideration are effective, safe and appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
Teaching Assistants
Westminster Hall
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
backbench business
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
Sudan
(13 years 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
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to be speaking under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and I welcome you to our debate. I also welcome hon. Members attending the debate, given all the influences of this afternoon. I am extremely grateful that they have come to what is, nevertheless, a very important debate. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party group of parliamentary friends of CAFOD—Catholic Fund for Overseas Development. I want to place on record my sincere thanks to Mr Speaker and the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate on the humanitarian and political situation in Sudan.
As hon. Members present at this debate already know, Sudan has recently voted to separate, in a week-long referendum which began on 9 January, and will formally divide on 9 July 2011. Along with the Sudanese people, I was very pleased to welcome the referendum, which is one major step towards completing the comprehensive peace agreement of 2005. After years of civil war, it seemed that finally a peaceful solution would be achieved. Unsurprisingly, however, a number of issues remain unresolved and require our urgent attention. In my view, alongside our international obligation as a guardian of the peace agreement, it is also our moral duty to ensure that a lasting peace is achieved.
In fairness to the Foreign Secretary, his action on Sudan in the run-up to the referendum was clear and constructive. He chaired a special session of the UN Security Council and announced Sudan as a priority for the Foreign Office. That has to be welcomed by all parts of the House. However, success in Sudan is not the final piece in the jigsaw; it is the first piece in a new jigsaw. I am sure that the Government will listen to the arguments put forward today not only by myself, but other hon. Members, and, more importantly, act on them with the urgency that they deserve. The issues are many and require greater detail than I can afford, given the time today. However, I will endeavour to offer an overview of the main causes for concern that the UK could and should act on, and I am sure that other hon. Members present will wish to explore those issues in greater detail.
The fertile and oil-producing border area of Abyei is proving to be a hot-spot of escalating violence and political turmoil. As the Minister will know—I welcome his presence this afternoon—the separate referendum in this part of the region has been stalled. That is because a nomadic tribe, the Misseriya, are now claiming to be residents of that area. Consequently, they are exerting their right to vote in the referendum. That is a serious and intractable problem which is causing civil unrest of grave concern. The UN has also reported that both the armies from the north and south are deploying heavy weapons. What is more, President Bashir has insisted that there can be no decision on the future status of Abyei that excludes the Misseriya. Is that not a clear attempt to influence the outcome of the referendum in favour of the north, which is lacking in the kind of balance that I believe is necessary, and for which I will argue later?
I am sure that the Foreign Office understands those issues. It has previously acknowledged the complexity of the situation that I have described. I note that the Government have also signed a statement, issued by the Troika on 15 March, condemning violence in the area. I welcome very much those interventions, but words need to be backed up. Will the Minister tell us what further steps the UK will take to ensure that this situation is resolved, and that the referendum is carried out with fair representation of the resident Dinka people? Will the Minister outline what support will be given to officials to uphold the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which empowers the Dinka people to choose their status in the referendum? I fear that unless the situation is properly addressed, the north will continue to exploit the peace process for greater concessions from the south and, inevitably, the south will fight back.
Another major threat to the peace process is posed by the recent reports of divisions between various factions in the south. I do not wish to add to the rumours that I have heard. However, it would be catastrophic for the peace process if those reported conflicts were to escalate on the eve of independence. There is a clear need for diplomatic assistance and our Government have to make sure that they continue to fulfil their role as one of the guarantors of the peace agreement. I accept absolutely that in that role, the Government have to be more even-handed between north and south than I feel I am able to be in this speech today. I echo the words of the Minister, when he said:
“It is important to recognise that we need not just to reduce the risks associated with disasters when they happen, but to have much better co-ordination on identifying and preventing risks before they happen”.—[Official Report, 8 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 886.]
Will the Minister tell the House what steps he and his colleagues will take to bring those words into fruition and co-ordinate an effective diplomatic mission to resolve the conflict in Abyei, and between the various factions in the south, before it escalates into full-blown civil conflict?
I would now like to draw the Minister’s attention to another outstanding issue—the popular consultations, which were due to be held in the South Kordofan and Blue Nile states. Although the consultation process is under way in the Blue Nile, it has yet to begin in South Kordofan, a clear indicator that the north is not taking those marginalised areas of Sudan as seriously as I believe it should. It is perhaps worth recalling the words of American historian Howard Zinn:
“The memory of oppressed people is one thing that cannot be taken away, and for such people, with such memories, revolt is always an inch below the surface.”
Will the Minister acknowledge the potential dangers if the north continues to ignore the demands of its marginalised states? Will he commit to putting added pressure on President Bashir meaningfully to uphold the promises in the comprehensive peace agreement for popular consultations to meet the expectations of the Sudanese people in South Kordofan and the Blue Nile?
The Minister will also be aware of another matter which affects all three states previously mentioned and which has yet to be resolved—border demarcation. That highly contentious issue directly affects 10 border states and some 13 million people. As always, these matters are complex. Can the Minister say what he and his colleagues are doing to support the important process of border delineation?
Following the independence of the south, the threat from the hardliners in the north is that sharia law will be more strictly applied and that there will be no place for southerners, especially if they fail to convert to Islam. Compare that with the south, where northerners have already been given guarantees that they are welcome to stay and to continue in whatever is their line of business. Does the Minister agree that Khartoum should be encouraged to adopt a similar attitude? What steps is he taking to ensure that the rights of southerners living in the north, and of northerners living in the south, will be respected?
The national debt, which is approximately $40 billion, is a big issue. South Sudan simply does not have the economic wherewithal to service that financial burden. However, north Sudan has offered to take on all of the country’s international debt when the south gains independence in July, requesting that that be in exchange for inclusion in the International Monetary Fund’s heavily indebted poor countries initiative. We are aware that our Government intend to cancel the £1 billion of Sudan’s debt that is owed to the UK, but when will that happen? What are the implications for the budget of the Department for International Development?
The Minister ought also to be aware of the important role of the Churches in mitigating the effects of conflict and in protecting the rights of citizens, despite the continued attempts by Khartoum to restrict their work. Non-governmental organisations such as CAFOD, which has worked in Sudan since the mid-1970s and has provided those essential links to the Church, have proven effective in dealing with the humanitarian and political crises.
There is much anticipation about the Government’s position on the humanitarian emergency response review. I suggest, too, that the Government take on board Lord Ashdown’s point of view, which I share, that
“indigenous and faith-based NGOs are often the first to respond, and understand both culture and context”.
Based on that shared view, will the Minister continue to support the work of the Churches in Sudan? Many NGOs have asked the Government to define the support to be provided. I welcome the Minister’s view on that aspect.
Another major issue is the unfolding humanitarian crisis. More than 190,000 southerners have returned from the north to the south since November 2010. I urge the Government to continue to live up to our responsibility to help the poorest in the world. Currently, the British public are legitimately concerned about cuts, but let that not deter the Government in their resolve to help those who need our attention.
I have covered only a handful of the issues facing Sudan as it approaches a new chapter. I have not even touched on the difficulties of ensuring a fair division of oil revenues or of the terrible threat posed by the Lord’s Resistance Army. Of equally great importance, we should never forget the plight of people in Darfur and the devastating human misery and suffering that the violence has caused. While conflict continues in Darfur, peace across the rest of the country is under constant threat. The international community has still to meet that challenge.
I would now like to conclude my speech with some final recommendations and thoughts, as I look forward to the contribution of other hon. Members. South Sudan is one of the most underdeveloped regions on the African continent. The UK special representative for Sudan, Michael Ryder, has recommended that the Government begin to outline a post-CPA framework. Does the Minister have any plans to do so? If so, what kind of action does he envisage the UK Government taking?
DFID’s wealth creation strategy could play a significant role in helping south Sudan prosper as it develops. As Ministers draw up their plans, I suggest that they take heed of informed contributions such as CAFOD’s “Think Small” report, which outlines the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular in developing countries where the informal sector is so prevalent.
I take the opportunity to express my support for the principle of country-by-country reporting, which would bring particular benefits to south Sudan. As a new country with significant oil resources, it will be starting from a blank page. Country-by-country reporting is one piece of the jigsaw that could help the people of south Sudan to hold their Government to account and to ensure that wealth is fairly shared. Country-by-country reporting is supported by the Chancellor, who has promised action to take it forward at a European Union level. What will such action look like?
South Sudan has enormous potential as a country, but our support is paramount at this critical time of state formation. So far, the UK Government have played an important supportive role: they must continue to do so. The alternative would be a travesty for the people of Sudan, who are waiting, hoping and praying for the international community to respond, and to respond positively. I called for the debate today because I and many others agree with that plea.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) who, over the years, has contributed insightfully to debates about international development.
My age is such that when I went to school, quite a lot of the atlas was still coloured pink. The Sudan was interesting because it was hatched pink and green to reflect the condominium of Egypt and the United Kingdom over it in the years immediately prior to its independence. The de jure Sudan was left as an uncomfortable nation, with a north that was basically Arab and Muslim, and a south that was essentially African and Christian. The two have effectively been in conflict pretty much ever since.
The referendum that was held was a considerable step forward, as was the south being able to declare that it would become a separate de jure state. However, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, a number of crucial issues remain outstanding, the most important of which is the question of Abyei, a part of the country that was to have a separate referendum to decide whether to go to the north or to the south. Where should Abyei be? There have been concerns about the intimidation of the local population. Reports in February and March suggested that as many as 25,000 people had been displaced from the region, with other people moving in, so it is extremely difficult to work out who should be the electorate.
The other crucial issue that has not been resolved is how oil revenues will be shared between the north and the south. I do not know whether anyone has analysed how much of the world’s oil reserves are in countries of conflict or difficulty, but oil is both a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing in that it may provide great income, but it is a curse if the parties concerned cannot agree how the revenues will be shared. Bearing in mind the length of time that the comprehensive peace agreement has been in place and negotiations have been ongoing, it is a matter of real concern that the north and the south have not yet agreed how to distribute oil revenues, particularly as much of the oil is located geographically in what will become de jure south Sudan.
It is important to emphasise that—through no fault of its own—there is lack of capacity in Juba and the south. Some years ago, when the International Development Committee visited south Sudan, it was striking that this area of the world had apparently been abandoned by many for a long time. We met the then transitional Government of south Sudan, which was mixture of two sorts of people. Those who had been army commanders in the bush and fought in the war against the north—they were referred to as commanders—seemed to hold about half the posts in the Government. The other half of the posts seemed to be held by people who had managed to get out of Sudan. Many of them had come to the UK to do something such as reading chemistry at Bradford, and they had since returned and were making a contribution. Civil society and the structure of governance in Juba, however, are unbelievably thin.
I want to make a suggestion to the Minister. Given that the issues concerning Abyei, oil reserves and so on are so critical, I hope, as with the drafting of the constitution and other matters, that Her Majesty’s Government will consider the extent to which it would be possible to help with the process by lending capacity in terms of people and officials, as well as resources, to the south Sudan Government. I never thought that I would suggest sending lawyers somewhere, but this is an instance when there is a requirement for those who are used to drafting treaties, putting things in square brackets, and the whole process of deciding how to negotiate agreements. What has tended to happen is that the leaderships in the north and the south have got together from time to time for a set-piece meeting, usually in Khartoum, but nothing is decided and there is then a long gap. The danger is that the longer the issue continues unresolved, the greater the risk of armed tension, a complete collapse of trust, and friction, with the result that much of what has been achieved will fall apart.
It is right that the people of south Sudan put an enormous amount of trust and hope in the United Kingdom. Perhaps I may share with hon. Members part of a statement entitled “Statement on Behalf of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan to Her Majesty's Government”, which is signed on behalf of the Anglican bishops to Sudan by the archbishop, who is also the bishop of the Juba diocese. It states:
“I would like to take this opportunity to thank Her Majesty's Government for its tremendous commitment to the Sudanese people to date. With millions of pounds in funding through Department for International Development…you have successfully built schools and health facilities; you have fed and treated the most desperate. The Government and the ordinary people of the United Kingdom have advocated and lobbied to the highest level on behalf of”
the people of
“the Sudan for which we are very grateful. This has all contributed to the greater effort of many that is slowly improving the lives of Sudanese. We can all accept…that the challenges ahead of us remain great.”
The statement goes on to outline some of the issues that I have identified, but it is clear that the people of south Sudan are looking, apart from to the African Union, to the United Kingdom to help them through the transitional process. They are of course grateful for funds that the Department for International Development may provide for schools and health facilities, but there is also a fundamental issue of how they get through the next few critical months of governance and deal with drafting a constitution, sorting out the remaining issues of the referendum in Abyei and the oil reserves.
I am glad that many colleagues wish to contribute to the debate, so I shall conclude my remarks to allow them to speak. The resolution of the issues in south Sudan and the creation of a new de jure state in Africa make it almost unarguable that Somaliland should be given the opportunity to have a referendum so that it can decide whether it wishes to remain part of de jure Somalia, or whether it is able to become a de jure state in its own right. The whole House will know that Somaliland is on the boundary of what was formerly the British protectorate of Somalia. It has been a de facto country for some 20 years with its capital in Hargeisa. For a considerable period, the people of Somaliland have wanted to be a de jure state. The African Union has argued that it does not want new countries emerging in Africa, but a new country has emerged in south Sudan, so that argument is no longer sustainable as far as Somaliland is concerned. I hope that, where appropriate, we will be able to support the people of Somaliland to obtain the independence that they want so much.
As the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill said, these are days of hope for south Sudan, but there are serious obstacles ahead, and if matters in the next few months are not sorted out properly, it will be easy for the whole thing to disintegrate back into mistrust, bloodshed and a serious loss of life.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your tutelage and chairmanship today, Mr Walker. As others have done, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on securing this important debate. It has come at an interesting time. There are plenty of distractions, both domestic and international, that might focus our attention elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) reminds us of our historical links with the country of Sudan, and why we should take a continued interest in what is happening there and in developments as life moves forward.
Sudan is an exceptional country on many counts. It is one of the largest and most geographically diverse countries in Africa, with huge mountain ranges splitting the deserts in the north and the rain forests in the south, and the River Nile splitting the country from east to west. As with many African countries, its borders are a consequence of colonisation, and a product of the deals that settled imperial battles in the 1800s, which created an artificial state where the political differences between the north and the south matched the geographic contrast that I mentioned.
Indeed, from 1924 until its independence in 1956, British policy in Sudan divided the country into two separate territories: the Muslim area in the north, and the Christian area in the south. It is not surprising that, with such a stark cultural, religious, linguistic and economic difference between the north and the south, the country has been beset by conflict. To suggest, however, that we can divide such things and create a polarised view of the country would be misleading. There are over 200 different ethnic groups, each with their traditional beliefs, cultures and histories, and often their own language.
Conflict there has been. The humanitarian crisis has been described by the United Nations as
“one of the worst nightmares in recent history”,
and various leaders from across the country are accused of war crimes, including President Omar al-Bashir. The conflict has lasted for decades and the civil war has cost the lives of millions of people. It has driven millions of others from their homes, straining relations with neighbouring countries and squandering millions of dollars of international aid. The conflict is denying the country economic prosperity and, as has been mentioned, Sudan is a rich country. Oil has been mentioned a number of times, but there are also reserves of gold and cotton. All that is being squandered because the civil war is in the way.
The long overdue referendum was held in January and the country has been primed to split, which should happen in July this year. As the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill said, one area, Abyei, has still to determine where it will sit under the new order. There is a comprehensive peace agreement, but that resounding issue is unsolved. There are some spoilers; a number of organisations and tribal influences and so on are trying to prevent the peace process from reaching fruition.
Where does the border go? That is crucial. Any map showing the oil fields will illustrate the difficulties and the problem. Much of the oil straddles the border or is in the south, but the oil refineries and ports from where the oil is distributed are in the north towards the Red sea. The south produces 80% of the country’s oil, but currently receives only 50% of the revenue. The north has recognised the desire of the south to split, but it is no velvet revolution.
The Khartoum Government have a history of using proxy forces to bleed political concessions from the south. The most worrying example of that has already been mentioned and is the Lord’s Resistance Army. That Christian fundamentalist group was formed away from Sudan in 1987, and is today led by Joseph Kony. It has no coherent political strategy; it is a bizarre group that draws on religious fundamentalism and urges brutal guerrilla tactics such as cutting off the noses and hands of victims. It claims its members are possessed by spirits, and Kony advises his recruits to smear oil on their chests as a way to protect them from bullets. Its relations with Khartoum are worrying. In the 1990s, Sudan funded and trained the LRA to fight against Ugandan and Sudanese rebels in the south. In 2005, al-Bashir decided to cut links with the group after signing the comprehensive peace agreement. Nevertheless, there are continued reports of LRA activity, and despite official denial of those links, violence in south Sudan persists.
The LRA is not any small group, and it has caught the attention of the United States, which in December 2008 decided to send in the CIA in Operation Lightning Thunder. It was a botched operation that tried to remove the LRA from north-east Africa, and affected not only Sudan, but the Democratic Republic of the Congo and other countries. The operation had an adverse effect because rather than the group being removed, Kony’s troops dispersed into the land where they remain today. That epitomises the challenge of this contemporary conflict which involves a non-state militia group whose activities do not recognise any borders or laws. The group numbers less than 1,000 people, but it seeks to destroy the good work that has been done in the peace agreement.
President Obama has called for the LRA to disarm through the Northern Uganda Recovery Act 2009, and that strategy has been advanced. The Americans have taken the issue seriously and put it in statute to help the future of Sudan. The four objectives of the Act passed by the United States Congress are to increase the protection of civilians; to remove Kony from the battlefield; to promote defections, disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of fighters; and to increase humanitarian access and continued relief.
I would be curious to know whether the Minister believes that the work done by Britain ties in with that done by the United States. The official Government line condemns the actions of the LRA and in February, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), stated:
“We are sparing no effort at all in helping those countries who are on the front line of tackling the LRA, and we are doing all we possibly can to bring its leader to justice in the International Criminal Court as well.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2011; Vol. 522, c. 724.]
I invite the Minister to update the House on what actions Britain is taking, together with the United States, to tackle that group.
Perhaps I may digress and ask the Minister some further questions about funding for Africa. The amount of aid given to Africa every year is about one tenth of the value of the minerals that are exported out of Africa. Much of that money disappears because there is no accountability or transparency to show where that mineral wealth, and the money paid by countries such as China, Britain and others, actually goes. The statistics on the website of the Department for International Development state that about £150 million is given to Sudan every year. Will the Minister spell out how that money is accounted for and how transparency is provided? When the coalition Government were formed, I was pleased to hear the announcement that there would be more scrutiny of spending, to ensure that money is spent in a correct and accountable way.
It is important to step up our support. More incidents of violence are occurring in south Sudan, which suggests that force is being used to disrupt the moves towards peace. That level of violence takes place far away from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which suggests that organisations such as the LRA are receiving patronage from Khartoum or from outside.
As we ponder the consequences of the Arab spring—an opportunity to change things for the better and to sow the seeds of democracy that comes once a generation—we must look at how we can avoid a repeat of what we saw in Iran. Iran had its own revolution where our influence was perhaps not welcome, and we ended up with a regime with which we have not been able to work.
As we focus on Sudan, we must remind ourselves that this is also a once-in-a-generation opportunity and a chance to make a change and introduce a new country to the world. That requires the support of the international community. This rare opportunity that comes once in a generation must be harnessed. The birth of a new and fragile state such as south Sudan needs international support to sow the seeds of democracy and encourage the genesis of economic growth. Most importantly, we must deny insurgents, bandits and violent opportunists the chance to seize power by force. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, Britain’s historical involvement means that we owe it to Sudan to do our part. In the past, we had an historic role in carving out a poorly designed state over a century ago. Let us hope that today we can have a positive influence that might lead to longer lasting peace and prosperity for this new country.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I, too, convey my thanks to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) for securing this debate. During the previous Parliament, I visited Sudan together with Michael Howard and David Steel, both now in the House of Lords. One of the most moving and emotional things that I saw during the course of the previous Parliament was when I spent two days walking through the camps in Darfur and meeting the refugees. I talked to them and saw their living conditions, heard what they and their families had been through and saw the tremendous fear, poverty and appalling brutality that those people had faced for such a long time. At the time, as we see in Hansard, many speeches were made about our concern for the situation in Darfur, yet we seemed unable to influence the situation, much to the concern of many hon. Members.
While my colleagues and I were in Darfur, we spoke with the African Union soldiers who were trying to bring some form of policing to the area, and they expressed concerns about the Sudanese authorities’ intransigent obstruction of their efforts properly and effectively to supervise things. We took those concerns directly to President Omar al-Bashir when we met him at his presidential palace in Khartoum, and despite all my concerns about what had been happening in Darfur, I was extremely pleased by our meeting. I wish that hon. Members could have seen the conviction and effectiveness with which Michael Howard and David Steel negotiated with President Omar al-Bashir during our meeting. I was extremely pleased that changes were subsequently made, and African Union helicopter flights were allowed at night-time to protect innocent civilians.
On a note of optimism, I am pleased at how the referendum has gone. Given all the problems that the country has suffered over such a long period, it is quite a paradigm shift for it to go through the referendum process. That is something to be encouraged and to be grateful for. I met the Sudanese ambassador before the referendum, and he was sure that the country would split. There was a consensus about that; even before the referendum, everybody realised there was a certain inevitability about the country splitting. Of course, this is an extremely controversial issue, as we have heard from colleagues, and terrible difficulties are involved in any divorce. However, the country has somehow managed to go through the referendum process in a relatively peaceful and stable way, and I very much hope that the Minister will acknowledge the progress that has been made.
When I was in Khartoum, I realised that parts of it are like downtown Beijing because of the tremendous influence of the Chinese. I have never seen so much Chinese lettering anywhere in the world, apart from in China. China is all over the country, with huge investments and a massive influence on the Government. It is a pity that there is so much Chinese influence and so little direct British influence. Many politicians told me that all the products in Sudan were British-made in the ’50s and ’60s; everything was made in Britain and then exported to Sudan. Now, there are hardly any British products in Sudan; all the products are Chinese imports.
The reason I have come here is to ask the Minister to work with British business to help expand trade with Sudan. I understand that DFID is all about international aid and assistance, but there must be some interaction and co-operation with British industry to help British business export to Sudan and send people there to assist in the country’s construction. There should be some form of co-operation and engagement between DFID and British business.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from the extremely pertinent question of Chinese influence, which can be seen not only in southern Sudan, but in many other places, will he share with us his view of what lies behind that activity? What is motivating this extraordinarily frenetic expansion, which is originating in China and flourishing in Africa?
Daniel Kawczynski
If we look at the map of Africa, we see that the greatest Chinese investment is primarily where the oil reserves are. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Chinese are keen to invest. There is huge construction of bridges, railways and other infrastructure to extract the minerals and oil that China so desperately needs for its economy.
I have had many meetings with the Sudanese ambassador to the UK at his embassy, and I pay tribute to him, because he is a good and diligent representative of his country. I have taken British businesses to see him, and he keeps telling me, “Sudan is open for business with the UK. We are desperate”—to return to the point made by the hon. Gentleman—“to detach ourselves from our over-dependence on China. We need to change our economy’s relationships to make sure we interact more with countries in Europe and particularly with the UK.” Many Sudanese people see the UK in an extremely positive way, and they have a long-standing friendship and relationship with us.
This is the first time I have heard of the cancellation of the £1 billion debt owed to Britain, which the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill highlighted. He asked the Minister to clarify when that debt will be cancelled, and I, too, am very much looking forward to hearing the answer. However, this should not just be a matter of saying, “Oh well, let’s cancel £1 billion of debt,” and we must remember that we are talking about British taxpayers’ money. Our country is heavily indebted, and various facilities are being closed in our constituencies, so £1 billion is a huge amount of taxpayers’ money to think of simply cancelling.
Rather than just cancelling £1 billion of debt, therefore, I suggest that we negotiate with the Sudanese. We should say that we will cancel a proportion of the debt in exchange for their hiring the services of British manufacturing consultancies or companies, which would go to their country to educate their people, set up production and help them set up factories. There must be a quid pro quo interaction between the British Government and Sudan. We should not simply cancel the debt, but cancel some of it and say that we want the Sudanese to use the money to hire the services of British companies.
Mr Tom Clarke
I hesitate to intervene in such a thoughtful speech, but it is important to register that much of the debt is interest accrued over the years on borrowing that many people at the time considered reckless. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that?
Daniel Kawczynski
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but whether that borrowing was reckless or not, we all take out mortgages, and we normally all have to pay off the debt. Regrettably, some of my constituents have taken out loans that they cannot afford, and I have tried to help them to somehow negotiate their way through those loans. That is difficult, but a contract has been signed. We should show good will to the Sudanese by cancelling some of the debt, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would object to our also encouraging them to use some of the resources that would be freed up when they no longer have to pay us interest to engage the services of British engineering and manufacturing consultants in the development and restructuring of their country.
Stephen Pound
I do not want to trespass too much on the hon. Gentleman’s generosity of spirit, but, to take up his analogy, nobody would object to paying a mortgage if they got a house out of it. When it comes to debt relief in Africa, however, it is as if the mayor of the town got the house, and the people had to pay the mortgage; that is a much more accurate description. I hope, therefore, that we can unite in praise of the Government, the Minister and DFID for apparently intending to do precisely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) suggested by writing the debt off.
Daniel Kawczynski
I do not want to come across as a Scrooge, and I know how generous the hon. Gentleman is, but a lot of British companies would like to engage and trade with Sudan and do not know how to. DFID has a huge role to play in advertising the opportunities and what is happening in a country, and in ensuring that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and British commerce and industry are engaged in helping it to create the prosperity that we desperately need. Sudan will be prosperous long term only through trade, not through aid, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. Sudan is able to become a very wealthy country through increased trade with the UK and to not always be over-dependent on aid.
I served briefly on the Select Committee on International Development in the previous Parliament. We visited many countries in Africa, and one of those visits was to a tiny village on the Ethiopian-Kenyan border. The workers from the non-governmental organisation that had been hired were all French speakers and all the machinery—everything—was Chinese or Japanese. I went to the village to meet the village elders, who said to me, “You know, Mr Kawczynski, we’re very grateful to you and the French Government for providing all this wonderful help for our village.” I said, “We’re not French, we’re British”. They replied, “Oh, what’s Britain got to do with it?” So stripped had DFID become of the British brand—deliberately stripped by Clare Short—that, in many circumstances around the world, there was no linkage at all between the UK and British taxpayers and the good work happening on the ground.
That was a deliberate policy by Clare Short following the scandalous Pergau dam incident, which we all recall, but it went too far. I am very proud and satisfied that British taxpayers are helping the poorest around the world. It is something for which we should all be thankful, but we should not flinch from waving the British flag at the same time and showing how important it is to promote the UK. Can the Minister assure me today that he is engaged directly in helping British commerce to work with Sudan to help to ensure its future prosperity?
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I congratulate my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), on securing the debate. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss Sudan. The debate is particularly timely at this critical point following the referendum and before southern Sudan takes statehood in its own right on 9 July. As is often the case with Westminster Hall debates, our discussion has been informed and valuable, and we have heard from people with great experience serving in international development, and with first-hand experience of visiting the country.
I would like to touch on current events and the concerns that most hon. and right hon. Members share about how things are unfolding, as well as on Darfur and human rights in Sudan more generally. As I said, this is a particularly good time to discuss Sudan, because the referendum on independence for southern Sudan took place in January. Right hon. and hon. Members have discussed the decades of conflict and civil war that destroyed lives entirely needlessly. It was very positive that the referendum could take place and that the result was generally deemed to stand up to scrutiny. The turnout was more than the 60% required and the result had overwhelming support. It was important and right that the UK Government provided support and assistance to enable that process to take place, and it is important that such support continues as southern Sudan takes the steps to becoming a state, and as northern Sudan adjusts to being a smaller country.
Obviously, building a new nation requires significant effort in the creation of new institutions and networks, and the development of civil society. There is a need to ensure that the people are taken along with the process so that, from the start, they hopefully have a Government and state that they trust and have faith in, thus building on the positive result of the referendum and the undoubted enthusiasm that went alongside that. However, there are always dangers, because with such an overwhelming result, expectations can be high. A lot of work will be needed to deliver a stable and successful state that will have strong economic development and growth rates of which we would be envious, although since the financial crisis such rates are obviously far below the double-digit figures that were enjoyed before.
I have read worrying reports about the involvement of civil society, because it is incredibly important that it is well represented and that it has links with the Government. I was concerned to read about the group that has been set up to draft the new constitution to build on the interim one of 2005. It is great that there is a civil society representative, but civil society organisations have petitioned the south Sudanese president about the person appointed as their representative to say that he does not represent civil society, which is a sign that perhaps the joined-up discussions and the involvement of the various players are not proceeding as well as they should. It is important that that should happen so that people can trust the institutions created. After all, getting the constitution right sets the framework for how everything else will follow, so it would be unfortunate if questions remained over it.
The thorny issue of resources has been discussed, and although it was positive that the referendum happened, there will inevitably be really difficult decisions and discussions about how the resources are divided up. The country is rich in oil but, as others have said, that can be a curse. When countries have such natural resources, there is a strong potential for those resources to create conflict. Sudan produces 500,000 barrels of oil a day. Three quarters of that comes from the south, but the pipelines to get it to market are in the north. There are moves to examine whether pipelines could be built in the south, but it will be years before that will be possible. That means that there has to be a resolution to the resource issue, but it is important that that central issue is managed. I do not know whether the Government can assist the dialogue between north and south to try to get a resolution, but the situation has the potential to create conflict.
While we are talking about dividing things up, the other big question is how the debt will be divided. If the international community found a way to reduce or get rid of Sudan’s outstanding international debt, that would be one fewer thing on the new countries’ “difficult to resolve” list.
The violence that we saw after the referendum is concerning. Last week alone, 150 people were killed, and the tally since the beginning of the year is 800 people. Obviously, those numbers could be a lot worse, but they are definitely creating huge cause for concern, as others mentioned, particularly around the flash point of Abyei. In a sense, it is a microcosm of the wider conflict—it is where north meets south; it is rich in oil; and it has all the historical rivalries. I was intrigued about water resources, which can often be a source of conflict, particularly in countries where water is not plentiful and access to it is difficult. The main river has two names. It is the Kiir river to the people from the south, and Bahr al-Arab—river of the Arabs—to those from the north, so they are very much putting down a marker that they feel that it is their river.
That particular flashpoint is a real concern. We still have not had the promised referendum. It has been delayed, and now it looks as though there is no prospect of that happening. Is that option still being pursued, or is any discussion taking place about whether it would be possible to take the border through that region? Will it actually be split? There must ultimately be a resolution of that particular issue.
Before I conclude, I would like to turn to Darfur. That ongoing issue has been high on the international agenda—it has been coming and going in waves—since 2003. However, it has been rather overshadowed in the past year by focus on the referendum and the move towards independence for the south. Some 300,000 people died in the conflict in Darfur, while 2.7 million people were displaced, which is equivalent to half the population of Scotland. However, there has been little progress by the Sudanese Government on implementing the recommendations of the African Union high-level panel on Darfur. A renewed effort is needed to get the talks that are being sponsored by the Qataris working. I hope that the Government will ensure that that is in their mind in their discussions about Sudan.
Turning to human rights, there should be credit where it is due. There has been small progress in some areas. The Child Act 2008 will recognise as children those up to the age of 18. The previous test referred to signs of maturity, and there were appalling atrocities against children. While there has been progress on that point, there has not been in other areas of human rights, such as the death penalty and rights for women. The country refused to sign the convention on the elimination of all forms of violence against women, which speaks volumes. There is also restriction on freedom of the media and speech, and people can be detained or arrested just for being a journalist or human rights defender. There are also religious restrictions, particularly in the north, which is something of increasing concern post-independence. There are differences in law for the Christian minority in terms of property rights, and it is also illegal for a Muslim to convert to Christianity. There have been reports that one of the church schools in the north that had 500 pupils is now down to 60 or 70 due to an exodus of many people migrating south. Those who remain are even more of a minority and discrimination against them is likely to heighten. I hope that we are making strong representations on all those human rights issues, and I know the UK Government are active in doing so. Last but not least, there is the refusal of President al-Bashir to comply with the arrest warrant of the International Criminal Court.
All those important human rights issues do not necessarily relate directly to the independence referendum and the particular changes in the country, but they are, as is the case for human rights abuses in any country, still matters of grave concern for many hon. Members. The Government must continue to make that issue a priority.
The UK can play a positive role in Sudan by providing technical advice and assistance to support southern Sudan in becoming a new state. We have a lot of experience from assisting the journeys of the countries in eastern Europe. Our aid can be used even more effectively if we ensure that, when possible, local labour is used, because that can contribute to the development of the economy. However, we need to be sensitive about aid. There are still real tensions due to the conflict and the different groupings. We need to take into account the dynamics of the conflict when delivering aid. We can also put diplomatic pressure on the Sudanese Government on issues of human rights, and try to prevent further conflict spreading, as well as resolving the issues of resources.
Apparently, southern Sudan is interested in joining the Commonwealth. That idea might have merit, and could be a further incentive for progress to be made on some of the issues we have outlined. It could also promote a supportive network to make it more likely that the state can be successful and stable. I look forward to the rest of the debate and to the Minister’s response.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I welcome the Minister who will reply to the debate and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on successfully petitioning the Backbench Business Committee for it to take place. With the events occurring in north Africa, the issue of Sudan has been driven from the news headlines. As it is likely to be the first democratic nation spawned by the world since Kosovo in 2008, and the Government are likely to take office on 9 July, this is an important and timely moment for the right hon. Gentleman to secure the debate.
I had the pleasure of visiting north and south Sudan at the time of the referendum. What was particularly pleasing was the absolute joy of the people in south Sudan who voted in the referendum. Their smiles and body language showed their delight at being given the opportunity to vote in a referendum that would secure them a new nation. Their aspirations were huge. The challenge that the international community now faces is to move quickly enough to meet those aspirations. Otherwise I think there will be real trouble.
The referendum and subsequent independence arose out of the comprehensive peace agreement of 2005. The conflict, with 2 million deaths, left the south in an undeveloped and blighted state, one of the poorest nations on earth. I could see that the referendum, though not perfect, was fair and well run, considering the conditions under which it operated, and it resulted in 98.83% of the voters backing the proposal. We now have to move quickly to meet the aspirations of those people. However, there are a number of obstacles facing the new Government, which have been mentioned in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman cited one of the biggest: the oil-rich state of Abyei. Abyei was awarded special administrative status in the comprehensive peace agreement. There was supposed to be a referendum on the region but it has not taken place, due to the difficulties and problems stated by the right hon. Gentleman. It is important that the issue is resolved. Only yesterday, President Bashir reiterated claims that the contested oil-rich region of Abyei belonged to the north. He threatened to wage war on the border state of south Kordofan if the newly independent state of south Sudan opted for confrontation there.
According to reports, a senior official from the President’s ruling National Congress party has warned that the north will revoke its recognition of south Sudan’s independence, if the latter claims ownership of Abyei in its constitution. In its draft constitution, south Sudan lays claim to Abyei, and that is due to be adopted after the region officially gains independence on 9 July. As can be seen, the issue of Abyei has the potential to derail the whole process. The latest proclamation from the President is particularly unwelcome. It is imperative that the international community facilitates discussions at the earliest possible opportunity to deal with one of the most pressing issues. Elections are due to take place in the north on 2 May. It may be that this matter is being used as an issue of politicking by the President in the north. If that is the case, it is utterly reprehensible, and I hope the President will act with restraint.
Others have mentioned the second real difficulty: oil revenues. The majority of Sudan’s wealth, north and south, comes from the oil fields, about 75% of which are sited in the south. The oil then flows through the pipeline to be distilled in the north, where all the distilleries are. It then goes on to be marketed from Port Sudan in the east of the country. Both sides have accepted an oil-sharing agreement over the past five years under which the net oil revenues of the oil produced in the south—I use my words with care—should be shared 50:50. That is where Abyei comes in; if it was to be sited in the north, the south would get none of the oil revenue. It is important that that agreement continues.
Nobody challenged this figure, but it is one of the most important facts that I gained from my visit: up to $12 billion is estimated to have been siphoned off from money that the north has given to the south over the last five years. Did that go on what is ostensibly one of the best-paid and best equipped armies in Africa, or has it merely disappeared? One of the biggest challenges faced by the international community in trying to set up a new nation in the south is the corruption. Aid assistance schemes for dealing with poverty throughout the world are normally short of funds, but potentially there is no shortage of funds here.
The third big obstacle is that of citizenship. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might have concentrated a little more on it, but I realise that he could not deal with everything and I do not criticise him. There is a problem with southerners living in the north not being granted citizenship of either north or south. Indeed, will southerners be welcome to continue living in the north? I understand the north’s problem: if it gives the southerners citizenship, they will be able to participate in the political process in the north. The solution would appear to be to allow the southerners to continue living in the north in normal peaceful conditions but to grant them southern citizenship. There is a smaller but nevertheless significant problem the opposite way round. Northerners living in the south already have northern citizenship. These problems need to be resolved, but time is not on our side.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made perhaps the most important point. That is the capacity of the new Government to operate. If there are not sufficient skilled people—this is exactly what we are finding in Afghanistan—it will be extremely difficult to get a sustainable and stable Government up and running. When I was in the south, that was cited as a real concern. There are enough people in the north who could help, and the international community will need to put in a great deal of training and infrastructure in that respect.
Others have said that the UK is particularly well respected in both the north and the south. That was one of the things that surprised me most. In a sense, I expected it in the south because of the comprehensive peace agreement, but I did not necessarily expect it in the north, particularly as the President is currently indicted for war crimes. Nevertheless, we should use that respect. After all, we are one of the three signatory nations to the comprehensive peace agreement, we are a permanent member of the Security Council and we are the ex-colonial power. We are therefore beholden—this is why today’s debate is so important—to provide every possible assistance, together with the United Nations, and do our utmost to ensure the success of the new nation of the south.
We need to address the future of the United Nations Mission in Sudan—UNMIS—which is due to end with the implementation of the comprehensive peace agreement. However, as I shall demonstrate to the House shortly, the security situation in the south cannot be taken for granted. We need to see some form of extension of UNMIS; we may need another name, but we need an international peace force in southern Sudan. The country will not suddenly become stable in July.
I was disturbed to hear that 55 people were killed in clashes last Saturday between the Sudan People’s Liberation Army—the SPLA—and a number of rebel militiamen. The southern Government are already battling with about seven different militia groups. As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said, 800 people have been killed and the UN estimates that 94,000 people have been forced from their homes since January. It is clear that the south remains a fragile state, and international support is critical in order to avert further conflict and humanitarian disaster.
As if that problem were not enough, as others have said there is the problem of the Lord’s Resistance Army. The LRA is particularly mobile. It is like a snake; if bits are cut off, it regenerates. Although it is only 200 or 400 strong at the moment, it operates almost freely between the Democratic Republic of the Congo, south Sudan, Chad and the Central African Republic. It has been considerably reduced in size since Kony, its leader, was indicted for war crimes, but it nevertheless has the ability to regenerate quickly. That transnational problem makes it important for the international community to provide help. Helicopters are needed, particularly to provide intelligence of the LRA’s activities.
Another source of conflict, which has already been mentioned, is the problem of Darfur. A referendum is about to be held on whether it should be run as two separate states—north and south—or one. I was advised by the Foreign Office not to meet the President, because he is indicted for war crimes, but I met the Vice-President and the President’s key adviser. They are most sensitive about Darfur, and are somewhat bitter that they are to lose a big chunk of the country. They are sensitive about it and do not want to cede further control. Darfur is particularly tricky in another respect, in that some of the southern militias are meddling in Darfur, as we heard earlier, and the north will blame the south for not keeping them under control. That has the potential to become a real problem.
When I visited the north, I met several key people. I was heartened to see that the north recognises that it is very much in its interest that the south succeeds as a nation. With a little international encouragement, the north will provide considerable help to get the new south nation on its feet.
Time is short, but I have a little shopping list. The United Nations needs to co-ordinate a plan to get the new nation off the ground. I have already mentioned the first and most important matter that needs to be dealt with—that of corruption. It must be eliminated. The oil revenue that the south will receive must go towards forming a new democratic nation for the benefit of those who live there. Despite the £12 billion—I repeat that it was £12 billion; I cannot repeat it enough—that has been given to the south over the last five years, there are only 20 km of metalled road, virtually no running water, no electricity, few hospitals and not enough schools. The infrastructure needs to be dealt with, and I believe that the international community can help, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) said, there is no reason why British construction companies should not be well and truly involved.
I asked the ordinary people of Sudan, “What is it that you want most?” This may be a lesson for the Department for International Development around the world, because it does not always concentrate enough on it; we can do without almost everything, but we cannot do without food and water. Most of the food that feeds the poor people in the south, which is one of the poorest nations on earth, comes from the north. The people of the south will have to wean themselves off that, and there is no reason, given that they live beside one of the biggest rivers in the world, why they should not grow a considerable amount of their own food. However, that requires investment and know-how.
I have listed corruption and food and I previously mentioned the problems of infrastructure. The fourth matter is education. It is a major problem in many underdeveloped countries. My trip to Sudan included visits to some of the referendum points, most of which were in schools. Although the schools were empty, most of them looked well maintained. They were in Juba, the capital. I was told that the levels of attainment were not great. Although the schools that we had seen were in Juba, there was a paucity of schools in rural areas.
Mr Ellwood
I hesitate to interrupt a powerful and authoritative speech. My hon. Friend speaks of education, and we would all agree on its importance. Last year, under the previous Government, DFID provided about £150 million, but only 4% of that went to education. Will my hon. Friend join me in seeking to have that figure increased?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Education is particularly important. Without it, one would find it difficult to get out of the present situation. We have not heard much about gender equality in today’s debate, but education is particularly important for women because they are often the ones who not only do most of the work in these developing countries but are denied their rights the most. Like my hon. Friend, I am keen to ensure that DFID pays great attention to education.
Let me divert for one sentence, Mr Walker. I have stuck to the script so far, but I would like to provide an example. Pratham, a charity in India, has got 20 million boys and girls into education, and that is one of the greatest things that any non-governmental organisation on earth can do.
As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire mentioned, the fifth area that needs assistance, training and expertise is the security and judiciary services. The security services must be educated to understand that they are now operating under a democratic regime, which requires proper scrutiny and accountability. On the judicial side, it is important that proper police courts and prisons are set up so that the rule of law can be maintained and we do not let the southern state revert to a lawless, squabbling load of tribes.
Finally, the other issue that needs addressing is health. Even in Juba, there are virtually no hospitals. If the health system is virtually non-existent in the capital, there must be no trace of it in the rural areas. In a poor country such as this, the health indices are inevitably very low. This is an area in which the international community could rapidly produce some sort of rudimentary health delivery system and start to meet the aspirations of the people.
We need to get the whole issue of democracy up and running. At the moment, 94% of the MPs come from the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement and the other 4% come from a breakaway part of the SPLM. We must educate those MPs to understand the need for opposition parties. I sometimes wish that we did not need opposition parties here. Nevertheless, we cannot have a proper democracy without opposition parties. The essential job of the Opposition is to hold the Government to account.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
The hon. Gentleman will now make a frivolous remark. I will give way if he is not making a frivolous intervention.
Stephen Pound
If all Members of Parliament were as emollient and hypnotic as the hon. Gentleman, there would be no need for dissent or different parties, because we would be as one under his intellectual sunshine.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am not sure whether or not that was a backhanded punch. I suspect that it was a punch from the blind side.
The international community faces a really important challenge. If it meets it, it could make a significant difference. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said, Sudan has historically been a war-torn country. If we were able to bring about a peaceful democratic future and, at the same time, put in the infrastructure and lift the levels of poverty in this poorest of countries, it would be a huge prize for which the international community could take great credit.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Walker. I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on securing this very important debate.
Unlike many hon. Members taking part in the debate, l have not yet visited Sudan. My interest in the country is driven by a wonderful community of Sudanese people in Hove and Portslade in my constituency, who have alerted me to some of the terrific attributes of their homeland. I appreciate that to have a fully informed opinion, one needs to visit the country, and I am pleased to report that I hope to be visiting Sudan next month by kind invitation of His Excellency the Sudanese ambassador to London.
Hove and Portslade have a thriving Sudanese community that is well integrated in the local area. Encompassing a broad range of positions in the city, the Sudanese contribute doctors, lawyers and business men, among many other professions. One member of the community, Gamal Khalil, recently received the first class medal of perfection from the President of Sudan for his charity work in both England and Sudan.
I have regular contact with representatives from the community and we are currently discussing plans for a free school to be set up in conjunction with the popular Coptic Christian Church. The move has wide support and would provide an excellent facility, as well as much needed spaces for young children in the area.
I highlight this local connection because it is important not always to talk in isolation of Sudan, but to remember that there is a worldwide community as well, with connections in Africa. It is important, therefore, that a change in position by the Government is considered as a matter of urgency.
However, it is the on-the-ground situation in Sudan on which this debate rightly concentrates, and today I would like to highlight some positive aspects. Many speakers have focused on the challenges facing Sudan. There are many challenges, but people from my local community have said that the negative position is perhaps over-emphasised. In a recent discussion in a Committee room in this House, one said that he did not recognise what was being said about Sudan.
With regard to the situation in Sudan, the comprehensive peace agreement, signed in 2005, ended a civil war in southern Sudan which began in 1955. Although I am not an expert in this area, the signing of the CPA appeared to be an unprecedented event, and an achievement not just of the Government of Sudan, but of Sudan’s coalition Government, who brought together the ruling National Congress party, as well as the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement of southern Sudan and several other parties.
The CPA was an unambiguous commitment to peace and it may well serve as a blueprint for ending the conflict in western Sudan. It also paved the way for the autonomy that led to the referendum on secession of the south.
As we are all aware, an internationally monitored referendum was held in January, which resulted in an overwhelming vote for the independence of southern Sudan. With the formal declaration to be made on 9 July following an almost unanimous vote for secession, south Sudan will have a unique place in history as a future state in Africa.
Having been geographically split, Sudan, once the largest country in Africa, has embarked upon a programme of transition and redevelopment, which must be embraced. Representatives from my local community reiterate to me that what we see in Sudan are the hallmarks of a developing free society. For example, women’s rights are enshrined in their constitution, with a guaranteed 25% participation in all national and state assemblies. By contrast, it is interesting to note that only 21% of the British Parliament is made up of women. It is encouraging that women in Sudan assume many positions at ministerial, judicial and executive levels and that should be applauded.
President al-Bashir has welcomed the decision of southern Sudan to separate. The President has said that the two countries should live separately as good friends, rather than as adversaries within the same country. It is testament to the largely positive spirit behind the referendum that the international observers were able to report on a smooth and calm process across the country. That positive report should not be underestimated as it demonstrates a real commitment to progression. That said, the future holds financial uncertainty and a crippling debt that both countries will have to address. Nevertheless, progress is being made. On my tour, I hope to gain a greater understanding of this wonderful and dynamic country.
I understand from discussions with business men in the local community that some of the greatest stumbling blocks facing the economic rejuvenation of Sudan are the indirect sanctions currently in place. For example, as a result of US-imposed banking restrictions, it is extremely difficult for Sudanese business men to set up bank accounts in the UK, especially as much of the trade is transacted in US dollars. If we are serious about helping both Sudan and south Sudan to develop and prosper, we must allow them to trade freely with the rest of the world. Being part of the international banking community is an essential step to helping local Sudanese people to gain employment in companies locally. That move will help to reduce poverty and many of the other problems that have been highlighted in today’s debate. I would very much like the Minister to comment specifically on what talks he will be having with US officials to free up restrictions on trade, and any timetable for that process.
With regard to natural resources, Sudan is blessed with a bounty of raw materials, including sugar but, of course, most notably oil. Utilising the natural resources available and a dedicated work force, Sudan has a burgeoning manufacturing industry, which includes a number of new car assembly plants. Investment is paramount for the success of these new industries and it would be encouraging to see incentives being offered to bolster trade relations and internal growth.
I am aware that our Government have set out priorities, listed as delivering health and education services, focusing on long-term development, reducing hunger and extreme poverty, and responding to sudden humanitarian crises. I am also aware that we will spend £140 million a year in Sudan until 2015, of which £90 million a year will go to south Sudan. It is the long-term development aspect that I would like further detail on, including information on whether that aid includes private company set-up support.
The summary of the Associate Parliamentary Group for Sudan visit to Sudan earlier this year noted that
“encouraging investment and growing the private sector will be a priority, with a focus on agriculture, power generation, infrastructure, and the creation of employment opportunities.”
Again, I would be extremely grateful if the Minister said what specific plans the Government have to encourage British investment in both Sudan and south Sudan, and whether different policies are being considered for each country.
Without doubt, some of the biggest investment and growth in Sudan will be in agriculture. I understand that that will be especially true in the south and east. At the moment, spare parts that are required for agricultural machinery need to be sourced from Nairobi in neighbouring Kenya and from even further afield. Manufacturing spare parts locally is just one small step that would assist development. Given the importance of agriculture, it is no surprise that many in Sudan are big fans of Massey Ferguson tractors, for example. I have no idea how practical it would be for there to be a local manufacturing base for that particular company in Sudan, but it would be interesting to know if the Government are considering offering incentives, for example export guarantees or direct aid, for companies such as Massey Ferguson to set up in Sudan and south Sudan.
I am fortunate to have a good working relationship with the Sudanese embassy in London, including the ambassador, and, as I have mentioned, with the Sudanese community in Hove and Portslade. I hope to facilitate the development of this dynamic rapport for the benefit of Britain, Sudan and south Sudan and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the questions that have been put today.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley). I want to tell him that in Uganda, which is just to the south of Sudan, the Madhvani family have now built their fifth tractor factory. As the hon. Gentleman will know, that family were expelled from Uganda back in 1973, and they are now looking to build a tractor factory further to the north.
It was a pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman. I think that we heard today the first trumpet call for the twinning of Portslade with Juba. Bearing in mind the traditional tensions that exist between east and west in Hove and Brighton, perhaps there is an appropriate linkage to which he can bring his expertise to bear. It is good for us to hear about the contribution that the Sudanese community makes in our country.
It was a genuine pleasure—I mean that sincerely—to sit at the feet of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and hear, as ever, his master class. He may be biologically related to a former Speaker of the House, but he seems to have within him the blood of Herodotus, although I must say that even Herodotus might have cavilled at the idea of the self-regenerating serpent. I believe that earthworms have that ability and that on occasion, if they are in a good mood, slow-worms can manage it, but the sinuous, slippery serpent is a creature that I have never yet observed regenerating itself—but who knows? I must say that if anyone can enlighten us, it is the hon. Gentleman. I recall his contribution during a speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), who had suggested that the then Prime Minister, Mr Blair, should send his Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), to Sudan because of what had happened the last time a “Gordon” had visited Khartoum. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds had to explain to a number of the younger Members exactly what that reference meant. It is a pleasure to hear from him, especially when he is imparting such in-depth knowledge.
The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) has given us yet another expression to go away and cogitate on: the “difficult to resolve” list. Many a night we must sit at home and think about the ever-extending, ever-longer “difficult to resolve” list. In the context of this afternoon’s debate, what is particularly difficult to resolve—it has been referred to by virtually all speakers—is the issue of the generation of oil in the south of Sudan, its transmission to Port Sudan and its onward transmission. What the hon. Lady did not say, albeit probably out of generosity and kindness, is that there is a fair degree of empirical evidence that not all the value of that oil is reaching those from whose wells the oil is produced.
That is why the role of NGOs is important, and particularly CAFOD, which works so well and strongly in the region. What we must have in Sudan is not only people from northern Europe saying, “This is how you should do it; this is how we would do it; and this is how we suggest you should do it,” but people on the ground in villages in those parts of the country that are not normally visited. They must not only give the example of good governance, but witness, observe and report back, and reveal the reality of what is going on in those areas. That is absolutely crucial.
There is a fledgling nation—a new nation—as we have been told. We all wish that new nation Godspeed, but a new nation needs help. A baby cannot live by itself for quite a few years. It needs to be supported and helped, so we have to give our support.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) delighted us all with a marvellous image of him meeting a group of senior southern Sudanese and trying to persuade them that he represented the British Government. It is hardly surprising that they thought he was French. For a moment, I wondered whether they suspected, “Is this the Polish mission?” Nevertheless, the fact that he has gone to the region so many times is very much to his credit.
Having said that, the hon. Gentleman’s words about Clare Short, the former Secretary of State for International Development, should not pass without comment. She made a specific point of saying that the Department for International Development was not an example of trade following the flag. She said that the Department was not something that existed to act as a stimulus for British trade, and that it was not a sort of export credits guarantee scheme, nor a trade investment body. She said that it was specifically supposed to be a “clean hands” organisation. Many times I went to see her in her office at DFID and she always used the same expression: “My people were the colonised, not the colonisers”. When I used to beg her to do a bit more about tea planting in Sri Lanka and northern India, she said, “No, what we want to do is to help people, in many cases without them even knowing that we are helping them.” That may be a tad naive in terms of realpolitik, but we can imagine what she was trying to do. The alternative is the Chinese approach, when everyone knows that the action being taken is not philanthropy, generosity of spirit or a case of somebody waking up in Beijing and saying, “Let us extend the glorious hegemony of Chinese industrial growth to those who need it the most.” We all know—the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham certainly knows—that there is rather more to it than that.
We do not get much good news in the world. It does seem to be that all around us the gloom gathers, but there is some good news in southern Sudan.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Before we move off that point about aid, when DFID promotes a project, and particularly an infrastructure project, it is right that it should promote the fact that the project is British. When I have been around the world, I have seen the wretched European Union signs showing that EU aid has been given, and in little tiny letters it says “and DFID”—the words are so small that they can hardly be read. Everybody then thinks that the project is an EU project and nobody has any idea that it is a British DFID project. We should proclaim our generosity around the world. That is not a political point; I just think that we should do that.
Stephen Pound
That would be rather a good subject for another debate. I rather delight to see in Donegal signs saying that a road was built by the European Union. That is absolutely wonderful. It cheers me up no end, both as a passionate pro-European and as someone with a large number of relatives in Donegal.
I would have thought that what we are doing in this country is not a rerunning of the role of the Royal Navy in the 19th century. This process is not about a direct linkage between the wealth of this nation and future trading opportunities. By all means, badge those projects that we support, as we already do, particularly in India and in the largest recipient of DFID aid, which is a country right next to southern Sudan. We already badge those projects, but let that not be all there is to it. Let us try to bring a little Christian generosity and say that it is more important that we give the gift than sign the card.
Daniel Kawczynski
Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that more of the products that DFID sends abroad—water sanitation items and other things to help people—should be British, even if they are slightly more expensive than the alternatives? DFID should source more British products than it currently does.
Stephen Pound
My experience of DFID projects—admittedly, more in central and south America than in Africa—is that the single most important issue is sustainability, not where a product comes from. Many hydraulic kits for wells that have been provided from this country, with the best will in the world, simply do not last because they cannot be repaired and maintained because the parts cannot be sourced locally. That is the tragedy. Of course, if there is a hydraulic water raising factory in the hon. Gentleman’s Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency—there might well be, and if there is not, I am sure that there will be in a couple of weeks—let it cover the globe with its marvellous equipment, but let us also train local people to provide engineering resources so that the equipment can be maintained. We used to say that when the donkeys stop nodding in the oil fields, it takes a great deal to get them nodding again.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. We are here to talk about Sudan, not about branding DFID.
Mr Ellwood
I do not wish to test the line that you have just given, Mr Walker, but we are also talking about what aid or support Britain can give, and the style of that support is important and has been mentioned at least a couple of times. DFID has had a policy of doing things on the quiet. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) makes the significant point that it is important to get the aid there in the first place, but I encourage the Minister to give us an update on where we stand on promoting the fact that Britain is helping so that not only the locals, but the domestic audience, can see where the money is going. We need to enhance our reputation with countries so that we receive the benefits of further deals in industry and commerce that will come about as a result of the stronger relationships we have due to the appreciation that the help is British.
Stephen Pound
I entirely take on board your strictures, Mr Walker.
One difficulty is that Britain has not had entirely clean hands over a long timeline. Britain is inextricably linked with the past, and it is a great tragedy that the shadow of the past lies over us. Many would say that that is all the more reason to take such action, but let us never forget that the great poet of empire coined an expression that became part of the common currency when he said:
“ere’s to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your ‘ome in the Soudan;
You’re a pore benighted ‘eathen but a first-class fightin’ man”.
That typified people’s attitude to what was then Sudan and Egypt, which was going to be not just the biggest country in Africa, but by far the biggest.
I am acutely aware, Mr Walker, that we are here to talk about a specific subject, so I shall return to what we can do in Sudan.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
On the aid that we might give to Sudan, it is worth noting in passing that the United States Agency for International Development, which is the largest aid agency in the world, is much more clever than DFID at making sure that its contracts go to US businesses.
Stephen Pound
Like many hon. Members, I have seen great sacks of grain and bales of bottled water being delivered to places, covered in stars and stripes. I support the emotion that drives that, but I am slightly worried about badging to such an extent. By and large, this should be about global humanity rather than national self-interest. If that is absurdly naive, so is CAFOD, which is probably one reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) and I have such sympathy with and respect for its work.
One problem that we currently face is the Lord’s Resistance Army. It is an issue that simply cannot go away. As we know, it is not just a southern Sudanese issue; it affects also the Central African Republic and the DRC. It is a completely out-of-control, non-hierarchical militia, in many cases staffed by forced soldiers—often child conscripts—that commits the foulest and most appalling crimes. There has to be a way to do the two things that are necessary. The first is to stop the supply of child soldiers—those brutalised conscripted children—into this appalling group. I am not sure what to call it—we cannot use the word “army”—but it is almost a heavily armed mob. The second thing is to divert the energy from that force and to persuade people that there is sufficient safety in their home areas for them to return, and that they do not always have to sleep with an AK47 under their pillow. That will be incredibly difficult.
I have mentioned CAFOD, and I do not want to embarrass my friends there too much. However, in the western equatorial state, about 100,000 people are displaced—just imagine that number of people, in a country the size of Britain. It is a vast number, and the CAFOD people are doing an immensely good job, certainly in the diocese of Tombura Yambio, where most of them are working. We must support that work.
Although there is an interesting debate about the honesty of individual nations when it comes to assisting, advising, helping and supporting, I think that we would all agree that even the noblest nation sometimes does not have the same reputation as some of the best NGOs. When I see what the NGOs have achieved on the global scale, I often feel that their work is more sustainable and more widely respected. I profoundly hope that we can continue the beyond-symbiotic relationship that exists between DFID and the various NGOs—CAFOD, Caritas Internationalis, Christian Aid and many others—because that seems to be the way forward.
Above all, we have a new nation taking the first step of its life, blinking in the sunlight. In a couple of months, this new nation will take its first tottering steps and, if it appears to be falling, we will have to be there to offer a hand, to offer support, to offer succour, and to offer refreshment, advice and assistance. Whether that is through DFID or CAFOD, I know not, but I profoundly hope that it comes from the heart.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I, like other colleagues on both sides of the Chamber, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on not only persuading the Backbench Business Committee to allocate time to this debate this afternoon but on his excellent opening remarks, which set a tone for what has been a very good debate. Members have covered a wide range of areas, either by chance or design, perhaps ensuring that no issue was overlooked. It will not be for me to comment in detail on those speeches; no doubt the Minister will do so when he replies.
I wish to make brief reference, however, to two points. The first is the branding of UK aid, which I will not go into, Mr Walker, except to say that Members should be aware that the policy changed towards the end of the last Government, and the second is an important point about some of the comments that were made about sanctions and their role in Sudan. Let us not forget that sanctions were one of the forces that led to the comprehensive peace agreement, and to some action on Darfur as well, so before Members rush to try to lift sanctions, let us bear in mind the reason behind them. I am sure that the Minister will want to make the Government’s position clear in his closing speech, because there will be people outside this Chamber who are interested in the Government’s view and in whether the points made by some of the Minister’s hon. Friends, which were, I am sure, well intended, reflect that position—I suspect that they might not fully do so. That is obviously for the Minister to address in due course.
This has been a good debate, and it has rightly highlighted how the UK has made a significant commitment to Sudan, both under the present Government—I pay tribute to the work of the Secretary of State—and under the previous Government and the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) in DFID at that time. With the creation of the new state of southern Sudan on 9 July, it is important not to forget that there will be continuing humanitarian needs, due, for example, to drought—and ironically to flooding as well—the challenge of returnees from the north and the long-term development goals. It is true that DFID has recognised the need to scale up its presence in southern Sudan after July, with the opening of a separate country office in Juba and a new independent country programme, and it may well be that the existing plans for that office have also to be expanded, due to the demands on development in southern Sudan. A number of NGO representatives have mentioned that the lack of capacity will mean that we will have to be very careful to ensure that our funding goes to the right places and has the right effects, and that in itself might need more staff and resources, not fewer. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that, and might wish to comment on it in due course.
On the general issue of DFID policy on southern Sudan, the bilateral aid review makes this point:
“Decades of war have left Sudan with a legacy of chronic poverty, inequality, and continuing insecurity…Ensuring the stability of both”
parts of Sudan
“and reducing extreme poverty will be the main aims of our programmes.”
That is as it should be.
It is worth emphasising that alongside the continuing humanitarian challenges to be met in the south are longer-term development goals. Currently, non-governmental organisations provide 85% of basic services in southern Sudan—services that in most parts of the world we would expect the Government to provide. Capacity building will be essential to enable a transition to provision by central and local government. It will be particularly important at a more local level.
For that reason, however, in the short and medium term, NGOs will probably have to continue providing basic services and conducting much of the work of building long-term capacity. It is therefore crucial that future UK aid funding should be timely and predictable enough to allow NGOs to plan their programmes and support for basic services in years to come. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on what continuity and certainty our NGOs and the NGOs that we support can be given for their work to provide basic services in southern Sudan.
I turn to the key wider issues facing southern Sudan that have been mentioned. On the security and protection of civilians, there has been an upsurge in violence since the referendum. So far this year, almost 800 civilians have died and more than 80,000 people have been displaced. The violence comes from many sources: from the Lord’s Resistance Army, as has been mentioned; from clashes between what are described as rebel militias and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army; and from other, more disorganised sources. Tackling that violence and supporting the Government of southern Sudan in doing so should be a priority for the international community and the UK as a leading partner of southern Sudan.
Another key issue, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, is that it is important to support the political forces, society and Government of southern Sudan to enshrine democracy and political plurality there. Since the referendum, some opposition groups have complained about a lack of political pluralism and inequalities in the power exercised by various groups within the country. Concerns have also been raised about the fact that although there were meant to be two phases to the drafting of the new constitution—a technical phase and a consultative phase—the second phase might be something of a fait accompli, which could lead to a monopoly of power by the current Government party.
We welcome the peaceful way that the referendum took place, but as I am sure all Members recognise, democracy and good governance do not end with a referendum. It is important that we continue to support the Government of south Sudan to ensure that all political and social groups in the south have a fair chance to take part in the political process and that the situation does not drift to one in which one party or movement acquires a grip on power not based on its degree of popular support.
On returnees and the sharing of land, since late last year alone, more than 200,000 refugees have returned from southern Sudan. So far, they have mainly come during the dry season, but there are concerns about more coming during the wet season, which is now starting. We must not forget that it is estimated that as many as 1 million people or more might wish to return to southern Sudan, depending partly on the political situation elsewhere in Sudan and the rights given to southerners in the rest of Sudan, from which the south has seceded. I understand that most refugees want to go to rural areas, which raises issues about the sharing of land. However, returnees often get stuck in urban transit camps, and there are fears for conditions in the wet season. I am interested to know what the Government can do during the next few months to assist those who find themselves in that situation.
Another important range of issues relates to the border between northern and southern Sudan. That has been covered at length in this debate by colleagues, so I will not go into any great detail, but I will say simply that the border issues underline the importance of the UN mission in Sudan. The Opposition urge the British Government to use all the levers at their disposal to push for the United Nations Mission in Sudan mandate to be extended beyond 9 July and strengthened to ensure that the unresolved issues do not propel Sudan back to war.
The mission will have a particularly important role in border areas, but its mandate should also give high priority to the protection of civilians—particularly women, who face specific threats—and those delivering humanitarian assistance, such as the staff of NGOs. Civilians need to be protected country-wide in southern Sudan—obviously, with the co-operation of local government authorities—as well as in border areas.
Darfur was mentioned, and several Members have rightly emphasised the need not to take our eye off the tragic situation there, where a peace deal remains elusive. As with UNMIS, we believe that the British Government should strongly support the strengthening of the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur, or UNAMID, when it comes up for renewal in July. Like other Members who have spoken, we are concerned about plans to hold the referendum on the future of Darfur during a conflict, making it difficult for many to take part, which will no doubt make it easier for the Sudan Government to get their preferred result in Darfur. The continuing peace process in Darfur must not be put on the back burner while we concentrate—understandably—on issues in southern Sudan.
I have a couple of comments generally on areas of the remaining state of Sudan, as one might describe it. There are concerns about how southern Sudan nationals will be treated in Sudan after independence. Sensible suggestions have been made about how southern Sudanese resident in the rest of Sudan should be treated after independence. A problem has also arisen more recently due to a substantial influx of refugees from Libya, primarily into northern Sudan, although that influx and its duration will presumably depend heavily on the speed and nature of developments in Libya.
In conclusion, to restate what we believe should be the UK policy priorities in relation to Sudan, first, support at UN level to both Sudan and southern Sudan must be continuous—I am sure that the Government will do this, but I make the point—for resolution of outstanding disputes on the southern Sudan-Sudan border and in Darfur. Secondly, we should support strengthened and continued mandates for the UN missions in southern Sudan and Darfur. Support needs to be provided for the new Government in southern Sudan, but it should be critical support. If we have concerns or questions about the actions of the southern Sudan Government, we should be prepared to raise them. It is also important that the right working environment for NGOs is maintained in both north and south. NGOs particularly need access to areas such as parts of Darfur that have been restricted in the past.
Some Conservative Members mentioned agriculture. It is certainly important, but it is also important to emphasise that we must find ways to support the many millions who depend on subsistence agriculture. We should not support only outside investment, important as that can be in certain circumstances; we must also focus on helping those in southern Sudan who depend on subsistence agriculture to improve their ability to feed themselves and their families and supply their local markets. So far, we have not seen much sign of how DFID perceives its role in that area. I would be interested to hear some indication from the Minister of what support he can give agriculture, particularly in southern Sudan.
People around the world were moved by the pictures of hundreds of thousands of people in southern Sudan queuing to vote in January’s referendum on independence. The pictures were a contrast to the often sad history of southern Sudan—a history often, of course, forced on its people by outsiders—as well as to the conflicts based on ethnic and religious differences that we have seen elsewhere, not just in Africa but around the world.
On independence, it is true that southern Sudan will be one of the world’s poorest countries, but it has some rich resources and a people who showed in a referendum a unity of purpose that many countries would envy. The continued support of the international community is essential to allow that potential to be grasped, through diplomacy, to find solutions to unresolved problems, such as border demarcation, and to get aid to develop the basic infrastructure of government to meet the needs of its citizens. We welcome the support that the UK Government continue to show to the people of southern Sudan in particular, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how that support will continue to be provided in the months and years to come.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O'Brien)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to this extraordinarily authoritative and informative debate. I congratulate all Members who have taken part in a debate that will, I hope, allow those who read the proceedings to benefit and learn from it, too. It is a timely and important debate, given the scale of the challenge faced by the peoples of Sudan today and of north and south Sudan tomorrow. There are many opportunities for the UK, one of the many nations that can contribute to the future, to help to bring about the best benefits.
I begin in complete sincerity by thanking the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) for doing whatever was necessary to persuade the Backbench Business Committee to nominate this topic for debate, and for his interesting, thought-provoking and, above all, comprehensive introduction. It gave us the hooks on which the rest of the debate has been able to hang. He did that very ably and I am pleased to acknowledge expressly the inspiration that he has derived from his leadership of the Parliamentary Friends of CAFOD and the advantage that he has taken of the knowledge with which it has supplied him. I hope that I will be able to do justice to what has been a comprehensive debate. Many points have been raised and I will seek to address as many as I possibly can. I will attempt to address any points that I cannot address today either through further meetings with the Associate Parliamentary Group for Sudan or by letter.
It is important to recognise that, as the British Parliament, we have taken and continue to take an extremely close interest in both the interests and the future of the peoples of Sudan, which will become two separate countries—north and south Sudan—from 9 July. That interest is genuine and important, and the debate is timely and is welcomed by many interested parties. Many people will want to consider what we have had to say in today’s proceedings, so, rather than immediately address in detail some of the issues that have been raised, it would be helpful to set out some of the context that has informed how the British Government and DFID in particular have decided upon their policy towards Sudan, and how we hope to support the growth of the new nation state of south Sudan.
The UK has four key Government objectives for the people of Sudan and their constitutional manifestation. First, we are working towards a peaceful conclusion to the comprehensive peace agreement, including the transition to two countries in July. Secondly, we are committed to an inclusive peace with justice in Darfur. We have focused on many other aspects of Sudan recently, but it is vital that we do not lose sight of the paramount importance of our concerns about Darfur, because they continue to this day. Thirdly, we are working to ensure national and regional stability for Sudan. Fourthly, we will support the development of democratic and accountable Governments, delivering a more equitable distribution of Sudan’s resources—a point that has been touched on ably today—in the hope and, I would say, expectation of an improvement in the human rights situation in Sudan. Although that is not an explicit linkage, it is certainly something whereby, by working hard to get one aspect right, we would expect to have influence on the other and to see it develop.
In the context of the overall promise—which the coalition Government have been able to confirm and maintain, and which has been welcomed and supported broadly throughout the House—to spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance by 2013 and to ring-fence that money, the UK has committed more than £280 million in Sudan this year. Of that, £140 million will be provided through DFID in its African context. We have offices in various countries. We have an office in Juba as well as the one that has been established for some years in Khartoum. The further £140 million will be in the assessed contributions to the two peacekeeping missions in Sudan—United Nations Mission in Sudan and United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned that he had spoken to a member of the African Union, which supplied forces to UNAMID. That shows how much that is a joint UN and African Union mission in Darfur, and it is vital that that be maintained.
The UNMIS mission has just been renewed up to 9 July, which I think was supported broadly throughout the House. The issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), whom I should like to congratulate on an outstanding and authoritative speech, which was made with great knowledge. He made the strong point that we need to look beyond UNMIS on 9 July to what will succeed it. I give him the categorical assurance that we in the UK Government are determined to do whatever possible to continue to promote influence so that there is a successor approach to that broad peacekeeping and peacebuilding opportunity. That nation state needs to find a firm footing and the ability to have the confidence that it will not be set off track.
We read last week about recent incidents of various killings—what has been called south-south violence—and those who are perpetrating them are doing so in an insurgency role and are often, allegedly, dispossessed ex-generals with various interests. Those are areas in which we have to make sure that there is an ability to resist the undermining of the important process of going forward in a positive way that meets the enormous aspirations that were articulated by many people when they queued to vote in the referendum with such unity of purpose, which was an interesting phrase used by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). If we can harness the unity of purpose that delivered the referendum result, we can have great hope for the way in which south Sudan will be able to develop its resources in order to build an economy upon which it will be able to sustain the interests of its people.
In addition to the two lots of £140 million this year—the assessed contribution and the direct bilateral aid that we have identified—a further £8.3 million will be provided for conflict prevention projects and to support the Assessment and Evaluation Commission. After this financial year, as we announced following the DFID bilateral aid review, we will provide £140 million a year for the next four years up to 2014-15, which is one year beyond the four-year envelope that we have announced for others. Sudan, therefore, has already been singled out for special treatment to achieve the greater predictability and certainty that has been called for by many Members who have spoken in today’s debate. That support will be for both countries, north and south.
Our four-year strategy will focus on transition from humanitarian programmes to support for durable and sustainable livelihoods in conflict-affected areas. It will encourage peacebuilding between the north and the south, in the east, in Darfur, and between Sudan and its neighbours. It will support increased democratic and accountable governance, operational and fiscal decentralisation, and a reduction in the incidence of corruption. That was another point that was made forcefully, and rightly so, by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds. The strategy will also focus on more equitable and sustainable development through a better use of the national budget, including a shift from military expenditure to more productive use of resources, and a focus on economic diversification and employment. I will address directly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. His comments led us to stretch our terms of debate to the issue of trade and badging what we do from the UK. I will come back to that point because it is important that we deal with it.
It is clear that poverty indicators are generally worse in south Sudan. We have come to the conclusion that, as a rule of thumb, at this stage about 65% of the funding—about £90 million out of that £140 million—will be focused on the south. The remaining 35% of our funding—around £50 million—will focus on the north of Sudan, including Darfur, the east and the three areas known as Abyei, South Kordofan and the Blue Nile.
Mr Ellwood
I do not wish to interrupt or pre-empt what the Minister might say about the accountability of the spending. He talks about corruption. There is an argument that, if we put no money into Africa—absolutely zero aid—it would prompt many of these corrupt organisations to become far more transparent and utilise the money they have far better. I do not agree fully with that argument. However, I am concerned. The money we are providing is part of a £44 billion package of aid that goes to the whole continent of Africa every single year. The amount of money that is generated by mineral exports is $393 billion a year. That is a huge amount. We know that that money does not reach the front line because of corrupt Governments. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how we can prevent that money from being wasted and ending up in places such as Dubai, rather than going to the front line, where we would like to see it.
Mr O'Brien
Let me absolutely categorically assure my hon. Friend that, as far as we are concerned, corruption is completely unacceptable. To the extent that we have knowledge of corruption and can prove it, we have a completely zero tolerance approach to it. We have a much more explicit understanding of the issue and a lot more work has been done on identifying how to stop the opportunities for corruption, given that it has become endemic in some countries during some parts of the processes.
I will come on to transparency, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take some assurance from the review on bilateral and multilateral aid that has taken place during the previous 12 months. The various multilaterals were scored according to how well they were doing, including in relation to transparency. On the receiving Governments, we have pledged an aid transparency guarantee and have said that we will put all expenditures above £500 on the net, which DFID is now doing.
We also want to help to empower civil society organisations in receiving countries, so that they can see at a grass-roots level what is meant to be coming to their country. They should then be able to make demands upwards into their systems. We need to encourage democratic institution building, so that the process is no longer something done to them as peoples. Such organisations should be able to demand that those who are politically accountable to them say what they are doing with the money that is supposed to have come their way. If we can get that transaction transparency at both ends, that is precisely where we hope to be able to improve the situation considerably.
On the example my hon. Friend gave that we should perhaps go to year zero and remove all support to Africa, the only people who would suffer would be the poorest, and the only people who would have a temporary blip would be those who might have to search hard in their Swiss bank accounts rather than suffer anything at all.
Mr Ellwood
Is the Minister aware of the American Dodd-Frank Act that has been passed? That obliges companies listed on the New York stock exchange to declare how much money they give to a country’s Government or individual Heads of State when they strike deals on oil and so on. Could we apply that to DFID and British companies that are operating in Sudan and elsewhere to make sure that there is that transparency?
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. Can the Minister return to the subject of Sudan?
Mr O'Brien
That will form part of the state building of Sudan, and it applies elsewhere. Whether or not we are dealing with Dodd-Frank as an example, the Chancellor has said that he wants to explore that idea and see what lessons it has for us at a European level because, of course, it is only worth moving if we all move as one.
We also need to recognise that many African countries are mineral rich and that that is a potential means by which the private sector will be able to develop in such a way as to benefit the greatest number of people. The evidence shows that, if we can get the right explosion of what we might glibly call the middle class, or at least rising economic prosperity among a greater number of people, that will create the biggest, best and most sustainable alleviator of poverty. In the meantime, getting good public services, relieving poverty, saving lives and improving health have to be the first responses—even beyond humanitarian emergency responses—so that we can make sure that people have the opportunity to take part in that prosperity. At the moment, people are often denied a sufficiently long life even to have an opportunity to be a part of that future.
I was in Sudan three years ago in 2008. I went as chairman of the charity, the Malaria Consortium, of which I was then the honorary trustee chairman. I went from Juba, which at that point had only 10 metres of road metalled, up to Rumbek and Wau, where I met the new President of south Sudan, Salva Kiir, who happened to be landing in his jet—I had gone by car. We met on the airport apron and went up to Northern Bahr el Ghazal at Aweil and out to the tiny village of Aroyo. I saw for myself—this is a bit of a surprise to most people; it was particularly a surprise to me when I saw the request for 300 boats on the accounts of the Malaria Consortium—that, when the rainy season comes, Sudan is awash with water. It is not very deep, but the only way to get around is by boat. Many people do not understand the logistical issues that face the people of southern Sudan and that part of the country, and the challenge of dealing with the poverty.
The other thing I remember from that visit—this is not in my brief, but I remember it well and it is relevant to our consideration of the whole of the humanitarian response—is that because there has been almost permanent war going on since the ’50s and many conflicts before then, there has been a tendency for people to scatter, disperse and effectively hide. There are no pockets of population that are easy to address in terms of disease, economic opportunity, education or health access. It is a case of finding lots of people in very remote areas. We are talking about a particularly difficult area to service.
When looking at the analysis as DFID, it was clear to us that we should divide the £140 million per annum for the next four years—there is also £280 million in the current year—by a £90 million and £50 million split. I will talk about the results we intend to deliver in a moment. Hon. Members will know that we have been absolutely determined—this is partly in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood)—to say that it is not what we are spending that is important; it is the results we are seeking to achieve through working with local people. DFID does not go out there with DFID people. It has offices and so on, but we procure the best people in the best possible way—most transparently and by getting the greatest value for money—to deliver, many of whom are with the non-governmental organisations.
I shall partly answer a point I was going to mention later on NGOs. It is absolutely vital for the NGOs—particularly those with experience and knowledge of the territory, connections with people and trust within communities—to have the chance to bid for such opportunities. That is why on the DFID website there is a section on the Global Poverty Action Fund. CAFOD has knowledge of that, but other organisations will see that there is a series of rounds where those with expertise and experience have an opportunity to bid. If the organisations qualify, pass the due diligence tests and can demonstrate value for money and transparency, they will be part of the way in which we are able to deliver results.
The results we want to deliver in Sudan are to help 1 million people to get enough food to eat; to enable 240,000 more children to go to primary school; to provide malaria prevention and treatment for 750,000 people; to give 800,000 people access to clean drinking water and sanitation; to provide life-saving health and nutrition for to up to 10 million people; and to give 250,000 women better access to justice. That point was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds.
Stephen Pound
I am so impressed with the Minister’s words, I feel extremely guilty for having tramped the streets of Eddisbury in the election to try to prevent him getting elected. It is a pleasure to hear what he is saying. His work in the field of malaria is very well known throughout the House and far wider. In view of the statistic he has just given, does he feel that we are doing sufficient to provide in-country medical advice, treatment and therapeutic support to prevent malaria re-emerging, or does he think that we will face many years when overseas aid will address the issue of malaria, particularly in southern Sudan?
Mr O'Brien
The hon. Gentleman is right. Southern Sudan represents one of the cradles where tropical diseases are most virulent and are most likely to sustain over our lifetimes. If one were to pick the three areas where it would be difficult to rid the world of malaria and other tropical diseases, they would be parts of the DRC, parts of Nigeria and southern Sudan. There is, therefore, an opportunity to make an appreciable difference and contribute significantly to the millennium development goals. That is why the focus on south Sudan, irrespective of the fact that it fits very well with our intention to put money behind conflict states and fragile states, will have a major multiplier and leverage effect.
Of course, NGOs and donor agencies will be instrumental in ensuring that there is sustained, predictable programme money to help local health systems, as they grow, to develop malaria control and malaria elimination opportunities. Equally, it will be important to recognise that, with a very low capacity in southern Sudan, it will be many years before the population will not be afflicted by malaria. A little like Ethiopia, southern Sudan is prone to epidemics of malaria simply because of the nature of the vector. In other parts, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, malaria is more endemic and persistent across all the seasons. It is easier to persuade people to use nets all the time, whereas it is more difficult to persuade people to use the preventative method of a net when there are epidemics, because very often they do not get the net up before the epidemic has already taken hold. Without getting too diverted on malaria, about which I have been known to be able to wax lyrical—
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he is making a very useful speech. He has said what he would like to happen in Sudan. Can he confirm whether the Department for International Development is in discussions with United Nations agencies to produce a plan of precisely which country’s aid agency will do what and which NGO will do what, so that there are not any overlaps, but equally, so that there are not any underlaps in achieving the very admirable aims that he has just outlined?
Mr O'Brien
My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. I was going to come on to his list, which was a shopping list rather than a too-difficult-to-do list, a bit later. He is right. There needs to be a clear delineation of who is meant to be doing what in order to achieve a co-ordinated and comprehensive approach, so that the benefits can feed off each other. Often in aid delivery, there has been a need to think about how to put the inputs in, rather than recognising what combined results we want at the end. The reason why his point is well-made is that, at a democratic and governance level—but also at the level of delivering good developmental aid—that is what might be termed as the post-CPA framework. Where will the governance levers be? Is it going to be a question just of donor agencies, NGOs and the UN talking about south Sudan, or is it going to be a question of south Sudan talking to them about how we all helped to contribute to their initiative, to deliver it on the ground and to embed it?
It is fair to say that it is not yet clear what form the post-CPA framework will take, but the main objective is to agree as much as possible—as was identified in the debate—where all the areas of difference lie. While they sit there, whether it is Abyei or the three areas, there remains the tension that does not allow the space through which that kind of co-ordinated consensual approach can take place. We are absolutely determined to do our best to foster that resolution of the differences, because we will get effectiveness and value for money, which is part of the transparency answer, only providing we have that consensual opportunity. While there is a dispute, people will seek to gain an edge off the other and that is where we get disunity. I am glad to have the opportunity to underscore that point, which is why it is so important that we agree as much as possible before the CPA expires on 9 July. That will obviously change the dynamics dramatically.
We are working with Thabo Mbeki and his high-level panel on precisely that. It is more likely to be achieved—a point that I think was hinted at by the opening speaker—if this is not seen to be a somewhat old-style solution of the international community talking about another country, and particularly a new country, but the family of African countries coming together themselves to produce something that might be regarded as an African solution. That is much more important, which is why Thabo Mbeki and his high-level panel are important and crucial to the process. We are encouraging all those parties to maintain as much momentum as possible in advance. I shall come back briefly to some of those issues.
I was talking about the financial commitment and the results that we are hoping to achieve. That was also partly in answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, who wanted to know that we were in it for a sustainable, predictable period so that people could plan with some confidence. The financial commitment to Sudan represents a large amount of British taxpayers’ money. It is a priority for us to ensure that it is spent well, represents, of course, good value for money, and brings real benefit in terms of building peace and delivering assistance to those affected by conflict and extreme poverty. We are determined to ensure that our aid reaches the people who need it most. We do not give any money directly—let us be absolutely clear—to the Governments in Khartoum or Juba. All our funds are routed through NGOs, private sector firms and multilateral agencies, which have robust financial management systems in place. That is part of the due diligence and the tendering process and the real, tough hurdles that they have to get across. We require a detailed narrative and financial reports from all our partners, as well as audited statements. DFID staff also conduct regular monitoring of progress and formal annual reviews in line with our own project management procedures.
The UK is committed to its relations with north and south Sudan. We recognise that sustainable peace in Sudan can only be delivered by addressing the root causes of conflict, and we continue to urge the north and the south to take the steps needed to resolve the outstanding issues from the comprehensive peace agreement by 9 July. Those include the issues of Abyei, border demarcation—as was discussed and raised by a number of contributors to the debate—and arrangements for the conclusion of the inclusive popular consultations in Blue Nile and South Kordofan. It was interesting to note that while Blue Nile is moving ahead at a reasonable step, South Kordofan is giving more cause for concern. Of course, we come to the issues of distribution of oil wealth and citizenship, both subjects that need to be resolved. We will continue to press for full implementation of the CPA ahead of its conclusion in July, and for agreement on wider arrangements that have to be equitable and just between the north and south.
I will come on to some of the other issues in a moment, but on the issue of Abyei, in addition to Thabo Mbeki and his high-level panel, who seek to broker these solutions, we welcome the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the way in which that may help to support the outcome. That is an important point to put on the record.
Tony Baldry
I entirely understand the point my hon. Friend makes about Thabo Mbeki’s high-level group and the need for that to be seen as an African solution, but is he confident that the Government of south Sudan have the necessary capacity and support to be able to actively engage with all the parties, which is necessary to bring matters to a successful conclusion?
Mr O'Brien
One of the central points my hon. Friend made in his excellent speech was about whether we could lend capacity to help, particularly in south Sudan. One has to recognise that this is having a disruptive effect on north Sudan as well. While I do not want to sound as though I never want to make a decision by being too even-handed, at the same time we need to recognise that this is not just south Sudan. We also have to enable, through our aid, north Sudan to be functional as well. It will lose a huge amount of its country, and that is where the citizenship issue has become so difficult to resolve. I hope that some of the suggestions that have been made in this debate will be listened to carefully, because they sounded both visionary and like possible resolutions of that difficulty.
On lending capacity such as the human resource of experts—more than just money and the expectation of the results that that will buy, which was a point reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds—we have already made certain offers, some of which have been taken up. We have moved beyond—with confidence, I hope—any sense of guilt as the former colonial power. Many years have passed, but we recognise that we still have expertise in matters such as mapping, with surveying technology as well as knowledge from the past. Some offers have been taken up, although not all of them. We must build confidence and relationships, but I assure my hon. Friend that such offers have been made. There is more to be done, but it would be nice if some of those offers were taken up with more alacrity.
Part of accepting such offers is also accepting, to a degree, the basis for a resolution of disputes such as the Abyei demarcation or allocation. Any such resolution will be on the basis of maps and surveying—what was originally marked, or the contours of the land—rather than of what at the moment is a sense of tribal identity, or pastoralists’ right to transit across certain lands without crossing a border. Those complex issues remain to be negotiated, but the main point is to get the parties into a negotiating frame with such capacity building, as my hon. Friend said.
That gives me the opportunity, tangentially, to give credit to what was mentioned in the opening of the debate: the importance of some of the Church groups, such as the Episcopal Church mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). I was pleased that he referred to the Archbishop of Juba, whom I had the privilege to meet, not only to hear his generous thanks but his recognition of the deep thought on how assistance and support should be given in order to achieve that negotiating framework of trust and respect, which has enabled us to have a real role.
Without being explicit, the debate touched on the visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to Sudan shortly, as part of the troika. All three will be travelling together, which is an important and powerful signal of unity and consistency of approach that has taken many years to bring about. Their message will be to encourage the various bodies to resolve the difficult issues, rightly building on the recognition of reasons to have trust and respect, and we can have a role in that. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds for making that point.
I am conscious that I have not yet had a chance to cover some of the other points. How long does the debate go on for, Mr Walker?
Mr O'Brien
People might need to dash away, but I shall cover a few of the points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East and others asked about the Lord’s Resistance Army. The LRA, having been driven out of northern Uganda, is now in pockets throughout the Central African Republic, the borders of south Sudan and the edges of parts of Uganda, even tilting into southern Darfur. We all abhor the whole essence of that abominable organisation, with its child soldiers and the mayhem it has caused over many years, but we are also concerned whether it might destabilise progress for south Sudan.
We are determined that the LRA should not represent such a factor by urging the regional Governments and peacekeeping forces—we have the two UN forces—to co-ordinate closely their efforts in combating the LRA. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds about how quickly it can regenerate was well made and is well known among the experts. One of the best things to do, as part of our response, is to engage with the demobilisation of LRA combatants. We should offer the hope of such engagement to those young people.
I visited Gulu recently, too, but I was there some four years ago in another guise, when I met some former LRA child soldiers who have been converted. Some of them have visited the DFID offices in London. It is important to recognise that we must take such positive and constructive steps as well as simply maintaining our vigilance and, where we find the LRA, rooting it out of areas in which it might destabilise neighbouring countries.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
On the LRA, I would like to mention intelligence specifically. The LRA leadership has particularly good intelligence about the location of the armies that they are combating, and how quickly they can move. It is therefore necessary to be able to outpace it, which requires those regional forces to have more helicopters. Helicopters and intelligence about the LRA’s activities are key to defeating it.
Mr O'Brien
I know that and, when I have travelled in some difficult conflict areas such as the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, helicopter is the only mode of transport capable of being used by the UN for any purpose, so my hon. Friend’s point is extremely well made. I shall look into access to such genuinely vigilant machinery from the sky. If it is not available, I shall ask some more questions and perhaps reassure him at a later date.
Another point, made not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, was about trade. I emphasise that as far as DFID is concerned, for the past 11 years and at least since the International Development Act 2002, by law there can be no link between our aid—our overseas development aid spend—and British trade. That is the law, and what we must conform to. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can make trade an explicit element of foreign policy, which it has now done as one of the new Foreign Secretary’s decisions. Trade, therefore, is now central to every aspect of our overseas engagement.
I confirm from discussions with my fellow Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with responsibility for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), that he has been looking explicitly for trade opportunities in both southern and northern Sudan. His visit received some publicity, but it was perfectly understood that the trade side was vital, and we have a long-standing trade relationship. Trade is an essential element in promoting the wealth-creation side of those economies. There is a clear distinction between what is done by DFID as part of programmes for ODA spend and what is done for trade by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, indeed, by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
What is important and new is the DFID policy decided on over the past year, which is to include specifically, as a complete pillar of work, private sector development and the encouragement of the private sector and of trade opportunities in a context of confidence that enables people to be entrepreneurial, to have access to finance, to be above micro-finance, to have the ability to take a risk and to have foreign direct investment more encouraged because of greater security from an independent judicial system or in repatriation of dividends. Those are all things that people around board tables who take risks with money borrowed from banks need, so that they will be prepared to engage, whether in a tractor factory, a spares supply chain, some kind of commodity or agricultural processing.
Such discussions with countries might often be an FCO matter—which countries might we invest in, and which companies might do it—but it will also be a DFID matter, for a DFID Minister to decide. Such a policy is part of the discussions that my ministerial colleagues in DFID and I have had. For instance, a country might be prepared to make adjustments to its land law, so that those who acquired land could be confident that it was not going to be confiscated from them. That element would create confidence for investors, who would then know that they had collateral to offer to a bank, so that they could invest further, develop markets and make demands about the infrastructure that ought to be put in place in order for them to get goods to market. We have clear dividing lines but, at the same time, they are part of a co-ordinated whole. We can satisfy, quite rightly, the idea of a strong recognition of what is development and what is trade.
Allied to that was the question of whether we should badge our aid more explicitly. Hon. Members will be aware that, whether in Sudan or elsewhere in Africa, DFID has generated a strong brand as a trusted deliverer of development benefit and results. DFID has a brand, and one of the issues we face in trying to change that is that we might be in danger of taking something away, because DFID is currently respected. Importantly, we are working very hard, and hon. Members here will see from the letterhead when I write to each and every one of them that it refers prominently to “UKaid”—
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister cleverly mentioned Sudan once, but once every four minutes is not good enough, and perhaps he will return to it.
Mr O'Brien
I will do my best to respond to the debate, Mr Walker. I accept your stricture, and perhaps we can explore the issue on another occasion.
Mr O'Brien
I will give way if my hon. Friend does not take me down that track, because I will not be able to respond.
Mike Weatherley
I have no interest in the branding of our aid, and my point has nothing to do with that. The Minister mentioned two Departments having discussions about private investment contributions. Have those Departments had specific discussions about Sudan?
Mr O'Brien
I think I must return to that, because I am running out of time. I had not appreciated that the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill needed so much time to wrap up.
The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) referred to human rights and the International Criminal Court. It is vital to urge respect for its processes, to have no compromise in our approach to human rights, even on some of the trade issues that have been mentioned, to continue our determination to focus on our efforts to engage with Darfur’s security, and to maintain this important engagement of trying to stop the destabilisation of south Sudan by violence.
I have noted the points about banking and US restrictions. I have the excellent shopping list from my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds. It is highly informative, and I will ensure that it is injected into the processes that DFID and the FCO are utilising for our engagement with Sudan. I have plenty to take from this debate to help me brief the Secretary of State for his upcoming visit with the troika, and we are of course focused totally on the prevention of conflict, and the creation of peaceful opportunities.
Mark Lazarowicz
Will the Minister address the policy on sanctions? It is important to hear from the Government about that.
Mr O'Brien
The policy remains as it is: the sanctions are in place, and they are an important aspect of our international relations. I have nothing to report that would change the current situation.
I hope that I have at least given a flavour of the matter. I used the available time, which was a reasonable amount, but I am happy to ensure that the proposer of the debate has enough time to conclude. If any hon. Members want to drop me a line about any points that were raised but that have not been adequately covered, I will ensure that I address them in detail.
The principal issue is to recognise that the people of north and south Sudan now have an opportunity to put many of their differences behind them by having adhered to and demonstrated a strong commitment to a constitutional process that will give a new opportunity to the people of south Sudan. We want to make our respectful contribution—
Mr O'Brien
I will not give way, because in all fairness I must give the proposer of the debate the opportunity to wind up.
Mr Tom Clarke
I am not for one second introducing aggro that I do not feel by saying that I enjoyed the 43 minutes for which the Minister spoke. I assure him that I, like others, will carefully consider the many points that he made. We appreciate the thought that he has given to the various issues that were raised, and we will have an opportunity to read what he said. My immediate response before reading his speech is that what he said on CPA, Abyei, the Mbeki group, south Kordofan, the Blue Nile and so on was very helpful, if only because these issues have scarcely been reported in recent times. We all appreciate that there have been huge issues throughout the world in Tunisia, Egypt, Japan and elsewhere, and we understand that they should be fully reported, but the great merit of this excellent debate is that in this Parliament, which is representative of the people of the United Kingdom, we have put Darfur on the agenda again.
I welcome the Minister’s comments, and I welcome DFID’s role in these important matters. Numerous points were made in the debate. Did I agree with all of them? It would be less than honest if I said yes, but there was a remarkable measure of agreement throughout the Chamber. The points on which we agree—in a few moments I want to turn to the future of Sudan—and the debate have offered hope to many people, including those who have followed the debate, and those outside who hear about our discussion. That, too, is long overdue.
I thank the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) for his contribution. I am glad that I have time to say that he has focused on these issues, particularly Sudan, in his role as Chair of the Select Committee on International Development, and in so many other ways. I believe that on these issues his constituents should be proud of him, and I am sure that they are. If the debate had any purpose at all, it was met in his wonderful message in the statement from the Anglican bishops, and I hope that he will feel free to tell them that we reciprocate their objectives and hopes for the future of Sudan, and the prayers that they have no doubt expressed. I thank him for his contribution.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) travelled from Bournemouth for the debate, and I thank him for that. He referred to the complexities in north and south Sudan, such as the 200 ethnic groups. I was very pleased that he mentioned, as others did later, the humanitarian crisis and how the United Nations sees it. He also referred to the problems of fundamentalism.
If I have one regret when it comes to disagreement, it has to be with the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). Until the last five minutes or so of his speech, I thought he was doing remarkably well, and that is still my view. That said, he was a brave man willingly to take on Clare Short and China in one speech. Clare Short and I had our disagreements and, sadly, she is not now even a member of my party, but she re-established international development as a Department. It been on the fringes. I mean no disrespect, but when I came to Parliament it was led by a Minister of State in the House of Lords with 10 minutes’ Question Time at the end of Foreign Affairs questions. Clare Short re-established the role of international development and reminded the people of Britain that there are poor people in a rich world.
In 1982, when I came to Parliament, the Brandt report was published and reminded us that although we have responsibilities to the poor south, there is some interdependence. The point about looking to the future, and to trade, exports and interdependence was made well by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham and others. That is something I welcome and for which Clare ought to be remembered.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned mineral extraction—that point was taken up by other hon. Members and I will come to it later if time allows. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) made a positive speech. She dealt with violence after the referendum and rightly drew our attention again to Darfur, which she thought had been overshadowed. She was not the only hon. Member who mentioned gender, and she was absolutely right to raise that subject and speak about the lack of rights for women in Sudan. Although there may have been a few improvements on the fringes, her comments were a reflection of what is going on in both north and south Sudan, directed from Khartoum.
I regard the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) as a personal friend. He and I visited Australia together as part of a CPA delegation. I was not surprised that his speech was so beautifully well informed and comprehensive or that it contained a great deal of clarity to help our understanding of this complex situation. Without being too hard on the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, whom I respect very much, I felt that his description of the poverty, lack of clean water and health care, malnutrition and the poor priority given to education in that part of the world contrasted greatly with his attitude to debt that we heard towards the end of his speech.
Perhaps I should deal with the issue of debt before the clock ticks on much longer. I will set aside the domestic debate about the banks and so on because you would rightly remind me that that is not part of this debate, Mr Walker. I do not believe that in this wealthy, modern world of ours, the most impoverished and destitute people should be those who repay all the debt, base and interest. Every three seconds one of them has died as we have been debating this afternoon. Let me draw to the attention of the Chamber to the view of the Jubilee Debt Campaign; I assume from what the Minister has said that the Department for International Development will take these views on board. On Darfur it stated:
“Almost 60 per cent. ($20 billion) of Sudan’s debt is interest.”
That is money added to the sum that was borrowed, but it was not borrowed in the interests of those poor, hapless people who have been described so well by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds and others. I listen to opinions expressed by British taxpayers, and I do not believe that they are so mean-minded as to say that we who benefited from colonialism, not only in Sudan and Africa but elsewhere, and who also benefited from the Marshall plan after the second world war, without which we could never have thrived, would wish to deny the same things to countries as hapless and difficult as both sections of Sudan.
Having—I hope—put the issue of debt to bed, I will mention some of the other speeches. The hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) mentioned the Sudanese diaspora, which was an important contribution to the debate. I wish him well in the visit he is due to undertake, and I look forward to hearing his views on it afterwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) made a powerful and well-informed intervention that was witty, classical—
Mr Clarke
It was wholly relevant and compassionate. I will tell my hon. Friend something that I have always wanted to say, but did not plan on saying so publicly: he should not underestimate his own intellect. I think that he was on to something, and if we were to follow the advice that he gave us in his speech about how to deal with Sudan, and take that in a global context, much progress would be made. I welcomed his speech, and particularly the goals that he set.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) made one of the winding-up speeches, and I pay tribute to the clarity of his speech and to the marvellous work that he did in this field before coming to the House. I am delighted that he speaks on these issues from the Opposition Front Benches. He speaks well and is remarkably well informed. I hope that he will get the opportunity to implement in Government some of the beliefs that he has held for many years, sometimes alone. I remember him speaking at Scottish Labour party conferences, which were perhaps once more concerned with domestic issues. Nevertheless, he got right to the heart of the issues that we have been addressing today.
What are those issues? This is a time of globalisation, and despite the awful poverty, conflict and lack of hope for the future, Sudan has the benefit of mineral resources which, if properly organised, could mean a brilliant future for all people in the country. People rightly talk about corruption, and I accept that is an issue. Perhaps I may say with some modesty that I sponsored the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006 which dealt with that very issue. I acknowledge the help that I received in getting that Act through Parliament from a number of Government Members, not least the hon. Members for Bournemouth East and for Banbury.
Of course we want transparency and to wipe out corruption. I welcome what the Minister had to say on figures, and he should not take this as a rebuke. However, when he gave us those figures, I reflected that until we took the issue of corruption and transparency seriously, the money did not go where British taxpayers wanted it to go. That is why Clare Short was such a successful Minister. In some ways I am slightly surprised that nobody has mentioned the way she took on the European Union and said, “When it comes to multilateral agreements, development and aid we want to know why the EU is acting in that way and what the arguments are. We will support those arguments when we believe them to be right, but we are entitled to know the thinking behind them.” She deserves credit for that, and very much more.
As we come to the end of the debate, let me say that had it been held at prime time on the Floor of the House, people would have been very proud of our Parliament. They would have been proud because they share the view of Edmund Burke that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. With all its limitations, I believe that we have done something in today’s debate, and offered hope, prosperity and good will to people who have long deserved it.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
Call-out Order to Contribute to the UN
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
With the expiry of the call-out order made on 1 May 2010, a new order has been made under section 56(1) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to continue to be called out into permanent service as part of the United Kingdom’s contribution to the United Nations forces in Cyprus (UNFICYP).
The new order is effective until 30 April 2012. Some 224 reservists are currently called out in support of UNFICYP, of whom 27 are in Cyprus.
Malawi (Expulsion of British High Commissioner)
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I would like to inform the House of recent developments in our bilateral relationship with Malawi.
On 26 April the Government of Malawi communicated to us their decision to expel the British high commissioner to Malawi. Mr Fergus Cochrane-Dyet. That decision is totally unacceptable and unwarranted. Mr Cochrane-Dyet is an able and effective diplomat who has behaved with integrity throughout his posting to Lilongwe, and who retains the full confidence of the Government. It is a worrying sign that the Malawian Government are expending their energies in this way, rather than focusing on the real and substantial challenges facing it, including the need for improved governance.
At my direction the FCO yesterday told the acting high commissioner of Malawi that she and her dependants must leave the UK. I have also asked my officials, working closely with their colleagues elsewhere in Government, rapidly to review the full range of our wider relationship with Malawi.
The Government intend to maintain diplomatic relations with Malawi. But we will not immediately appoint a successor to Mr Cochrane-Dyet.
Social Care PFI Credits
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
On Monday 11 April 2011, we confirmed continued financial support rising to £10.1 million by 2014-15 for four local authority social care PFI projects in England.
Following the spending review in October 2010, which transferred responsibility for PFI schemes to sponsor Departments, the Department of Health undertook a full review of the affordability of the social care PFI scheme and the quality of the proposals that had bid for support. This is in line with the cross-Government reassessment of PFI schemes to ensure they do not create an unaffordable burden.
The projects to receive PFI credits are based in Leeds, Hull, Sandwell and Hammersmith. They will all provide community social care and health facilities for vulnerable people. These projects were among 17 that the Department reviewed. The criteria for the review were: available funding, deliverability and minimising waste—giving priority to those projects already in procurement.
The Government will look to the local authorities whose projects were unsuccessful to give priority to them as front-line services or to look at other ways of providing these services.
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (Remedial) Order 2011
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (Remedial) Order 2011 and consequential amendments to the Registration of Marriage Regulations 1986, the Registration of Marriages (Welsh Language) Regulations 1999 and the Civil Partnership (Registration Provision) Regulations 2005 were made on 25 April and will come into force on 9 May 2011. Copies of the remedial order and regulations will be available from http://www.legislation.gov.uk in due course.
The remedial order will have the effect of removing the certificate of approval scheme which the UK courts found incompatible with the European convention on human rights (ECHR). From 9 May, those persons subject to immigration control wishing to give notice of marriage or civil partnership will no longer be required to demonstrate that they have an entry clearance granted for the purpose of marriage or registering civil partnership; a certificate of approval from the Home Office; or settled status in the UK.
Tackling sham marriage abuse remains a priority. Building on success over the last year, which has resulted in 155 arrests, the UK Border Agency will continue to investigate suspected abuse and, where possible, disrupt marriages before they take place. The UK Border Agency is also working closely with the three General Register Offices and partners such as the Anglican Church to look at ways in which the problem of sham marriages can be addressed.
The requirement for a person subject to immigration control to give notice of marriage or civil partnership at a designated register office will remain unchanged. This requirement allows the UK Border Agency to focus enforcement action on specific register offices.
As part of our reform of the immigration system, the Government intend to consult later in the year on family migration, including measures to tackle sham marriages and other abuse, promote integration and reduce burdens on the taxpayer.
Written Parliamentary Question (Correction)
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in my written answer (45254) given on 14 March 2011, Official Report, column 97W, about assessment of the effects on competition in the railway industry of the acquisition of Arriva Trains by Deutsche Bahn. The correct answer is that the European Commission carried out an assessment of the Deutsche Bahn acquisition of Arriva plc in 2010. A copy of the European Commission’s assessment of the effects can be viewed on their website.
House of Lords
EU and NATO: Peace in Europe
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the contribution by the European Union and its predecessors to peace in Europe compared with that of NATO.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, both the European Union and NATO have made invaluable and complementary contributions to peace in Europe. We do not consider it appropriate to compare the two as they serve different functions. While NATO has ensured, and continues to ensure, our security, there is more to peace than just security. It requires stability, shared values, economic development and political co-operation. The European Union has contributed that. We firmly intend to remain an active and committed member of both.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s compliment about NATO, but I am afraid that the rest of his Answer merely repeats the EU’s standard propaganda to justify its existence. Is it not true that democracy is the best guarantor of peace and that the EU is a deeply undemocratic institution? Secondly, is it not also true that the EU is failing on every other front as well so that it has become an emperor without clothes?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I think the noble Lord will agree that democracy is a many-layered concept. It requires the rule of law, good judicial standards, effective policing, fighting corruption, good and free business enterprise and freedom of the press. All those are areas where EU operations are effective. No one is saying that everything in the European Union is perfect at the moment. It obviously has major problems, particularly for those who are members of the eurozone, but it is unrealistic to dismiss all those very important elements of peace and democracy to which the EU contributes alongside the harder power that NATO can deliver.
Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, at the expense of trying to do some damage to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, I say that I thoroughly agree with the part of his statement about democracy being the best guarantor of peace. Will the Minister confirm that the European Union buttressing emergent new democracies in Spain, Portugal and Greece made a major contribution in that area and therefore relieved NATO of many of the problems that it would otherwise have had in defending its southern flank?
Lord Howell of Guildford
As I said, I think the two things are complementary. I know that the noble Lord, who is a considerable expert on these issues, would not forget the role of the Council of Europe, originally set up at the instigation of this nation which took a lead, which has helped to bring values to the whole European continent. All three institutions have made their mark.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, Senator John McCain, after recently visiting Libya, said that,
“the US has got to play a greater role on the air power side. Our NATO allies neither have the assets, nor frankly the will—there's only six countries of the 28 in NATO that are actively engaged in this situation”.
Does my noble friend agree with Senator McCain and what pressure is the UK putting on the non-participants to pull their weight? Is this not the real test of NATO’s credibility?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The Libya issue is going a bit further than this Question, but the Americans are playing an active part, as we know, in a whole range of areas in trying to bring some stability to a divided Libya. Other members of NATO are in constant dialogue and have been asked whether they will contribute. It is true that not every member of NATO is involved. There is the particular question of Turkey, which has not so far played a hard-power part in the NATO operation. At least this is a core of members in NATO and it is under NATO organisation as a whole, so it is working.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Does the Minister not agree that conducting a beauty contest of the sort posed by the Question is a futile exercise and that what we really need to be focusing on is how NATO and the EU can work together and co-operate in areas where they are both involved, of which there are quite a lot in the Balkans and north Africa? Will he say something about the progress of the remit that was given to the High Representative, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and to the Secretary-General of NATO at the NATO conference last year to report by this spring on how the problems that have arisen about co-operation between the two can be eased?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The short answer is that foreign ministers, including our own Secretary of State, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and NATO leaders are on the case. There is pressure to try to make progress and overcome the particular problems that arose over the Cyprus-related issue of Turkey, with which the noble Lord is extremely familiar, which have slowed down the integration and co-operation. Even so, in areas such as the West Balkans, where Eurofor and KFOR are operating, they have worked very closely together, so at a practical level there has been progress but on the bigger issues, which tend to be the visible ones, I agree that it has been slow progress for precisely the reason I mentioned.
Lord Peston
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the two most militarist nations in Europe were France and Germany and it is one of the great miracles of the post-war period that they devoted their efforts jointly to setting up what is now the European Union rather than fighting each other? The implication of the approach to the economic union of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is that they have denied our children and grandchildren their inalienable right to die on the battlefields of Europe.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, with great moderation, that a beauty contest between these organisations is rather pointless. All one wants to avoid is immoderate statements claiming perfection for one against the other. All these institutions have played their part. Occasionally some enthusiasts get a bit too outspoken on the part that one institution has played and that is the time for moderation.
Lord Dykes
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his comprehensive reply to such a silly, childish and provocative question. Does he agree, further to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that the east European countries becoming member states of the European Union has contributed massively to continued peace?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I think I heard a bit of immoderation the other way at that point. There is reason and sense in all these points of view and if anyone strives to go too far in claiming perfection for one organisation over the other it is bound to produce a reaction, which is just what we are hearing today.
Lord Liddle
Does the Minister agree that instead of this raking over the past of whether NATO or the EU made the biggest contribution to peace we should be looking to the future? Does he accept that this is a future where our great ally the United States, the anchor of NATO, is looking to Europe to step up to the plate and live up to its responsibilities in Libya and north Africa and that there is a huge responsibility on the British Government, with our French allies, to persuade the rest of Europe to live up to those responsibilities? We will be successful in doing this only if we have a British Government who are fully committed to and not semi-detached from the European Union. Will he persuade the Prime Minister to make a strong case for a bigger role for Europe in accepting these wider responsibilities?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord makes a number of points. It is certainly true that the United States is expecting the European Union to contribute more to the overall NATO scene as we are doing. This explains why the original worries of the United States about duplication and overlapping have evaporated and the EU and NATO are working very effectively together. The coalition Government believe that we should have a very positive role in the present European structure, in its reform and in meeting its future problems. However, there is a wider world as well, with which we have to connect, and many of these issues are not just American responsibilities or European responsibilities but global responsibilities requiring a global partnership.
West Lothian Question
Baroness Seccombe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what impact the result of the Welsh referendum will have on their plans to resolve the West Lothian question.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the result of the recent Welsh referendum is a major development for devolution in Wales—one which the Government are committed to supporting and at the same time to making the legislative arrangements work effectively. In particular, the Government will make an announcement, during the course of this year, about their plans for a commission to consider the West Lothian question. It would be for the commission, once established, to consider what factors it considered relevant in its examination of the options.
Baroness Seccombe
Yes, my Lords, but devolution has resulted in unfairness which is unhealthy in any democracy. Does my noble friend agree that one of the ways that might solve this knotty problem would be if Members of another place representing constituencies from the devolved authorities voted in this Parliament only on legislation that affected their constituents?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, it has always been an important principle of another place that all MPs should have equal rights before the House. Any change from that principle will need very careful consideration. But devolution has made a difference, with the removal from Parliament’s daily business of issues relating to devolved authorities. It is right that we should consider what the impact of that should be.
Lord Barnett
The noble Lord cannot be held responsible, and nor can the Government, for doing nothing yet on the West Lothian question, first raised in 1977 by my dear friend Tam Dalyell, the former MP for West Lothian. Does the noble Lord realise that today he can make history? When we get the Scotland Bill I propose to move an amendment that would affect the funding for Wales and Scotland under something called a formula—which he may have heard of. A distinguished Select Committee of this House recommended that the formula should be changed substantially to one based on need. I hope he will give us an assurance that he will support my amendment when I move it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I caught the noble Lord’s eye as he entered the Chamber because I thought he might have something to say on this. He will know that the Welsh Assembly Government commissioned the Holtham inquiry into funding in Wales. Likewise, there was the Calman inquiry in Scotland. He is right that there are a number of interlocking legislative initiatives which tie in to this proposal—the Scotland Bill is one of them. I will resist the temptation he offers to support his amendment before that Bill arrives in this House.
Lord Elis-Thomas
My Lords, given the almost universal support among candidates at the current Welsh general election, in which obviously I quickly declare an interest, for the implementation of the Holtham commission report, can we have some further indication—albeit that I welcome what has been said on West Lothian—as Holtham, son of Barnett, is perhaps even more urgent for us in terms of financial relationships between the UK Treasury and devolved Wales?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I understand the interest of the noble Lord in this matter and indeed that of many noble Lords. The truth is that we are attendant upon the first priority of this Government which is tackling the budget deficit. Funding for the devolved authorities is a major matter and the Government have listened and agreed to take note of the Holtham commission because it is very useful material on which to base a decision that is comprehensive across all devolved authorities, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has indicated.
Lord Tyler
My Lords does my noble friend recognise that there are Members of this House who legitimately claim to speak for other parts of the United Kingdom—Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Does he further recognise that if the Government were to pursue the course proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, there might well be a suggestion that those restrictions on MPs at the other end of the corridor might also apply to Members of this House?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The commission would certainly have to bear that in mind, just as it is likely to want to bear in mind any reformed nature of this House following legislation which might be introduced to that effect.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, is it not the case that, under the parliamentary boundaries legislation, Wales has suffered the most savage surgery, losing 25 per cent of its parliamentary seats? Was that not in clear breach of an Act of Parliament of 1986 which guaranteed a minimum of 35 seats for Wales and a solemn undertaking given by the right honourable Kenneth Clarke in 1992?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not want to go over the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill again, because noble Lords spent a long time on that issue. That legislation makes representation equal across the United Kingdom, which is a fair basis on which to start any consideration of devolution and funding of devolved authorities.
National Music Plan
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harrison
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will publish the National Music Plan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, the review of music education, carried out by Darren Henley, has given us a blueprint for ensuring that every child has the chance to benefit from the positive effects that good music education can have. The Government welcomed Mr Henley’s review in their response of 7 February 2011. The national plan for music education will set out a more detailed response to the review’s recommendations and will be published later this year.
Lord Harrison
Will the Government provide sufficient extra funding for the national portfolio organisations to fulfil the ambitions of the plans, especially at a time of local authority cuts? With respect to extracurricular music education, including for gifted and talented children, will the Minister deal with the national patchwork which is so disruptive for funding? Finally, will he address the huge variation in the quantity and quality of musical education in schools which is a consequence of head teachers having such command over curriculum decisions? That variation disturbs the ambitions of the national music plan to provide a comprehensive service.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I very much agree with the noble Lord on the importance of trying to get to the point where there is a comprehensive service. His points about disparities in funding were well made. As a subset of broader problems with funding which exist across schools, there are great inequalities which it would be good to try to address, as we have started to do. We are looking at the funding system both in terms of how funding is delivered and the sums of money involved. We have announced the funding for this year, which, in difficult circumstances, matches overall the sums provided last year. We will need to look at that in the broader context of how we respond to the rest of Henley’s recommendations and set out a plan. So far as talented children are concerned, we have managed to find the money to support the music and dance scheme. I am pleased about that and I am sure that the noble Lord will be, too.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Will my noble friend recognise that music is of particular importance in educating children who suffer from learning difficulties and that, very often, you can break through to a child’s mind and responsiveness with music education? I hope that the Government will bear that in mind.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I very much take that point. The role that music can play for all children is hugely important. The previous Government recognised that and made a lot of progress in increasing and improving provision generally for all children. We are keen to build on that, but I recognise that the role music can play in helping children with special educational needs is important.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, may I invite the Minister to confirm the Government’s belief, which I think they hold, that the specialist music conservatoires in this country play a very important role in music education, not only in providing specialist education for performers but also in educating educators? Will he therefore pass on to his colleagues who deal with higher education the observation that continuing uncertainty about the availability of exceptional funding for this specialist education is not in the best interests of music education, either for students or the people whom they may subsequently teach?
Lord Hill of Oareford
Yes and yes, my Lords. I will certainly do that. I agree entirely agree with the point made by the noble Baroness about the important role that the conservatoires play. I hope that we will be able to build on Teach First, which is another excellent scheme introduced by the previous Government, and to look in particular at whether we can encourage more graduates of that scheme who have been through the conservatoire system to learn to teach and to spread what they have learnt. I will certainly relay the noble Baroness’s second point to BIS.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, what progress has been made in moving teaching towards being a masters degree profession and will such a degree provide an opportunity to develop some of the specialisms identified in the Henley review as being needed? Perhaps the Minister might visit Burdett-Coutts primary school, around the corner from here, which does a marvellous job in encouraging a great range of pupils to use musical instruments.
Lord Hill of Oareford
The noble Earl is very kind in trying to induce me to go around the corner with him; I would be keen. I was lucky enough last year to go to the Schools Prom at the Royal Albert Hall. If any Members of this House have been there in their roles, they will know what a fantastic, wonderful evening it is. It was one of the most life-enhancing evenings that I have had for a very long time—which may say something about my life as well. It made one realise how much is going on in schools, what music teachers and music services are delivering, and how music can bring so much to children in a range of ways. As the noble Earl knows, there are a number of ways in which we need to look at the quality and range of teacher training, developing the idea of school-to-school support and learning the best that schools have already developed. That should have an important part to play in the development of specialist music teachers as well.
Baroness Walmsley
If the Government intend to implement recommendation 11 of the Darren Henley report, that Ofsted’s remit should be extended to review the standards and quality of music education, will the Minister find a way of instructing Ofsted to take account of those many music teachers who bring enormous joy and fun to their pupils through music? It may not be easy to measure fun, but it is terribly important.
Lord Hill of Oareford
On recommendation 11, we will talk to Ofsted. I do not know how one develops a measurement for fun. Perhaps we should talk to the noble Lord, Lord Layard, who I am sure has developed an index for measuring happiness. However, I shall bear those points in mind.
EU: Budget
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell of Alloway
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of the United Kingdom contribution to the European Union Budget has been signed off by the Court of Auditors over the last 16 years.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the UK contributes to the EU budget as a whole, not to individual spending programmes. Therefore, data on UK contributions to the EU budget not signed off by the Court of Auditors are unavailable. However, the recurrent failure to achieve a positive audit opinion from the court on the EU’s accounts is unacceptable. The Government set out recommendations to improve EU financial management and transparency at ECOFIN in February this year.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
I thank the noble Lord for his explanatory exposition of this aspect of the unacceptable, on which we have not spoken previously. I merely seek to establish a transparent, independent regime and to deal with the problem of inclusion in the budget of expenditure which has been signed off in the accounts by the Court of Auditors. Perhaps I may ask a short question. Is it not a relevant consideration in the ongoing negotiations to seek to establish an acceptable regime?
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend for once again drawing attention to the unacceptable situation that we face with regard to the European audit. I think that he puts his finger on one of the key issues, which is that we need to work towards a much simpler and more transparent regime. If the rules around the various European expenditure programmes were made less complex, it would be much easier for member states to comply with those rules. It is very much on that practical aspect of the regime that my honourable friend the Economic Secretary is working with the Audit Commissioner, others in Brussels and member states to make sure that we move to a simpler, clearer and more auditable regime.
Lord Tomlinson
Is the noble Lord aware that, just before he retired, the former Comptroller and Auditor-General of the United Kingdom, Sir John Bourn, said that if he had to apply to the expenditure accounts of the United Kingdom the system for audit employed in the European Union, he would refuse to give a positive assurance on any of those accounts because the real problem with the statement of assurance in the European Union is the statistical basis on which that audit is conducted? Will the noble Lord undertake to look at that question and to see whether, if one ever wants to get a clean audit, it is appropriate to try to initiate a reform of the statistical base of the statement of assurance?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am happy to say that we are already on the case in this matter. At the ECOFIN in February, the UK issued a joint statement with the Netherlands and Sweden making various points about what we believed needed to be done by the European Commission and the auditors in coming years. That included, among other things, moving the European audit basis to a more risk-based approach, which I think precisely addresses the point that the noble Lord rightly brings up.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, did not my noble friend’s earlier answer, when he described how information was not available, give a bit of a clue as to one way in which we can make progress? Would it not be much more satisfactory if there were full details of any failure properly to account for national expenditures in the EU budget? In that way we would at least know who was not doing things properly, by how much and when, and that shaming could have some role in getting people to behave better.
Lord Sassoon
Again, I completely agree. That is precisely why the other two of the three key points made in the joint statement at the February ECOFIN were about greater member state responsibility for items of expenditure and greater transparency. Therefore, I think that we have already identified the three key areas where improvement needs to be made and needs to be made quickly.
Lord Davies of Oldham
We of course wish the Minister and the Government well in their labours with regard to this issue but we do not underestimate the challenge of the task and are not anticipating early progress. However, there is one set of sums of money relating to Europe in which the nation is greatly interested and on which I am sure the Minister is well briefed and aware of what is involved, and that is the amount of money we are committed to on eurozone bailouts. Will the Minister enlighten the House with those figures?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, much as I would like to talk about European bailouts, we talk about them on other occasions and I think that we are straying a bit far from the audit issue on which other noble Lords may want to ask questions.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I recall some 20 years ago the late Lord Bruce of Donington asking very much the same questions repeatedly. Can the Minister say why it is taking so long to resolve this problem?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I think that the answer to that lies on the Benches opposite. If we want to get into history, the previous Government in 2005 gave away a substantial part of the UK’s abatement and signed on to a financial perspective that set a course of significantly increasing EU expenditure. If, instead, they had worried more about the management of the funds that were going out from Europe rather than merely signing on to an ever-increasing UK contribution to an expanding budget, we would not be in the position that we are in today.
Procedure Committee
The Chairman of Committees
That the 4th Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 127) be agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, I should like to touch briefly on two matters raised in the report. The first relates to the timing of future elections to the office of Lord Speaker, including any election that may be held this year. As we state in paragraph 2 of our report, we believe that the current provisions in Standing Order 19 relating to the timing of elections are defective. We therefore propose various amendments to the Standing Order, which are set out in full in the appendix to the report. The amendments are very technical but their purpose is to simplify the timing of future elections, ensuring that they will be conducted according to a predictable pattern. The practical effect of these changes, if an election is held this year, will be that it will be held on Wednesday, 13 July, with the result reported to the House the following week. The amended Standing Order would also provide for a longer handover period between any election and the new Speaker taking office. In other respects, the arrangements for future elections will remain as they are at present.
The second matter raised in the report relates to the tabling of Oral Questions. Many noble Lords will be aware that in recent months there has been increased competition for the limited number of Oral Questions. Under the current arrangements, most slots for Questions become available at 10 o’clock on either Friday or Monday mornings, and priority is given to noble Lords who can attend the Table Office in person at those times. These arrangements are inconvenient for many noble Lords, particularly those who live outside London or who have work commitments in the mornings. We therefore propose that in future the notice period for Oral Questions should be reduced from one calendar month to four weeks. This means that three or four Questions will become available on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. We further recommend that slots for Questions be made available at two o’clock rather than 10 o’clock, making it easier for noble Lords to go to the Table Office in person.
I hope that these changes will commend themselves to the House and I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I have a query about the proposed new Standing Order for the election of the Lord Speaker. If a Lord Speaker resigns or dies in, say, mid-October, the election of the new Speaker will take place within three months under this new Standing Order—that is, no later than mid-January. However, under the proposed Standing Order, the new Lord Speaker will take office on 1 September in the year of the election. We could thus have a new Lord Speaker elected in January but not able to take up the post until 1 September, with the role presumably being filled in the interim by the Lord Chairman of Committees. Is that correct or have I missed something?
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, makes an interesting point. I assure the House that if a Lord Speaker resigned in the timetable that he envisages, it would certainly not be the intention that the new Lord Speaker would not then take office until the following September. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord a precise answer to whether we have made a mistake in this. I hope that we have not but I shall have to write to him. However, that is certainly not the intention.
Lord Sewel
My Lords, I draw attention to the recommendation which the noble Lord has already mentioned at paragraph 14, that Standing Order 43 be amended in the terms set out in appendix 1 to reduce the notice period for Questions and Motions, other than those relating to legislation, from one month to four weeks. I am all in favour of reform and modernisation, but is this not in danger of going too far, too fast in making an immediate change from one month to four weeks? Did the committee consider a phased introduction, perhaps over several decades, in order to bring this about?
The Chairman of Committees
I can quite see the noble Lord’s concerns, but the committee did not feel that it was going too far in this reduction, which of course in February, other than in leap years, would mean no change. In some other months, it will mean a change from 31 days to 28 and in others from 30 to 28. Given the difference between 31, 30 and 28 in February, except for leap years, it would not have been sensible to have phased it in any other way than to make it 28 days right around the year.
Poverty in the Developing World
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To call attention to those living in extreme poverty in the developing world; and to move for papers.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to call attention to those living in extreme poverty in the developing world. I also welcome in advance the contributions that will be made to this debate from a wide range of noble Lords; I look forward to hearing from them.
There were a number of reasons for calling for this debate at this time. Next week, an innovative campaign will be supported by a number of noble Lords called Live Below the Line. I will say something about that later. Next month, the annual G8 summit will meet, and last month the strategic review of UK aid was published by the coalition Government. Those would be reasons enough to hold a debate at this time, but there are also 1.4 billion individual reasons for having a debate on extreme poverty in the developing world. It is surely a disgrace and a moral outrage that, more than one decade into the 21st century, the existence of those 1.4 billion reasons to debate extreme poverty is still with us.
Extreme poverty is not about choosing between a hot meal and a cold meal; it is not about choosing between a hot drink and a cold drink; it is not about choosing between going to the cinema or having a night in with a DVD; it is not about choosing between a day out with the kids or buying them some clothes. Extreme poverty is about not having those or, sometimes, any choices at all. The daily reality of extreme poverty is that if your relatives become sick overnight you may have to choose in the morning between feeding your children that day or finding the relative medical care. It is about having more than one, perhaps many, talented children and having to choose which of them completes primary school or enters secondary school. It is about, when you need a drink, being faced with the choice of drinking contaminated water and risking disease. It is because of those choices—that absence of choice—that extreme poverty should appear on our agenda today.
The World Bank estimates, and others now accept, that 1.4 billion people live on less than £1 a day across the world. Of those, as documented by Paul Collier and others, perhaps 1 billion—the bottom billion—experience that extreme poverty in conditions where their situation may be permanent. They could be trapped in conflict or in landlocked states where, through the misuse of natural resources or poor governance, they are sent into a cycle of despair and permanent poverty that needs international as well as national action to tackle it.
Next week, some members of this House will take part in an innovative campaign organised by the Global Poverty Project—an organisation on whose advisory board I am pleased to sit—called Live Below the Line. The Global Poverty Project seeks to abolish extreme poverty within a generation. It wishes to keep alive the spirit of the Make Poverty History campaign of 2005 but to deepen and widen that movement for change to involve many more people the world over in a movement that will finally eradicate extreme poverty. Live Below the Line is an awareness and fund-raising campaign. It involves a number of partners with the Global Poverty Project. It is supported by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for International Development, the shadow Secretary of State for International Development and many others.
I am delighted to be supporting the campaign. I am not too delighted by the prospect of living on less than £1 a day for food and drink for five days, starting on Saturday. I suspect that soup, some good old Scottish recipes and tap water are likely to be the order of the day for me over my May bank holiday weekend. I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise funds for the Global Poverty Project and for an organisation called Positive Women, which is successfully carrying out projects for women—who, as I think we all now recognise, are the real change-makers in the developing world—in Swaziland, supporting income-generation projects and projects on education and the encouragement of rights, and wishes to expand that work into Malawi, a country dear to my heart and which would benefit from its work. Both of those charities are small, growing and have low overheads, and I am delighted to give them my support. I suspect that it would be improper for me to encourage noble Lords to sponsor me in this effort, but I ask them to pay particular attention to the letter that the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, and I circulated to all noble Lords during the Easter recess.
I want to address three points in particular. The first is the need for continued and sustained international action; the second is the UK’s aid review; and the third concerns conflict. Over the past decade or so, the UK has certainly led the way internationally on international aid and development. There is now cross-party support in this country for the target of 0.7 per cent of national income going to overseas development assistance. We must continue not just to stick to that commitment here in the United Kingdom but to take a lead in the international arena. A decade ago, the world met at the millennium summit and said clearly and unanimously:
“We will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty … We resolve further:
To halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of the world’s people whose income is less than one dollar a day”.
The MDGs that resulted from that summit covered education, schooling, health and vaccination, maternal mortality, HIV/AIDS, the environment, economic growth and jobs. Crucially, millennium development goal 1 was that commitment to halve extreme poverty by 2015. The world may be on course to achieve that, but that trajectory is now threatened by the financial crisis of 2008 and the economic conditions facing much of the developed world today. I would argue that now is not the time to withdraw from that commitment or to stand back; now is the time to step up and ensure that, out of the current economic conditions, we create a fair world and one which is better ready to meet the real challenges of the 21st century.
The G8 in 2005 responded positively to the Make Poverty History campaign, probably the first truly global campaign, which argued for a significant increase in international aid and the cancellation of debt. Arising from the decisions made that summer was, first, the multilateral debt relief initiative, which saw the cancellation of debt for countries that were budgeting properly and had good financial plans for the future, and a promise of £50 billion extra aid to the poorest countries of the world. There was great hope at the time, particularly in Scotland where I was First Minister, that the events at Gleneagles had been a step change in the way the world would come together to tackle extreme poverty. But it has to be noted today that the commitments made then are not being met by all those who stepped up to the mark in July 2005, particularly in the European Union. Too many member states are not just withdrawing from those commitments but are indeed reducing their commitments to those in need elsewhere.
I do not think that that is acceptable, for the reason that the tackling of extreme poverty is not hopeless. We know that aid works and that, in the past decade alone, 50 million more African children now go to school and more than 5 million child deaths have been avoided by the kind of investment we have seen being made by the international community in African nations the length and breadth of the continent. We have seen improvements in governance and institutions—not enough, but there are improvements. We see constant improvements in levels of vaccination and maternity care and constant improvements in the provision of clean water.
We know that the long-term solutions are indeed those of better aid, better quality aid and greater quantities of it, as well as fairer trade through changes in the trade rules and the encouragement of fairer trade practices and better governance. We know what the solutions are and there is no reason why, if we pull together, we cannot achieve the goal through these different mechanisms and policies. Over the past fortnight we have seen publicity about food waste, which in this country alone amounts to £10 billion every year. Across the world, some £37 billion is spent on bottled water each year. We know that the resources exist for us to help tackle this problem in a sustained way.
My first point today is that the poor, particularly the extremely poor in the developing world, must not pay for the excesses of the rich and for the failure of governance that has occurred in the developed world over the past decade and more. Another point that I think the UK should raise at the G8 summit is the issue of tax avoidance. Tax revenues are the most sustainable source of development finance. It has been estimated by Christian Aid and others that some £160 billion could be raised in the developing world if measures were taken by the international community to tackle tax avoidance, ensure greater transparency of company profits, and thus increase taxation revenues. I hope that the UK Government might respond to that and other points in advance of and at both the G8 and the G20 summits this year.
I welcome the UK Government’s aid review. It is right that, after a decade of such investment in international aid by the United Kingdom, we should review the specific projects and the organisations that are being supported. I welcome the Government’s commitment to the 0.7 per cent target. I welcome the commitment to educating girls. I welcome the commitment to tackle conflict. I also welcome the contribution being made to a number of countries, not least Malawi in which, as I said earlier, I have a particular interest.
I would also like the Minister to respond today to a few points in areas of concern that arise out of the strategy that we have not had a chance to debate in the Chamber before now. First, with the increasing commitment to health initiatives which I understand have immediate short-term benefits, does that mean the deprioritisation of commitments to education, which in my view is the most significant long-term investment we can make for growth and tackling poverty, as well as good health, in the developing world? Can the Minister give us some reassurance that those countries that will miss out on UK aid as a result of the review will continue to receive support from the European Union, and that we will play our part in ensuring that that aid is used effectively in places like Burundi, which as it emerges from conflict is at a crucial stage in its development?
In relation to conflict, I mentioned Burundi as one of the best examples of the impact of conflict in the developing world. The change and the difference in Burundi and Burkina Faso over the past 20 years are marked. These countries, which were at a relatively similar stage and trajectory of development, have seen a huge gap develop between them as a result of the impact of conflict in Burundi. It has happened in other countries too. We know that conflict, and particularly civil war within a country, can knock back development by around 20 years. So it is my view that tackling conflict, conflict resolution, building a sustainable peace, may be the most difficult but is certainly the most significant and important development challenge of our time. Because it is hard and difficult, we need to try even harder. I would welcome some information from the Minister today on when the Government’s stabilisation strategy might be coming forward, and when we will get a chance to debate the way ahead.
It is certainly the case that if you live in a conflict afflicted country, you are three times more likely to be affected by HIV/AIDS and that in our world today, some 26 million people are still displaced as a result of conflict despite the fact that cross-border conflicts have reduced in number. Life expectancy is lower, child deaths are higher, and of course unemployment is higher and growing businesses is much more difficult. If we are to meet the MDGs, we must first address the causes of conflict. For humanitarian reasons as well as for our interdependent interests, helping to develop stable and successful states has to be a priority in our development work.
Living below the line is a daily reality for 1.4 billion people the world over. Next week, some of us will experience just a little part of that existence. We will not have to live properly below the line in the way that hundreds of millions have to all over the world, but we will bring something to the level of awareness in this country and, hopefully, something to the charities we are supporting. I welcome the opportunity to debate these issues today and I look forward to the contributions of other Members. I beg to move.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
My Lords, I would like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, both for securing this debate today and for his campaigning work on this issue for many years, particularly during his time as First Minister of Scotland. He and I first ran into each other during a television debate when fighting seats we did not win in Scotland in 1987, an extremely uncomfortable experience for me to say the least. I doubt that either expected that 25 years on we would both be in this place or working together on the advisory board of the Global Poverty Project. It is a pleasure to follow him.
We are all here in the Chamber because we care about this issue. It is the reason that the noble Lord and I will be joining thousands of others across the world who are supporters of the Global Poverty Project by participating in the challenge to “live below the line” for five days next week. To quote the Prime Minister’s words of encouragement to us all:
“Live Below The Line is a great opportunity for thousands of people to engage with the challenge of world poverty and to raise awareness of the abject conditions in which too many people still live. I hope as many people as possible will sign up, and become passionate about the fight to end poverty”.
In my case, I will be raising money for Restless Development, the youth-focused development agency of which I am a patron, but others will be supporting other partners in this campaign, Think Global, Salvation Army, Christian Aid and Results UK, as well as Positive Women, which the noble Lord supports.
I hope that many noble Lords will visit us in the temporary lunchtime soup kitchen that we will be running here next week for those in Parliament who will be living below the poverty line. I am delighted to be able to tell you that the Lord Speaker is not only taking part in the challenge herself, but has kindly agreed that we can use the River Room kitchen for our communal, though meagre, lunches next week. I am known in my own family as the queen of soups and leftovers, but I have never before knowingly fed them lunch for 40p, which is what I will be doing for colleagues next week. Obviously none of us can ever truly know what it must be like to survive on £1 a day, every single day, but I hope that the challenge here and across the country will help us in some small way to understand it better, and in the process raise money for worthwhile causes.
In a world where over 1.4 billion people will go to bed hungry tonight, it must sicken us, as the noble Lord pointed out in his remarks, that Defra has calculated that here in the UK we will throw away more than £10 billion-worth of food this year. The contrast between our profligacy with the thought of others not eating at all should shame us. Live Below the Line is one way in which we are seeking to raise and highlight the issue and, in some small way, to address the injustice.
How can we best fight extreme poverty? We should be thinking about how we can best support people to obtain individual freedom, how their potential can be unleashed by Governments working for and not against them, and we should give communities the chance to trade their way out of poverty. To do that, communities need access to the basics, in order to achieve the millennium development goals, but they must also go much further: communities capable of fighting corruption must be supported; trade barriers must be broken down; microfinance must be encouraged; and new educated middle classes should be created. This is why I am an enthusiastic supporter of organisations, like Restless Development, that work with young people in some of the most deprived areas of the world to help to develop their potential. With more than half of the populations of the world's poorest countries under the age of 25, we have an opportunity to see a new generation that can stand up and demand more of their Governments, start new businesses and grow their economies.
We in the UK have a role to play. All political parties have supported the commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of national income as aid from 2013 and I especially welcome the Secretary of State's focus on transparency and value for money and DfID's focus on the development of small businesses as the engine for economic growth. The UK is leading the way in each of these areas, becoming the first country in the world to publish aid information to the standards of the International Aid Transparency Initiative; undertaking a root-and-branch review of all British aid spending through DfID country offices and international organisations like the UN to ensure effectiveness and results from our aid spending; and making plans to provide more than 50 million people with the means to help work their way out of poverty.
As we seek to grow enterprise, we must not lose sight of those who are excluded from opportunities in their communities. All too often, as the noble Lord pointed out, it is women who are left out. Women make up half of the world's population and do roughly two-thirds of the world's work, and yet even today it is thought that they may earn as little as 10 per cent of the world's income. The Government's new strategic vision that places girls and women at the heart of their development work is to be applauded. Not only will this focus on the pillars that so affect their lives, such as safe pregnancy and childbirth, economic assets, schooling and violence against women, but it will also mean working towards a positive, enabling environment in terms of women's political empowerment and legal rights.
The issue of empowerment is not a matter of political correctness, but it is absolutely fundamental to this debate. Experience proves that it is the most effective development tool available to us. Women, who look after their families and look after their children, want their daughters to be educated as well as their sons. If a mother has access to microfinance and can start her own business, the stability of the family is secured, even if her husband is involved in tribal conflict or the drugs trade.
I also welcome the forthcoming replenishment round for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisations, known as GAVI, which the Government are hosting in June. If the international community comes together, GAVI will be able to vaccinate 250 million children and save 4 million lives. For just the price of a cup of coffee we can vaccinate a child against five killer childhood diseases.
Live Below the Line is one way of standing up for what we think is right in the world. In addition to the soup kitchen, next week the Lord Speaker will host an event in the River Room on Wednesday evening to which you are all most welcome. We cannot offer noble Lords lavish canapés, or even a glass of wine, but please join us at that event to learn more, or over lunch on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, and share with us our 33p or 40p meal.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
My Lords, I am more than grateful for the fact that this matter has been brought before us for debate. Sometimes, as I sit on these Benches listening to the discussion of various pieces of legislation, I feel that I would like all of them checked out for how they impact on poor people, a kind of conditioning criteria by which we may judge the humaneness of the legislation produced by these Houses of Parliament. I am also delighted that a debate on extreme poverty comes before us like this, but I would want to check the abstract Latinate noun “poverty” against the poor people who constitute, as a phenomenon, the noun in question. I come from a crucible of abject poverty and have spent quite a lot of my adult life living among the poorest people in the world, so I cannot come to a debate like this without some kind of imagination filled with real examples on the issue.
I start by saying how personal the subject is to me just now. Our only daughter married a lovely Cambodian boy whose father, on the way home from school at the age of 15, was forcibly recruited into Pol Pot’s army in Cambodia. He spent the next three and a half years indoctrinated and drugged and was part of that army about whose devastating outcomes we know only too well. My daughter’s father-in-law has been traumatised by that and is a wreck of a man now. When we visit Cambodia, we are able, because of our son-in-law, to go well beyond where tourists go, into the villages and out into the countryside, and we experience a country that has known more than its share of trauma over the years. Therefore, for me, poverty is not just the absence of physical benefits and material things, but it is a state of mind that oppression, of one kind or another, has reduced one to over many years. Cambodia has become very dear to me and it is clawing its way very slowly out of the desperate situation of 20, 30 and 40 years ago.
I could add much to illustrate my concern and underline it by my experience over a number of years as chairman of Christian Aid’s Africa committee. I saw the effects of civil war in Mozambique, in Sudan and in Eritrea—Eritrea is slightly different—and all the devastating effects of war over many years. I shall never forget going to Mozambique and seeing no animals in the countryside because, over the duration of the war, they had been killed to feed people. I saw a young man who had been trained to fly MiG fighters for the Soviet air force by one side in that dispute, and once the Cold War was over, or at least the Warsaw Pact countries were loosening their hold on certain countries in Africa, he was retraining as a people’s lawyer to help ordinary people to identify their land holdings, the papers having been lost and the lands expropriated over many years.
It is stories like that that remind me of the small initiatives that happen in desperately poor countries to help people to take a step at a time out of poverty. Of course, the real matrix of my own understanding about extreme poverty comes from the 10 years that I lived in Haiti, the poorest country in the western world. I was there just three months ago and I saw the people living in tented villages and suffering from an outbreak of cholera. There are also those for whom floods, earthquakes, droughts and the terrible ravages of nature impose a kind of poverty on them that is wilful and hazardous and that comes at a moment’s notice. One can distinguish between that understanding of poverty and the chronic and endemic poverty that lasts generations and flows from the history of Haiti. It saw the first black republic in the world emerge from the shackles of colonialism in 1804, when 500,000 people, who had been plantation labourers, fled to the hills and went into subsistence farming. Two hundred years later, they have denuded the countryside of all its trees; they have completely impoverished the land; and 80 per cent of them are illiterate. While I was living there, AIDS reared its ugly head as early as the 1970s and 1980s—I remember it was such a new phenomenon in those days.
Therefore, the poor are very real in my mind. All the time, I want to try to imagine ourselves into the mindset of poor people as they look around them and wonder what options are available to them. I mentioned earlier—although will not dwell upon it—the poverty into which I was born, to a single mother with two boys living in one room for many, many years. Luckily, I passed the 11-plus and went to a grammar school—and was there with Members of this House in fact—but, for all that, I know that I have had a gilded life subsequent to those beginnings. What were the indicators that suggested to me that there was a way out of the poverty my mother and her family had known in the 1930s—soup kitchens and all that kind of stuff? During my childhood in the 1940s, our local Member of Parliament—to whose memory I pay immense tribute—was James Griffiths, who at that time was the deputy leader of the Labour Party. He turned down a job in Mr Attlee’s Cabinet in the Foreign Office in order to be Minister for Work and Pensions, in those days when our parliamentary leaders had lived a proper life somewhere else before they came into politics. Through his ministrations in the other place, he brought onto the statue book the Family Allowances Act—although that was Eleanor Rathbone’s creation—the National Assistance Act, the National Insurance Act, pensions legislation and so on. These, along with the Butler Education Act and the National Health Service, gave people trapped in poverty, as we were, a new horizon.
I ask myself where in the world that we live in, with this extreme poverty so endemic, similar indicators are to be found. We have the Bretton Woods arrangements, the World Bank, the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation. They are all there, but how does that translate down into the mentality of people, who are trapped in poverty, who say, “This gives me my chance”? Until those great things that are thought up on high are appropriated by people below, they do not amount to much more than a bar of soap. That is the trick.
I will draw my remarks to a close as I see the time is up. I was present in Haiti just recently and remembered the work that we did planting trees. There are forests there that we planted 30 years ago. Building roads, forming co-operatives, organising little primary healthcare systems, education, literacy and desalinating seawater in order to give drinking water to people—these things can happen and can be done; but only by engaging with real people who are poor, not by talking about poverty until the cows come home.
I welcome the opportunity to play some part in this debate and urge your Lordships to look at this issue as something that should preoccupy us seriously and constantly through all our deliberations.
Lord Chidgey
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on securing this debate this afternoon and giving us the opportunity to debate these very relevant and important issues. I congratulate him, too, on his powerful argument and the birth of the campaign on living below the line. Sadly, I cannot join the noble Lord next week in living on a pound a day because I shall be in Mozambique—a country that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, knows well—delivering speeches on aid effectiveness. So in some ways I am with him in spirit, but I cannot be with him in body on that particular occasion.
Under the bilateral aid and multilateral aid reviews that DfID has just conducted, the aid allocation towards the poorest countries and those containing the largest numbers of poor people living in extreme poverty will increase substantially. Many of these countries face rising civil unrest; some face instability and conflict. Conflicts in various forms are one of the biggest obstacles to poverty reduction. Conflict pushes millions of people into poverty each year, and no sensible development strategy would be complete without focusing on both conflict prevention and post-conflict support. Since 2000, nine out of 10 new conflicts have in fact been relapses as fragile states have fallen back into war. By supporting conflict-affected countries, the United Kingdom is helping some of the poorest countries and people by helping to develop more responsible and accountable Governments, better access to security and justice, and better delivery of services such as health and education, as well as supporting household wealth creation.
One does not have to look far to find examples of extreme poverty related to conflict in the developing world. I recently had the opportunity to visit south and north Sudan—the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, were among the delegation—so we in this House have experienced the reality of conflict and poverty today. Sudan is of course shortly to become two separate and independent countries. There have been remarkable achievements in Sudan under the comprehensive peace agreement, which, after 20 years of civil war, led to a broadly peaceful referendum on the future of Southern Sudan.
However, there are numerous unresolved issues that could destabilise the area. Violence in the first months of 2011, in which 150 people were killed and 15,000 people fled their homes, demonstrates clearly how unstable and volatile that region can be. Violence, still influenced by the history of the war, is linked to a variety of issues: intercommunal violence over resources, especially cattle, land and water, often with a political dimension; human rights violations by security forces, and clashes between the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army and the communities in which it operates; and politically driven violence involving non-state armed groups, often along ethnic lines.
Southern Sudan will become the newest country in the world in July, as well as one of the poorest. In 2010, over 1.5 million people were severely food-insecure. In total, nearly half the population needed food aid at some stage. Over 50,000 children were acutely malnourished, and nearly a quarter of a million people were forced from their homes by violence. A further 400,000 returnees, we understand, are expected to come from Khartoum down into south Sudan in July, during the rainy season, where the danger of transit camps becoming semi-permanent is growing, with little food, overcrowding, no infrastructure and the threat of disease.
In the neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo, which I anticipate visiting in a few weeks’ time, nearly three-quarters of the population of some 62 million are not meeting their daily food needs. According to the World Bank, that reflects an extremely high level of poverty. Child mortality is shockingly high, with one in five dying before the age of five—by comparison, the UK average is one in 170. With a healthcare system devastated after years of civil war, maternal mortality rates have risen to more than one in 100. Progress on poverty reduction in the DRC depends on peace and security being consolidated across the country’s enormous territory, which is still facing unrest in the eastern and northern parts. With attacks by elements of the Lord’s Resistance Army, the LRA, this violence continues. I suggest that bringing stability and security to the DRC will require a significant uplift to the DfID programme, which seems currently reliant on aspirations to increase the number of girls going to school, to ensure that everyone who has the right to vote is properly registered, to improve basic health services and to bring maternal care and family planning services to hundreds of thousands of women.
As for the bilateral aid review’s vision for tackling conflict and fragility, as set out by the Secretary of State in a speech at the beginning of March, it is as well to note the assessment of Saferworld, which put the case for the bilateral aid review being a shift not so much towards the securitisation of aid as towards an underlying vision for how to approach conflict-affected or fragile societies. The Secretary of State stressed in March that it was imperative that countries should,
“build open and responsive political systems, tackle the root causes of fragility, and empower citizens to hold their Governments to account”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/11; col. 167.]
This is indeed a worthy ambition. However, putting it into practice, as many noble Lords will know, will require more than just aid money.
Still in the context of the bilateral aid review and the multilateral aid reviews and their technical reports, the process calls for operational plans to be submitted by each DfID country office to carry these reviews through. That is very commendable, but can the Minister tell us when these plans will be published and when we in your Lordships’ House will have an opportunity to look at them in some detail?
In a similar vein, the reviews have recognised that the European Development Fund has one of the best records of aid delivery. I repeat that because some noble Lords may find it a difficult concept to grasp: the EDF is one of the best aid deliverers. Sadly, we cannot say the same for the European Commission, which was severely criticised earlier today by the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, who made the point that some of its audit work was unacceptable. The Audit Committee has condemned its work there, too. So we need reform, and I should like to hear from the Minister what progress we have made post-ECOFIN in getting reforms on aid pushed through in the European Commission.
In 2000, world leaders committed themselves to a dramatic reduction in child deaths by 2015. As Save the Children has pointed out, there has been extraordinary progress. More than 4 million fewer children died each year than in 1990. However, there is a huge and urgent unfinished agenda with regard to the MDGs. Each and every year, 8 million children still die before they reach their fifth birthday, and 99 per cent of child deaths take place in developing countries. Children from the poorest countries are the least likely to survive. In this regard, Oxfam’s acknowledgement that the significant effort made by DfID in conducting the BARs and MARs is welcome; as it points out, reviewing aid policies to ensure that they deliver the best and most sustainable results for people living in poverty is a welcome and vital process.
The Earl of Sandwich
I extend my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, not only for opening this debate but for his support for the global poverty campaign alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin. I also thank him for introducing a new form of words. We often have debates about development, but they rarely focus so directly on the people who have to suffer extreme poverty. In one sense, we are trying to discern the invisible, because we can never see or analyse the most extreme forms of poverty. By its nature, it occurs out of reach of any government service, in semi-desert, rocky plateaus, forests and corners of shanty towns. Many years ago, I was in villages in northern Chad on the edge of the Sahara. I can be pretty certain that, with conflict and other factors intervening, those families will have somehow survived without any formal health and social services ever since.
Even NGOs, which seem ubiquitous in most poor countries, do not venture into some areas because of difficulty of access or civil war. I remember one field worker telling me that you cannot start a project with nothing at all if there is no one with skills to develop or opportunities to expand. I have always believed that because of the number of schemes in poor countries that fail altogether despite good intentions. There are too many shipwrecks of good will where money has been poured into holes in the sand or mantraps of corruption. I shall mention Southern Sudan in a moment. I know that the Government are concerned about this as part of their review.
On the other hand, some of the best development work can occur during a crisis and comes under a humanitarian heading. In times of conflict or when people are forced to live together in acute poverty, the UN relief agencies have been able to sustain life and livelihoods even in the most precarious conditions. We have heard examples from the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths. In these circumstances, how do we decide where to spend money effectively? I know that that is another preoccupation of the Government. Donors tend to use standard measurements of poverty such as the LDCs—the least developed countries—as listed on the human development index. However, poverty is not confined to the LDCs; it can occur in any country, which is why—thank heaven—we have kept India in the DfID portfolio.
Many of the very poor in our own society are again out of reach, some because they are escaping from the law, the Inland Revenue or some other persecutor. Many immigrant families are out of reach because they officially do not exist. Poverty has always been hard to define. In last year’s human development report, the UNDP introduced a multidimensional poverty index instead of using the normal national or international poverty standards. This index uses the main dimensions of health, education and living standards, but it includes household indicators such as floor space and personal assets as well as fuel, water and sanitation. By this standard, which does not take account of human rights, there are 1.75 billion poor—almost one in four people in the world. Out of 169 countries, the UNDP lists Mozambique, Burundi, Niger, Congo and Zimbabwe as the five very poorest. So what do the Government think about the multidimensional poverty index? Does the Minister know whether DfID is using it and, if so, why has it decided to take Burundi and up to 15 other countries off its own list of countries receiving bilateral aid? How has it made those calculations?
Today’s poorest may be found among the 40 million or so migrants and displaced people all over the world: people who are stateless and have nothing—no possessions, no food and no water—without the help of charity or international relief agencies. The most vivid examples are those fleeing from Libya even today, risking everything to reach Italy by sea. Does the Minister support the new European Parliament resolution of 5 April on migration, which calls on the EU to create a new instrument for these refugees and draws attention to the disproportionate burden carried by certain member states?
Bereavement is another form of poverty. Suddenly someone dies in the family. A UCL study published in the Lancet estimated that 12 per cent of all male deaths in the world resulted from violence, while 14 per cent were from traffic accidents, and maternal conditions were the cause of 15 per cent of all female deaths. Having visited south Sudan, as the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, mentioned, I shall share some more statistics from that country, which is to become independent in July. Only half of all deliveries are attended by a trained health worker in Sudan; in the south by itself, only 10 per cent of births are attended. About 2,000 women in every 100,000 giving birth die in childbirth, and one in 10 babies still die from the effects of poverty. In some areas, the averages are much worse. This is because of the lack not only of food and resources but of education, which makes it impossible for the poor to attain good health and food security. Only 8 per cent of women in the south of Sudan can read and write.
The inability of outsiders such as us to help is also a problem. After the peace agreement five years ago, concerted attempts were made to introduce a basic package of health services. The Minister might know that the main channel of aid, the Multi Donor Trust Fund, ran into a host of difficulties and unacceptable delays, partly owing to the World Bank’s strict procurement rules. Basic health was to be introduced through a partnership between NGOs and the World Bank, known as the Umbrella Program for Health System Development. What happened to that programme, which was designed to support sub-contracted, performance-based public health in the south, to which so many international donors such as us have contributed? Even now, less than one-third of the people of south Sudan are reached by health services. Was it the lack of local capacity, which is so often blamed, or the excess of academic zeal and donor muddle, which usually gets away with it?
Finally, I congratulate the Government on their latest efforts to create a more honest, open and accountable environment for international development. I trust that, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said, the Chancellor will take to heart some of Christian Aid’s recommendations on tax transparency when he attends the G20 meeting.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, over the past decade encouraging gains have been achieved against the targets of the millennium development goals. Yet, is it not unacceptable that 9 million children still die each year before they reach their fifth birthday? In sub-Saharan Africa, this represents the death of one in seven children under five. It is equally unacceptable that more than 350,000 women should die each year from complications during pregnancy or childbirth, 99 per cent of them in the developing countries.
Despite seeing recent gains across the world on many indicators of economic development and human well-being, the extreme poor remain trapped in poverty in the least developed countries. Many of these countries have been caught in decades-long poverty traps often marked by a high incidence of conflict and weak national institutions, and hindered by inequitable global economic structures. Concerted national action and better targeted global development assistance are needed to prevent these least developed countries from becoming increasingly marginalised, their populations struggling under extreme poverty.
I am grateful to the Government for ring-fencing the aid budget, especially in the current economic climate. This decision reflects the continuing commitment of the British people to assist the world's poorest and affirms the United Kingdom as an example within the international community. I believe that churches and other faith communities with deep convictions and roots in poorer communities around the world will continue to uphold and monitor the Government's decision on the aid budget, even as other funding pressures are faced at home. I urge the Government also to encourage other EU and G20 Governments to uphold their commitments to the world's poorest, who inevitably have been most acutely affected by the global financial crisis.
I welcome DfID’s recent review of UK aid, Changing Lives, Delivering Results. DfID’s commitment to focus aid on the poorest—and on achieving tangible and measurable results in addressing both the root causes and symptoms of poverty—is surely right, as is its focus on women, who are disproportionately affected by poverty. The wisdom of that policy has already been mentioned this morning. Important progress has been made in recent years on economic development and the United Kingdom has played a major role in this. However, this means that the world’s poorest billion people remain faced by more intractable and entrenched barriers to escaping poverty. It is therefore important that aid is well targeted and directed at the poorest countries.
Some of those poorest countries may, unlike Pakistan and Afghanistan, have little strategic importance to the United Kingdom, but nevertheless have a reasonable environment in which to absorb aid and achieve results in lifting more of the extreme poor out of poverty. Some of these poorest countries have never been aid recipients. Others have lost their United Kingdom aid programmes as a result of the recent DfID review, including, as we have heard, Burundi—which has recently emerged from conflict and needs to secure stability through a peace dividend—Angola, Niger and Lesotho. I urge DfID to make significant, alternative funding paths accessible to these countries and to consider their re-inclusion in the UK's aid programme, as they share many of the challenges that DfID has identified as priorities.
I would like to say something on the role of faith-based entities working with the extreme poor. Most UK aid flows from Government to Government but the reality is that non-state providers, including NGOs and faith communities, are often the most closely involved in the well-being of the poorest people and are to be found where government cannot reach. This is especially true in many fragile and conflict-affected states, where their Government’s service provision has broken down while faith communities continue to provide health and education services. DfID has recognised this fact in some contexts; for example, by supporting education provision by the Episcopal Church of Sudan and health and HIV work by the Anglican Church in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Changes in funding mechanisms are necessary to ensure wider access for faith-based entities to become partners with Governments in working to overcome poverty. Christian schools in the developing world, as I have seen in India and Tanzania, also have a particular role to play in the education of girls and equal access for all. As shown in Sudan, faith schools in developing countries can provide education at low unit cost, building on community-based school management.
The international development community needs to recognise the importance of people's faith and its values of service to others as a motivating factor in social development. Some local faith-based initiatives in Kenya have seen massive mobilisation for local communities to lift themselves out of poverty, in one case mobilising 10,000 people to unite in funding and constructing an irrigation project, while in another case over 800 farmers united to form a dairy co-operative. These initiatives were motivated by faith values and developed without external aid. It is important that DfID and other donors recognise the role and contribution of faith communities in development and promote more effective and accessible forms of partnership with these entities.
From the faith communities’ side, more work is needed to strengthen the capacity and co-ordination of their programmes. One such global initiative is the newly formed Anglican Alliance for Development, Relief and Advocacy, which brings together Anglican churches and agencies across the world to build capacity and co-ordinate responses. I was grateful that the Secretary of State for International Development announced at the General Synod of the Church of England in February that DfID would seek to strengthen ways of working with faith communities. I also welcome DfID’s moves to establish a working group to help develop a set of practical partnership principles for development agencies working with those communities. It is to be hoped that this process will quickly achieve renewed and strengthened support for and collaboration with faith communities and faith-based organisations in lifting people out of extreme poverty. It is encouraging to note that the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House will shortly begin an inquiry into the economics of development aid.
In conclusion, while commending the Government’s commitment to maintaining and increasing the United Kingdom aid programme, I urge the Government to revisit their decision on closing aid programmes in some of the world's poorest countries and to continue to explore ways of achieving greater impact on the lives of the extreme poor through more extensive and effective partnerships with faith-based entities and other civil society actors. The UK should be proud of its work in international development. Together we can tackle global structural barriers to overcoming poverty while working with the poorest countries and peoples—with their Governments, civil societies, faith communities and private sectors—to achieve transformation in lifting millions more people out of extreme poverty.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, it is wonderful that we are having a debate on this subject, and I have great admiration for those who are going to take that active part. I am one of the more lazy Members of the House who will, like many others, be willing to support the project but not to live on £1 a day, which sounds a real effort. I am waiting to see how it goes.
My only real experience with poverty came about because I was asked, quite by accident, to become chairman of Plan UK, an international body which helps the poorest of the poor. Baroness Blatch was to have become the chairman but, as she became a Minister, she persuaded me to agree to do it. I was fortunate to be its chairman for 12 years. When I took over we were raising £2.5 million a year in the UK and by the time I left it was £26 million. I also have the current figures: £41 million in the UK and over £400 million worldwide. So it produces quite a lot of help for people. We also know how many other charities and NGOs work very hard. Many of these schemes are operated with one another, so that various NGOs work together.
The thing is, though, that unless you supervise the work that is done in these countries, it can often be wasted effort. I visited one country where we were helping to put in a new water supply that brought water from the top of a hill down to the bottom. The people themselves were building the channels to do this. Previously, when their own local government had built the channels, everyone had dug holes in the sides and taken the water out as it came down, so the people at the bottom got nothing. However, when the people built it themselves, and it was their project and their ownership, they were determined to see that it continued to work.
Giving people the opportunity to do things, and often giving them the technical help that is needed, is a good thing. I saw in an African country a flat-pack school building that had been sent by some European country. No one had ever opened the pack or known what to do with it. It was nothing to do with the plan. It was just unused, because no one had provided an engineer to tell them how to put it together and advise them on what to do. Children were still sitting and having their lessons outside where they loved the distraction of everything around them.
All these things come as quite a shock to you when you see them. In Ecuador I visited a swamp where the houses were built on stilts. When we asked these people, particularly the women, “Why have you come and settled here in the middle of this dreadful swamp?”, they said, “For a better life”. It makes you realise just how bad their lives must have been.
In Tanzania a child was sitting by a hole in the ground with a bucket and a little thing like a yoghurt cup. Every few minutes, there would be one little cup of water to put into the bucket. We helped them to put in a pump. Now even a small child can, with their own ability, pump enough water to have a bucketful in no time. These are the things that are so important.
It is also important to give people the opportunity to help themselves. If you give a woman two chickens, as we did in many countries, they turn that into a poultry business. Those women sold their eggs and bred more chickens—they were in business. In South America, particularly in Bolivia, where people were rebuilding shattered homes, I saw people there enter into microfinance in such a way that there was a rotating fund; the woman who got the first amount of money started up her little business, perhaps then a market stall, and she was then able to move that money back into the system by repaying her loan and another woman got the money.
It has been mentioned that women are terribly important. Someone asked, “How do you choose between women and health?”, but it is not a choice—both go together. If you educate the women, they are capable of ensuring better health standards for their children. In the Philippines I saw women whose homes had been burnt down, and we were helping them. They used to go and pay off a little bit of mortgage every day, because every day they earned a small amount of money and could afford to take a few pence out of that to meet their debts. Women have a marvellous record of meeting their debts and of helping others on the way to improving things. In all the shanty towns that you see, it is the women who have brought their children and families to the outskirts of the big cities—I have seen this particularly in Latin America—because that is how they can get a job, and they can gradually see their family rise and have opportunities.
There are so many things that I could go on and on about. A basic hut in Vietnam was blown down, and we helped the woman build a new one. She was a widow with seven children, and she was so grateful for what we would consider a garden shed—except that we had put in a concrete floor. She explained that that floor meant that she would now have one-third more food for her children than she had before. When she had an earth floor, insects used to come up out of the earth and take away one-third of her stored grain.
The only thing on which I did not agree with the noble Lord when he opened the debate was the cycle of despair. I understand, and I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, made this point very clear, that statelessness must cause this sort of situation—I am sure that crises, particularly conflicts, can do it—but I have been amazed by how unbelievably cheerful these people were, living in poverty at a level that you could hardly imagine. They were grateful for any help, but they were optimists. They were all looking to improve life if they could. It makes you feel rather ashamed that you have so much and they have so little.
The noble Lord also mentioned tax measures and tax avoidance. I think that you will never get rid of tax avoidance, but gift aid is enormously valuable. He mentioned that there is now an internationally agreed standard. One of the essentials is to be sure that the money really goes to the people you want it to go to. The element of corruption still exists and can take money away from people. I remember a woman from Tanzania, speaking at a women’s meeting at the United Nations, who said, “Don’t give us money; if you give us money, we never see it. Give us soap and we’ll be able to wash our children”. This is what we have to realise: unless we can supervise what is happening, unless we have a monitoring system of some sort to see that the help really goes where it is needed, it will be very difficult.
There is hope for people. They are uncomplaining, they are optimists and they manage with so little in life that it makes us feel humble to be aware of this. I know that we all want to do whatever we can to help.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on enabling us to focus on this vital issue. We have heard the statistics before but they should not lose their power to shock. In 2010 there were 925 million hungry people in the world—some 13 per cent of the estimated world population. That is nearly one in seven, and nearly all of them are in developing countries. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, over half the population lives on less than £1 a day. Every 3.6 seconds one person dies of starvation, and usually it is a child under five.
As UNICEF reminds us, reducing poverty starts with children. That is why I want to focus my remarks on young people and on the importance of education as a proven route out of extreme poverty. I make no apology for returning to this theme, which I raised in our debate earlier this month. It seems vital to emphasise to the UK’s Department for International Development the value for money and effectiveness of focusing its resources on basic education.
I am proud of the previous Government’s commitment and achievement in these areas, and it is a source of great pleasure to see that the coalition Government appear to have the same commitment, leading the way in focusing on women and children’s health. We know that the best start in life is critical in a child’s first few years, not only to her survival but to her physical, intellectual and emotional development. Deprivations such as lack of immunisation, malnutrition, and lack of access to household water greatly hamper children’s ability to achieve their potential, contributing to an intergenerational cycle of poverty and hunger. Providing children with basic education, healthcare and nutrition breaks that cycle.
All the evidence shows that basic education is one of the most cost-effective development interventions, and not just for the child. It aids economic growth, helps prevent HIV, improves health and prevents conflict. So I welcome DfID’s recent review of UK aid and its publication earlier this month of Changing Lives, Delivering Results, which sets out where and how the coalition Government plan to focus their aid spending over the next four years. I agree with its declaration that education is the best investment we can make,
“for global prosperity and the future of our world”.
It states that an extra year of quality schooling lifts a country’s annual economic growth by 1 per cent, yet each morning 69 million children do not have the chance to go to school. Many more fail to complete even a level of schooling to get basic skills or progress to secondary school and thus move into good jobs.
UNICEF figures show that some 13 per cent of children aged seven to 18 in developing countries have never attended school. In sub-Saharan Africa, this rate is 32 per cent among girls and 27 per cent among boys. The figure for rural children in the Middle East and north Africa is 33 per cent. However, as UNICEF says, an education is perhaps a child’s strongest barrier against poverty, especially for girls. Clearly, getting girls into school begins what DfID calls,
“a chain reaction of further benefits”.
Educated women are more likely to send their own children to school, creating a virtuous circle of opportunity and prosperity. Therefore, I welcome the promise that UK aid will take simple, practical forms, which directly encourage girls to stay on at school, such as the appointment of more female teachers and schools-based counsellors, and the funding for separate latrines. I also welcome DfID’s commitment in Nigeria, for example, to get 500,000 more girls into school by 2015 to receive an improved education. By giving 60,000 families the money that girls would earn if they were at work, along with 5,000 scholarships to encourage more women to go into teaching, we are going to the heart of many barriers that exist to educating women in Nigeria—a country with the largest number of out-of-school children in the world.
It is not just a question of pumping in aid money. We know that for the handouts to become a hands-up to national and individual prosperity and health, government aid programmes must also tackle inequality, corruption and weak institutions. As long as the poor are denied a political voice, vulnerabilities will remain. We have heard many examples today from other noble Lords that have reinforced this point. We need to be reassured that developing countries are working to ensure an equitable distribution of the rewards of economic growth. Greater powers to control their own affairs are important to local communities and individual households. OneWorld’s global poverty update in January notes that direct cash transfers, often conditional on children’s attendance at school and for immunisation, are proving effective. OneWorld also reminds us that,
“accountability through democracy and individual rights creates the environment in which governments come under pressure to end wasteful practices and corruption”.
I end my remarks with a question for the coalition Government and for DfID. How much are they willing to pressure aid-receiving countries to pursue democratic equality and diversity values as part of their aid-giving education policies? Could the Minister, in replying to that question, tell the House how pursuit of these values in recipient countries is monitored and evaluated? In the six minutes for which I have spoken, shockingly, 100 under-fives have died of starvation. UNICEF’s latest report says that,
“we have a chance to nurture a generation”—
who will be able—
“to realize their rights, laying the foundation for a more peaceful … world, in which each successive generation of children can thrive”.
That is a goal worth striving for.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, I also appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate. On Tuesday I was in a church where many of the homeless found refuge. One or two women there went around washing the feet and legs of those who had been trudging around the streets, homeless, and sleeping—if they were sleeping at all—in various doorways. The whole scene shocked me. It was not far away, possibly: it was on Lexington Avenue in New York, where, in the midst of all the wealth, there was more than one oasis of deep sadness. Then I saw figures that showed that one family in five in New York depends on handouts to survive. The problem is everywhere; we are in a global situation where, in the midst of our comparative wealth and well-being, so many people are totally deprived.
The noble Baroness who spoke before me mentioned how many children had died in the course of this debate. Every day, 22,000 children die; one dies every four seconds. The silent killers are hunger, poverty, easily preventable diseases and treatable illnesses, which can lead to diarrhoea and malaria. Impure water is often the carrier of such diseases. We know that we can tackle such things if we have a mind to do so, and if we are ready to invest in pure water supplies, well-drilling and so on in many places. I am very grateful to those organisations that do this. As has already been mentioned, 0.7 per cent of our gross income is now ring-fenced for development aid. I do not want that to go in any direction other than to hands-on aid for the people who need it most. I understand that Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium have already reached this target. We must make every effort possible to contribute in this way.
Much of the work done in the developing world—if it is developing—is done by voluntary and charitable organisations. A couple of months ago we tried to find out how much effort went into preventing and treating HIV in Uganda. One fact I was not able to find, either from parliamentary Questions or anywhere else, is exactly how many different organisations are working to this end. There are many organisations. I wonder if there is not some way, without adding a level of bureaucracy or hindering in any way, to ease, say, visas, export licences and other facilities. Is there some way of co-operating with and co-ordinating the efforts of these different voluntary organisations? I am sure that could make them very effective. I was involved at the time of the great Ethiopian famine in organising two mobile clinics that went from Wales to Tigray in northern Ethiopia. The only co-ordination was through the Vatican at that time. Even though I am a Methodist, I was absolutely delighted that the Vatican was playing such a significant role in co-ordination. Is there some way that we could co-ordinate without interfering—co-ordinate to make every project even more effective than at present?
Yesterday in this House we spoke of the core curriculum. I was late in getting up and did not get my question in. Is there not a place for a global overview in the core curriculum? It is a small world compared to the one I was brought up in. It is a world in which there is so much poverty, but so much knowledge and so much to be learnt. I wonder if our children are learning about the great needs of this world in which we live. Is there not some way that the core curriculum could involve something such as international development or world need among its subjects? We could even have partnership or twinning schemes between schools and community organisations in the UK and various places overseas. There are some; I know many churches are linked overseas in this way. Could we somehow be more positive about it? It does not take a great deal of money. All it takes is a bit of vision and enthusiasm. Could we not have such a partnership scheme? Perhaps women’s organisations in Wales could link with women’s organisations in Zimbabwe or something like that. We would then have a real link, whereby people could learn about each other and be able to help one another.
We are often critical of the tabloid press in this country. I deplore the way that some elements of that press, although not all of them by any means, comment in a totally negative fashion on asylum seekers and refugees. That closes the door to co-operation and understanding. Would any tabloid newspaper be willing to develop good relations with countries in which there is great poverty and become involved in a campaign that was not negative and did not close the door but reached out a helping hand to people who have no idea of the sort of life that people enjoy in the UK?
People have dreams. I remember hearing a children’s choir from Kampala sing and then asking them what they wanted to be when they grew up. Some of those little kids were totally destitute. One wanted to be an airline pilot, another a vet and another a nun, even though they were on Methodist premises. A sturdy little 10 year-old lad, when asked what he wanted to be when he grew up, said, “I want to be president of Uganda”. As I say, people have dreams. If the Government, media and people of the UK seek to build bridges between us and those who most need our help, that little lad might indeed one day become the president of Uganda.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick
My Lords, I am so grateful that on the day before we are enwrapped in the euphoria of the royal wedding, as we should be, we are focusing on the needs of the most marginalised abroad and at home. There are a thousand good reasons why we should keep the needs of those 1.4 billion to 1.6 billion people right in front of us. One reason is that we need to be continually embarrassed by the failure to achieve the millennium development goals and to be continually reminded of the necessity to try to hit them. We simply must not forget that. We need to ensure that where there is good governance, such as the significantly good governance shown by DfID now and in the past, it is used to seek to embarrass those who do not live up to their aid commitments.
On 12 April the US Government announced a cut in their aid budget roughly equivalent to the aid the United Kingdom gives from its Exchequer every year. The United States still remains the largest global cash giver but it is the smallest contributor in terms of the percentage of its GDP of any major nation. Will the Prime Minister face down President Barack Obama at the G8 about his responsibility and that of his nation to ensure that development does not take place on the back of the poor, which is precisely what this Government said they would not do with aid? The figures from the US budget review announced on 12 April indicated a very revealing statistic. This is relevant to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, a moment ago. US aid development assistance will amount to $2.525 billion within a total of $48 billion, but the operation of the US aid development assistance will cost $1.35 billion. In other words, roughly half of what is being spent to aid the poor will go on administration. Will the Minister indicate the trajectory of administrative costs borne by the DfID budget as the years progress? Will we too find ourselves sucked into allocating more money to administrative costs rather than spending it on direct development assistance? That is an important point.
I want to emphasise a particular area about which I feel very strongly as somebody who works in a business setting. Next week the World Economic Forum on Africa will take place from 4 to 6 May in Cape Town. The summit will be chaired by Peter Brabeck, the chairman of Nestlé, and by Tim Flynn, the chairman of KPMG International. I declare an interest as the latter body is the partnership for which I work. I will be attending the summit in two roles: one reflecting my responsibilities at KPMG International and the other as chairman of Millennium Promise UK. The summit is one of the positive opportunities in which leaders across the continent will gather. Pretty much every viable president who is not held down by travel restrictions will attend, as will many leaders of non-governmental organisations. A vast array of people from businesses and NGOs committed to development will gather for three days in Cape Town. We will sing a positive story of the growth of Africa’s countries. Poverty, of course, is not just an African issue but we will focus on that matter.
I come back to the important question of how we ensure more effective co-ordination of the multiplicity of agencies, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said. Will the Minister comment on the extent to which DfID sees its role as enabling fewer charities with larger budgets to focus on development assistance rather than encouraging a plethora of charities and campaigns in this area? Brilliant as next week’s campaign will clearly be, it is another one joining the long line. Eating up resources on administration and back-office facilities cannot be the right way to ensure that we get the maximum resources to the front line.
The British Government are committed to ensuring that enterprise is part of the way forward in overcoming the next round of development challenges. Enterprise, business development and microfinance have a part to play, but global and indigenous corporations have a significant role in driving investment. It is not just a matter of relieving poverty but of driving investment that embeds prosperity in countries and builds up the capacity for local work and employment. That is why it is so good that the chairmen of both Nestlé and KPMG are facilitating and leading the summit in Cape Town next week.
World Malaria Day occurred on Monday this week. We have already been reminded that every 3.5 seconds a child dies as a consequence of extreme poverty, hunger and disease, but every 45 seconds the mosquito takes its toll in all the African countries that still struggle with malaria. However, the good news is that, because of the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, we are just a short breath away from seeing the end of the malarial mosquito’s dominance in a few years’ time. The Japanese corporation Sumitomo Chemical Company has provided more than 700,000 bed nets to ensure that every child and adult sleeping in a Millennium Promise village in 10 different countries are free of the impact of that mosquito. That corporation has given away the technology to allow local production of the nets in African countries. That is a responsible and appropriate engagement on the part of business.
The many businesses that have lined up behind the Global Fund, such as Chevron, News International, Standard Chartered, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and many others, prove that business has a critical role to play in partnership with bilateral development organisations and NGOs. My organisation has just taken on a five-year commitment to Pemba, a large island off the coast of Tanzania. I will visit it at the beginning of July to see for myself what a five-year plan will do for 7,000 people, with eight countries contributing the $2 million that are necessary to put in the infrastructure to provide water, healthcare, transport, businesses and educational services. Business has a role to play in this regard. It is in the frontline of ensuring that people get jobs that will provide them with prospects and opportunities, enable them to pay tax with robust tax systems being put in place, that local exchequers are able to invest in their own infrastructure and build up their own countries. I hope that the Minister will encourage DfID’s policy to bring enterprise to the forefront of development as that is the right policy.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for securing this very important debate and allowing us all to make a positive contribution.
I wish to focus my comments on the role of women in combating global poverty. Worldwide, women and girls bear the brunt of poverty, as was mentioned by other noble Lords earlier, and of hunger and discrimination. They comprise more than 60 per cent of the world’s chronically hungry people. Inherited hunger, when malnourished mothers give birth to malnourished children, is a huge obstacle to development in countries ranging from Afghanistan to Haiti. It is estimated that 70 per cent of those living in poverty are women. Women and girls continue to suffer from gender discrimination, violence and further human rights violations in all societies. Women not only cook for their families but sow, reap and harvest food. Women comprise well over half of all farmers worldwide. Eight out of 10 farmers in African countries, and six out of 10 in Asia, are women. For example, in Kenya, female farmers have fewer opportunities and resources than men. While women receive the same farm inputs that currently benefit the average male farmer, they have nevertheless increased their crop yield by 22 per cent.
I know from my family experience about the role that women have played in supporting their families. My maternal grandmother married at the age of 14. She was illiterate and had no opportunity to go to school because she lived in a small village in Cyprus. She fed her seven children by baking bread and selling the loaves each day for a very small amount of money to people in her village, and by taking in washing and laundry.
We know that women are crucial to unlocking sustainable solutions to hunger and poverty. As the World Food Programme’s executive director said recently,
“Women are the secret weapon to fight hunger … Our experience at the World Food Programme also shows that in the hands of a woman, food is far more likely to reach the mouths of needy children. That’s why, in emergencies like the catastrophic earthquake in Haiti, we channel our relief through women whenever and wherever feasible. More than half of the people we feed, globally, are women and children”.
There is widespread agreement that educating women and girls is the cornerstone of economic and social development, and it is the key to smash the cycle of generations of inherited hunger. Empowering women in every sense is not just a female issue, but a human rights issue—the right to a peaceful, healthy and prosperous future.
Like many women, when I was pregnant I got a bit fed up with the number of people—usually men—who said things such as, “Giving birth is the most natural thing in the world. Women in Africa just squat down and give birth in the fields then go right back to work”. How many women have heard that? Not only were such comments not helpful, I found them offensive. It just is not true. The World Health Organisation says that complications during pregnancy and childbirth are among the leading causes of death and disability among women of reproductive age in developing countries. Most women—99 per cent in 2008—of those who die while pregnant or after having a termination live in developing countries, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. There is an African proverb that a pregnant woman has one foot in the grave. This is the biggest health gap in the world today and one of the greatest injustices.
The millennium development goals include reducing maternal mortality by three-quarters, as well as achieving universal access to reproductive healthcare. The goals set a target of halving extreme poverty, halting the spread of HIV/AIDS, providing universal primary education and ending gender discrimination in education. We know that progress has been mixed, with action on maternal mortality being particularly slow. I should welcome the Minister’s comments on this important aspect.
Here in the UK, where we are used to discussions about motherhood focusing largely on lifestyle choices—whether to be a working mother; whether to breastfeed, and so on; there are endless discussions on “Woman’s Hour” on such issues—it is all too easy to forget that for women in large parts of the world, having a child is literally a matter of life or death. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said, some of us living in the West sometimes need to take stock and reflect on how much we have.
I welcomed the UK Government’s announcement at the United Nations summit that they intend to refocus their aid programme to put the lives of women in developing countries at its heart. The key aim to invest in girls and women is absolutely right. The government commitment to doubling the number of lives of women and babies saved through UK aid by 2015 is ambitious. As a result of the new strategy, the aim is that at least 50,000 more women and 250,000 babies will survive, and millions more couples will get access to family planning. Other countries, both donors and developing nations, need to be challenged to do the same and more.
Amnesty International’s report, From Promises to Delivery, outlines crucial steps that Governments can take to deliver meaningful progress on the MDGs over the next four years. The report states:
“The MDGs promised some of the world’s most impoverished and excluded a fairer future but it is now painfully obvious that unless urgent action is taken governments will fail the most vulnerable communities”.
Three main issues—gender equality, maternal health and slums—are highlighted in the report to illustrate the gulf between the current MDGs framework and international human rights standards. I should like the Minister also to comment on this aspect and to say what progress we are monitoring and expecting. On gender equality, the report shows how the MDGs fail to ensure that Governments address women’s human rights across all targets despite their being an essential element in tackling poverty. Where gender equality is listed in the MDGs, it is limited to a single target to eliminate disparities in education.
“In Haiti … women are the unbreakable core of families and communities. This country will only be rebuilt if that core is strong and empowered,”
said Concern Worldwide’s country director. As part of its clean-up effort after the terrible earthquake, and to simulate the economy, Concern Worldwide kicked off a series of cash-for-work projects and one-off cash transfers, with women being the main beneficiaries. The director explained that:
“In getting the local economy going again with injections of much-needed cash, it makes perfect sense to make women primary beneficiaries”.
Women have traditionally played a crucial role in the progress of their families but are now pushing for a level platform by breaking taboos and inspiring others to do the same. While we know that there is a long way to go in developing countries to meet the MDGs’ three targets, women are key to tackling inequality and global poverty in developing countries. If we fail to achieve these goals—and there is a short time to go before the target date of 2015—it would be unacceptable from both the moral and practical standpoints.
Baroness Flather
My Lords, as other noble Lords have done, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for getting this debate on the agenda. I am being selfish, because it gives me an opportunity to talk on a subject that I feel passionately and strongly about. The noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, has spoken about some of the things I would have mentioned—that is, the situation of women.
Who are the poorest of the poor in the poorest countries? It is the women. They eat last when everyone has been fed. The girl child does not get as much food as the boy child. We all know these things, and we should be talking about women, first and foremost, because they keep the family going and, in fact, they keep everything going. If women stopped working, those countries would stop working.
I begin by congratulating the Government on what DfID is doing. At last, after a long time, it has returned to look at issues that concern women—family planning, education for women and girls, and all matter of things that help women. Unless we can help them, nothing can change. It is women, not men, who will bring about change to poverty. Men have been ruling the roost for at least 2,000 years that we know of. Has anything changed? No, it has not. They do not work as hard as women; they do not take responsibility like women do; and I disagree with the noble Lord who said that, if we educate children, everything will change. Who will educate the children? The women will. It is the women whom we have to provide for. We have to give them the ability to send their children to school.
I know of the many terrible things that are done to women, because I have been involved in development for 18 out of the 20 years that I have been in your Lordships' House. I have seen projects and the situation of women. I have visited the fistula hospital in Addis Ababa, where there are rows of cots with little bundles on them. You cannot see them without getting tears in your eyes—I might break down, so I apologise in advance. I asked them, “Are these all very young girls?”. They said, “No. Most of them are very malnourished”. The women cannot give birth, either because they do not have the strength or because they are too young.
In Nigeria you can buy a girl of 12 for two goats—and they do. I have a new friend from Nigeria. When her mother became a widow, his brothers came and took everything away from the house. They not only took every thing away, they took his two younger wives as well because they could work. They left my friend’s mother with all the children—13 of them—with nothing to feed them on and no possibility of looking after them. She parcelled out the children to friends and neighbours—one child here, one child there—and eventually got a job cleaning toilets in a hospital for £30 a month. Then she took back all the children. My friend was educated by the Commonwealth Countries League education fund. She put herself through university by going to Lagos overnight and buying things that she could sell in her town. She did this constantly to pay for her university education.
Women are incredible. Give them an opportunity and they will grab it and run. Three-quarters of Indians live on 30p a day. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the poorest people are in India. Certainly, the most malnourished are. All statistics tell us that Indians are the most malnourished people in the world—even more so than Africans. Yet India is booming; that is the other side of the coin. There is so much money in India now that it makes you feel ill, because it is in your face all the time, in every city—money, money, money. They say that Indians have $3 trillion in Swiss banks. None of it goes anywhere; it sits in the banks, or is spent in India in a grotesque and obscene way. Nothing is spent on the poor. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett wrote to Indian billionaires to try to arrange a meeting. They did not even get a reply. The billionaires did not say that they would not come; they did not even reply. This is the position in India, despite the fact that it is booming.
To some extent it is right to ask why a lot of aid should go to India when the Indians do not want to help themselves. The Government give money for poverty alleviation, but where does it go? It goes to all the hands that it passes through: hardly 5 per cent reaches the poor. Corruption is a cancer in Africa and on the Indian subcontinent. It is horrifying to see how little of what is provided reaches the people whom it is meant to reach.
I have talked about all the things that I worry about. Now I will say something about how we can start changing extreme poverty. We should start employing women. In India and Africa, people will not employ women. I was told by a number of big businesses, “Women are not trained”. Of course, the boys come out of their mothers’ wombs ready trained. It is a question of giving training to women. They learn very quickly; they are hungry for everything. If you help a woman to earn money, what does she do? Does she gamble or drink? No, she spends it on her family. She sends her children to school and improves her health and that of her family. The only way to change the future is to work with women and give them opportunities to earn money. That will change them within weeks and months, not years. It is not a question of education; they will not get education. However, if they have the resources they will certainly give education to their children. No man has ever said to me, “I want my children to go to school”, but every woman in every project that I have visited has said, “I want my children to go to school. I want my daughters to go to school. I do not want them to have my sort of life”.
Providing family planning and financial resources is the way forward. Women in India are used as hod carriers. My builder was appalled to hear that. The Indians do not see them; they do not see what women do. Let us make a plan to help women to earn money, because that is the way forward.
Lord Loomba
I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for today's debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, said, the subject of extreme poverty, especially relating to women and children, is very close to one’s heart.
More than 1 billion people around the world live in extreme poverty. Many of them go to bed hungry every night. Every year more than 11 million children die before their fifth birthday. More than 500,000 women die in pregnancy or childbirth. Sadly, these people are victims of extreme poverty. Poverty is the lack of basic human needs such as clean and fresh water, nutrition, healthcare, education, and clothing and shelter, because of the inability to afford them. Fundamentally, poverty is a denial of choices and opportunities, and a violation of human dignity. It means a lack of the basic capacity to participate effectively in society. It means not having enough to feed and clothe a family, not having a school or clinic to go to, not having land on which to grow one's food or a job to earn one's living, and not having access to credit. It means insecurity, powerlessness and the exclusion of individuals, households and communities.
The world has become chaotic in recent years, mainly due to poverty. There is a lot of terrorism and many people are dying of hunger; so many wrong things are happening. Unfortunately, extreme poverty is prevalent both in developing and developed countries. According to Oxfam, 13.4 million people in the UK live in poverty—20 per cent of the population. According to Save the Children, 1.6 million children live in severe poverty in the United Kingdom.
In 2000, the United Nations established eight millennium development goals, which include the eradication of extreme poverty, education, gender equality, the empowerment of women and a global partnership for development. I declare an interest as founder and chairman trustee of the Loomba Foundation, a UN-accredited global NGO. My charity is committed to raising awareness of the plight of widows and children around the world who are suffering through poverty, illiteracy, HIV, malaria, conflict and social injustice.
In many developing countries in south Asia and across Africa, when a poor woman loses her husband she loses her place in society. She is left on her own without any help. She is poor, uneducated and with no job, and has to depend on her children, who become the breadwinners for their family. Where do the children work? They work on the streets, where often they get involved with crime. They also work in factories where child labour abuse is commonplace. The aim of the Loomba Foundation is to promote the fundamental freedoms and human rights of widows and their children around the world by raising awareness of the gross injustices that women face when losing a husband, and by removing the stigma associated with widowhood.
The Loomba Foundation works together with UN bodies, government officials, leaders and advocates to fight for the more than 245 million widows worldwide who suffer dreadful prejudice and discrimination, by promoting gender-sensitive reform of national laws and policies; eradicating anti-widow superstitions, traditions, and social practices; promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment; implementing poverty-reduction strategies; and promoting opportunities for the education of widows and their children. The Loomba Foundation is educating children of poor widows in India and the selection of the beneficiaries is made without regard to religion, gender or caste.
During 2006-08, our community-based project, launched in partnership with Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Unite charity, benefited 1,500 HIV orphans in five townships outside Johannesburg. In 2007, the foundation became a global partner with HRH Prince of Wales’s charity Youth Business International and is empowering young widows by setting up businesses for them in Kenya, Uganda, Syria, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The Loomba Foundation and Oxfam GB are working in Rwanda through a partnership programme to enrich and empower the lives of widows of the genocide.
In 2009, the Loomba Foundation started a new project in association with the Cherie Blair Foundation for Women and SolarAid in Malawi and Kenya. Through this important partnership we work with rural communities in both countries to use solar power to fight poverty and climate change. The Loomba Foundation published the comprehensive research study last year, Invisible, Forgotten Sufferers—The Plight of Widows Around the World, which revealed the plight of 245 million widows and 500 million children around the world who suffer in silence. There are 100 million widows who live in poverty struggling to survive; 1.5 million widows’ children around the world will die before they reach the age of five. We have presented the book to UN Secretary-General His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, the honourable President of India and the US Secretary of State, among many other dignitaries. I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library.
At the 65th UN General Assembly last year, the United Nations declared 23 June as International Widows Day. The declaration was made unanimously by all 192 member nations. Noble Lords can see how important this issue is. We are proud that it was the Loomba Foundation which initially launched International Widows Day at the House of Lords in the UK in 2005 and has ever since campaigned tirelessly for the UN recognition. The UN-recognised International Widows Day is an effective platform for national Governments, NGOs, corporates and individuals to focus and highlight the plight of impoverished widows throughout the world. It is indeed the commencement of a journey to restore widows’ rights and empower them, which will also enable the UN to meet the millennium development goals on extreme poverty, healthcare, education, equality and empowerment.
I am glad that through our educational and empowerment programmes, my charity has been able to give respect and dignity to widows and help them to break the vicious cycle of poverty. However, we need to do more.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend for initiating what has been a very timely debate. He mentioned the Global Poverty campaign and Positive Women, an NGO which is small, effective and remarkable in many ways and which I also know very well. My noble friend has shown his expertise and commitment. I have worked over a number of years with him as both of us have similar views and interests in international development.
This debate, as it always strikes me, has again been extremely impressive. Your Lordships show not only a real grasp of the issues but a passion for working for change. There is the global commitment to halving poverty by 2015. The millennium declaration is a unique compact between the north and the south and represents a consensus across the world that world poverty is a global problem. Poverty means that if you are a woman you walk several kilometres every day to collect water and firewood. It means suffering from diseases that were eradicated in rich countries decades ago. It means that children whom I have met on many occasions will never hold a pencil, never mind touch the keyboard of a computer. It means that you live in a dangerous and unhealthy environment. It means that you and your children will often go to bed hungry. It means that you are powerless, voiceless, fearful and marginalised. Malaria, HIV/AIDS and maternal and child deaths kill millions every year. Add to that the conflict that has claimed thousands of lives and then we understand why there is a perception that Africa, in particular, is a wasteland of poverty, conflict and disease.
This is not a time for pessimism and cynicism. Great leaps forward have been made and more is certainly needed and possible in the battle that has to be waged against the endemic inequities which keep the people poor, excluded and powerless. Some countries have suffered serious setbacks and economic growth has been extremely unequal. The UN asserts that while the gaps in human development across the world are narrowing they remain huge. Now, however, is not the time to peddle doom and gloom about these issues, but rather to show that aid works and that effective development can and must be supported. That is why donors should focus on what they do best and should work with Governments on health, education, good governance, and support for justice and taxation systems.
In the current financial climate we hear many horror stories but those alone will not bring the necessary responses and justified support for international development which we need to see. Pictures and words about pathetic and supplicant people engender a sense of hopelessness about what can and must be done to make poverty history. A central plank of the Government’s development policies is to work on fragile states and to seek the objective of value for money. Would the Minister care to comment on the view that increasing aid to fragile states is hardly consistent with the value-for-money objective? Is the Minister aware that the National Audit Office has warned DfID that serious efforts have to be made to minimise the clear risk of fraud and corruption in countries where governance and financial systems are weak?
Indeed, Andy Sumner, a very respected development economist, has statistics showing that more than 80 per cent of DfID’s bilateral aid to Africa and Asia by 2014-15 will be going to countries defined as “very corrupt” by Transparency International. Is that not a cause for some serious concern? When we read the inevitable stories of mismanagement of UK development assistance, how then will the Secretary of State justify claims on value for money and how does DfID propose to deal with the clear risks that exist in this situation? Are there plans to ensure that civil society, faith groups and parliaments have access to information that makes it possible for them to track and monitor government expenditure? Is DfID engaged in supporting that in countries where we work?
As many noble Lords have said, a critical element in the arguments that we make about tackling extreme poverty is gender equity. If we do not achieve the MDG targets, we will not achieve gender equality; if we do not achieve gender equality, we will not meet the MDG targets. Extreme poverty erodes the skills, experience and networks that, through women, keep communities going. There is a perfectly justifiable priority for tackling the most intractable MDG—as others have mentioned, it is on maternal mortality—but such is the low value, status and respect given to women that we will not see the fundamental change that we need if we are to be able to save those precious women’s lives.
We say this in the context of an OECD report that projects that aid will increase at about 1 per cent a year compared with a 13 per cent annual growth rate in the past three years. We should therefore be concerned that additional aid to low-income countries is likely very soon to be outpaced by population increases. Fifteen DAC members that are EU countries are promising a collective target of 0.7 per cent in 2015. One of them is the United Kingdom. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are absolutely sure that the 0.7 per cent target will be reached by the UK by 2015? Does the Minister agree that in the current circumstances innovative sources of financing development must be found? Will the Government support calls for increased taxation of the UK’s financial sector, which according to the Institute for Public Policy Research could raise an extra £20 billion of revenue every year? The revenue that accrues could be used to tackle poverty at home and abroad and to meet the effects of climate change. This so-called Robin Hood tax has widespread support. The European Parliament recently adopted a position backing the idea of a tax that ensures that financial services make a contribution to the cost of recovery from the banking crisis. Global agreement on such a tax would be best, but the UK’s stamp duty demonstrates that it is possible to introduce a successful, well designed financial transaction tax without undermining competitiveness. According to experts, a levy, even at the very low level proposed, is expected to raise funds that can contribute to global collective goods, especially green technology and development aid. Would the Minister care to comment on whether it is likely that the UK will support the view of Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy that now is the time to move forward on the financial transaction tax?
May I also ask whether the UK will join members of the G20 that urge greater control of food speculation? Does the Minister agree that the activities of commodity investors and hedge fund managers have exacerbated the increases in food prices that we have seen and the resulting hunger and increased poverty?
I shall finally make one small point. Many Members of this House have spoken of making poverty history. There are things that we can do. New sources of finance are one of them, and hope I have made a case for them. What we have to do is to make sure that we make poverty history and not our future.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I join all noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for securing this important debate today and for his most informed speech. I know he is passionate about his work on conflict prevention and resolution and on Malawi. I am sure he will agree with me that the quality of contributions today has been outstanding. While a number of questions have been raised, on the whole we can say that the whole House is committed to seeing that British aid produces a sustainable and positive outcome on the lives of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people.
The British people have consistently demonstrated their generosity and their far-sightedness in responding to the needs of the poorest people in the world. That is why the coalition Government’s decision to live up to Britain’s international development commitments, despite the difficult economic circumstances we face, is something that we believe the whole country can be very proud of. We will not balance the books on the backs of the poorest because we know that it is in our moral and national interest to help to achieve the millennium development goals. British aid has already helped half a billion people lift themselves out of crushing poverty, saved the lives of 6 million children through immunisation and put tens of millions more children into school.
However, the scale of the challenge is immense and we need to deliver more than ever before by focusing our effort where the need is greatest, not only saving but transforming millions of lives by providing access to food, clean drinking water, basic healthcare and education. Our approach is defined by our determination to deliver the greatest possible return on our investment, both for the world’s poorest people and for the British taxpayer. That is why since the election we have undertaken three reviews: of our bilateral programmes, our support through multilateral organisations and our response to humanitarian emergencies.
The results of the bilateral aid review have enabled us to direct UK funding to the countries where it will have the most impact on the poorest people. For example, we have scaled up our programmes in countries such as Pakistan and Ethiopia, where British taxpayers’ money can help even more people to access basic necessities. We are ending programmes to countries which do not need aid, such as Russia and China, and we will instead work in partnership with them to help reduce poverty around the world. We will invest more of our resources where the need is greatest and where our money will have the most impact. Other donors will continue to work in countries where they are better placed to help.
I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, about India. India may be a growing economy but there are more poor people in India than there are in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. This is therefore not the time to end our aid—
Baroness Flather
I did say that India has the largest number of poor people; I also said that there is now an increasingly large number of very rich people who are not doing very much.
Baroness Verma
We will work with India to encourage those very rich people to help the poor people but in the mean time we will focus on the three poorest states–Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa—and start to make a transition away from aid towards a partnership in which we will work together to build prosperity in the world and reduce poverty wherever it remains.
The multilateral aid review took a long, hard look at the value for money offered by 43 of the multilateral organisations through which Britain has, until now, invested aid. It assessed the relevance of each organisation or fund to the UK’s development objectives and their ability to deliver results on the ground. This rigorous and robust exercise which reported in March has provided, for the first time, a comprehensive overview of the strengths and weaknesses of each multilateral agency or organisation. The review confirmed that the multilateral system is a critical complement to what the UK Government can do but it also found evidence of significant weaknesses.
The review has helped the UK to make evidence-based decisions about how we deliver funding through all of the multilateral agencies to make the greatest possible impact. This includes significant increases in funding to some of the best performers, and a withdrawal of DfID core funding from four organisations that make a poor contribution to UK development objectives. The review has also given a real impetus to efforts to improve the international system. It has generated significant interest in other countries, civil society and the institutions themselves. We will be working with all of these stakeholders to strengthen the ability of the multilateral organisations to deliver value for money and better results on the ground. Improvements will benefit both the taxpayer and those living in poverty.
The humanitarian emergency response review, which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, proposed placing humanitarian response and resilience to disasters at the heart of the development agenda, better integrating it with development programmes. This is a challenging vision for DfID and for other development agencies, and we are now considering all the noble Lord’s recommendations. The Secretary of State for International Development will present DfID’s response to the report in the coming weeks.
I shall address some current situations. It is critical that change in the Middle East and north Africa is met with and supported by an ambitious and effective international response. DfID is working with the EU, international financial institutions and the UN to ensure timely and generous support for greater political openness, better governance and economic opportunity for all. In addition, our bilateral programmes in Yemen and the Occupied Palestinian Territories continue to support delivery of basic services for the poor and vulnerable, and to address humanitarian needs.
In Libya, Britain is taking a leading role in international efforts to protect civilians from ongoing attacks by the Gaddafi regime and to help avert a humanitarian crisis. The situation in the west of the country is getting worse every day. Towns, including Misrata, are under siege and civilians lack access to basic necessities such as food, water and electricity. There is also a shortage of some crucial medical supplies. The UK was one of the first countries to support the humanitarian needs of the Libyan people. So far, we have given more than £13 million for medical and food supplies and emergency shelter, and assisted the evacuation of more than 17,000 vulnerable people.
We are increasing our efforts to tackle poverty in a number of conflict-affected and fragile states. Helping to address conflicts in the developing world, and fighting poverty among those caught in wars and violence, must be central to our aid policy if we are to help end global poverty. Nine of the 10 poorest countries in the world are fragile states. In Africa, more than two-thirds of the poorest people live in countries affected by conflict and fragility. Not a single low-income, fragile or conflict-affected country has yet achieved a millennium development goal.
That is why this Government have committed to invest 30 per cent of UK aid in fragile and conflict-affected states. We are taking an integrated approach, bringing a sense of unity and common purpose to Whitehall to tackle instability and conflict overseas. This work will make a real difference to the health, education, safety and opportunities of the some of the poorest and most vulnerable people.
The World Bank’s World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development, released earlier this month, has emphasised that citizen security, justice and jobs are all needed to break the cycle of violence and conflict. The UK is already investing in results in these crucial areas. For example, the bilateral aid review sets out how we will create 200,000 jobs in Afghanistan, train 3,000 Somaliland police in human rights and establish 300 community security schemes in fragile areas of Pakistan.
I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, supports DfID’s programmes which place emphasis on women and girls. Like her, we strongly believe that transforming the lives of women and girls is the only route to helping eliminate poverty. This House has debated these issues a number of times recently, including in celebrating the centenary of International Women’s Day. However, the challenges remain. Not only do girls and women suffer disproportionately from poverty, with a third of a million women dying from avoidable deaths in pregnancy and childbirth, but 10 million more girls than boys are out of school. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes spoke about women holding the key to faster progress on poverty reduction. She spoke about the two chickens given to a woman to start a small business. Recent research has shown that, for example, a $10 increase in women’s income achieves the same benefits to their children’s health and nutrition as a $110 increase in men’s income. That is what I call value for money.
The Government are therefore committed to putting girls and women at the front and centre of international development. DfID has published A New Strategic Vision for Girls and Women, committing us by 2015 to saving the lives of at least 50,000 women in pregnancy and childbirth and 250,000 newborn babies, allowing at least 10 million women to access modern methods of family planning, supporting over 9 million children in primary education, of which at least half will be girls, and 700,000 girls in secondary education, helping 2.3 million women to access jobs and 18 million women to access financial services, and working in at least 15 countries to prevent violence against girls and women.
We also campaigned hard for the creation of the new UN Women organisation, headed by Michelle Bachelet. We were one of the first to provide funding for the establishment of the new agency and we look forward to its first strategic plan so that we can provide longer-term funding. We are delighted that Mrs Bachelet will visit Britain on 16 and 17 May.
We want to empower women to make choices for their own and their families’ health, and to make pregnancy and childbirth safe for mothers and babies. The noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, highlighted the great plight faced by many mothers not just in poor countries but in this country too. People—often men—think that childbirth is easy. I wish that they could have a jolly good go at it just once.
As I said earlier, at least a third of a million women and girls die in pregnancy and childbirth each year and 500 million give birth without skilled care. At the end of last year, the UK Government published their Choices for Women framework for results, which sets out how UK aid will save the lives of thousands of women and children. The framework also contains specific commitments to deliver results for the poorest women, who have the greatest need but are being left behind, by focusing on the poorest 40 per cent of households. It also has a particular focus on education for adolescents to build girls’ capability to make healthy choices.
Another example of our very practical approach to improving the health of poor people relates to vaccinations. Immunisation is one of the most cost-effective health interventions available. Our support to the GAVI Alliance, which increases access to immunisation in developing countries, has so far has helped to immunise 288 million children in the world’s poorest countries and to prevent 5.4 million deaths between 2000 and 2009.
At the Davos World Economic Forum in January 2011, the Prime Minister also announced that the UK would double its commitment to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, provided other donors step forward with additional contributions and countries build polio eradication into their routine immunisation programmes. An additional 45 million children will be vaccinated against polio as a result, most of them in the poorest and remotest regions of the world.
Transparency is essential to delivering and demonstrating results so that taxpayers in the UK see where aid money goes and citizens in poor countries can check that it is being used properly—and shout if it is not. The Government’s UKaid Transparency Guarantee increases the amount of aid information published. DfID was also the first donor to publish information in line with a new international aid transparency standard.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, mentioned the importance of wealth creation and economic development. We all know that the private sector is the crucial engine for economic growth, which provides new jobs, new opportunities and new markets to lift people out of poverty. However, not enough has been done in the past to support the private sector. DfID has now set up a new private sector department to become more business-savvy and work closely with private sector—both in the UK and with entrepreneurs in poor countries—to drive private sector growth.
DfID will over the next four years increase access to microfinance using technologies such as mobile banking and give small and medium-sized enterprises greater access to financial services. That will help 50 million people and small firms to get access to savings, credit, insurance and other financial services, which is critical to helping them withstand economic shocks, increase their incomes and pay for basic services such as health and education.
It is the world’s poorest who will be hit first and hardest by climate change, yet they are least responsible for its causes and least able to cope with its effects. Left unchecked, climate change will cruelly impede our progress towards development goals and jeopardise our existing gains, but it is not just poor countries and poor people that will be hit. There will also be a knock-on effect on our security and national interest. That is why the UK is showing international leadership in supporting poverty reduction by helping developing countries to adapt to climate change, take up low-carbon growth and tackle deforestation.
For example, in Bangladesh, we have made it possible for more than 90,000 homes to be raised on other platforms to protect 500,000 families and their livestock from seasonal monsoon floods. On low-carbon development, we will give greater emphasis to partnering developing countries to help them attract private investment.
I am running out of time, so I will march through responses to some of the questions asked. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, asked about the publication of the stabilisation strategy; it will be published in the coming months. As soon as it is, we will inform him. He also asked whether education will now not be a priority. Education is fundamental to everything we do; it is the key to beating poverty and the greatest investment we can make for global prosperity and the future of our world.
The noble Lords, Lord Chidgey and Lord McConnell, asked about the European Union. The MAR found that the European Union budget programmes are less poverty-focused than the EDF, but that they address some of the key issues that other organisations cannot. Therefore, it is important that we ensure that the programmes reform their systems to deliver the best outcomes. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, also asked about the publication of country office plans. Operational plans for all DfID country offices and for departments in the UK will be published during May.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, whom I wish well on her five days of living on less than £1, made the point that we have many challenges ahead. They will be addressed only if everyone signs up to the commitment. That is why we encourage other donors to live up to their commitments—what they have promised and pledged—but also to commit to 0.7 per cent of GNP, as the UK has by 2013. To answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, that will be legislated for. The noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick and Lady Kinnock, asked about the conditionality of UK aid on good governance. I agree that that is crucial, but we must not abandon those countries that do not have good governance. It is really about making sure that what they are doing has oversight from donors.
I have run out of time. To those to whom I have not responded today, I promise to respond in writing.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her responses. We look forward to further clarification of any points that have not been addressed in her closing remarks. This has been an excellent debate. Contributions from several noble Baronesses and others on the importance of women and girls’ empowerment and education have brought that issue to the forefront. My colleagues in Positive Women, for which I am raising funds next week, will be delighted to hear that. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and others mentioned the importance of going beyond Governments to civil society and faith groups to ensure that our aid and development work goes as far and as deep as possible.
We were all inspired by the captivating speech of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, which brought home to us the critical importance of these issues for the people affected by them, not for the institutions or Governments. The whole debate has been not only a call to action but also an inspiration to those like the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, and I who, over the next week, will live below the line on less than £1 a day. When the noble Baroness and I first debated together back in 1987 in an STV studio in Scotland, we could not have imagined that today we would be speaking on the same subject with the same passion and with the same outcomes in mind. It is good to have been able to take part in this debate on those terms.
We look forward to the challenge, and we hope that the hundreds of people who will join us next week have been inspired by the unity of purpose and call to action that the House of Lords has displayed today. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Government Departments: Soft Power
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
To call attention to the level of co-ordination between Government departments on the use of soft power in the interests of the United Kingdom; and to move for papers.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
My Lords, the two debates today might almost have been merged into one because they cover very similar ground. I look forward to the contributions that are going to be made, and I know that many noble Lords have had a long-term interest in this area. I must mention, although I do not think it is particularly relevant today, my interest as a patron of the Africa Educational Trust and that I am a member of the advisory board of Thales UK.
We could spend the whole of this debate trying to define the term “soft power”, and many academics do exactly that. I noticed that Joseph Nye will be speaking in the Commons next month, so I will leave it to the academics to hold the theoretical discussions and concentrate today on what I think is important. I want to talk about the use of all the avenues of influence that add up to soft power, and I was interested to note that at Question Time today, the Minister, when talking about NATO and the EU, said that peace was also about stability and shared values. His comments were, I believe, very relevant to the theme of this debate. I also wanted the House to have the opportunity to discuss the use of soft power, in particular the need for government co-ordination in this area, partly because of my experience in government and because of my concern that the comprehensive spending review might lead to rather short-sighted cuts that might have long-term consequences for Britain’s influence in the world.
Many people will immediately think of the British Council, the BBC World Service and of the importance of overseas students in this respect, and I will mention those issues later as, I am sure, will many others. But I want to start my comments by referring back to the Green Paper produced by the last Government entitled Adaptability and Partnership—Issues for the Strategic Defence Review. It was written by the Ministry of Defence, but crucially in close consultation with the Foreign Office and DfID. One of the themes of that Green Paper was “understanding and anticipating”. That theme is very relevant, especially at a time when domestic security cannot be separated from international security, and the pace and nature of the changing threats we face are increasingly challenging.
In the section dealing with defence diplomacy and security co-operation, the Green Paper acknowledged that defence investment in the range of activities that we know as defence diplomacy is modest. That may be something of an understatement. These activities—contributing to conflict prevention, capacity building, training, advice on security sector reform—can all play a significant part both in understanding the nature of emerging threats and in helping other countries to co-operate with us in tackling them. Yet we spend less than 0.5 per cent of the defence budget in this area, although I think it could legitimately be questioned whether all that spending should come from just the defence budget.
Some significant steps were taken by the previous Government. The Foreign Office established a strategic communications and public diplomacy board, and I would be interested in any progress on that. We also saw a very important step in the establishment of the stabilisation unit, which brought together not only funding from the Ministry of Defence, Foreign Office and DfID but personnel from these three very different departments, enabling them to work together in one unit. A visitor to the unit would not be able to identify the home department of those working there, which is a very significant step forward. As I understand it, there will soon be a stabilisation strategy which we all look forward to.
That work was very good and those steps were significant—they did represent progress. However, I am not convinced that there is a total buy-in from everyone in all the departments nor that everything is quite as joined up throughout the piece as it perhaps should be. That is why I would urge Ministers to take a very active and personal interest in ensuring departmental co-operation. Moreover, I fear that when it comes to squeezing budgets, it is often the areas of small spend that become the easy targets. It is easy to think that if the spend is low, then so must be the contribution. That is simply not the case with soft power. During my time at the MoD I saw increasing pressure—which I am glad to say was sometimes resisted—to squeeze things such as defence diplomacy, training budgets and so on.
Perhaps I may disabuse anyone who thinks that this area simply involves defence attachés going to cocktail parties. I am glad to have the support of my noble friend Lord Boateng in this, as he will know from personal experience that that is not a true image. I put on record the fact that almost all the defence attachés whom I met were modern, focused and well respected in their host countries for the practical help that they gave on issues such as stabilisation, security sector reform, training and, very importantly, establishing democratic accountability of the armed forces in those countries. I would also emphasise the need for co-operation between government departments. I do not think that every embassy achieves the same level of integration and effort or that every embassy works as much as a team as it should. There is some scope for improvement there.
Of course, I came across some specific problems when I was a Minister. As I mentioned in the debate initiated last November by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I believe that those who work in the field of aid and development are sometimes too apprehensive about working with colleagues in military uniforms. I have a particular example in mind where the only way to get aid delivered was to improve security on the ground, which in itself required in-country security-sector reform. Although that could be delivered only with the help of our military advisers, the local DfID official was totally opposed to any military presence.
I think that some advances have been made, and I was particularly pleased when the DfID White Paper was published some 18 months or more ago. As it pointed out, unless you have stability and security on the ground, it is often impossible to provide the necessary aid. I do not want to exaggerate the problems, but ensuring a joined-up approach is definitely an area where ministerial leadership is important.
Perhaps I may get the Minister’s reaction to the fact that the United States has for the first time published what should become a quadrennial diplomacy and development review which oversees all the various contributions made by the State Department and others responsible for aid. Although I do not think that we should copy everything the Americans do, I also wonder whether we should not consider having our own version of such an overview of all these activities to ensure that we get the maximum impact from all of them.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, many other areas are important in respect of using soft power to extend our influence. I am sure that others will mention the BBC World Service. I have long been a firm admirer of the work that it has achieved. Yesterday I received a letter—I am sure that others have received it as well—from Peter Horrocks at the BBC. In respect of the World Service, he writes:
“We know that our content has been enthusiastically consumed by audiences in the Arab world in recent months. Our online audiences have gone up by 300%, makeshift projection systems showing BBC Arabic TV have been erected by protestors in the capital cities of various Middle Eastern countries, and our radio broadcasts have been relied on when TV or online has been disrupted. But in just a month’s time, we will need to cut back dramatically on our services as a result of the funding reductions”.
This is a very serious situation and I must ask the Minister for specific assurances that he will look at it. This is a critical time for that region and clearly the work that the World Service is doing is very important indeed. Quite frankly, I do not care whether the money comes from the Foreign Office, DfID or anyone else. We need clarity on the role of the World Service and certainty about its future. Recent events have highlighted its value yet again, but it cannot fulfil its potential if it is going to stagger from funding crisis to funding crisis. I hope that Ministers will not close their minds to looking at this issue again.
Nor can the British Council stagger from crisis to crisis. It has made a fantastic contribution to the world’s understanding of Britain and the promotion of our culture and heritage. Yet it, too, is facing very severe and real cuts which will undermine much of the reputation it has established. I am sure that many people in this House also share my concerns about the future of overseas students, whose presence here has brought this country many benefits once they have returned home.
In addition to co-operation between government departments here, there is one other point that I want to raise with the Minister—the scope for co-operation with other countries in the field of soft power. We all agree that prevention is better than cure and that should be the first objective. We have long acknowledged the need to co-operate on hard power through institutions such as NATO. But it is important to remember that, as in Afghanistan, you cannot win by hard power alone. No one would say that soft power is a substitute for hard power; we need both, and we all need to recognise that. However, I should like to ask the Minister about co-operation with other countries in this area. Many allies are reconsidering their level of diplomatic presence and military representation with a view to closing posts. We could end up with a situation where many allies are pulling out of the same country and leaving a vacuum in terms of understanding what is happening there. That might be unwise and could be dangerous.
I would also like to know from the Minister the extent to which there have been meaningful discussions, and how near we are to getting conclusions, on the role of the European External Action Service and our contribution to it. What are the Government’s thoughts on the progress here? Are we linking our work on this to a proper assessment of what we should be doing collectively and what we must continue to do by ourselves? When the Prime Minister launched the national security strategy he said that it is about how we project power and influence in a rapidly changing world. To do that, I hope that Ministers are fully sighted of all the work that increases the influence of this country in the world. The challenges that we face are daunting. I think that it is crucial that we use all the influence for good that we can and that soft power must be a mainstream part of government considerations, not just in defence and the Foreign Office but throughout government as a whole.
Lord Fowler
My Lords, I have been in a debate like this before, back in 1981 in the other place when I was Transport Secretary. After many attempts, the Commons rightly used my transport Bill to introduce compulsory seatbelts for the first time in this country. You might have thought that the next day it would have been front page news, but not quite, because the morning’s papers were dominated by another event that would happen that day—the marriage of Charles and Diana. We may well find that this debate is also overshadowed, but that in no way reduces its importance.
I congratulate the noble Baroness on the excellent way in which she introduced the debate. I shall pick up one part of what she said, about the BBC World Service and journalism generally. The best of British journalism can have a big influence for the good. Honest and independent reporting of what is taking place can influence a debate inside a country; it can inform a bigger audience around the world, and when done well it brings credit to this country. I am talking here about journalism, not newspapers indulging in practices such as phone hacking that want nothing more than the information on the private lives of real and imagined celebrities. To my mind, that is not journalism but a form of unjustifiable prying, which has rightly been declared illegal, and I look forward to the day when the Government announce that they will set up an inquiry into how this can be prevented.
The kind of journalism that I am talking about is truthful, independent reporting that deals with important national and international issues and is not influenced by the prejudices and views of proprietors. I am also talking about fearless reporting, which we have been reminded of recently by the deaths of two journalists in Libya—the latest casualties in a long line of those whose jobs as reporters have put them at risk. There are outstanding examples in this country of the kind of journalism that I am talking about, and the kind of journalist, not least in the BBC—not the game show hosts, but reporters such as John Simpson, Jeremy Bowen and people of that kind.
We should not ignore the influence that this kind of journalism can have. I am chairman of the Thomson Media Foundation, which was formed half a century ago by Roy Thomson. I took over from my noble and learned friend Lord Howe some years ago. In the Middle East, we run inquirer rewards for investigative journalism, with entries from Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza and the West Bank and investigations into prison conditions and healthcare. This has been funded partly by the Foreign Office, and I pay tribute to it for that. In the gentlest way possible, I would love to know what future plans there are, following my letter of about six or seven weeks ago.
I will concentrate on the BBC World Service. I remember in 1967 being sent off by my newspaper to the Middle East war. After a rather hairy journey by fishing boat, my colleagues and I arrived in Beirut. Our aim was to get to Damascus and Amman, but for some time the borders were closed and news was censored. My abiding memory of that period was of an American journalist with his ear to the transistor radio, desperately trying to get the latest, accurate news of what was happening in the war. The World Service in those days was the gold standard.
Things have obviously changed since those days. We have channels providing 24-hour television news; in the Middle East, which I seek to concentrate on, we have powerful new channels such as Al-Jazeera; and we have the internet playing an increasingly important role. Nevertheless, taking a worldwide perspective, the BBC World Service has a formidable audience of 180 million people and retains a formidable reputation, which is paid tribute to by a wide range of people including Kofi Annan, who said that it is,
“perhaps Britain's greatest gift to the world”.
That is some praise.
The service has sought to develop as conditions have changed. It has started an Arabic television service, which has become a 24-hour service—partly, perhaps, because of the urging of the Communications Committee of this House. In the Arab world its online audience has gone up, as the noble Baroness was saying, by something like 300 per cent in the past few months, while it should never be forgotten that radio remains a powerful medium internationally, just as it does in this country. I do not claim that the development has been perfect, but that has often been because of lack of funds and sometimes perhaps because of a lack of vision in its funding department. One story, told some years ago, was that the Foreign Office was highly sceptical of one bid on the grounds that it did not really think that the internet would ever catch on.
What I know for certain is that the World Service has always had to fight hard for the resources that it needs. That certainly applied in the Thatcher years, and I remember the then Foreign Secretary, my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, battling away for money at that time. I was always rather divided between the prospect of the former Chancellor being made to appear before the public spending hanging jury, where he had sent so many of us, and supporting his cause. In the end, I supported his cause.
There have been problems in the past, and there should be no doubt about that, but nothing, I suggest, on the scale of what is now being envisaged: cash savings of 20 per cent over the next three years; the closure of five full language services; and the end of radio programmes in seven languages. Overall, the service will lose an audience of something like 30 million people. To take the impact on just the Arabic service, as the noble Baroness indicated, in a month’s time the television service will reduce from 15 live hours of news a day to seven hours by cutting out overnight and morning coverage. Yet it is competing with Al-Jazeera. Radio will be cut from 12 hours a day to seven, and 44 of the Arabic staff will be made redundant. Yet two days ago, my noble friend, who is now sitting on the Front Bench, repeated a Statement by the Foreign Secretary on the Middle East: war in Libya, crisis in Syria, unrest in Yemen and Bahrain and crucial decisions in Palestine, not to mention Egypt and Tunisia. The question that has to be asked is whether this is conceivably the right time to be cutting back on the World Service. No one blames the Government for not foreseeing what has happened in the past months in the Middle East—I do not think that many, if any, actually did—but the point is that it has happened and we now need to respond to this new situation.
Personally, I agree with the Foreign Affairs Committee of the other place, under the excellent chairmanship of my friend Richard Ottaway, that the decision on cuts should be reversed. Let me put the point another way. All the evidence suggests that the decisions on funding and transfer to the BBC were taken very quickly without exploring the options. I am not opposed in any way to responsibility going to the BBC, but if that is going to be the case, guarantees need to be written in. We might look at options for change there that would provide resources without affecting the BBC overall. Frankly, it would be to everyone’s benefit, and it would make a financial saving, if the BBC Trust were abolished and the noble Lord, Lord Patten, could become the proper chairman of the BBC with a board rather than, as at the moment, “chairman” being an honorary title. I certainly believe that it would be to the benefit of the commercial arm of the BBC, BBC Worldwide, and would mean financial gain to the corporation, if it were allowed to raise private capital to develop. That would mean changing the ownership structure, a course that was actually first set out by the previous Labour Government.
To explore these options—and there are others, such as funding from the DfID budget—will obviously take a little time, rather more than the six or seven days that it took to produce the present policy. No one would criticise the Government for a moment if these cuts were put on hold while the new situation, particularly the situation in the Middle East, was considered further along with other options.
We should remember above all that the BBC World Service is truly a world leader, that it brings credit on this country and that it is remarkably cost-effective for the good that it does. I urge the Government to think again on policy here and start fresh talks with the BBC. We should recognise that a new situation has arisen, and we should be thinking of developing the World Service, not cutting it back.
Baroness Bakewell
My Lords, I welcome this debate on soft power, proposed by my noble friend Lady Taylor, for the very reason that it gives me the chance to engage in a debate that I think will express a groundswell of support for what the noble Lord has just been saying about the World Service. After a career in broadcasting of 40 years, it is obvious that this is close to my heart and that developments in this area give me great cause for alarm.
The BBC World Service is indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, says, a global brand, up there with Coca-Cola and Microsoft as one of the major forces that influence the lives of people across the world. It is a brand that is the envy of every other broadcasting institution. Coca-Cola is a pleasure and Microsoft is a technology, but the World Service is more than both. It is of course a technology, but it is overall an idea and one that is among the most precious and vulnerable in the world today—the idea of truth, as embodied every day in the meticulous, thoughtful and impartial news created by highly respected and trained journalists. Peter Horrocks, its current managing director, when he was speaking to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the other House, called it,
“the most significant, most reputable international news organisation in the world”—
but, he went on, “it is being damaged”. Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he? Except that he is not alone. Voices have been raised from all corners of the globe; Ban Ki-Moon is just one of those to deplore what is happening.
This damage is not accidental. It is the outcome of the deal struck by the Government and the BBC during last year’s spending review, and that deal does neither of them credit. In return for a licence fee settlement until 2016, the BBC is to take over the funding of the World Service in 2014, but with no guarantee that it will ring-fence that funding. Meanwhile, instant cuts to the BBC’s funding require savings of £46 million a year. In January, the blow fell: as we have already heard, five language services, short-wave transmissions to China and Russia and a quarter of staff were cut. Is this the wisest way for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to share its load of the Government’s cuts? Is this compatible with the need for this country to have thoughtful and accurate influence around the world? While doubt hovers around the scale and impact of our hard power—the military—the power of the word, at which we excel, should rather be strengthened and endorsed.
Instead, the BBC’s cuts to its language services mean that it will lose, as we have heard, 30 million listeners across the world. It is hard to imagine 30 million, so let me give some leverage on that scale. Earlier this week, John Sullivan died. He was the playwright who created “Only Fools and Horses”, which was acclaimed in his obituaries as perhaps the most popular sitcom of all time. What is more, the obituary declared that its audiences regularly reached 20 million. In domestic terms, 20 million was considered extravagantly successful, yet the BBC is about to drop 30 million listeners—half as many again—from its non-domestic audience. In losing its Hindi service, the BBC will save a mere £680,000 annually and lose an audience of 11 million.
Various explanations are offered for these choices; none of them appears appropriate or convincing. The first is that everyone must take their share of the hurt of the cuts—everyone is suffering. However, is it not out of proportion for such a prestigious and valuable institution to lose 20 per cent of its funding and a quarter of its staff, with the consequent damage to British standing across the world? In his evidence to the Select Committee, Sir John Tusa, who was managing director of the World Service from 1986 to 1992, called for a,
“serious examination of the impact of these reductions on an important part of the UK’s international voice”.
Part of that examination must focus on the criticism that the world has moved on and that the World Service is somehow out of date in the context of global media—that digital technologies with their 24-hour rolling news, the rapid spread of social networks and the availability of mobile phones render the quiet and exact appraisal of the facts out of date. When was the truth ever out of date? This point of view is one seen strictly through western eyes.
Most people across the globe still receive the World Service through short-wave transmissions. In the poorest places, among the poorest people, ill served by internet reach, the World Service is prized. In places such as China and Russia, where powerful Governments seek to block information, the World Service has the potential to be ever more important. Access to short-wave radio is relatively risk-free in these countries, whereas access to the internet is not. We should not downplay our transmissions to such countries. The worldwide supporters of China’s dissident artist, Ai Weiwei, and Burma’s Aung San Suu Kyi look to the BBC’s international reach to reach them wherever they are with truthful, unbiased reporting.
Our other focus must be on the timelines of history. It is tempting in the short term—we have already heard examples—to see that economies could be made to the parts of the World Service that are directed at settled parts of the globe, and that money saved to bulwark services wherever there is trouble already or wherever there is perceived to be latent trouble. The BBC is alert to such strategies, as we have just heard. However, it is unwise to be sure how the future will play out. Who could have predicted the Arab spring? Who knows where it will be next? The standing of Britain, as sustained by the World Service, depends on something more than episodic shifts and retreats in world politics. It depends on a constant broadcasting presence and a reputation as an international broadcaster of steady, reliable news and information, whose probity is beyond doubt and whose serious reporting and analysis can always be heard everywhere.
In this day and age you simply could not invent the World Service; imagine the struggle to finance it, define and agree on its impartiality and embark on its network of agreements. It is perhaps no surprise that the excellent Arabic language channel, Al-Jazeera, founded in 1996, was founded by ex-World Service employees. The World Service is already here, established at a time when such things were possible and when the BBC could proudly boast a coat of arms that declared, “Nation shall speak peace unto nation”. It is here, and in terms of British influence in the world it gives outstanding value for money. It is here for us to support, defend and fund. Surely it would be appropriate for there to be a small transfer of funds from the Department for International Development, whose own budget will increase by 37 per cent to £11 billion. In keeping up a free flow of information to millions of people, the BBC World Service contributes to the very objectives of DfID.
I am heartened by a recent window of opportunity in that an outstanding Member of this House has been appointed chairman of the BBC Trust. Will the Minister reassure us that we can look forward to the serious reconsideration of these matters, for which I now call?
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, on securing this important debate. Particularly at times of international crisis and pressure there is a mistaken tendency for us to focus on so-called hard power, and soft power can be crowded out. The noble Baroness has enabled us to focus on this important matter.
I say at the start that it is very important to clarify that those of us who regard soft power as important do not at the same time regard hard power as unimportant. On the contrary, I come from a part of the world where I am very much aware that special forces, intelligence gathering, the increasing use of cyberdefence and all the rest of the paraphernalia of hard power are extremely important, though sometimes they are at their strongest when they are used as a threat rather than when they are actually implemented. We are seeing a little of that at the moment in various parts of the world. It is very important that we sustain the capacity to project hard power, which has been leaking away in recent decades. However, it is true that sometimes those who emphasise soft power find it difficult to bring the two together. The noble Baroness pointed out earlier that DfID, for example, sometimes seeks to distance itself in a way that is, frankly, wholly inappropriate. It is very important that the various components work together in this regard. Therefore, I emphasise that when we speak today about soft power it is not as an alternative to, but as a component of, the projection of power of this country.
In recent decades there has been a hesitation to speak about the projection of power of our country as though there was something wrong with that and we should be much more held back and reticent about these things. If our country can be a power for good why should we not be proud of that projection of power? We do not have a history of always being perfect in that regard, but no country has. Anyone who travels around the world with open eyes and an open mind can see that this country has had a tremendous influence for good in many parts of the world and can continue to do so. If we do not ensure that we project that power, others with more malign attitudes will.
One of the difficulties has been that in the country as a whole, and perhaps in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office too, there has been a feeling that there are other countries with greater population and more access to resources and commodities, which must inevitably mean a falling away of power for our own country. There is some truth to that. However, when countries fell away, it was not fundamentally because their populations diminished or their resources and commodities decreased and were exhausted, but rather because their conviction about their purpose failed them.
For me, the important power that our country has and the contribution it can give lie in some of the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, was talking about—our convictions and the things we believe in. The issue is not just about our systems of government, but the culture of our government and the way that we do things. These are important and we should continue to project them. They strengthen us as a country. As they strengthen us, there are other social and economic benefits for our country. This is not merely an altruistic question.
That is why it is so short-sighted to be reducing our capacity to project our ideas through, for example, the BBC World Service. I ask the Minister to confirm what I understand was said recently to the House of Lords Communications Committee by the deputy chair of the BBC Trust: that when the BBC takes over full responsibility in 2014, it will restore the funding of the World Service, and that the current cuts are primarily the responsibility of the Foreign Office. If that is true, can the Minister assure us that that matter can be attended to directly within government at this point, and not simply passed on to the BBC, which does not yet have full responsibility? I should welcome clarification on that. A number of other noble Lords with much more experience of the BBC World Service have spoken much more eloquently about it than I.
I should like to focus on two or three other areas in the time at my disposal. It has always surprised me how few people in this country realise what an extraordinary jewel the British Council is. I pay tribute to the previous Government who increased its funding over a period. It is important that that funding is sustained as much as possible over the next period, although there are threats to it. That is not to say that I entirely go along with some of the strategic judgments of the British Council.
For example, I remember that some years ago I was concerned about what was happening in Peru and other parts of Latin America. Money was being taken away, DfID offices closed and the British Council office in Peru was closed—as happened in a number of other Latin American countries—and all the funding was funnelled away to places such as China, because that was supposed to be the big area of growth and development. Frankly, I do not care how many British Council offices you put in China, they will not make a great deal of difference there. However, they would make an enormous difference in places such as Peru. The policy was particularly extraordinary, given that this country is one of the biggest investors in Peru. Yet that somehow did not seem to matter. Here was a country where we had real links and understandings. It was a country coming out of conflict after the Shining Path. We did not pay attention. We reduced our funding and influence on programmes of government. Now we find that Peru is in the middle of a political crisis and is sliding back towards authoritarianism and political fascism. We are not there and we could be doing something good in a relatively smaller country where our budget would make possible real improvement in development. That would not be possible in a country such as China.
I want to ask questions not just about how much money we put into places but about our strategy and the way that we try to deal with these issues—including in our own country. It is surprising that the British Council is not more to the fore in teaching English as a foreign language to the many people in our country for whom English still a foreign language, given that the British Council has extraordinary experience of this throughout the world. Yet, even in my own part of the world, Northern Ireland, where the peace has brought us many people from other parts of the world, the British Council is not being used as it might be in this regard.
I come back to another area that I have mentioned a number of times, and about which I know that my noble friend the Minister feels very strongly: the importance of the Commonwealth. Here we have a remarkable institutional opportunity to use soft power in a striking way. Not only the previous Government but others before them focused on the development of our relationships within Europe and outside. I am a strongly pro-European Member of this House, but our interests and relationships in Europe do not have to be at the expense of relationships with the Commonwealth. Our friends the French have not diminished their commitment to the Francophonie with their commitment to the European Union. I sometimes think that we feel that it has to be one or the other; this is simply a dreadful mistake. I seek an assurance, which I know will not be hard for the Minister to give because he is personally very committed, that the Government recognise and are continuing to build our relationships within the Commonwealth, which are of enormous importance.
The terms of the Motion address the question of departmental co-operation. This is important. For example we have, in government departments that have responsibility for policing services throughout our country, a tremendous resource when developing policing systems in other parts of the world as part of post-conflict development. We have in our medical schools and colleges throughout the country all sorts of ranges of skills. Some of them come simply from long-term academic commitments and some from the experiences that we have had in our own country and in other places. Our educational system is a huge resource and strength for us, and yet at the moment I despair of the attitude that seems to be around that we should obstruct students from other parts of the world from gaining access to our courses because of some notion that they might decide to stay. The truth is that the vast majority of students at a senior level take what they learn from us back to their own countries and become part of a network of ambassadors for our country all around the world for the rest of their professional careers.
This is not something that only we recognise. I am working with Martti Ahtisaari, a former President of Finland and a Nobel Prize winner. He wants to do something for sub-Saharan Africa, and for north Africa. With the rest of us, he is trying to establish a fund to bring 100 PhD students to universities in this country. As a former President of Finland, he recognises that the best place in Europe for them to come is to this country, to some of our best and most esteemed universities, because they will not just learn academic subjects but become imbued with a culture that can strengthen democracy, as well as professional and academic development, in their own countries. It does not come out of books or down the line; it comes when you soak up—as young students do, like sponges—the culture of the country in which you have come to live and study, and which you then take back to your own country.
Finally, I will say something not just about government departments but about this Parliament. It is the mother of Parliaments. We should hang our heads a little at how we have behaved over the past few years, and at how we are perceived; but our reputation and standing are not yet completely gone. I appeal to the Government to understand that this Parliament, in both its Houses and in all its aspects and Members, is a tremendous resource for the development of democracy in other parts of the world, and to see this as a resource that can be used through WFD, the IPU, CPA and all the relationships that we can use and develop.
Again, I thank the noble Baroness for bringing this opportunity to us. I hope that the Foreign Office in particular will accept responsibility not for looking to a continual sliding down of the strength and power of this country, but for taking the opportunity to develop all its resources and move forward with pride and a sense of ourselves as a country that has something to give to the rest of the world.
Lord Hall of Birkenhead
My Lords, I too, start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for introducing this debate on an important and broad subject, and one which I would like to broaden still further in talking about the role of culture and the arts in soft power. I declare an interest both as chief executive of the Royal Opera House and as a trustee of the British Council.
The recognition of the importance of culture and the arts in the exercise of soft power is still underdeveloped and underplayed in this country. There is an enormous difference between the amount of time, money and thought we spend on conventional diplomacy and on military interventions—necessarily so; I do not dispute that—and the amount of time, money and thought we spend on soft power, cultural diplomacy or cultural exchange, call it what you will, although I rather like the term “cultural exchange”. In my view, cultural exchange is seen as desirable but not essential. Yet the impact can be as dramatic and as long-lasting. Cultural exchange is a very effective way to build trust and strengthen relationships around the world. When it works well, it helps to explain and understand what lies behind conflict. It explains and can give understanding of different viewpoints and cultures; it breaks down national stereotypes; it can help to find solutions to issues and conflicts that may seem intractable; and it can help promote dialogue and deep and lasting relationships of mutual understanding.
One of the most obvious manifestations of cultural exchange is the big tours—exhibitions and performances —going around the world which are a vital part of the international work of our arts organisations. They have a huge reach and impact and can do things and reach places that conventional diplomacy cannot. For example, when the Tate took its Turner exhibition to Russia in 2008, it was at a time of fraught diplomatic relations between the UK and Russian Governments, Russia having ordered two British Council offices to shut down. The exhibition, however, passed off without a hitch. It was able to exist outside the realm of politics, and relationships at a cultural and human level were strengthened. Mutual understanding deepened because of that exhibition.
Another example is the Shah ’Abbas exhibition at the British Museum in 2009. Working in association with the Iran Heritage Foundation, the British Museum was able to exhibit pieces never before seen outside Iran, with the effect of both building trust for the UK in Iran and developing knowledge and understanding of Iran here in the UK. Persuading the Iranian president and others to allow those objects to leave the country was a lengthy and complicated process, but the result was incredibly powerful, producing a fantastic and unique cultural event that will live long in the memory.
At the moment, the superb Afghanistan exhibition, also at the British Museum, shows how cultural institutions can do current affairs. There are some truly amazing pieces that were so nearly lost over the years. Our impressions of Afghanistan, so much from the media, are of conflict—a conflict in which we are involved—yet here you see a country at the crossroads of the ancient world and of more recent history, too.
In an article for the Times last week, the director of the British Museum, Neil MacGregor, wrote about the wider significance of the loan of the Cyrus cylinder from the British Museum to the National Museum in Tehran. He said:
“Exhibitions are of course about objects. They are not about politics or diplomacy. But around the objects on show, exhibitions create a forum of public discussion, a space in which people may safely discuss difficult questions”.
That is a really important point. Cultural exchange like that should never be used to achieve political aims. That will fail but their very existence outside politics enables meaningful dialogue to take place.
I saw that myself in Cuba with the Royal Ballet in 2009. The response to the tour was phenomenal. People were queuing overnight for tickets in a country where dance is so integral to cultural identity. It was a huge occasion for Cuba, for our principal dancer Carlos Acosta and for us. It struck me that all sorts of conversations could take place that otherwise would not have happened, from being stopped in the street by people to the very highest levels of government. Now all that sort of work is being done by individual organisations using their own funds. How much more could be done with greater co-ordination by the Government and with some modest funding?
The big exhibitions and tours may grab the headlines but there is a lot of work that goes on below the radar that is equally important—maybe more so. Arts and culture can help to build citizenship and a democratic plural society. They give citizens a forum for self-expression and for challenging the status quo. This is not about telling people what to do or about transplanting our own ideas into another culture; it is about helping to provide spaces in which people can express themselves. I was struck recently by a quote from a Syrian student who, when asked by a British MP how he viewed the British Council, said, “It is my bubble of oxygen. It is my opportunity to express myself”. That is a powerful idea.
This does not mean putting up buildings or trying to recreate successful British institutions overseas. It is about enabling and supporting other nations to do it themselves. I am thinking particularly of the Arab world, and Egypt may be a good example of what I mean. It takes time and a huge amount of careful effort to build trust in countries such as Egypt, and there are no quick fixes, but the work that the British Council has been doing there has been established over a long period of time. Crucially, it cannot be about telling people what to think or how to do things. It has to be about self-determination and relationships.
One of the projects that the British Council has been running in Egypt is cultural leadership international, which seeks to identify, celebrate and support the next generation of international cultural leaders and help them develop their skills and talent. The programme fosters strong relationships and is helping to develop an international network of future cultural leaders, but it also builds capacity in all the countries where it is taking place by giving people the skills to contribute to their own societies and strengthen the influence and position of the cultural sector within civil society.
Sir Nicholas Serota, the director of the Tate, was telling me of an exchange programme for curators that the British Council ran back in the 1980s. It produced six curators who are now directors at major museums in Germany. The legacy of that project is invaluable. In his view and mine, building relationships with the next generation is phenomenally important, and we should be doing more of that in Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. We, the Royal Opera House, have been working with the National Centre for the Performing Arts in Beijing to develop skills and capacity back stage. This will have a lasting impact which will benefit the wider cultural sector in China and will create a long-term relationship between our two organisations and the UK and China. This kind of capacity-building work is really important for the future.
I was in Abu Dhabi recently and went to Saadiyat Island, which the Abu Dhabi people are developing as a global arts hub. They are building outposts of the Louvre and the Guggenheim, but what they want help with now is in developing the skills they need to create institutions that express their point of view and culture. Helping to develop capacity is something we are great at in this country—the British Museum is there, as it happens—and this is where we should be channelling our energies.
The opportunities for us are huge, but the current lack of clarity and co-operation between government departments and cultural organisations means that we are not making the most of them. There is a focus, a necessary focus, on trade and exports, but for our reputation and relationships generally and globally, there should be a focus on promoting cultural dialogue too. Communications between the various different agencies—the Foreign Office, DCMS, other departments, the Arts Council, the British Council and arts organisations—could be improved by the establishment of a committee or organisation to bring all those various parts together that is much broader and more inclusive than the Public Diplomacy Board. Is this something that the Minister would consider? A strategy document outlining how UK cultural institutions and individuals are able to contribute to exporting British values abroad, what might be expected of them and how they can be assisted would also help to strengthen the impact of much of the good work already being done. Again, I would love to hear the Minister's thoughts on this proposal.
The approach should not be so joined up or centralised as to become homogenised or overtly political in its aims. The independence of artists and cultural institutions to plough their own furrow gives them real credibility in the world. So there is a delicate balance to maintain. Different organisations must play to their strengths, and projects will be successful only if they are born out of a genuine synergy between contributing organisations, but the contribution of culture to soft power needs to be taken far more seriously. It needs to be properly thought through and given more powerful direction. Crucially, it must receive greater support from government, both financially and through advice and high-level backing, in order to fulfil its full potential for improving the global standing of the UK and for helping to build strong civil societies around the world.
Lord Howe of Aberavon
My Lords, like others who have already spoken, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for starting off the debate. I also extend special thanks to my noble friend and neighbour here Lord Alderdice for the extent to which he underlined the necessity for us to have confidence in the value of the soft power which we have all been discussing. It has been echoed by many others. I do not feel, although the word features in the debate, that co-ordination is necessarily the most important thought to have in mind. I do not mean to dismiss the idea just offered by the noble Lord, Lord Hall, but perhaps because of my experience in the Treasury, of which my noble friend Lord Fowler could not help reminding the House, I feel the real problem is that of allocation of resources, alongside discovery of the confidence in what we have, to defend and enlarge and expand with the right allocation there.
It will not be very popular to say this, but there is a problem because there are two candidates for the lion’s share of resource allocation in this area—the lion is not to the same scale in each case—the Ministry of Defence, which is as important as anything and does not have a very notorious reputation for skilful management or estimation of resources, and the other, I have to say with some regret, is DfID. The idea that it should have guaranteed access to guaranteed resources on the scale it does, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, pointed out, is a very powerful resource for that department. The fact that I am criticising it does not mean that I do not have a sufficiently bleeding heart. In my time in government we allocated not 0.7 per cent of GDP to the ODA, as it then was, but no more than 0.36 per cent because we felt ourselves constrained by the long running shortage of resources. One has to have that willingness to be flexible about it. I have always regretted—I would, wouldn’t I—the subsequent separation of the FCO from DfID or the ODA. I do not like one remark made by my noble friend Lord Fowler about the FCO. He suggested that it was the FCO which undervalued different aspects of it. The FCO joins with everyone who has spoken so far in recognising the value—it is the problem of allocating the resources. I feel we need to be willing to say that some things are so important that DfID should have some reduction in its allocation.
The partnership between DfID and the other Foreign Office departments was useful—it avoided duplication of bureaucratic establishments around the world: it enabled me to select rising DfID staff members and offer ambassadorships to them. I remember in particular, when I was with Her Majesty the Queen on a state visit to Nepal, feeling some pleasure that our ambassador there then, Tony Hurrell, was the first ambassador to be appointed to the Diplomatic Service from the ODA, with some pleasure being given to the department for that unification of respect. When the ambassador gave a picnic in the foothills of the Himalayas before we departed I was able to congratulate him on the knighthood conferred upon him on that visit by Her Majesty the Queen and to say that he probably did not imagine when he joined the Department of Employment as a clerk aged 18 that he would end up being knighted in Kathmandu. That integration of DfID, ODA and FCO is a virtuous state of affairs.
Beyond that, the question is how should one enhance and achieve the right balance of resources in other departments. I cannot avoid mentioning the foreign service. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, initiated not the first debate of its kind on, I think, Armistice Day last year, pressing the need for Britain to have a properly resourced and active diplomacy. That is all part of the concerted way in which we have to make the most of our soft power, as colleagues have already been pressing. It is an area, incidentally, where full exploitation of linguistic skill is important, helping the foreign service present our wider case.
Looking at the three substantive aspects of this topic that noble Lords have so far discussed, I join my noble friend Lord Fowler and others in emphasising the immense importance of the World Service of the BBC. The reductions that have recently been imposed are, quite frankly, foolish and unjustified, and the more quickly they can be restored, the better it will be for all of us.
I can offer some anecdotal insight into the extent to which the World Service has had its impact on affairs in a remarkable series of ways. On my second visit to Yugoslavia after Tito had gone, one of the things that one had to do was visit Tito’s former residence. One of the most striking features of going there was to find that the radio set was tuned into the World Service and to hear subsequently that Tito was able to protect himself against the risk of Soviet onslaught through the information that he had been getting on the World Service about what was happening to Dubcek in Czechoslovakia. In that area, the World Service was rendering a valuable cause.
I remember also visiting for the first time Prime Minister Papandreou in Athens with our ambassador there, Sir Jeremy Thomas. That was, I think, the first meeting between a British Foreign Secretary and the Greek Prime Minister since Anthony Eden had been there. When we went to Mr Papandreou’s house to see him, one suddenly heard from behind the wall the World Service theme—
“Ta-ta-tum, tat ta-ta tum, ta ta-tum, ta ta-ta tum”—
and so on. He was at pains to tell us just how important it was for him. We know also that Mr Gorbachev and his wife heard the first news of what was happening to them in the Moscow scene on the World Service. So I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of that.
I shall not add anything to what has been said about the British Council but I shall close with one word about a representative non-departmental public body, the Great Britain-China Centre, declaring an interest as the long-serving president of that organisation. It is a very good example of an agency that is not directly under government control. It is very well suited to the delivery of soft power, allowing work to be conducted at arm’s length from government but with the reassurance that the work is not intended to destabilise China. It allows us to call on professional expertise and initiate the discussion of important issues in China. The resources that we get from government are a grant-in-aid of £270,000, and a further £1 million is raised by us to go in support of three programmes. The first is a judicial studies training programme that has been running in partnership between this country and China for some years. I think that more than 60 judges in 34 different courts in China have recently received training of that kind. The second programme is pressing the case for better legal protection for the media. The third—this, again, is interesting—is common discussion on the use of the death penalty. As a result of that, we like to think that the legislative committee of the National People’s Congress is likely within a short period of time to reduce by 13 the number of offences that carry capital punishment in China— 68 currently do so. That is an impact of soft power in a rather unexpected place.
The final example, which no one else has mentioned but which I think can be categorised as soft power alongside the importance of Parliament, is our monarchy. In China, curiously, I had an interesting insight into the importance of the perception of our monarchy in countries around the world. At the end of our negotiations on the Hong Kong prospect and at my final meeting in that context with Deng Xiaoping, he was at pains to attach importance to the antiquity and history of our relationship. It did not start in a very good way some centuries ago but now he was anxious to pay respect to our Royals. He said:
“We have decided we can trust Britain and your government and therefore would like to invite Her Majesty the Queen to come to China on a State Visit to confirm our friendship”.
So, indeed, she did, two years after the signing of the Hong Kong Joint Declaration. On the Royal Yacht—a sadly discarded manifestation of our soft power; I think that it was soft rather than hard—we were able to entertain the entire Chinese Government in Shanghai Harbour. Tomorrow’s news, it may be thought, is another example of the importance of royal soft power among the many assets which we have and which we should promote as effectively and as strongly as we can with as many well-allocated resources as we can persuade the Treasury to undertake.
Lord Smith of Finsbury
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, although I have to observe that I will be intrigued to see what Hansard makes of the musical interlude in the middle of his speech.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, on initiating this debate and I thank her for it. It gives us a welcome opportunity to highlight the underemphasised, underappreciated but hugely important role that soft power plays around the world. By “soft power”, I mean what can be achieved for the improvement of international relationships and for the standing and reputation of this country through culture and the arts and through sport, learning, discourse, the exchange of ideas and thought, and creativity. Of course, it will not solve all our problems and sometimes hard power will be needed. Sometimes hard power is resorted to too readily, as was the case eight years ago in Iraq. However, soft power has much to offer in helping to shape the framework of relationships and, ultimately, in making hard power less necessary.
I want to recall three moments over the past three decades that I believe illustrate that rather well. The first was in 1983. I had just been elected as a Member of Parliament in the other House and, with my other newly elected colleague, Clare Short, I visited Turkey on behalf of a number of Turkish humanitarian organisations based in this country. Turkey at that time was under military government. Military trials were taking place and the principal purpose of our visit was to observe those trials. I also had the chilling experience of talking to people who explained in graphic detail how they had been tortured and to newspaper editors who spoke of how they feared the censor’s pen with every page that they produced.
One of the people whom we succeeded in visiting was Bulent Ecevit, who had been Prime Minister of Turkey some years previously. At the time, he was under house arrest; he was to continue to be under house arrest for another three or four years. He said to us, “My lifeline is the BBC World Service. It is the way in which I know what is happening, not just in the world but in my country”. Four years later, Bulent Ecevit was released from house arrest and went on to become Prime Minister of Turkey again. The information that that lifeline had provided him with through that period was crucial in helping to shape the policies that he subsequently put in place.
Sixteen years, later, in 1999, when I was Secretary of State for Culture, I went on an official visit to China. The principal purpose of the visit was to support the tour of the Royal Ballet to Beijing. It is a great pleasure to be speaking in the same debate as my noble friend Lord Hall of Birkenhead, whose brilliant leadership of the Royal Ballet and the Royal Opera House over recent years has been outstanding.
The Royal Ballet’s visit to Beijing was remarkable. It received standing ovations every night. It was packed out. By the time of the final performance at the end of the week, the President, Jiang Zemin, had decided that, having heard so much about it, he wanted to come to the ballet. By that time, I think that I was in Kunming. I had to get back straightaway to Beijing so that I could be there to welcome him to the ballet. Not only did Jiang Zemin arrive, but so did the Deputy Prime Minister, 10 Ministers and deputy Ministers and a collection of members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. In all, there were about 50 official guests, all sitting in a row, all leaping to their feet several times during the evening to applaud what was going on on the stage. In the interval, Darcey Bussell came backstage, and the President immediately fell in love with her.
During that interval discussion, I mentioned that over the previous week I had been trying with no success to persuade a number of different ministries and organisations to agree exchanges of television programmes between our two countries. The President looked around at the army of officials who were sitting against the wall and said, “That would be a very good idea”, and they immediately wrote it down in their notebooks. At the end of the evening, the ambassador, who was with me, turned to me and said, “This is the most impressive show of engagement with our country that we have ever seen from the Chinese Government. It has been the most remarkable event”.
Two days later, NATO bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Thousands of protesters surrounded the British embassy in Beijing for the following week. The Ministry of Culture in Beijing phoned DCMS two days into those demonstrations to say, “Things are not terribly good between our two countries at the moment, but we just wanted to say how much we had appreciated the visit of the Secretary of State and the Royal Ballet. For us, culture is different”. Of course, within a year, relations between Britain and China had been substantially repaired.
The third incident that I want to mention took place just a couple of months ago. On behalf of the British Council I went to Slovakia to lead a series of discussions about support for the creative industries in that country. Not only did we have extremely good discussions about the importance of the creative industries and how they can be nurtured and supported, but with us was someone from the Ministry of Culture in Estonia, who said that over the past two or three years his country had been following a programme that the British Council had helped to put together of mapping, support, education and investment in the creative industries. He said how successful the programme had been.
From these various experiences I draw just two or three lessons. The first is the enormous importance of a number of key institutions. Noble Lords from all sides of the House have already spoken of these. They include the BBC World Service. It is remarkable that voices from all parts of the House have said to the Government that they really do have to think again about the cuts in funding that are now being experienced by the BBC World Service. The BBC World Service is far too precious and we should not lose what we have in that remarkable institution. These key institutions include the British Council and major arts organisations; all are facing financial stringency. They also include the best and finest of our universities. The decision of the Government to place a cap on the number of foreign students who can come to study at our universities is simply crazy. It sits alongside the even crazier decision to abandon all funding for arts and humanities teaching at our universities. The importance of nurturing and sustaining these institutions is something that we need to put at the forefront of our policy-making.
Secondly, the Motion before us specifically highlights the need to co-ordinate better between departments—the DCMS, the Foreign Office, UK Trade & Investment, BIS and the Department for Education. There needs to be much more joint working to ensure that we can make the best of the great strengths that we have in this country. There also needs to be joint working between the institutions themselves, by getting the BBC World Service, the British Council and the universities to work more closely and effectively together.
Thirdly, we need to reassert at the heart of government how crucial all this is. It is not just about co-ordination; it is also about leadership and making sure that someone at the heart of government at a senior level is leading the way in ensuring that all this happens. As a country, we are rightly ready to step up to the plate, to do what it takes and to pay what is needed when hard power is necessary. We should do the same, feel the same and act the same when it comes to soft power, too.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, holding a debate on how this country should best marshal and make use of its soft-power assets is surely essential at a time when our hard-power assets are tightly stretched and, I would argue, underfunded to fulfil the tasks that were set out in last October’s strategy review. However, that debate on hard power is not for today. What is surely not in doubt is that, over the years ahead, we will need to rely more on our soft-power assets and learn to put them to better use if we are to sustain the capacity to protect and further our interests worldwide. I therefore welcome the initiative taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, to hold this debate, all the more so as I know from personal experience how hard she worked when a Minister to improve co-ordination on conflict issues between the MoD, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DfID —I do not mean conflict between those three departments, although in the past it has been known to occur.
My first general point is that no amount of better co-ordination, highly desirable though that co-ordination certainly is, can compensate for serious reductions in the resources available to the soft-power assets that are being co-ordinated. My second general point is that you need to co-ordinate not only over the use of soft power but over the allocation of resources to your instruments of soft power. Of that upstream co-ordination, there has been very little trace under either of the previous two Governments. First, under the previous Government, discretionary spending on conflict issues was slashed following the fall in the value of sterling in 2008. Then a number of the FCO’s scholarship programmes—the Marshall scholarships, the Chevening scholarships and the Commonwealth scholarships—were squeezed to ease pressure on the FCO budget. Then large cuts were imposed on the BBC World Service, to which many noble Lords have referred, including on the Arabic service and the Middle Eastern outreach of the World Service English programmes, just when the events in the Middle East pointed towards a need for increased, not decreased, funding, although I admit that that decision was taken before the events of what is called the Arab spring. If that is co-ordination, it was pretty well concealed. We surely need a better, more holistic approach than that.
I make no apology for concentrating heavily, as a number of other noble Lords have done, on one particular soft-power asset, the BBC World Service, which has been described, correctly in my view, in a really excellent recent report by the Foreign Affairs Committee of another place as a jewel in the crown of these assets. No one reading that report, as I did a couple of days ago, could do so without a sinking feeling that the Government have stumbled into an ill-judged and excessive cut to the World Service— 16 per cent over the next four years—without any very clear idea of the implications, above all in the Middle East.
I have two specific points to put to the Minister to which I hope he will be able to reply in responding to the debate. First, when this House debated the matter on 11 February, I and others raised the issue of the need for more, not fewer, resources for the Middle East and Arabic broadcasts. I suggested then—a suggestion that has been taken up in more detail in the Foreign Affairs Committee report to which I referred—that if DfID were to fund in some way the developmental work that the BBC already does, which has been certified as being of the value of something like £25 million a year, resources could be released without any net additional cost to the FCO budget. I wonder where matters now stand on that issue. I had a rather helpful response to a question I asked of the Secretary of State for International Development when he most impressively addressed the Cross-Benchers yesterday, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to take that forward. Above all, when the Government respond to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, I hope that there will be something precise there. Surely it is time to move beyond the rather vaguely helpful remarks of the Foreign Secretary when he gave evidence to the committee.
Secondly, a wider issue about the World Service is the governance arrangements once the BBC becomes responsible for funding the World Service from the licence fee in 2014. Here again, a careful reading of that Foreign Affairs Committee report does not, frankly, inspire a lot of confidence. The decision to switch funding responsibility to the BBC was taken at the very last moment in a singularly back-of-the-envelope way. The Government’s response to queries about the future governance and how one can be sure that the priorities will not be leeched away by the needs of the BBC’s domestic services now sounds awfully like flying on a wing and a prayer. The case for a new covenant between the Government and the BBC Trust—this is what has been put forward by the Foreign Affairs Committee—seems a genuinely good idea. I hope the Minister can say that the Government broadly accept it and will work up such a covenant so that we do not have a kind of death of a thousand cuts for the World Service in 2014.
I now turn from the BBC to the issue of discretionary spending on conflict issues. The irony here is that just as we in this country have begun to achieve a degree of co-ordination in this area—which is admired and is being emulated by other countries—we have in many cases cut the resources for the programmes that we were supporting. We are withdrawing support for example in places such as the Caucasus, where such soft-power assets are really very important. Last October’s strategic review had some reasonably encouraging things to say about this sort of discretionary spending on conflict issues and about the need to do more for failing and failed states, and I wonder whether the Minister could give us some specifics about how we are approaching that now after the strategic review. Are there more than just warm words in that review?
Finally, we are debating how we in Britain are co-ordinating the use of our soft-power assets. However, here, as with hard power, we are surely in the years ahead going to need to work much more in concert with other like-minded countries in the European Union, NATO, the Commonwealth and at the United Nations if we are to maximise the impact of our soft power. I give two examples from the past. First, UN peacekeeping was virtually invented by a great British UN official, Brian Urquhart. That is a massive soft-power development over the years, which has brought peace and stability to many countries that were failed or failing states. The European Union is another example. The enlargement of the European Union has seen the most massive deployment of soft-power assets—far greater than the United States, with all its hard-power assets, has been able to deploy—and it has brought tremendous benefits, both in southern Europe and in central and eastern Europe. These multilateral institutions, of which we are members—and often very, very important members—are a really crucial part of our soft-power effort.
Of course some of our soft-power assets, such as the World Service and the British Council, are more specific to us, but there are many others in conflict prevention and post-conflict peace-building on which we need to work together. I wonder what plans the Government have for strengthening that wider co-ordination of effort so that we can make less go further and help to marshal the multiplier soft-power effect that these big international organisations can have.
If I have struck a rather critical note in this debate it is because so much needs to be done and because some course corrections are sorely needed. However, given some flexibility in application, this country could achieve a tremendous amount—it is already doing so but it could achieve far more. These soft-power assets of ours are hugely valuable and are far more valuable than the soft-power assets of practically any other country in the world, so do let us make the most of them.
Lord Soley
I welcome this very timely debate, led by my noble friend Lady Taylor. I echo the words that we have just heard: this country has so much to offer and has done so much already. It is quite extraordinary to think of the influence of the United Kingdom throughout the years. You need think only of the English language, but there are many other aspects in which we have had influence. There has been some talk today of the importance of our culture and so on, but no mention of things like football and cricket. These sorts of things carry with them an immense image of Britain. Both the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, mentioned the monarchy. It is quite true, I suspect, that this will not make the headlines tomorrow for the same reason as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, gave—because the royal wedding will get the headlines. Some 10,000 journalists are here from other countries, and maybe one message is that some of the monarchies in the Middle East might like to take a lesson or two on constitutional monarchy, which could help them to some degree.
In my opening comments, I said that this debate was timely, because I have believed for some considerable time that there is a mood shift around the world against dictatorship. That mood has been growing for some considerable time; it has been led, as several noble Lords have said, by the intervention of hard power from time to time. With Iraq, or going right back to the Falklands, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, will well remember, the removal of dictators can at times precipitate a continuing change, which is profoundly important. But there is no doubt in my mind that one of the biggest changes at the moment, which is enabling the Arab spring and other events to take place, is the development of the internet. Perhaps we should remember at a time like this the contribution of Sir Tim Berners-Lee in developing the world wide web. These contributions that we have made are very wide and very deep.
I do not want to say anything about the BBC World Service other than that I agree with everything that has been said and it is the height of madness to cut it at the current time when people are holding up banners in some of the demonstrations in the Middle East saying, “Thank you BBC”. Attention was drawn to this by the e-mails from Peter Horrocks to many Members, but it was not the first time I had seen a banner like that in the middle of a demonstration. The BBC is immensely important to this.
I want to focus a little on what else we have to offer. When people think of the image of the United Kingdom around the world, apart from things like the English language, Shakespeare and football and so on, they will think of good governance and the rule of law—and they will think of a constitutional monarchy and freedom of speech. When all those people stand on the pavement outside the House, taking photographs of the demonstration, which so many of us are worried about, of the man who has been there for many years, that is as much about saying how the British are a free people as it is about saying, “My God, this is an environmental disgrace”. I would love to read their e-mails or letters to know which side of the argument is carried. It is a demonstration of the people’s views on the commitment in the United Kingdom to the rule of law. It is that issue that I want to come back to.
The Minister will know, as I have raised this on a previous occasion, about the development of a postgraduate school of law, which I have been working with at Zayed University in Abu Dhabi, with outreach into Palestine. That is the sort of thing that we need to do. I want to develop that theme, because it leads on to something else. The conversations that I had about a year ago led to conversations with a couple of other Arab ambassadors. One of them was the Tunisian ambassador, who is no longer with us. The new Tunisian ambassador, Hatem Atallah, came to see me on Tuesday and spent an hour with me here in the House, when we discussed in some depth what Tunisia needs. I have been very anxious throughout all my contacts—and I know that this applies to this and the last Government—not to tell countries what they need but to ask them what they need and how we can assist. That is very important.
Some of the things that the ambassador mentioned are very important. He told me that the Tunisian elections will take place on 26 July, and the Tunisians look forward to international observers on that from the EU and so on. He told me that the National Assembly will then have the duty to draw up a constitution. Then we got into the detail. He was saying that the Arab spring—I will call it that, although they were not his words—has led to enormous expectations about democracy, freedom, the rule of law and so on. Anybody in this House who has had any time in politics at all knows the danger of having raised expectations that you then cannot deliver on. The problem that we face, particularly in the Middle East at the moment, is: the expectations of democracy and so on are enormously high, but how can you deliver on them?
One thing that Mr Atallah and I talked about on Tuesday was what sort of questions you ask when you are setting up a new constitution. We talked about the importance of the Ministers being accountable so it is about what sort of questions they are asking them but, as he said, it is also about what questions they are asking the people standing in the elections. One thing that he wanted, perhaps more than anything else, was the opportunity for Tunisian people in relevant positions to come and stay here in the United Kingdom to work with various groups. This will warm the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, because we discussed in some depth how we could help them to develop a free and responsible media.
His view was that they did not need any help with journalist courses, as they have those. He said the problem was that, when somebody left one of those courses with their qualification, they had been taught all the right things but were then told what to write. In other words, they had no opportunity to learn how to report in a balanced, neutral and informative way. For example, the reporting of elections will be immensely important, but he wondered where the journalists would come from who could see an election taking place and know how to report what the various candidates were saying. He told me that it would be very useful if they could place journalists here in the UK to see elections taking place. It may be too late for next week, but he will be writing to me about that to indicate in a bit more detail what they want. I will endeavour to see that we do it. I hope that the Thomson Foundation, which both I and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, have mentioned, might be able to help on that.
There is a range of areas here where we have to think rather differently. My noble friend Lady Taylor cast this debate in terms of the co-operation between government departments. I do not doubt that at all but we have to be more flexible in our thinking because it also needs to involve ways in which we can use all the other institutions that we take for granted—whether private, public or anything else—in order to try and place people for experience. If, as I suspect, they have the basic training right in many cases, as in the journalism example that I gave, we need to focus on how we can then help their journalists to learn beyond that.
Much the same applies to the rule of law issue. When I began to question the Zayed University in Abu Dhabi about what it offers, I was sent all the details of its law course but, not being a lawyer, I ran them past many experts here in this House who have been helpful to me. Yes, it is a good course but, interestingly, on the postgraduate side it virtually stopped. What happened was that any good student then went to Britain, the United States, Europe or elsewhere to get their postgraduate training. I told them, “If you're going to do that and are to be taken seriously in this world in future, you have to do human rights or humanitarian law and international law”. That is what we are now exploring. We are looking at doing it in an outreach operation with Palestine as well, in order to help them develop the mechanism of the state. That is working through universities but we already have here an organisation, based at York University, which helps British universities to connect with overseas ones. I am very encouraged by that and I work with it to try and make these contacts, so we really have to think much more adventurously.
I also think that we have to start looking ahead a bit. It was almost impossible to predict what happened in the Middle East. There are other areas where there is change but they are actually signalling it. I shall give the example of Cuba. If you want to read the speech of Raúl Castro, it will take you a lot longer than the 12 minutes that I have been given here. It is interesting, though, because he is clearly saying that Cuba wants to open its economy and its political system.
It is not just in Cuba or the Middle East. There is what I regard as a historical shift away from an idea that somehow or other some people are born to rule and can be in power for 40 years, towards the idea of democracy, freedom and the rule of law. We in the United Kingdom have to get away from the idea that we are somehow to blame for these things and that we are imposing our values on other people. Ideas about democracy and the rule of law are not just Western concepts; they have been around in many other forms. We can say with confidence that if you want a modern, progressive, stable and peaceful society, you need certain basic factors such as democracy, freedom of speech and the rule of law. We need to identify those areas where we can be most helpful and offer that help. I hope that in some way we can all lend our support to that.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for her introduction to this debate, particularly at the beginning when she helped us to understand its breadth by mentioning a concept difficult to grasp at first—that of almost soft military power. She mentioned the importance of the stabilisation unit and the importance, from her experience, of a buy-in from all departments.
This has been a wide-ranging debate and, as someone who knows very little about the subject, I think it has been a valuable one. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and my noble friend Lord Soley both touched on the concept of exporting our convictions and our values. The noble Lord, Lord Hall, and, I think, my noble friend Lord Smith both touched on the idea of culture breeding conversation and ways of influence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, rightly pointed out to us that, important as co-ordination is, at the end of the day government is about resource allocation, and it is these resource allocation issues that we must face. I shall return to this important issue.
A feature of the debate has been the fact that seven Peers have mentioned the BBC World Service and its importance. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, brought that into play by the power of journalism and, almost romantically, the power of truth as soft power and influence. The whole dilemma that we face with the BBC was put over most passionately in the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and I hope that the Government will listen to it.
I would like to look back, say, 10 years, to when soft power was, in a sense, around. We were in government at the time. Soft power had five distinct thrusts: the BBC World Service, the British Council, the various scholarships, the conferences that were developed through Wilton Park and quite a big commitment by embassies and high commissions on what might be said to be cultural public events. This was called soft power but also public diplomacy.
Along came Jack Straw, who, if nothing else, is a pretty pragmatic and down-to-earth individual, and he initiated a study by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, into how we were doing this soft power—this public diplomacy thing. I am afraid that the outcomes were a bit of a shock. For instance, the report showed that there was little design in the range of activities that could demonstrate a link to outcomes. Research showed that over long periods, whatever the activities, people’s attitudes to the UK did not change very much. Put broadly, around the world we were not much liked. We were grudgingly admired but thought to be cold, fairly heartless people. Public diplomacy had not warmed people to us, nor—during the Iraq war, for example—led them to think worse of us. The Government of the day reacted to this. The first major change was to introduce the Public Diplomacy Board, with external expertise and consultancy help to develop programmes.
The second step—a very pragmatic and important idea—was to stop worrying about whether people liked us a lot. It would be nice, but the point was that we should develop programmes and key themes. We chose several themes, such as climate change, green cities, religious tolerance and democratisation. The idea was, through our soft power, to demonstrate values and raise issues with which we could engage people, as opposed to a simplistic “Will they like us?”. At the time there was also a review of the World Service and the British Council which, in general, did not change. There was a strategic withdrawal from broadcasting to some post-Soviet countries and the start of the Farsi and Arabic television services. The development from that was the creation in 2009 of the new Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Forum, which seemed to have fairly widespread support. The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee concluded that these new arrangements,
“with the relevant high-level body now chaired by the Foreign Secretary rather than a more junior minister, appear to be in accord with the more central place that public diplomacy is taking in the FCO’s work”.
The previous Government had a reasonable record in recognising the breadth and complexity of soft power and the importance of co-ordination.
What of the present Government? The Library has been the source of much of my research. It found relatively few hard statements by the Government on soft power. Mr Hague certainly made a comment, saying that he had,
“inherited a structure of government that had no effective mechanism for bringing together strategic decisions about foreign affairs, security, defence and development”.
I assume that by that group he meant soft power. He announced:
“It is our intention to transform this, using the National Security Council where appropriate to bring together all the departments of government in the pursuit of national objectives so that foreign policy runs through the veins of the entire administration”.
How far have the Government got? This is the point at which we turn to the Minister for a progress report on how far the Government have got on co-ordination, soft power and what their attitudes and positions are. Therefore, I would like the Minister to respond in four key areas. I have to mention the BBC, which so passionately concerns almost anybody who knows anything about this area.
First, do the Government believe in soft power? In other words, do they have a definition of it and does it form an important plank of FCO policy? More importantly, does it form an important part of the Government’s policy framework? I hope the answer to that will be yes. What mechanisms do the Government have in place to achieve co-ordination? What mechanisms do they have to make sure, in the words of my noble friend Lady Taylor, that all departments buy into the efforts of government to exercise soft power? There is a particular area that I should like the Minister to touch on. Again, I thank the Library for this. I would never have found such an obscure reference. Perhaps that is unfair. I would never have found it; whether it is obscure is probably a comment on my industry. The Library found the annexe Soft Power in the FCO Business Plan. Section 5 is headed “Use Soft Power to Promote British Values, Advance Development and Prevent Conflict”. That is a definition of soft power. Paragraph 5.1 of the actions to be taken under the business plan states:
“Develop a long term programme to enhance UK ‘soft power’, co-ordinated by the NSC”.
This big piece of work was supposed to be completed last month. I hope that the Minister can give us a progress report on that. Paragraph 5.1.v states:
“Devise a strategy to enhance: (a) the impact of UK contribution to conflict prevention, (b) the impact of UK educational scholarships, (c) the impact of the British Council and BBC World Service, (d) links with democratic political parties overseas, and (e) the impact of the UK’s promotion of human rights”.
I hope that we will be given a progress report on that, which may answer many questions.
How do the Government make their decisions? How do they conduct the trade-offs and decide the resource allocation issues about which we have heard? We are not talking about billions of pounds and the macroeconomy but modest sums and modest trade-offs, as has been illustrated. Do we have clear objectives? Do we measure the outcomes effectively? Do we have a sense of relative values?
It is very important that the Minister explains how the decisions regarding the BBC were arrived at, how it can be sustained and whether the FCO and the Government will reconsider them. A 16 per cent cut in a £270 million budget is not a large amount of money in macroeconomic terms. As I have stressed, it is absolutely right to get value for money. However, I believe that the first cut of £19 million will result in the loss of 30 million radio listeners. That works out at something like 65p a listener.
In response to an Oral Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, on the British Council and the BBC, the Minister said:
“I like to agree with the noble Baroness on as many things as I can, but I just do not agree on this. It does not completely contradict anything. If anything, the position of the BBC World Service will be enhanced”.—[Official Report, 21/10/10; col. 884.]
A number of noble Lords have quoted from Peter Horrocks’s e-mail. It is a very telling e-mail that bears quoting again. He refers to the impact that the BBC had in reporting the recent disturbances in the Middle East. The e-mail states:
“But in just a month’s time, we will need to cut back dramatically on our services as a result of the funding reductions. For instance the TV service will reduce from 15 live hours of news a day to 7 by cutting our overnight and morning coverage. Radio will be cut from 12 live hours a day to 7. And we will lose 44 of our valued Arabic staff, many of whom played an invaluable role in the coverage of the uprisings, often appearing on English output in the UK and around the world, as well as broadcasting in Arabic”.
How does the Minister reconcile that with the statement that the position of the BBC World Service will be, if anything, enhanced?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, I know that it is something of a cliché to say that debates we have in this House are timely, but in this case the word has particular relevance, because it so happens that we are in a stage of review and policy advance in a number of key areas, of which this is one of the most key of all. Therefore, this kind of debate, which shows the House of Lords at its very best, is immensely valuable in influencing and sending messages to those who make the final policy inside and, indeed, outside government. In that sense the debate is particularly timely, and it was introduced brilliantly by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, whom we congratulate on choosing this subject and on the way in which she introduced it.
Although we are discussing these matters in advance of many developments, and despite the need for a policy review and, indeed, answers to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, particularly in relation to the BBC World Service, I will seek to answer as many questions as I can in the time available. There are some things that I cannot yet answer, and some that I will not have time to answer, but I shall do my best, particularly to cover the five or six points put by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, from the opposition Front Bench—all of which strike me as highly relevant.
The noble Baroness began by rightly seeking to focus our minds on the question of what we mean by soft power. Those of us in government who are trying to look at these things consider that it is the ability to influence the actions of another through attraction, rather than coercion. Soft power is working to exert this influence in order to achieve our national interests in an interdependent world and to make our maximum effective contribution to the stability, balance and prosperity of that world.
In order to do this, we need now more than ever to appreciate what is sometimes overlooked in our foreign policy debates—the new landscape of power, influence and understanding of attitudes and motives which has emerged in perhaps the past two or three years, and certainly in the past five years since the rise of the internet age in this century, which radically changes the modalities of foreign policy. In this new world it is not about power over others but about working to preserve, promote and protect our interest through the appeal of our values and culture, historical and contemporary; working with, rather than working to impose.
As it is a central theme of the debate, I have been asked about co-ordination. I want to say a bit about that. The Government have been and are looking closely at how to improve the co-ordination across Whitehall of soft power resources. This is aside from the fact that a good deal of soft power projection lies outside government and its control—and rightly so. One of the priorities of the coalition Government, as set out in their structural reform priorities, is to use soft power to promote British values, advance development and prevent conflict. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s published business plan, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, referred, recognises these aims and sets out the requirement for a long-term programme to enhance UK soft power, co-ordinated by the National Security Council. The work and review of the strategy foreshadowed in the business plan has started. I have been asked whether it has finished. Although there was hope that these matters would be completed by the end of last month, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that one or two distractions have occurred on the foreign policy scene. In fact there has been a massive range of distractions which have had an effect on how we must order our priorities and work programme. We are therefore not quite there yet; there has been some delay.
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary asked the FCO to undertake a review of how to achieve the best results for the country from the soft power activity across Whitehall. That is foreshadowed in the business plan. This review, involving engagement with external experts, will not only shape the future of the FCO’s soft power output but influence how best to co-ordinate our efforts across Whitehall to improve effectiveness and value for money. The review has started. It has been somewhat disturbed by Middle East events, but an initial framework document has been produced. We attach great importance to the review and are looking for robust outcomes to enable us to use our valuable assets to drive forward the Government’s foreign policy priorities. Our next immediate step is to use the annual meeting of the FCO’s heads of mission, which takes place early next month, to test ideas. We are always drawing valuable lessons from the unfolding and dramatic events in the Middle East.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, rightly asked whether we believe in all this.
Lord Howell of Guildford
No, we do not plan to publish the review.
I was asked the basic question: do we believe in this concept? Perhaps I may personalise this a little and claim a few veteran medals in the field. I was a member of the famous Foreign Affairs Committee in the early 1980s that invented the concept of cultural diplomacy and injected it into public debate. I was responsible—possibly it is unwise to admit this—for writing books in the 1980s about “softnomics”, which foreshadowed and preceded the development and picking up of the concept of soft power by the media, experts and academics in the late 1990s. It was a little late in the day, but they got there in the end. Therefore, I need not apologise for being slow off the mark in understanding the central nature, which was bound to come with the internet revolution, of soft power being the essential oxygen and blood flow of international relations in an increasingly important way.
When my right honourable friend made his first strategic speech after taking office, he talked of a networked world where connections between groups and individuals across the globe also make up the relations between nations, and where these connections are being rapidly accelerated by the internet. He was absolutely right. The interconnectivity that the internet has enabled has led to a diffusion of power from Governments to citizens. It has also led to a transfer of power, as we all know, from the Atlantic world to the high savers and dynamic economies of Asia, Latin America and so on. However, it means that Governments must operate differently. We do not have the monopoly of data that previous Governments had 20, 30 or 50 years ago: citizens do. Intercommunication is swift, cheap and instant. It has changed the balance of power between citizens and government and turned on effective protest. This was predicted in things we wrote and argued about 20 years ago, and has now happened. Effective protest on the streets is easier and can be organised much more swiftly. The streets have been enabled, as we have seen recently in the Middle East and north Africa. These forces have shown themselves to be potent against even the most entrenched regimes.
I will make one further general point before I come to specifics. Perhaps we should not think only in terms of soft power, or of the distinction between soft and hard power. As my noble friend Lord Alderdice rightly said in his superb speech, these matters are interwoven. First, wars tend increasingly to be intrastate rather than interstate conflicts that cannot be won by force of arms; the concept of overwhelming force is redundant. Instead, parties must include ways to engage with different levels of society, using, with agility, the appropriate soft power tools that are available, namely cultural, political, military and economic. Without the elements that focus on breaking down barriers of mistrust, conflict continues and grows worse. Power in its military form does not deliver.
There are also those—again, this was predicted in the past; we saw it coming—who use the internet to generate hostility and encourage violence against our society and all advanced societies. The modern media environment means that people's perceptions and misperceptions can matter as much as reality. Persuasive words, deeds and images can be transmitted globally in an instant. That is why we have to uphold our core values of democracy, freedom, poverty reduction and human rights. Hard power remains necessary in some cases, but as the nature of conflict and of threats to our security changes, alternative methods of credible influence will play an increasingly central role. I have spoken in general terms to answer the justifiable questions of noble Lords and of the Front Bench opposite.
I turn now to the issue of soft power assets and how we wield them. This has been the central theme of the debate. Our basic soft power resources lie, as the noble Lords, Lord Smith and Lord Hall, made clear, in our culture; in projecting the UK as a nation to which others feel attracted and amicably disposed; in our political values, so long as we are seen to uphold and prosper by them at home—it is no good if we do not; in the legitimacy and fairness of our foreign policy; and in the potential for British-based non-governmental and professional bodies and institutions to influence and bond with counterparts across the globe. Those are the resources. More specifically, moving on from generalisation, our attractiveness rests on offering a positive domestic constitutional model that appears to work—I think ours does on the whole—operating under a popular monarchy, which is itself a soft power asset, as noble Lords have rightly reminded us in the debate, and on having a successful economy.
It is no use arriving on the scene of soft power projection if we are in a state of economic destitution and have lost control of our budget. Our national credibility depends on the budget rigour to keep within our means, which of course is by no means the situation now but the one, alas, that we inherited from the past; on running an efficient and flexible military; on supplying generous overseas assistance and humanitarian aid; on a highly intelligent pattern conveying how we operate our own national intelligence model; on public diplomacy, public governance and administration; on high-quality judicial advice, training standards and personnel and best practices in law; on courses in a whole range of professional fields and skills; and, as noble Lords have mentioned, on increasing educational exchanges and offering scholarships, which we do. Indeed, I have some notes which show how we have expanded our commitment from the immediate dip which was about to take place in the Chevening scholarships and other areas. As we have heard in some brilliant speeches this afternoon, soft power impact also depends increasingly on artistic and design promotion and exchange.
That is undoubtedly a formidable arsenal. In many cases we have already put it in place, but it has not always been deployed or transmitted as effectively as it should, and that is what we have to put right. To wield our soft power resources effectively in today’s information-connected world we have to avoid the pitfalls of lecturing and seeming to confront rather than work with target recipients; of failing to show deep enough respect for other people’s cultures and, even more, their histories; and of glossing over our own past errors. That is especially topical at the moment. We have particularly to face that when we got involved, as we did, in the Iraq adventure—I know that it is controversial—there was an expenditure of reputation and of soft-power impact. It might have been justified for other reasons but we now have painstakingly to rebuild it. We would be shutting our eyes not to accept that.
Fortunately, we have one major ready-made system for soft power transmission through the Commonwealth network. Again, my noble friend Lord Alderdice and others pointed this out. We also have a huge reservoir of historical experience in the emerging world with which to help repair past damage. I wanted to say a little more about the Commonwealth contribution because we have an almost ready-made system—a gigantic transcontinental network of linkages—with many common values, giving this country a unique advantage which many other countries envy and wonder why we do not use still more effectively to link ourselves with the emerging powers and the new world landscape that lie ahead.
It is this Government’s very active policy, with which I am proud to be associated, to both reinvigorate our membership of the Commonwealth and to contribute with the other 53 members to the invigoration of the Commonwealth system throughout. We have plans afoot in detail which will unfold, first, with the eminent persons group of Commonwealth experts who are about to produce their ideas, and then as we move towards the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Perth at the end of October, to expand and gain general support for them. That will be one of the most important international meetings of the first two decades of the 21st century, on a par with the global governance group which is the counter group to the G20 group, which in turn has largely replaced the G8. This is an informational age in which we have to know how to use the electronic media sensitively, which means avoiding propaganda terms, and how to avoid overcentralisation of our soft power messages and influences by working with an opening gateway for non-governmental soft power activities. It has to be accepted, and has been pointed out by your Lordships, that other media systems have vastly multiplied in power and reach. Al Jazeera is usually the one we mention. We have to compete with these latest techniques by moving beyond traditional broadcasting systems. To that I now want to turn. I would like to say more about the targets and objectives, which are obviously commerce, security, humanitarian work, political goals in foreign policy, the impact of our foreign policy soft power and the feedback into our own sense of national pride, purpose and unity. All these are subjects that should be dilated on, but time prevents me doing so.
Now let me turn to the hot issue on which your Lordships have rightly focused: the cuts to the BBC World Service. The first question was about why we have cut this budget. I do not want to go into what I know noble Lords opposite will say is the boring subject of the financial situation, but there have to be cuts all round. The previous Government were planning very elaborate cuts. We have gone even further. Everyone has taken the pain.
It is also true that the World Service cannot stand still and that online and FM audiences are growing while shortwave listener numbers have been falling. That is not true in every area, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, reminded us, but in 2009-10, the shortwave audience for the BBC World Service fell by about 20 million, not because of closures but simply because of the change in the way people get their news. For instance, in Russia, online audiences increased by 120 per cent while radio audiences declined by 85 per cent. Television news remains the key vehicle, as we have seen in recent events in Egypt and the wider Middle East. BBC World News, which is not part of the World Service network, has a weekly audience of 74 million people and within the BBC World Service, the Arabic and Persian services have not reduced their broadcast hours. Therefore, I think that my noble friend Lord Fowler, who is enormously well qualified on these matters, has been misinformed on that question. BBC Arabic TV is keeping its hours.
Some of my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee and its criticism. The Foreign Secretary will be replying in detail in a couple of weeks, which is why I cannot answer all the questions that have been put today. However, there are two things that I should briefly like to mention about that report. The first is about whether it is true to say that the cuts have been disproportionate. Everyone knows that the Foreign Office took an enormous hit from the fall in sterling, and if you measure over the period from 2008, when that hit really damaged the Foreign Office budget, the net effect of the cuts to the British Council and the World Service has been to bring them back to the same proportion as they were in 2008. In 2007-08, they were 13 per cent, and in 2013-14 they will be around 14.4 per cent of the total FCO budget.
Finally, there is the question of whether the aid budget can support the work of the BBC World Service. I cannot give a final answer, but in the remaining seconds of my ration of time, I will try to bring noble Lords up to date on where we are on this issue. We believe that the BBC World Service provides a development benefit to many countries, and we are continuing to explore with DfID and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development officials whether a proportion of BBC World Service expenditure should be reported as ODA assistance. This will require the agreement of the OECD Development Assistance Committee. The BBC World Service portion of the overall FCO settlement includes £25 million a year in anticipation of being able to score some of these activities as official development assistance. I emphasise that this does not imply additional funding for the World Service although I understand that the World Service is in discussion with DfID about the funding of specific projects. Indeed, that matter is reported in the Foreign Affairs Committee report.
Any decision to reverse the reduction to the World Service’s budget would have to be funded from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s core budget. The Government believe that the transfer of funding to the licence fee will increase the BBC’s ability to achieve useful economies of scale through the whole of the BBC family. We will help a more secure future for the World Service. In spite of the challenging financial situation we believe the World Service has a valuable and promising future and I am pleased to say that we have managed to find an additional £3 million in the last financial year to help the World Service with its restructuring costs. We have also provided £10 million for investment in new services and £13 million per annum to help it meet its share of the BBC pension deficit. These are small but concrete signs that the FCO fully supports the value and reputation of the World Service.
Several of your Lordships asked whether the Government will reconsider. I cannot say that today; I can say that we will certainly consider. Some very powerful points have been made and these will certainly be brought to the close attention of policymakers. That is what I can say today—I know it is not enough for some of your Lordships but I hope it indicates the general approach and attitude of the Government to this crucial matter.
The Government are committed to refocusing our soft power efforts to ensure an efficient, innovative and more co-ordinated approach. We are currently working on a cross-government strategy, as I have described, on how best to deliver and take advantage of the tools and assets at our disposal. The key will be that our strategy has strong enough direction so that even when unexpected events occur, as of course they have in the Middle East, our response is flexible but consistent with our broad direction and not seen as a departure from the main path forward.
Finally, we must recognise our soft power limits and order our priorities accordingly so that we are clear that we cannot intervene in every crisis and to ensure that we have the public understanding of these limits. There are many more points that I wanted to add but time has run by. Let me emphasise that by increasing the effectiveness of our considerable soft power efforts we are already adjusting to the challenges of an entirely changed world. Many commentators have rightly suggested that we are moving into an age not of soft power, not of hard power, but of smart power which is a subtle new interweave of both power deployments. In the face of major new challenges from jihadism and Islamic civil war to pandemics and climate change, from rising protectionism to nuclear proliferation, we all have to formulate a new strategy that combines all the hard and soft power facets available to us not only in government but outside government as well. The Prime Minister has labelled this the new liberal realism and the task now is to tailor our UK resources and experience to fit the new direction. I believe that the UK has all the tools at its disposal to deliver on this goal in the 21st century.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
My Lords, very briefly, I want to thank the Minister for his response and for the information he gave us to show that the Government are taking this issue seriously. I want also to thank all those who took part in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said that we would not get the headlines tomorrow. I think we can live with that because one of the purposes of the debate was to demonstrate the breadth and depth of the influence that this country can have and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said earlier, should have and should not be worried about putting forward in the future. Sometimes our history pulls us back on this and we should not be inhibited.
The debate has demonstrated the very wide range of topics that are covered here. The noble Lords, Lord Hall and Lord Smith, both gave us very good examples of the cultural and artistic dimensions and I will remember the phrase that the British Council provided that “bubble of oxygen” as well as the example the noble Lord, Lord Smith, gave us of the response of the Chinese.
We had mention of the contribution of overseas students. We could have spent more time on that, but time is always limited. I think that we enjoyed the entertaining reflections of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, on his time in the Foreign Office, which gave an insight. He mentioned the possibility of revisiting the issue of whether the Foreign Office and DfID should be split. I might be one of those who would also be interested in revisiting that question, because I am not sure that we have always got the balance of responsibilities right.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for reminding us so bluntly of the pressure on resources and some of the difficulties, for example, of the scholarship programmes, which have been so valuable in the past. I must admire my noble friend Lord Soley for getting in a mention of football before I could, which is unusual to say the least. He also reminded us that soft power is very significant in stabilisation and transition phases. We will have to give more attention to that in future.
Strong pleas, led by my noble friend Lord Fowler and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, were made throughout the debate for the BBC World Service. We understand some of the constraints on what the Minister could perhaps say this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said that no one would blame the Government for not foreseeing the situation that has now arisen in the Arab world. Many of these decisions were taken before those events. As many noble Lords have said today, it is important that the Government think again. I heard what the Minister said about the possibility of there being some difficulties with using DfID money, but I hope that those can be explored further because where there is a will, there is a way. The significance of the contribution of the BBC World Service, particularly at this moment, is so enormous that the Government will have to revisit the matter in some way.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith, said that soft power was underemphasised and underappreciated, and that we needed leadership. I think that it has been appreciated and understood. The Minister said that the debate was timely because of the work that is going on within government. I hope that the contributions today have helped him reinforce the message that soft power is important and requires co-ordination throughout government as well as with other institutions. I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. I seek leave to withdraw the Motion.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill [HL]
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, my long association with the City of London has resulted in close involvement with many legislative issues of concern to the City, but this is the first occasion on which I have sponsored a City Private Bill in your Lordships' House. It is not, however, the first occasion on which I have sponsored such a Bill, since, as the Member for the City in the other place, I introduced the City’s last private measure, the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, some 11 years ago. That Bill, to revise and extend the City’s franchise, excited a good deal of debate. When I came to this House in 2001, it still had some six months to run in the lower House. My past did not, however, catch up with me, as it were, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding had kindly agreed to take the measure through the upper House while I was still engaged with it in the other place, such was the elongation of the proceedings. The vagaries of the parliamentary timetable can have unexpected, even serendipitous, results.
By way of contrast—I think that my noble friend Lord Lucas will confirm this—this Bill is not likely to generate a similar profile. Its main aim is to deal with some deregulatory changes to local street trading legislation, balanced by more effective enforcement where this is needed. It might reasonably be described as a modest measure.
Before describing the provisions specifically, I should perhaps say a few words about the context. The character of the City in recent times—and by that I mean the past 100 years or so—has been that of a location where business flourishes but where few people reside. The figures speak for themselves. Some 300,000 people commute daily to work in the offices of the City but only some 9,000 live there, of whom around 6,500 are resident voters.
For the past century, there has been no street trading in the City, other than in a small area in the extreme east on Sundays. This is governed by the only existing City trading legislation, currently contained in the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1987. I shall address this exception to the general position slightly later in my speech. The ban reflects the City’s nature as a business district and the significant pressure created during the day by the working needs of the business community. As buildings are redeveloped and replaced by the high-rise structures that we are seeing today to meet current demands, the pressure on the highways at the busy times of day is increasing rather than reducing. That is why the changes proposed in the Bill to enable the City to issue licences to facilitate the holding of events and to increase the availability of on-street ice-cream selling are designed to address an established need in a way that will not create additional pressure or conflicts in the use of limited space.
There have been occasional events—normally at weekends, when the City is much quieter—where the City’s current blanket prohibition on street trading has presented a problem. One example was a celebration of the 800th anniversary of the first London Bridge in 2009 organised by City livery companies. I should perhaps in parentheses acknowledge the precise anniversary date to be a slightly moveable feast, as there is also evidence that the original bridge was opened by Peter de Colechurch in 1206. In any event, in 2009 the bridge was closed to facilitate the celebrations, but only those livery companies able to obtain stalls at the Southwark end of the bridge were able to sell examples of their craft to members of the public; no trading could be permitted at the City end. There is now also an increased retail presence in One New Change next to St Paul’s. Those responsible for this retail offering aim to attract shoppers to visit the City at weekends and, to do so, may wish to seek to hold special events of a promotional nature.
So far as concerns the detail of the Bill, Clauses 1 and 2 are technical and deal with citation and interpretation. Clause 3 relaxes the existing street trading prohibition currently contained in the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1987 to allow street trading for limited periods. The clause will allow the City of London Corporation to issue temporary licences, typically to enable the sort of event I have described on London Bridge. A licence may be issued to an organisation which will arrange for others to carry out the street trading under the terms of the licence. Clause 4 makes consequential amendments to the existing street trading code, and Clause 5 makes non-compliance with the terms of a temporary licence an offence. Clause 6 sets the maximum penalty for street trading offences, including non-compliance with temporary licences introduced by Clause 3, at level 3, which is currently £1,000. The penalty set under the 1987 Act is at level 2, but level 3 is now the penalty set for street trading offences in London generally.
Enforcement is also the prompt for Clause 7, which responds to the fact that the current regime has not been an effective deterrent to illegal activity. In particular, there have been recurring instances of the persistent deployment of ice-cream vans trading illegally in the City. These vans have been the source of numerous complaints from members of the public, local businesses, local schools and St Paul’s Cathedral. In 2010, acting in response to such complaints, the City brought 247 cases of illegal trading before the courts. The fines imposed on the individual traders were insufficient to deter the activity.
Clause 7 proposes two changes which would obviate the need repeatedly to bring the same person before the courts. The first is, as I have already mentioned, to increase the level of fine for illegal street trading from £500 to the level applicable elsewhere in London of £1,000. Secondly, the new enforcement powers in the clause enable the ice-cream van to be seized, a deterrent already used by the City of Westminster. The detailed provisions to introduce that second change ensure that the legitimate interests of any trader subject to such a procedure are properly taken into account. They require a court order if the vehicle is to be forfeited or disposed of and empower the court to order that the City corporation pay compensation to the trader if proceedings have not been properly brought.
I mentioned earlier the exemption to the prohibition on street trading in the City. It relates to a small part of Petticoat Lane Market. In the early 1960s, a new road scheme to Aldgate on the eastern edge of the City led to the loss of certain pitches occupied by some of the Petticoat Lane street traders in the part of Middlesex Street in Tower Hamlets. Responding to representations by the displaced traders, the City corporation agreed to accommodate them within the City. This was achieved by allowing a specific exception for a small part of Middlesex Street within the City to the general City restriction on street trading.
I can claim first-hand knowledge of that provision. In May 1983, the constituency boundaries of the Cities of London and Westminster South were due to break out for the first time from the ancient, original boundaries of the ancient cities of London and Westminster at the next election, whenever it should come. As an act of pietas, together with the chairman of the highways committee of Westminster City Council, on Rogation Sunday I walked the ancient boundaries of the two cities, which of course involved visiting Middlesex Street. I have always liked to feel that it was because news of our walk reached No. 10 that the 1983 general election was announced the next day.
The City of London (Various Powers) Act 1965, which established the exemption to which I just alluded, gave traders permission to trade for their life only, and restricted trading to a few hours on Sunday. When street trading in the City was considered again in 1987, although the code then enacted remained as generally and geographically restricted as that contained in the 1965 Act, the City was given a power to grant street trading licences in Middlesex Street to new applicants, thus ensuring that the Sunday market there would continue to thrive. The 1987 Act lays down the costs that the City may recover from market traders through charges; however, it requires the maximum figure to be set by by-law. The consequence of that somewhat outdated approach is that the weekly figure recoverable from each trader has remained unchanged since 1989 at £15. Meanwhile, those Petticoat Lane traders whose stalls are in Tower Hamlets face a weekly charge of £32. For the City to recover its allowable costs would require a £25.40 weekly fee. Clause 8 changes the arrangements for fixing the fee to bring them more in line with arrangements elsewhere in London, where a fee reflecting the cost that may be recovered is fixed following consultation with the traders.
The Bill then returns to matters relating to ice cream in Clause 9. The provision is designed to facilitate easy access to iced confectionaries, when they are in demand, by enabling such products to be sold by retailers on the highway outside their premises, provided that the appropriate consents are obtained, which require neighbouring frontagers to be consulted.
Lord Myners
My Lords, in speaking to Clause 9, can the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, explain why the distance of the ice-cream receptacle is limited to 11 metres rather than 10 or 12 metres? Eleven seems an odd figure for him to have chosen in promoting the Bill?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
I am profoundly impressed by the attention which the noble Lord, Lord Myners, has paid to the detail of the Bill. The corporation has been anxious to provide as much space as it can, given the likelihood that people who have chairs and tables outside their shops will take advantage of it. It is very good of the noble Lord to have attributed to me the decision about 11 metres, but in fact it is contained in a Bill which was formulated elsewhere.
Lord Myners
I wonder whether the noble Lord might consider this. If we extended this to a slightly longer distance, we could actually allow the distribution of ice creams on the trading floors of investment banks rather than the large bonuses that so many of us find so unpalatable.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
I am again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Myners, for lending colour to the debate, but I do think that his latest suggestion is actually outside the immediate terms.
Before leaving street trading, I should refer briefly to other local legislation on street trading before the House and the Government’s recent response to the consultation on modernising street trading and pedlar legislation. I know that this is of particular interest to my noble friend Lord Lucas. The conclusion reported in the response that the services directive applies to the retail sale of goods, including pedlary and street trading, will undoubtedly impact on the other private promotions relating to street trading which seek to impose or tighten existing regimes. However, the issues considered in the response do not impact on this Bill, which is moving in the opposite direction and seeking to facilitate trading that is currently prohibited.
I have come to my final remarks. The Bill also addresses two small deficiencies in the statutory regime governing the City’s walkways, which are paved areas dedicated by developers for public access. The first change enables the City to recover its costs from developers for resolutions relating to walkways as it can when dealing with other applications to vary rights of passage. The second would facilitate the civil enforcement of parking offences on walkways, bringing them into line with arrangements on the highway.
This is a modest Bill containing a number of small but important provisions relating to the specific circumstances of the City. I therefore ask noble Lords to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, easy access to ice cream is something that I would appreciate at the moment, but sadly we are outside the City of London, if not the City of Westminster, so this Bill has no effect on that. I congratulate my noble friend on the Bill and I am entirely happy with its provisions, but I want to encourage the City, through him, to continue in this direction and to do better, and I want to encourage the Government to pick up on their excellent reply to the consultation process and commit to taking that further soon.
At a time when we are bumping along the bottom of a recession, or whatever we appear to be doing, it is incumbent on every public authority to look for ways that give people opportunities to get going in business, to start up in a small way and thus begin to build the new businesses of the future. Many great businesses, including that run by the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, Marks and Spencer and a number of others, started out as individual enterprises just selling goods door to door or from a market stall. However, over the past 10 years or so we have seen a succession of local authority Bills that have sought to restrict the ability of people to engage in these activities—to, as it were, keep the streets clean and tidy and empty rather than having them as places of commerce. There is a misconception that having worthwhile stalls and street traders around drives punters away and keeps them out of the shops, thereby reducing a town or city’s revenue. I think that that is entirely mistaken.
My noble friend Lord Brooke referred to the narrowness of the City thoroughfares and how crowded they are at lunchtime. I worked in the City for 12 years and in many cases I would agree with him, but there are well-established open spaces in the City, albeit not large ones, that are never crowded. There are little patches near the churches, the area outside the Guildhall and the area to the south of St Paul’s towards the bridge. We do not have to have vast street markets, but to make use of little opportunities, particularly in places like the City, where there are so many potential customers who are so well paid. Let us take those bonuses—here, I share the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Myners, to them—by getting people to spend them on recreating something of a real economy in this country by buying goods that have been designed and made here by companies that are based here.
People start with little operations and finding somewhere to sell and promote items. The City has control, and I guess that if it put its mind to the matter it could find sites for 100 stalls. Remembering my time as a City worker, I would be delighted to pass one or two of them on my way to and from a sandwich. My wife, or whomever else I was giving a present to at the time—I am looking back to my time as a bachelor in the City—would be delighted if I came home with products from one of these stalls.
It is incumbent on the City to look at things in this way. It not only has to play its part in its own health and in the health of the bankers, insurance agents and others who fill it but has to provide opportunities for others to build businesses and to flourish because of its unique assets. That applies to the City of Westminster and other prosperous areas of London. As my noble friend said, the City of London has been uniquely deficient in street trading and it is time that was remedied. I am delighted that it is taking this small step and I very much hope that it will proceed to take it further. It would be to the benefit of us all if it did.
Turning to the Government’s reply to the consultation, I am grateful to noble Lords opposite for having started this consultation when they were in power. I am delighted that it has come to such an elegant conclusion. Pedlary should be free of restrictions, and people should be able to get out and sell goods door to door or move around the streets without an established place. It seems to me to be a correct interpretation, both of the European law as it stands and of our philosophy, that people should be free to go out and make a business and a life for themselves. We should encourage that. I very much hope that my noble friend will confirm that this is a conclusion that the Government intend to take forward into legislation at a reasonably early date. It is not a large affair and I am sure it could be tagged on to something else. I would not expect it to have a Bill of its own, but I hope that it will not be left to languish.
I am also grateful for what the consultation response says about street trading and the lifting of some of the restrictions to which that has been subjected by local Bills. It is important to get this moving now and to open up these opportunities. We need to look at how to encourage people who are currently on benefits or who are unemployed to get out and start trading in little ways. Many such people are very capable traders, and to barter and to deal is in their blood. We need to offer them the opportunity and space to do that. We do not need to wait for a couple of years until the back end of the Government and a thin legislative programme to put this through; we need to grant people this freedom now. I very much hope that my noble friend will say that the Government are looking forward to make early progress on this. I look forward to helping her in any way that I can.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for introducing this Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for adding so much detail to it. The Bill is produced by a distinguished former Member of Parliament for the City of London. My only connection with the City is that I spent the first seven years of my working life in Ironmonger Lane opposite the Guildhall working for a firm of chartered accountants, and I also spent many years on the City of London Corporation committee managing Hampstead Heath and Parliament Hill Fields.
I would like to deal with some of the detail in the Bill. Clause 10, on City walkways, calls for a crackdown on parking a vehicle on or over a footway. When the noble Baroness replies, I would like her to say whether this means, as in many other local authorities, that a vehicle can park with two wheels on the outer kerbstones. There is a difference and it would be very interesting to know whether the City of London Corporation has considered that, or whether it is over the whole of the footway. As both previous speakers have said, the City also consists of very narrow streets, and in certain circumstances it may be necessary to park on the footway, even with the parking restrictions that are there. This may harm many traders in that particular area. In outer London—I am not saying this is the right thing; in fact I do not like it—many of the boroughs have organised parking on the footway, with an official order allowing that. I think it is horrific, but it gets the cars off the streets when the street is narrow and the footway has some depth to it.
I would also like to talk about Clause 9, the item on ice cream which has excited so such interest in this Chamber. First, I would like to deal with the statistics—the noble Lord, Lord Myners, talks about why there is the threshold of 11 metres. The parliamentary writers of the Explanatory Notes obviously had difficulty with the number 11, because they have actually used the number 15 in the Explanatory Notes and refer to 15 metres rather than 11 metres. I rather suspect the 11 is something to do with 99, which I believe is an ice cream, and they go in those sort of numbers.
It says in the clause that it is not street trading if it is undertaken from a “receptacle”—wonderful word—located within 15 metres, or “11 metres” as the actual Bill says, of the trader’s premises. I worry about this because 11 metres—or 15 metres, whichever it may be—is a fair distance from the shop. It represents quite an element of street clutter and flies directly in the face of the Mayor of London—of Greater London, not the City of London—who is very much in favour of decluttering the streets. Indeed, if you go to outer London boroughs, where I am still a councillor, and to many other places, you will find that many local authorities charge a licence fee for putting items like boards on the street. That is not to help the customer, but to bring in income, and it is something that worries me.
Reverting back to the important matter of ice cream, we really need to watch the quality of the ice cream—and it really is a serious matter—sold by the shops and street traders, whether in vans or receptacles. Visitors to the City of London, and in Westminster as well, find the prices and the quality vary; people complain of ice creams containing 90 per cent water. This is an area where the tourists come to as part of the London experience; but the ice cream in London is not quite the experience of a gelato in other parts of Europe.
The fightback against rip-off Britain, whether it is ice creams or anything else, is missing from the Bill. It particularly should not happen in the City, which I see as the showcase for the nation. In this Bill, the City is actually leading in a fightback against restrictions in a very positive way. The Bill actually eases matters for a variety of reasons—probably a good thing—which is against what other local authorities are doing, as they are actually tightening up in many ways. With the loosening of the restrictions comes a responsibility for keeping the highways and the footways tidy and clean. Sadly, people who travel and who walk and drive around in our environment have a habit of throwing things down on the street; even more so when there is street trading. That must be looked at. I think the City, with its very narrow streets, should be careful about being too restrictive, as well as opening up matters.
Bridges were mentioned. I was disappointed not to see a mention in the Bill of what many developers are doing in developing town centres around the country. I had a meeting with a developer the other day, and the words used were “living bridges”. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mentioned Southwark bridge. There is no reason why a bridge that is wide enough should not have small traders in small shops or cubicles across that bridge, making it into a living bridge, as happens in many cities, such as Florence and Rome.
As was said in a previous debate, this Bill may not make the headlines tomorrow, but it is an important move forward.
Lord Myners
My Lords, I seize the opportunity to speak in the gap in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, described as a modest Bill, to express the hope that the Government will support it, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested.
The Bill facilitates the reintroduction of street trading into the City of London, bringing the colour and vitality of which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, spoke so eloquently. Importantly, it fosters a sense of community in the City. I was chairman of Land Securities when it commissioned the development at New Change at the junction of Cheapside and St Paul’s. We intentionally commissioned a programme with narrow alleyways and squares to recreate the sense of the City as a community and a vibrant area. Today I had lunch in Bow Lane, one of the narrow alleyways; then I went off to smoke my Cohiba in the square in front of the Guildhall. Therefore, I recognise fully what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggests about the potential in the City to create a more lively community.
I support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, in connection with the critical issue of ice creams in Clause 9, which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will have to focus on as the Bill makes its way through Parliament. There are clearly strong views on the subject of ice creams; I do not speak with the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, but my aspiration will be that we should not rest until we all enjoy a lolly of the same size as Mr Bob Diamond.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, what a fascinating place the House of Lords is, with its range of issues and topics. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on introducing this matter at this stage. He gave us an excellent synopsis of the Bill and some fascinating history.
I share the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who I knew would rise to this occasion, having experienced his contributions in a previous debate on the subject of pedlary. I was tempted to declare a conflict of interest on pedlary, but my pedalling has two Ls rather than one, so I decided that it was unnecessary.
There was a point that I wanted to ask the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, to address when he replied. The Bill refers to complying with the European convention, but it is silent on whether the Bill actually complies with the European directive, which was of course the subject of the consultation document. I, too, congratulate the Government on keeping up the good work started previously. The consultation document is excellent.
The Bill is laudable and the intentions are genuine but, as we know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions—and the word “paved”, if noble Lords will pardon the pun, might be appropriate in these circumstances. I could not help noticing in the executive summary of the consultation document that it says that to,
“ensure the continued freedom of pedlars to trade, and to prevent re-regulation by another route, we intend to amend the current general exemption from street trading regulation for certified pedlars by clearly defining the exempted mode of trade”,
as well as withdrawing the necessity for certification. It then said,
“This should ensure that pedlars are generally free to trade and not subject to the street trading regime. It will also aid local authority enforcement of illegal street trading by enabling them to establish more quickly when traders are not trading as pedlars”.
I hope it is right in that optimistic assessment because I must admit that when you go through the responses to the consultation document, what is interesting is the variety of responses even among pedlars themselves. For instance, what constitutes a trolley, whether it has ice cream in it or not, since they vary considerably in size? There is an importance to that because in some cases, if it gets to be too large, the question is whether they are really pedlars and mobile in their trade or static street traders. Although we might be considering a somewhat arcane and obscure thing today, I am sure it will eventually have some legal interpretation.
In short, I share the enthusiasm expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and by my noble friend Lord Myners about encouraging people to provide what can be, at its best, a very valuable service and is, for many people, a first-stage entrepreneurial experience. The secret with legislation, however, is in getting the balance right because we know that there will be examples of exploitation going on. Although for many this area will perhaps seem to be of minor importance, I feel sure that the impact will be quite wide-ranging. To conclude, I broadly welcome the legislation. I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, could address the question of whether he feels that the proposed legislation complies with the directive—a view which seems to be doubted in the consultation document.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, I have listened with interest to the debate this afternoon. Having learnt about noble Lords’ views on this Bill I am pleased, as my department’s representative in the House, to respond to this debate on the Government’s behalf. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville brought history alive and put flesh on the bones of his Bill, my noble friend Lord Lucas encouraged the use of little opportunities to start little businesses for the future, and my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill talked about clutter and ice creams and the City of London as a showcase of renown. Then the noble Lord, Lord Myners, leapt into the gap with his support, as did the noble Lord, Lord Young, in whose time this all started.
I am happy to respond to my noble friend Lord Lucas by committing to take forward the response to the consultation on street trading and pedlary. I generally support his call for more local product sales. We are committed to following on from the recommendations from the consultation on pedlary as soon as possible and are hoping to consult on specific measures by the end of this year.
As your Lordships know, this is a private Bill and therefore one that traditionally the Government neither support nor oppose unless for some reason it contains provisions that are contrary to public policy—in which case, I understand, it is the Government’s role to bring such matters to the attention of the House. The House will be aware that in January I reported favourably on the assessment carried out by the promoters of the Bill of its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. My department has now had a further opportunity to consider the content of the Bill, and I take this opportunity to report to the House that certain elements of it give cause for concern as to their compatibility with the provisions of the European Union services directive, should the Bill progress.
Of prime interest to my responsibilities are the proposed amendments to allow the City to license temporarily a wider range of street traders than it currently does. This Bill has emerged against the background of the Government’s work to assess the need to change and modernise street trader and pedlar licensing and certification. Some of your Lordships will be aware that the Government have recently published their response to a detailed consultation that draws on the views of stakeholders involved in street trading and pedlary legislation in the United Kingdom. In addition to reflecting on the views of stakeholders who responded, it had also become necessary for my department to consider the impact of the European services directive on authorisation schemes such as the licensing of street traders and the certification of pedlars.
As retailers of goods are deemed to be service providers within the scope of the directive, limitations on their activities in the form of authorisation schemes must be justifiable within the terms of the directive. They must be justifiable in respect of both service providers that are already established in the UK and those from other member states that might wish to provide services on a temporary basis within the UK—maybe even making ice cream. The Government’s response sets out our analysis of the effects of the application of the services directive to retail services and these authorisation schemes. It concludes that we must make some changes to ensure compliance with the directive.
I shall take this opportunity to outline our main proposals. There are a number of changes that we consider necessary, and we intend to consult on draft regulations to implement them later in the year. The areas for consultation are: the amendment of parts of the existing street trading licensing regimes to bring them into line with the directive; repeal of the Pedlars Acts and the certification of pedlars as a deregulatory measure; and the removal of provisions in private or local Acts and in devolved regimes that make certain pedlars subject to street trading regimes, which is also a deregulatory measure.
To ensure the continued freedom of pedlars to trade, and to prevent reregulation by another route, we intend to amend the current general exemption from street trading regulation for certified pedlars by more clearly defining the exempted mode of trade. This should ensure that pedlars are generally free to trade and are not subject to the street trading regime. This should also aid local authority enforcement of illegal street trading by enabling local authorities to establish more quickly when traders are not trading as pedlars.
The full publication, which is available on the BIS website and in the House Library, sets out our proposals for change and our general analysis of the effects of the services directive in more detail than I can give today in the context of this debate. I hope that noble Lords will choose to take some time to look at the response document, and at the consultation document when that is published later.
My noble friend Lord Brooke mentioned the European services directive, and I address that now. I mentioned that the Bill gives rise to some concern about compatibility with the services directive, and I shall outline briefly what those elements are. All local authorities that seek to apply authorisation schemes on street traders will already be aware that they must do so in accordance with the provisions of the directive, as implemented in the UK by the Provision of Services Regulations 2009. Where there are provisions in existing regimes that might be applied in a way that is not compatible with the directive, it is for the local authority to ensure that they are not so applied.
In general, authorisation schemes and specific elements of them must be justifiable in their application to service providers already established in the UK, and in their application to those who wish to provide their services on a temporary basis in the UK. In respect of those established in the UK, authorisation schemes, and the specific elements of them, need to be shown to be non-discriminatory and necessary because of overriding reasons related to the public interest. It also needs to be shown that the objectives cannot be met by less restrictive means—that is, that they are proportionate.
In respect of authorisation schemes that apply to temporary providers from other member states—for example, those who might come to the UK to test the market here—the grounds on which such authorisation schemes can be justified are much more limited. Local authorities need to show that the application of such schemes can be justified based on one of only four available grounds: public policy, public security, public health or the protection of the environment. The application of such a scheme must also be non-discriminatory and proportionate. In this context, our view is that the most likely available justification to local authorities will be that of public safety, where such a case can be established. This fundamental difference in available justifications in respect of established and temporary service providers has led the Government to conclude, in our work on the national street trader regime, that it is probably necessary, at least in part, to have a regime that treats each one differently where necessary.
As to the current Bill, our concerns relate to the elements that might not be able to be applied in a way that is compatible with the directive. Clause 3 contains proposals whereby the City would be able to grant temporary licences to trade for up to a maximum of 21 days. Time limitations on authorisation are not banned by the directive, but they must be justifiable in respect of established service providers and temporary providers. It is not clear in the Bill that it is possible to justify such a limit in all cases. The promoters’ stated purpose for these licences—that the intention is to permit trading only in respect of short-term properly defined events—might aid them in framing a justification for these limitations or perhaps in better framing the restriction, but further consideration is necessary.
The second element of the Bill that I would draw to the attention of the House is that concerning the fees chargeable to temporary licence applicants in Clause 3. This provision allows the City to charge such fees as it may determine to cover the reasonable administrative costs or other costs incurred by the Corporation in connection with its functions. However, the directive limits the charges payable under an authorisation scheme, providing that they must be proportionate to the cost of administering such a scheme. They should not in any event exceed that cost. Although strictly speaking the Corporation is not therefore allowed to charge more in respect of an authorisation scheme than is permitted by the directive, noble Lords might consider, for reasons of legal clarity, whether this should be put beyond doubt in the Bill.
The final element of the Bill that I should mention is Clause 9, which relates to permitting the sale of ice cream, using an approved container, outside premises. One effect of this approval system, as currently presented in the Bill, is to permit only occupiers of premises within the City to sell ice cream on the street, albeit within 11 metres of those premises. This, in the view of my department, is likely to be considered indirectly discriminatory against temporary service providers who, by definition, have no established premises in the United Kingdom. The directive prohibits measures that are discriminatory, either directly or indirectly. We suggest that the promoters should rethink these provisions in relation to temporary service providers.
Noble Lords will have noted that the coalition Government want to see all retail businesses, including those operated by licensed street traders, thrive over the coming months as the United Kingdom economy grows. We applaud measures that are good for business and encourage entrepreneurship at all levels. Extending opportunities to licensed traders in the City of London is certainly aligned with the Government’s desire to encourage opportunities for growth. We do not believe that the issues mentioned above are by any means insurmountable.
I am pleased that there has been much of interest in this debate, and to have been able to make a contribution from the Government’s perspective. I know that noble Lords are far-sighted and might recognise that the contents of this Private Member’s Bill not only reflect issues of interest to the residents of and visitors to the City of London but lead us to reflect on the wider developments in street trading and pedlary policy, which will be part of my department’s work into the summer. I hope all stakeholders with an interest in these areas—noble Lords and interested Members of the other place who have been active in the consideration of other private street trading Bills—will choose to get involved in shaping that future landscape. We can all play our part in helping to achieve the large-scale regrowth of the economy, which in a localised way the promoters of the City of London Bill would apparently like to see achieved on a smaller scale within their authority.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I cordially thank all colleagues in your Lordships' House who have taken part in this debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on picking up the reference to 15 metres as against 11. As I deliberately handed the credit for the figures in the Bill to the Corporation, by definition I cannot take any credit for the fact that this magical and instantaneous concession to the noble Lord, Lord Myners, has been achieved in the course of this Second Reading, but I am sure that the Corporation will be grateful.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his speech and his observations about the Bill. I concur with his comment about the number of open spaces in the City and the fact that there are opportunities available therein to be able to expand at some stage in the future what has already been done. I well remember the campaign waged by that remarkable property developer Fred Cleary, of Haslemere Estates, who I think was chairman of the Metropolitan Water Trust Society, and who sought to quadruple the number of gardens in the City by increasing the number of flowerboxes and using the water troughs for flowers since there were no longer horses that wished to drink from them. He was successful and his efforts had a highly beneficial effect on the look of the City. One of the pleasures of the City of London is that there are plenty of people around—it is a miniature version of the big society—who want to make it a more congenial and agreeable place in which to work. I am sure that the Remembrancer of the City of London—a post which has existed since 1571—will take note of the various suggestions which my noble friend Lord Lucas made about further extensions.
I will not necessarily answer the questions asked me by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in exactly the order in which he asked them but I will deal first with parking. It is an issue with which I have some parliamentary familiarity, as one of the facets of being an inner-city MP, whereby you have only 75,000 voters but cover an area where the best part of a million people come to work every day, is that if they get into trouble with the parking authorities—in my case, in either part of my constituency—they do not know who to write to, and by definition they do not know the councillors concerned. However, what they do know is that the constituency has a Member of Parliament. Therefore, I had to handle a large number of complaints, which came in from all over the home counties, on the part of people who had been tested by the parking disciplines.
A professional photographer from Norfolk took enormous care always to photograph his car, wherever he parked it, when he came to London on professional business in order to have an absolutely cast-iron defence, whichever parking authority took him to the courts. I am delighted to say that when this problem was pointed out to the Corporation of London and it was warned that some people were photographing their cars to make sure that they were not committing an offence, every single parking official in the City of London was issued with a camera so that every time they administered a charge they had physical proof that the person had parked outside the space involved. As regards the specific question that the noble Lord asked, Section 15(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 enables civil enforcement against a vehicle parked partly or wholly on the pavement in the City and elsewhere in London. Clause 10 will extend such civil enforcement to vehicles parked on city walkways that may be some distance from the highway. It does not change the position for vehicles parked on the pavement.
The issue of the distance from the frontage of an establishment selling iced confectionery has already been dwelt on, unless the noble Lord wishes to press it. As to the quality of the ice cream being offered, which clearly plays a role in making the City an attractive destination to tourists—in addition those who work there, as the noble Lord, Lord Myners, mentioned—the provisions of the Bill will not directly impact on the quality of the ice cream; however, the ability to effectively enforce action against rogue traders who often overcharge for their product, together with the increased sale of ice cream by premises that fall within the remit of the City’s food safety officers, should result in standards increasing.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, who was generally friendly towards the Bill, asked about the directive. It was, of course, a subject addressed by my noble friend Lady Wilcox. I am sure that, just as with the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about further extensions to the City’s liberality, the noble Lord, Lord Young, will have taken note of what she said about the directive. Her department was consulted on the contents of the Bill before deposit and made no comments, other than to draw attention to, first, the need to ensure that any authorisation scheme complied with the services directive and, secondly, the general review that the Government are undertaking and the likely consequent need for change to some local Acts. On the basis of that, it could be said that the Government were keeping their cards fairly close to their chest, and the test may well come hereafter. At any rate, the issue has been attended to and looked at.
I will bring these remarks to a conclusion. I began my opening speech by referring to the last City of London Bill that I sponsored before entering your Lordships' House. I shall end the debate by referring to the first such Bill that I dealt with in the 1978-79 Session of Parliament, now a third of a century ago, which concerned Epping Forest and the then proposed M25 motorway. The City of London Corporation, acting as conservators of the forest, fought a long campaign to protect it, as it had in the 19th century when the forest acted as the green lung for London's East End. The Bill was the culmination of the campaign and settled an agreed route, with tunnelling to preserve the natural aspect of the forest.
It is perhaps worth reflection that among the greatest supporters of the City of London Corporation during the passage of the Bill were the then Members for Newham North West, Arthur Lewis—whom some noble Lords will remember—and for Harlow, Stan Newens. Noble Lords might reasonably think that such veterans of the Labour movement would not be the City of London Corporation's greatest admirers, yet great tributes were paid to the Corporation for what Arthur Lewis repeatedly described in the Official Report, 6 March 1979, cols. 1202-05, as the excellent job the City did in the public interest. For connoisseurs of the East End’s political history, I warmly commend these four columns of debate. Arthur Lewis in particular was so dedicated a constituency Member that, in order to test the security provisions on the urban transportation of irradiated fuel through his constituency, he once turned up at his local station in battle dress. His commendation of the Corporation of the City of London was particularly appreciated in the square mile.
In approaching the regulation of street trading and seeking to accommodate competing needs in a measured way, I venture to observe that the City is continuing to adopt the same approach in this Bill as Arthur Lewis attributed to it in 1979. I hope that these provisions commend themselves to the House. I beg to move.