House of Commons

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

Monday 9 May 2011

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

1. What progress has been made on the Government’s action plan for ending violence against women and girls; and if she will make a statement.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

4. What progress has been made on the Government’s action plan for ending violence against women and girls; and if she will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)]

The action plan on tackling violence against women and girls was published on 8 March this year, and we have already delivered in several areas. We have provided more than £28 million of stable Home Office funding until 2015 for local specialist services, £900,000 of which has been made available until 2015 to support national helplines, and we have implemented legislation on multi-agency domestic homicide reviews after every domestic murder.

[Andrea Leadsom]

In the light of our terrible economic position, will my hon. Friend reassure me that the vital work being done by women’s refuges in Northampton will not be cut?

[Lynne Featherstone]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of women’s refuges. The Home Office has sent out a loud and clear message to local authorities by ring-fencing stable funding of £28 million and by saying to them, “You should do the same. These are not soft targets.” It would be a great shame if Northampton council chose to ignore that message.

[Jane Ellison]

Further to the Minister’s reply, will she respond specifically on female genital mutilation, which is a significant problem in this country as well as in the developing world? The Metropolitan police are taking it very seriously, but hundreds of women in London alone present every year with appalling complications associated with pregnancy and childbirth. Can we make this matter a priority, and work with all the agencies and charities to eliminate this abominable practice?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with my hon. Friend—female genital mutilation is a brutal act of child abuse. On 24 February, I launched new multi-agency practice guidelines to raise awareness of FGM. One important symptom that I imagine hon. Members and others do not know of is that girls can be absent when they go to the toilet for a long time—say, 30 minutes. It is important that teachers and nurses understand that, and that we all highlight such symptoms.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

Specialist police domestic violence units have saved lives and improved the way in which police forces handle domestic violence across their force areas. What pressure is the Minister bringing to bear across Government so that chief constables are encouraged to protect those vital front-line services?

[Lynne Featherstone]

The message we continually send to forces throughout the country is the importance of supporting the sector and taking action on domestic violence, and I hope chief constables are listening today.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I press the Minister on domestic violence? I chair Chrysalis, the Liverpool domestic violence charity, and Merseyside police force is one of a number that have cut their domestic violence units. Will the Home Office intervene to ensure funding so that forces such as Merseyside can have domestic violence units?

[Lynne Featherstone]

The Government’s message is loud and clear, but, as I said, it is up to the local chief constable on the ground. I hope chief constables are listening to that important message, which the hon. Gentleman is right to raise.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Is the Minister aware of a campaign with which I am involved to introduce changes to the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 in respect of cyber-stalking? Many young women and girls are terrified by what is happening to them day after day and the law needs changing. Will the Minister meet a small group to discuss where the law is failing and where we need to put it right?

[Lynne Featherstone]

The Government recognise people’s concerns about the legal definition of stalking—cyber-stalking or stalking in other contexts—and about how the 1997 Act is applied. I am happy to meet the group that the right hon. Gentleman mentions.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

2. What recent steps she has taken to increase the accountability of police forces to the public.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill will establish directly elected police and crime commissioners in every police area in England and Wales. They will hold police forces to account on behalf of the public and so strengthen the vital link between the public and the police.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Given recent moves to ensure that actions are available to constituents when MPs commit wrongdoings, is such an option being considered in respect of elected police commissioners?

[Mrs May]

I assure my hon. Friend that any police and crime commissioner who is convicted of an imprisonable offence, regardless of whether they are sentenced to a term of imprisonment, will be disqualified from their post. I think that that answers his question.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does the Home Secretary plan to listen to the Deputy Prime Minister and delay the introduction of police and crime commissioners?

[Mrs May]

Starting on Wednesday, when the House of Lords Committee stage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill begins, there will be proper and due consideration of every aspect of the Bill. However, it is our intention that police and crime commissioners will be introduced across England and Wales.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Accountability of police forces to the public is essential, but so are robust checks and balances to challenge the actions of any commissioner who exceeds their powers or seeks to interfere in operational policing matters. Will the Home Secretary consider seriously the request from the other place that the new accountability arrangements be piloted and the checks and balances strengthened?

[Mrs May]

As I said in response to the previous question, there will be proper and careful consideration of all these issues as the Bill goes through Committee and its further stages in the House of Lords. I am aware that issues have been raised about the police and crime panels and how they use properly the checks and balances in place to hold police and crime commissioners to account. It is our intention to introduce commissioners across England and Wales.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will know that on the Bill’s Third Reading five weeks ago we called on the Government to stop and think about the plans for police and crime commissioners, given the deep concerns about the lack of checks and balances in this American-style reform, but she refused. She will have heard Liberal Democrat Front Benchers’ plea to listen. The Deputy Prime Minister has now said that he supports pilots first, his parliamentary aide said this morning that this is the key area, in addition to the NHS, on which Liberal Democrats want to see changes, and Liberal Democrat peers are proposing a two or three-year pause for proper pilots to take place. Will the Home Secretary tell the House whether she is indeed listening, and whether she will consider amending the Bill to introduce pilots first?

[Mrs May]

I have to tell the right hon. Lady, after that lengthy question, that I answered the point about our intention regarding pilots in response to the previous two questions. I gently remind her that this is not an idea of which we have no experience: the Labour Government made the Mayor of London responsible for overseeing the Metropolitan police and therefore acting as a pilot for police and crime commissioners.

[Yvette Cooper]

So this, it seems, is the Home Secretary’s answer to the Liberal Democrats: they have done a pilot and it was the Mayor of London. In fact, as she will know, the Mayor of London works under a completely different arrangement, and I am not sure that the Liberal Democrats will see that as the Prime Minister’s so-called listening mode. These American-style plans concentrate considerable policing power in the hands of one person without putting in place the proper checks and balances. They are opposed by crime and policing experts and are deeply illiberal and not very British. The Deputy Prime Minister says he wants to hear a louder Liberal Democrat voice. It sounds like they are shouting, but she is not listening. The so-called new business relationship is just business as usual: the Conservatives take the decisions, the Liberal Democrats take the blame.

[Mrs May]

It was a coalition agreement commitment that we would introduce directly elected individuals to oversee police forces and to hold them to account, and that there would be proper checks and balances. Far from there not being proper checks and balances, as the right hon. Lady suggests, the police and crime panels will provide real checks and balances to the police and crime commissioner. Perhaps she needs to speak to the shadow policing Minister, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who a couple of years ago said that

“only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical”.

We agree with him.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

3. What estimate she has made of the likely effect of her policy on student visas on the number of visas issued in the 12 months following its implementation.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

The policy will be fully implemented by the end of 2012. From then on, the estimated reduction is about 70,000 main applicant visas a year, plus a further reduction in student dependants of about 20,000.

[John Howell]

I thank the Minister for that response. Will he add to it by telling us what responses he has received from universities on the student visa changes?

[Damian Green]

This is an important point because when we proposed this radical change the universities were understandably worried. Following our announcement, however, we have received overwhelmingly positive feedback from the university sector. Indeed, Universities UK has said that the reforms

“will allow British universities to remain at the forefront of international student recruitment.”

I am delighted that the policy has been so welcomed by the sector.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

In view of the importance of overseas students to the finances of British universities and to the wider UK economy, does the Minister agree with the Home Affairs Committee that students should not be counted within migration numbers?

[Damian Green]

The problem with the approach of the Home Affairs Committee, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I always take very seriously, is that this is not my definition or the Government’s definition; it is an international United Nations definition that an immigrant is someone who moves to and settles in a country for more than a year. Any attempt to solve the immigration crisis that the Government inherited simply by changing the definitions would not be credible with the British public. People know that we have an immigration problem, and they want stern, robust action to be taken to solve it. That is what the Government are providing, and it is much more effective than changing definitions.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that, according to a number of stories, in addition to bogus colleges, there are colleges that engage in corrupt practices such as asking students for money in return for certificates? Will the Government take steps to crack down on those colleges as well, as they are often licensed by the Home Office?

[Damian Green]

Indeed we will. My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is about not just bogus colleges colluding with bogus students but bogus colleges conning would-be genuine students, both of which need to be stamped out. In the past 12 months we have revoked 21 tier 4-sponsored licences and suspended more than 70. We are also increasing our enforcement activities to drive out the widespread abuses we have found.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary and the immigration Minister have told us that the policy of reducing the number of student visas is an integral part of their overall policy to reduce net migration by tens of thousands by 2015, but the reality is that the policy is in tatters. The Home Secretary and the Minister say that that is the policy, but the Business Secretary and the Lib Dems say that it is not. The Prime Minister said recently:

“No ifs, no buts. That’s a promise we made to the British people.”

Will that promise be kept, given the agenda and proposals on visitors and relatives, and will he get the Lib Dems’ agreement?

[Damian Green]

I think there was a question in the middle of that. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that we will of course meet our commitment to reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament. If he is going to talk about confusion, he should talk to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who said that immigration was coming down in the last years of the Labour Government, although the figures that we have published show that it was going up. The points-based system without a limit was not solving the immigration crisis that her Government created, and this Government are taking effective action across the board that will resolve the crisis that we inherited.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

5. What steps she plans to take to increase links between police forces and local communities.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

14. What steps she plans to take to increase links between police forces and local communities.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

Reconnecting the police with the communities they serve is at the heart of our police reforms. Regular beat meetings and new local crime maps are already enabling communities to hold their local police to account. We will build on this through the introduction of police and crime commissioners, providing an even more visible and accountable link between the police and the public.

[Christopher Pincher]

Sir Robert Peel, who founded the police force and represented Tamworth, said that the police needed to ensure that they had public support to perform their duties. That is as true today as it was in the 1830s. Will my hon. Friend congratulate Staffordshire police on doing just that? By cutting their back office and reorganising their organisation, they have been able to ensure that front-line services are not cut.

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Staffordshire police is a very good example of a force that has taken the decision to make savings while protecting neighbourhood policing. In so doing, it is ensuring the continuation of that visible presence that the public value.

[Mr Burley]

Under the current system, only 7% of the public understand that they can approach a police authority if they are dissatisfied with the standard of service provided. Will my hon. Friend outline what he is doing to improve this democratic deficit in police governance and end Labour’s woeful legacy on police complaints?

[Nick Herbert]

I agree: we are strengthening the police complaints system, while also proposing to strengthen police accountability through a democratic reform. Police authorities are invisible to the public. That will change when directly elected police and crime commissioners are elected by the people who will be able to hold their force to account; at the same time, the operational independence of chief constables will be protected.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that Avon and Somerset police have had a difficult job recently in having to police disturbances in the city of Bristol. What help can the Department give that force as it tries to rebuild relationships with the community? More particularly, the cost of the policing operation over the bank holiday period was astronomical, so will any help be available for the force to cope with it?

[Nick Herbert]

We of course support the action the police took to uphold the rule of law. I particularly want to pay tribute to officers who were injured: violence against anybody is unacceptable, but it is totally unacceptable when it is used against police officers, and I am sure that the whole House will wish to support the police in their action. There are established procedures whereby forces can apply if they have incurred exceptional costs, and I am sure this force will know how to do so.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

My borough has been privileged to have an outstanding team of safer neighbourhood sergeants, who provide consistent contact with local communities, yet we are told that it is those sergeants who are most likely to be cut as the number of London police is reduced. Will the Minister assure me that safer neighbourhood sergeants, who take the lead in local communities in bringing the police and the public together, will be protected?

[Nick Herbert]

The hon. Lady knows that these decisions are taken by the commissioner of the Met, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Mayor, and the Mayor has said that he wishes to begin recruiting again to maintain officer numbers and to protect safer neighbourhood teams. The force proposes to share sergeants between some of the smaller boroughs; that is a matter for them as they seek to ensure value for money and to keep officers on the streets, where the public want to see them.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

6. What plans she has to assist local communities in tackling antisocial behaviour.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

7. What plans she has to assist local communities in tackling antisocial behaviour.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

9. What plans she has to assist local communities in tackling antisocial behaviour.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

15. What plans she has to assist local communities in tackling antisocial behaviour.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

Alongside our proposed reforms to police and partners’ powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, we plan to give communities the right to force agencies to take action where they have failed to do so. Elected police and crime commissioners, and street level crime maps, will also increase the focus on the issues that matter most to local people.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the Minister for that response, but seek assurances on what the Government are doing to help ensure that persistent antisocial behaviour is dealt with by local authorities, the police and other agencies, and in particular on how the Government plan to support existing schemes such as Test Valley borough council’s CREW—community respect and environment week—initiative.

[James Brokenshire]

Clearly, antisocial behaviour is, at its core, a local issue, so it lends itself to local solutions. As 10,000 incidents are reported every day, I doubt whether any Member will not have a constituency case that touches on the subject. The powers on which we are consulting until 17 May are very much about local communities and equipping local agencies to deal with the problems they see, trusting their judgment to get on with the job.

[Julian Sturdy]

Further to the Minister’s response, how will constituents in my York Outer constituency be able to use the proposed community triggers to force police authorities and local councils to tackle antisocial behaviour?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the proposal on which we are consulting, which aims to enable communities to ensure that the police and local councils come together to respond to complaints that perhaps are not being addressed effectively. This is a positive way to deliver action, responding to the problems of antisocial behaviour in communities. We think that this is an important reform and we propose to take it forward.

[Gavin Williamson]

What additional programmes will be introduced to stop perpetrators of antisocial behaviour bringing misery to communities that just want safe streets and the rule of law and order?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes his point very well. We have been working closely with the housing Minister to ensure stronger powers to evict those who are most responsible for antisocial behaviour on housing estates. There must be proper deterrents to ensure that relief is given to hard-pressed communities that are suffering as a result of such behaviour.

[Brandon Lewis]

The police in Great Yarmouth have done excellent work in preventing antisocial behaviour by early intervention with voluntary local groups such as the Kickz project. Does the Minister agree that such intervention can have a hugely beneficial impact, and will that be reflected in the new proposals?

[James Brokenshire]

I congratulate the communities in my hon. Friend’s constituency on the practical measures they are taking to prevent antisocial behaviour. When interventions, orders and sanctions are required, it is important that they can be obtained speedily. As that has not happened in the past, the need for the police and local authorities to be able to secure the orders they require quickly is at the core of our proposals.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Fiona Pilkington and her daughter committed suicide after suffering years of abuse from youths in Leicestershire. As the Minister will recall, the inquest jury noted that they had contacted the police 33 times, but that no link had been made between the complaints that had been made. The Government are rightly examining police performance. Will the Minister assure the House that this issue will remain a priority? The only way of preventing such tragedies is to ensure an immediate and serious police response.

[James Brokenshire]

I agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman. We have taken practical measures with police forces around the country to ensure that when complaints are made issues of vulnerability and repeat calls are picked up quickly, and so that tragic cases such as that of Fiona Pilkington can be identified much more efficiently and effectively. The provision of that practical relief is an important part of the changes we are seeking.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am sorry, but all this talk about community triggers and community maps is just a load of guff. The South Wales police force area contains two large cities that have to be policed. A large number of royal occasions and sporting events have to be policed. The last problem to which any time is devoted, especially when major cuts are being made to the South Wales police budget, is antisocial behaviour in areas such as the Rhondda. What will the Minister do to ensure that the police are given the instructions they need to tackle the real problems that people face, and that there is money with which to tackle it?

[James Brokenshire]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman got to the question in the end. I remind him again of our responsibility and of the problems the Labour party left us, because there is still no recognition of that. We are giving the police the power they need to respond to the problems in the hon. Gentleman’s community and the communities of other Members throughout the House.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The Minister wants to introduce some form of direct election to improve accountability in local policing. Is he listening to the people of Greater Manchester, where the Government’s cut of nearly 1,400 police officers, which would have a disastrous effect on the battle against antisocial behaviour, was rejected so resoundingly on 5 May?

[James Brokenshire]

Here is another hon. Member who is still in denial. We believe that the financial settlement is fair and manageable, and that it need not have an impact on the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour on our streets. We are giving the police and local authorities the powers they need to respond to the problem, and, unlike the Labour party, which failed to deal with it in so many ways, we are committed to taking action to provide relief for our communities.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Given that the proposed criminal protection injunctions will weaken the sanctions available to the courts to punish and deter those engaging in antisocial behaviour, is it not clear that, at least in this instance, the “soft on crime” Liberal Democrat voice is being heard loud and clear in the Home Office?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady is wrong on that point, and I remind her of what the victims commissioner, Louise Casey—the antisocial behaviour tsar under the previous Government—said when we launched our consultation on the new antisocial behaviour powers:

“I am heartened by the announcement of the new proposals today that put tough enforcement action against perpetrators at the centre.”

The hon. Lady might not see or recognise it, but that is the case.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Nottinghamshire police have made good progress on antisocial behaviour over the past 12 months by getting police officers out from behind their desks and on to the streets, but does my hon. Friend agree that they are not assisted by being bound to their 25-year private finance initiative contract, signed by the previous Administration?

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend makes clear, a number of the PFI and other contracts that were entered into did not necessarily deliver good value for money. On the costs that fall locally, we are working with forces to identify savings in operational PFI projects, including the option of renegotiating contracts to ensure ongoing value for money and service to our community.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

8. What her policy is on the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

We do not recognise cannabis in its raw form to have any medicinal purposes; cannabis is a harmful drug. However, Sativex, a cannabis-based medicine, has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency as a safe and effective medicine for patients with multiple sclerosis.

[Paul Flynn]

In Canada, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Italy, Israel, Spain, Portugal and parts of the United States, patients can take medicinal cannabis in its natural form safely and legally. Why are seriously ill patients in our country, particularly those suffering the symptoms of multiple sclerosis, forced to break the law when they want to use their medicine of choice?

[James Brokenshire]

The advice we have received from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs confirms that cannabis is a significant public health issue. I certainly sympathise with anyone suffering from a debilitating illness, but we do not condone any illicit drug taking, for whatever reason. As I have indicated, GPs may prescribe Sativex in the circumstances mentioned. That is available, and we are dealing with its regulation.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

That is not the most significant medical issue in relation to cannabis. In its higher form in particular, there are significant risks to young people, such as the probable causal link to mental illness, especially psychosis and schizophrenia. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government will continue to take a tough line and ensure effective enforcement of the law on possession of cannabis?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that my hon. Friend takes these issues incredibly seriously, and has focused on drugs policy for some time. I assure him that our position is that the classification of “illegality” can influence behaviour and be a meaningful factor when people are contemplating taking drugs. That is why we do not have any proposals to change the classification of cannabis, and why we place so much importance on the current legal arrangements in ensuring we reduce supply and deal with these problems. There is no change of policy.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

10. What legislative proposals she plans to make for further restrictions on the sale of alcohol to children.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Government do not tolerate the sale of alcohol to children. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill will double the maximum fine from £10,000 to £20,000, delivering on a coalition agreement commitment, and will extend the minimum period of voluntary closure that can be given for persistent under-age sales. We are also committed to working with the Sentencing Council and the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute those found guilty of persistent under-age selling and to use the full range of sentences available.

[Dr Wollaston]

In England alone, about 36 children every day are admitted to hospital as a result of alcohol-related harm. Will the Home Secretary consider making the reduction of alcohol-related harm an objective, and prioritise it in licensing decisions?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, particularly given her experience as a general practitioner. I recognise the picture she paints, and I would add that half of all violent assaults are believed to be alcohol related, so there is a real issue with alcohol that we need to consider. We think there is merit in making health a material consideration under the Licensing Act 2003. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill will make certain health bodies responsible authorities under the Act. We are talking to the Department of Health about what we might do to ensure that the health aspects of alcohol are properly taken into account.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Government’s proposed moratorium on regulation for micro-businesses apply to these regulations?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. No, it is not intended that it relate to licensing.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

11. What progress the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre has made in its investigation into the grooming of vulnerable teenage girls for sex.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Good progress has been made since CEOP commissioned its thematic assessment of localised grooming in January. A range of responses has been received from a variety of sources, including police forces, charities and local safeguarding children boards. Analysis of the data is ongoing and the final report is expected to be published in June.

[Margot James]

I thank the Home Secretary for her answer. Whether or not CEOP forms a discrete part of the new national crime agency, what steps will be taken to work with mosques and Asian communities to make this organised exploitation of young girls culturally unacceptable?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend’s question enables me to say how strongly we support CEOP’s work. We want it to be a lead law enforcement body in protecting children nationally, so I am pleased to announce that it will form part of the new national crime agency and will continue to build on the work it is doing. In examining the issue of grooming, it is important to wait for CEOP’s thematic report, see the extent of this problem and, obviously, take CEOP’s advice on any action that needs to be taken in relation to particular communities, but I do not think we should see this as an issue that relates only to particular communities.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

What progress has the Home Secretary made in requiring sex offenders to register their online identities?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I cannot give her an exact date, but fairly shortly we will be launching a consultation exercise in response to issues that have arisen concerning the sex offenders register. The question of online identities was raised in this House when I made the statement on the response to the F and Thomson case, and we are taking it on board, so I ask her to wait for that consultation.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

12. What her policy is on measures to ensure that children born overseas to unmarried male British citizens before 2006 are treated in a manner equivalent to those born after 2006.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of this odd hangover from previous legislation. Children born overseas to unmarried British fathers before July 2006 were unable to acquire citizenship by descent from their father. However, the UK Border Agency will register such people as British citizens if an application is made before their 18th birthday.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for those comments. He was also sympathetic when my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) raised this matter two years ago. Will he seek a legislative opportunity to correct this situation by statute rather than rely on discretion, which may or may not be applied to children who may or may not be inside the country?

[Damian Green]

As I said, my hon. Friend makes a valid point. There is, however, an established registration route for children born to British unmarried fathers under section 3 of the British Nationality Act 1981, which allows the Home Secretary to register any child under the age of 18 as a British citizen, and this discretion has been used for many years. Of course those who are not able to register because they are over the age of 18 can instead naturalise as British citizens if they are resident in the UK and meet the requirements for naturalisation. As he says, any change to the nationality law would have to be made through primary legislation and there is no appropriate vehicle before the House at the moment.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

13. How many police officers she expects to retire under rule A19 in 2011.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

Chief officers are responsible for managing the resources and staff available to them to ensure effective policing. Operational decisions, including on the impact of using their powers under regulation A19, are rightly a matter for them.

[John Mann]

What kind of answer is that? There is a seasonal saying at this time of year: “Cast not a clout till May be out.” Why are decent, hard-working, brilliant, experienced police officers in my area, in Nottinghamshire and across the country being forced to give up their jobs because of this Government, when my community and others want to keep them and when they want to keep working?

[Nick Herbert]

From the hon. Gentleman’s outrage, hon. Members would not know that under the previous Labour Government Nottinghamshire police numbers fell between 2004 and 2009. This is a procedure used by chief constables that the previous Labour Government chose to renew. The fact is that officers ordinarily retire after 30 years and they do so with a full and generous pension.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has discussed this matter with the chief constable of Nottinghamshire, but I did on Friday. Does the Minister agree that it is imperative that when chief constables make these difficult decisions they should consult not only their communities but the Police Federation to ensure that we retain the best front-line officers?

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Let me put this in context. I understand that some 130 of some 2,500 officers in the force may be retired under this provision. The independent Winsor review of pay and conditions recommended that this procedure should continue to be available to chief officers.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Approximately 2,000 police officers across the country with more than 30 years’ experience are being forced to retire under regulation A19 because of the 20% front-loaded cuts imposed by the Government. As we have heard from my hon. Friends, these include front-line beat officers, response officers, detectives and firearms specialists, although some, as we know, have been asked to return as volunteers. I want to ask the Minister a specific question: has he carried out an assessment of the cost implications for the Home Office, along with any other associated costs, of forcibly retiring these 2,000 experienced officers? Did any such assessment show that the cuts really were in the interests of the taxpayer?

[Nick Herbert]

I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that these decisions are made by chief constables in the interests of the efficiency and effectiveness of the force. This is a procedure that the previous Government chose not to change. The fact is that the total number of officers retiring with more than 30 years’ service who might be eligible for this procedure is about 3,000 of a total 140,000 officers. The question that the Labour party simply cannot answer is how it would have achieved the savings of more than £1 billion a year, which are the cuts it says it would have imposed on the British police.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

16. What progress her Department has made in reducing the number of bogus asylum seekers.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

A system that makes timely decisions and removes people who have no right to stay in the UK is the biggest deterrent to false claims. The Government are committed to increasing the speed and quality of the processing of asylum claims, and the UK Border Agency is making faster decisions and removing people more quickly.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Bogus asylum claims result in a huge cost to the taxpayer through asylum support. What will the Government be doing to reduce the amount of money spent on asylum support?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to tell my hon. and learned Friend that we have reduced the cost of asylum support by more than £100 million from the 2009-10 total, delivering substantial savings to the taxpayer. That is the result of action that has been taken to ensure that we clear up the legacy of old asylum cases, speed up the processing of asylum claims and remove more quickly those not entitled to protection. Our asylum improvement project aims to go further.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

17. What assessment she has made of the potential effects on the number of crimes solved of proposed changes in the national DNA database.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

The changes we propose to limit the retention of the DNA profiles of people not convicted of any offence are based on the coalition agreement commitment to introduce the protections of the Scottish system in order better to balance public protection and individuals’ rights. The statistics show that simply increasing the number of DNA profiles on the DNA database does not necessarily increase the number of detections made via that database.

[Philip Davies]

There are already 150,000 crimes in which a DNA sample has been taken at the crime scene and not been matched to anybody on the database. Surely the Minister accepts that having fewer people on the database will mean that fewer matches will be made and fewer criminals will be brought to justice. Will he explain how having more dangerous criminals on the streets enhances my freedoms?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that my hon. Friend looks at the facts and circumstances, so I ask him to look at what has happened in the past five years. Since 2004-05, an additional 2 million individuals were added to the national DNA database but there were 4,000 fewer detections as a consequence.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

18. What discussions she has had with Northumbria police on the appropriate level of policing over the period of the comprehensive spending review.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I have regular discussions with chief constables and police authorities on a range of issues about policing. Decisions about the number of police officers and other police staff engaged by Northumbria police are a matter for the chief constable and the police authority.

[Chi Onwurah]

Recorded crime across Tyne and Wear fell by 14% in 2010 and has fallen by 47% since 2003. That has made a real difference in the lives of my constituents, but they are now naturally worried to learn that this Government apparently regard the big society as a substitute for proper policing. What reassurance can the Minister offer?

[Nick Herbert]

I hope the hon. Lady will be reassured by the comments of the new chief constable of Northumbria, who was previously the temporary chief constable. She said recently:

“I am determined that we will continue to reduce crime and protect police services that local communities across Northumbria want”.

She went on to say that her absolute priority was to improve front-line policing and the service delivered to communities.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

As I have previously informed the House, the first duty of Government is to protect the public. Following the death of Osama bin Laden, the overall threat level from international terrorism remains at severe and there is a continuing need for everyone to remain vigilant and to report suspicious activity to the police. Last week’s verdict from the coroner’s inquest into the London bombings on 7 July 2005 reminds us of the real and serious threat from terrorism. I have made a written ministerial statement on the verdict this morning. Across Government, we are carefully considering the current recommendations and we will respond in due course, at which time I would expect to make a further statement to the House. Nothing will ever bring back the 52 people who were murdered on that day, but I hope that the comprehensive, open and transparent inquests that have been held have brought some measure of comfort to the families and to all those affected.

[Gavin Barwell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. May I press her a little further? One of the coroner’s key findings was about the need for better co-ordination between Transport for London and London’s emergency services. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is a real need to reassure Londoners that if a tragic incident of this sort ever happened again, there would be better co-ordination than there was on this occasion?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has made a very important and valid point. Of course, a number of the recommendations refer to Transport for London and to emergency responders. The proposals that have come specifically from the coroner will be looked at in great detail and with great care because it is absolutely right that we ensure that the lessons that can be learned from 7 July 2005 are learned.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s words about the 7/7 inquest and add our thanks to Lady Justice Hallett and the team. That inquest brought out the heroism and the tragedy of that terrible day. The moments of bravery shown by the emergency services, many members of the public, those who were directly affected and their families will be remembered, as will the tragic loss of the 52 people who were killed.

It is important that Lady Justice Hallett’s recommendations are taken forward and that the relevant services have the resources to do that. May I ask the Home Secretary when she expects to be able to report back to the House on the detail of her response to those recommendations? Can she give the House a sense of whether she expects to be able to support the broad thrust of the recommendations because they were each considered in great detail and it is important that they can be taken forward?

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. On the issue of timing, the formal position is that anybody to whom recommendations are made is given 56 days to respond to the coroner’s report and recommendations. We will be responding within that timescale but, as I indicated in my previous answer, I intend to do so within a timescale that will enable me to make a statement to the House about that response. I am sure she will understand that as the recommendations were made to a number of bodies across government, as well as Transport for London, it is necessary to co-ordinate that response and make sure that all considerations have properly been taken into account.

On the right hon. Lady’s final point, significant improvements have already been made since 7 July 2005, but the Government are always looking to learn lessons from that incident and any other incidents that take place—should they do so. In doing that, of course we always put at the forefront of our thoughts the intention of ensuring that we can provide the highest level of public security and safety possible, but sadly we can never guarantee that no further terrorist incident will take place.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

T2. What is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that all four Yorkshire police forces work much more closely together to reduce costs?

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

Collaboration by police forces is important both to improve operational effectiveness and to save money. A study by Deloitte a couple of years ago found that Yorkshire and the Humber could realise savings of some £100 million over five years by co-operating more effectively. That is the kind of thing that we want all forces to do.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

T3. Can the Minister confirm that student visitor visas, which have recently been increased to 11 months, will not be included in general immigration statistics?

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

Yes, as indeed I made clear in answer to a previous question. The definition of an immigrant is somebody who comes here for more than 12 months, so student visitor visas, like tourist visas, are for visitors, not for immigrants. They therefore do not come under immigration limits.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

T6. May I press the Home Secretary a little further on the 7/7 inquest? Like so many MPs in our constituencies on Friday, I was listening to the wall-to-wall coverage of the inquest and was struck by the harrowing stories of the survivors and the surviving family members. It has been nearly six years since the event. Can my right hon. Friend tell us, while we wait for the end of the formal response period, what lessons the security services have learned since the event?

[Mrs May]

As I said in response to the shadow Home Secretary, the Security Service has indeed made some changes since those events on 7 July 2005, has looked again at what is coming out of the inquest and will look with great care at the two specific proposals that are aimed at the Security Service in relation to the potential for further lessons to be learned. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend and the House, however, to Lady Justice Hallett’s words when she said that there was no evidence at all that the Security Service knew of and therefore failed to prevent the bombings on 7/7.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

T7. Is any Minister capable of answering a question without blaming the last or the next Labour Government? Can the Home Secretary explain who is responsible for the 350 job losses in Gwent? Efficiency savings will save 20 of them; what about the other 330?

[Mrs May]

I assume that the hon. Gentleman was speaking about the police, although I do not think the word passed his lips. He asked whether any Minister can get up and not make reference to the mess that we were left by the previous Government. The reason savings are being requested from police forces, and the reason across government we are having to make cuts in public sector spending, is the deficit that we were left by the Labour Government. Had Labour been in government, it would be cutting £7 for every £8 that we are cutting. The issue for the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends is where they would make those cuts.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

T9. The Minister is aware of the 60 or 70 Yemeni Jews who are trapped in Yemen. What can he do to help to facilitate the visa applications of those families with strong British links?

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing up this issue. He will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to provide a running commentary at the Dispatch Box on individual applications for asylum or any other form of immigration, but I am aware that he has written to me about the matter and I will reply to him shortly.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

T8. Will the Minister say a little more about how happy the universities were about the new visa system, and in particular what he would say to Glasgow Caledonian university, which has been suspended from sponsoring foreign students and had a 28-day suspension imposed on it? What would he say to the university, which finds the situation difficult and the sentence disproportionate?

[Damian Green]

I would say to Glasgow Caledonian university, and to the hon. Gentleman, what I would say to any university: all tier 4 sponsors who are given the privilege of bringing people to this country must ensure that they fulfil their sponsorship duties and that their students comply with the requirements of the immigration rules. As he knows, the tier 4 licence was suspended on 20 April following concerns about abuses of the immigration system. The university was given 28 days, from the date of suspension, to make representations against the decision. We are still within that 28-day period and obviously are in dialogue with the university. I hope that he will endorse the fact that we have immigration rules in this country and that they need to be enforced.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

It will soon be 50 years since the last royal commission on policing, during which time the challenges faced by our police forces have changed dramatically, as have the expectations placed on them. Will the Minister consider the case for a fresh royal commission?

[Nick Herbert]

I think it was Harold Wilson who said that royal commissions take minutes and waste years. More recently, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has said that there is no time for a royal commission. There are important and urgent decisions that we need to take in relation to police financing and enhancing accountability, which is what the Government intend to do.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Ministers have confirmed in parliamentary answers that in the period 2010-12, 45 individuals with terrorist convictions will be released back into the community. Can the Home Secretary assure the House that all relevant agencies will work closely together, that they will have the necessary resources to manage those offenders back into the community and that she and the Justice Secretary have a clear understanding that anyone in breach of their licence conditions will be returned to prison immediately?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. It is, of course, essential that the various agencies involved work together. I can assure him that they will be working together, as they have been. One of the developments of recent years, which is very welcome, is the way in which the Security Service and the police have worked together on counter-terrorism matters. They will continue to do so and are very conscious of the issues relating to the release of offenders who have completed their prison sentences.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

A year ago, I was approached by a whistleblower with an allegation that there had been criminal misuse of CCTV and automatic number plate recognition information by the Home Office and a part of the Metropolitan police. I established that the individual knew the insides of the organisations concerned and ongoing operations and that he had no obvious reason for malice or deceit. I sent the information to the Home Secretary. Since then, despite a number of reminders, I have had no response from the Home Office. Will she now tell me when that investigation will conclude?

[Mrs May]

I will go back and ensure that the matter is brought to my attention and that I am able to give my right hon. Friend a response as soon as possible.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Police community support officers play an important role in policing our communities, so will the Minister join me in congratulating the new Labour administration in Sheffield on its decision to restore the funding for 10 PCSA posts that had been cut by the previous Lib Dem administration?

[Nick Herbert]

The Government decided to maintain the ring-fencing for the neighbourhood policing fund outside London so that funding would continue to be available for police community support officers, whom we support because they do an important job as part of the policing family, working alongside police officers.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

The Home Secretary’s plans to cut police red tape, which were announced this morning, will sadly save each police officer only 20 minutes each week. Why is she not being more radical?

[Mrs May]

This is not the end of the story. Indeed, we are working in a number of ways to ensure that we continue to cut police bureaucracy. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice is looking at savings in bureaucracy that can be made across the criminal justice system. Chris Sims, the chief constable of West Midlands police, is the ACPO lead on reducing bureaucracy and is looking at other ways of reducing bureaucracy. Sara Thornton, the chief constable of Thames Valley police, is looking to reduce the 600 different guidance documents that ACPO provides to police forces to fewer than 100. Those examples show that this is work in progress, but our commitment is absolutely clear.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Given the civil war that has erupted among Government Members, may I offer the Home Secretary some support from the Opposition and tell her how grateful I am for her enormous contribution to our stunning electoral results in Dudley North last week, when we won for the first time ever two seats in Gornal—Upper Gornal and Woodsetton? That would not have been possible had it not been for the public anger at the huge number of police officers she is sacking in the west midlands.

[Mrs May]

I think that there was something at the end there about policing in the west midlands, but I did not quite catch it. I should be very happy to explain to the hon. Gentleman, as I did earlier, that changes to the budget in the west midlands, as to every other police force, are a direct result of the financial mess that was left by the previous Labour Government. I also say to him that it ill becomes Labour to crow about election results, given that in last week’s election it failed to take an overall majority in Wales, failed in Scotland and stood still in England. I suggest therefore that he keep a little quieter about it in future.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

What consultation has taken place with universities, such as the university of Huddersfield, to assess the impact of changes to student visas and the number of students who stay on after their studies to take the post-study work route?

[Damian Green]

As my hon. Friend may have heard me say earlier, there was a full consultation. It obviously included the university of Huddersfield and was widely welcomed by universities. We now have a system whereby graduates can stay on so long as they have been offered a specific graduate-level job. To answer his precise question, we calculate that the effect on numbers will be that instead of 38,000 staying on as before, roughly 19,000 will stay on in future.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will be aware of the concerns about the activities of under-cover police officers, such as Mark Kennedy. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary is carrying out a review; will the Home Secretary undertake to make a statement to the House once the outcome of that review is known?

[Nick Herbert]

We will certainly keep the House updated, but I think it best to await the outcome of that review.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I recently spent time with special police constables in Rugby, targeting antisocial behaviour and under-age drinking by sticking Alcohol Watch stickers on bottles and cans. Will the Home Secretary join me in recognising the very valuable work carried out by the special constabulary?

[Mrs May]

Yes, I am very happy to join my hon. Friend and, I am sure, others across the House in recognising the valuable work that the special constabulary undertakes. Indeed, we would like to encourage more people to become specials, because they perform a very important role in policing their communities.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

Now that Aberdeen passport office has closed, my constituents face a long journey for a face-to-face interview about their first passport. They are expected to travel to Dundee, 70 miles away, but, because of the extra work caused by the closure of other offices throughout north-east Scotland, they have now been told that they will have to go either to Edinburgh or even to Newcastle. It appears that the alternative arrangements that the Government promised have not been put in place, so will the Minister look at the issue to make sure that they are put in place and it is not impossible for my constituents to get a passport?

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing that issue to my attention. I will certainly look into the individual circumstances of her constituents applying for a passport for the first time.

NEW MEMBER

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath required by law:

Jonathan Ashworth, for Leicester South.

Points of Order

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

15:35

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask whether you have had notification of a statement from the Government on delaying the decision on the BSkyB takeover bid in the light of the criminal trial just being launched involving computer hacking and contractors with News International?

[Mr Speaker]

I have received no indication of any such statement. That is an explicit response to the hon. Gentleman. However, I am grateful to him for his point of order.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Recently, the Procedure Committee published its eagerly sought report on hand-held electronic devices and tweeting in the Chamber. Will you update the House on whether that report has simply been accepted as a new procedure for the House or whether we will have a full debate on the matter and a vote?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the report would need to be debated by the House. That has not yet happened. However, I would certainly expect that before any decision were made and enforced, right hon. and hon. Members would have had the opportunity to debate the issues, which I know are of great and consuming interest to the hon. Gentleman and others.

[Thomas Docherty]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think there can be anything further to it. [Interruption.] Well, I will give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to reflect on the matter for a moment and see whether his point is still valid.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was very reassuring, on entering the Palace of Westminster today, to see the flag of the United Kingdom flying from Victoria tower. Given that the European Union has apparently been issuing orders that the EU flag should be flown over public buildings and a photograph sent to Brussels to prove that it has been done, can you tell the House whether you received any such instruction and what your reaction would have been had you received it?

[Mr Speaker]

I did not, and I will not speculate on matters hypothetical. I have a hunch that that observation was aimed less at the House and more at the Lymington Times.

[Dr Lewis]

And the Southern Daily Echo.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sedentary correction.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there anything you can do to improve the provision of access to quality national newspapers across the parliamentary estate? I am particularly concerned at the lack of availability of copies of the Morning Star. [Interruption.] Obviously, Conservative Members are too. Could you confirm to the House whether you are fortunate enough to receive copies in your residence, and whether it is your view that all Members should have the right to a broad and balanced political perspective on the events of the day?

[Mr Speaker]

I am in favour of a broad and balanced diet of newspapers, because it is analogous to the benefits of a broad and balanced diet more widely. I am not in the habit of regularly reading the newspaper to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am all in favour of people having access to it if they so wish, but if he is asking whether it is delivered to me, the answer is no.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your advice on whether parliamentary courtesies also apply to the Prime Minister, who, last Friday, together with some of his colleagues, visited Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, Edgbaston to get some decent advice on how to reform the NHS, but the local Member of Parliament was not notified.

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Lady’s point of order is that that parliamentary courtesy is expected of every Member of the House, so it most certainly does extend to Ministers.

[Thomas Docherty]

Further to my point of order, Mr Speaker. While the Leader of the House is present, could you confirm whose decision it will be as to the timetabling of the vote on the Procedure Committee report? Will you, Mr Speaker, or the Leader of the House decide on that?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is that these matters are ordinarily determined through the usual channels. If the hon. Gentleman remains interested in this matter, a suitable opportunity for him to pursue it would be at business questions this Thursday. I look forward with eager anticipation to seeing him in his place on that occasion.

Opposition Day

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Un-alloted Half Day]

Future of the NHS

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

15:40

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the growing concerns over the Government’s handling of the NHS and the effect its policies are having on hospitals and patient care; and calls on the Government to uphold the Coalition Agreement promise to stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS which have got in the way of patient care, to use the present pause in the progress of the Health and Social Care Bill to make fundamental changes, including dropping the damaging and unjustified market-based approach, and to concentrate efforts instead on achieving sound efficiencies, better clinical quality and improved integration of services.

We have called this debate after the Prime Minister was forced to order an unprecedented pause in his health legislation last month. He was forced to do so because of the growing criticism, confusion and crisis of confidence over the Government’s NHS reorganisation. It was unprecedented because he told his Health Secretary to stop what he was doing while 45 others on the NHS Future Forum work out what he should be doing. It looks as though the Prime Minister is listening to anybody and everybody on the NHS except the Health Secretary.

We have called this debate after the Deputy Prime Minister’s flagship policy was sunk in the AV referendum last week. He is now trying to find a replacement, and claims that changes to the Health and Social Care Bill are his new No. 1 priority. The Deputy Prime Minister and his party are up to their necks in the Tory NHS plans. He and the Prime Minister co-signed the foreword to the White Paper last summer, and he signed off the NHS legislation in Cabinet before Christmas. He and his Lib Dem MPs have backed the Bill at every stage in Parliament. In Committee, his Lib Dem Health Minister led the rejection of Labour’s amendments—the amendments that he now says he wants to make.

Now that the Lib Dems are making many of the arguments that Labour has been making since early autumn, people may ask what the Deputy Prime Minister has been doing for the past year, when he changed his mind and why. People may suspect that the deal he is stitching together has more to do with saving his party than safeguarding the NHS.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he still believes that the Government’s plans are “consistent, coherent and comprehensive”? If not, when did he change his mind?

[John Healey]

Indeed, they are comprehensive, consistent and coherent, and they are wrong.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for being so generous in taking interventions. He has told the House that the plans are wrong. However, in January 2010, he said to the King’s Fund:

“The general aims of reform are sound”.

It seems to me that he has changed his mind.

[John Healey]

There is nothing wrong with the general aims of the changes, but what the Government are doing is different from what they are saying. In one third of the legislation, they are not setting up GP consortia or reducing bureaucracy in the NHS, but setting up the NHS as a full-blown market. That is the wrong prescription for our NHS, and it is patients who will suffer.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be suffering from amnesia, which, by the way, is treatable on the NHS. On 30 November, he said that he supported our proposals to move public health functions from primary care trusts to local authorities. If he does not believe in reorganisation any more, how does he intend to achieve that move?

[John Healey]

In principle, that is a good move. The Opposition, including those of us on the Front Bench, have said that it makes sense in principle to give local authorities a lead responsibility on public health; after all, they are responsible for things that affect public health such as housing, employment and a good environment. The Government’s failure is that local authorities are not getting the powers or resources to do the job properly. The provisions in the Bill will fragment the NHS and make it harder, not easier, for them to do that job.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Can my right hon. Friend explain why the Secretary of State says in public that the change is not about the privatisation of our hospitals, when in fact that is exactly what his officials are doing behind closed doors?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend has been pressing that point with his local hospital, because it is quite clear that the hospital’s managers were forced to look at privatising it and having its management run by a private company. I fear that under the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill, more hospitals will be driven to the brink and will have to face the prospect of insolvency or a takeover by the private sector companies that are lining up to make the most of the Government’s plans for the NHS.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

On the transfer of responsibility for public health, can my right hon. Friend explain how withdrawing the funding for the public health observatories, which have informed health policy, will help improve public health?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend gives good service on the Health Committee and follows the details of the matter more closely than most in the House. He has an important point, because the quality of health services for patients is inevitably affected by the deep and fast cuts in other areas. People in local authorities are experiencing difficulty in continuing to provide good social care, which is causing problems for the people who depend on that care and for the NHS.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman regret the policy of rigging the market in favour of independent sector treatment centres in the last Parliament, which some Conservative Members opposed? Does he agree with that policy?

[John Healey]

The independent sector treatment centres played a part in clearing the backlog and improving waiting lists. They introduced the extra capacity that allowed the Labour Government, through a combination of investment and reform, to achieve the highest levels of patient satisfaction with the NHS ever and the lowest waiting times ever.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will have seen the nauseating, sanctimonious and preaching sermons of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) after the election results on Thursday. Does he understand why the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and others are concerned that the Liberal Democrats are going to scotch a policy that they have been signed up to from day one?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he makes the point that I have begun to make to the House. The Liberal Democrats have been up to their necks in this for the past year, and welcome though their late conversion is, the House is entitled to ask exactly why the Deputy Prime Minister now believes that radical changes to the Health and Social Care Bill are required.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[John Healey]

I am going to carry on and make a little progress.

If the Deputy Prime Minister is not going to sell out the principles of the NHS like he has the principles of his party, he must toughen the tests for the Bill and help stop the market free-for-all in the Government’s plans. If he and his party mean what they say, they can start today by backing us and backing the motion. It calls on the Government to drop

“the damaging and unjustified market-based approach”,

exactly as the Liberal Democrat spring conference did, and to

“uphold the Coalition Agreement promise to stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS which have got in the way of patient care”.

There is no mandate for this, the biggest reorganisation in NHS history, either from the general election or from the coalition agreement.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about consistency, he will know that since the publication of the White Paper last year, my concerns about the proposal have been well established. The motion, however, castigates top-down reorganisation. Will he apologise for the previous Government engaging in substantial top-down reorganisations time and time again, including the introduction of the independent sector treatment centres, which lost millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money?

[John Healey]

Some of the reorganisations in the 13 years of our Government played an important part in the reform and the great gains that patients saw in the NHS. However, it is also the case—and we learn from this—that reorganisations often take longer, save less, cost more and have less impact on improving care for patients than envisaged at the outset. We learned that lesson towards the end of our 13 years, which is why we had a period of important stability in the NHS, but it is a lesson that the Conservatives have failed to learn—extraordinarily so, as we all thought that they had learned it, because NHS reorganisation is exactly what the Prime Minister promised not to do before the election.

The Prime Minister’s broken promise on NHS reorganisation is part of the reason for the growing doubt and distrust about whether he is making the right decisions for the right reasons on the NHS. He promised to give the NHS a real rise in funding, but the Budget this year confirmed a £1 billion shortfall in England. He promised to protect front-line services, but nursing posts are already going, and the Royal College of Nursing expects 40,000 NHS jobs to go in the next four years. The Prime Minister promised a moratorium on hospital A and E, and maternity service closures, but some are now going ahead, and more will follow—without public consultation—under the Health and Social Care Bill plans.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I am following the shadow Minister extremely closely. The last Government opened a treatment centre in my old constituency, Vale of York. I am having great difficulty understanding what we are proposing to do, following what Labour did in York.

[John Healey]

Let me help the hon. Lady. For the first time, all parts of the NHS, including the commissioning job, will be opened up to private companies and subject to competition. As I have said, independent sector treatment centres played a part in our being able to clear long waiting lists and restore the quality of service to the NHS, as well as in supplementing the mainstream NHS, not substituting for it, which is what will happen under her party’s Bill.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

Just for the sake of balance, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that such treatment centres were also prime cherry-pickers and that between 2003 and 2009, the private sector was paid £250 million for not carrying out a single operation?

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman will know from his current position that the premium that we paid in the first wave of treatment centres was stopped in the second wave. He will also know that by the end of our period in government we had stopped the independent treatment centres programme; and he ought to know that built into his Bill’s impact assessment is what it calculates to be a 14% premium, paid to providers under his proposals.

[Mr Burns]

indicated dissent.

[John Healey]

It is in the impact assessment; I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman take a good look at it.

[Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has just implied that the Government were proposing to introduce, for the first time, private sector expertise into the commissioning process of the health service. Will he correct that statement to the House by confirming that under the world-class commissioning programme, the previous Government explored exactly that proposal?

[John Healey]

No. What I am referring to is the provision in the Bill to allow the job of commissioning to be outsourced to private companies. That has never been done before. It is there in the Bill and it is a big risk for the future.

The Prime Minister made the NHS his most personal pledge before the election.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman just be clear to the House and get it accurate? The Bill sets out that commissioning consortia are statutory bodies covering the whole of the country in the public sector. Therefore, if they use private sector commissioning expertise—which the Bill does not require them to do—that is not commissioning responsibility. In the two years leading up to the election, primary care trusts increased their use of management consultancy by 80%, so they did use the private sector, whereas commissioning consortia do not have to.

[John Healey]

The point about the Health Secretary’s legislation is that it allows consortia to outsource in whole the job of, not the responsibility for, commissioning. He made the point that the consortia are public bodies, but they meet none of the standards of public governance. They can meet in private. As the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) has said, that serious job should be done by properly constituted and governed public authorities, but that is a loophole in the Bill.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Like my right hon. Friend, I heard the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister over the weekend say that there will be changes to the Bill. However, every Government Member who has intervened has defended the position in the Bill. Will we see changes as a result of pausing, listening and reflecting, or not? Will the Liberal Democrats have a spine tonight and vote with the Opposition to get changes to the Bill?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend puts the position and the challenge, especially to the Lib Dems, very clearly. The challenge to Conservative Members is this: they must recognise that the Prime Minister made the NHS his most personal pledge before the election. People wanted to believe him, but in just one year the NHS has become his biggest broken promise. My hon. Friend mentions the pause. In our Opposition motion in March, we urged the Government to

“pause the progress of the legislation in order to re-think their plans”.—[Official Report, 16 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 374.]

The Health Secretary dismissed that, but he has now been told to do so by the Prime Minister.

However, many of the signs point to the Prime Minister’s “pause to listen” being a sham. Just one week after the announcement, and in fact on the day that the Health Secretary received that historic vote of no confidence at the Royal College of Nursing, the NHS chief executive wrote to NHS managers to tell them that

“we need to continue to take reasonable steps to prepare for implementation and maintain momentum on the ground”.

The House is used to pre-legislative scrutiny, but not pre-legislative implementation.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Do we not face the worst of both worlds? The Government appear to be saying that GP consortia should be voluntary rather than compulsory, but primary care trusts are being abolished, and in some cases have been already. If that pause is serious, the Government need to stop that dismantling of the NHS and go back to the drawing board.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he draws on his experience as a former Health Minister. While implementation continues apace, there is a so-called pause in the legislation. His point is exactly the one made by the all-party, Tory-led Health Committee in a recent report. If the Prime Minister wants to prove to NHS patients and staff that his pause is not just spin, he must shelve the Bill and make radical changes to his NHS reorganisation plans.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State speaks as if no reform is needed. However, given that our cancer survival rates are well below the European average and that that costs thousands of lives in this country, does he accept that reform of how the NHS treats cancer patients is necessary?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman has great expertise in, and commitment to, cancer care. He is right that our survival rates continue to lag behind those of parts of Europe, but I am sure he is aware that the rate of fall in deaths from cancer has accelerated in the past decade. On that basis, and with continued investment and reform, we have a chance of catching up to European levels. However, the reforms proposed in the Bill, as many cancer charities and those who represent patients testify, raise the concern that the great gains made by the cancer networks in integrating and co-ordinating services for cancer patients and sufferers will be put at risk.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[John Healey]

I am going to make progress now.

The NHS chief executive described the NHS reorganisation as

“enormous—beyond anything anybody from the public or private sector has witnessed”.

He is right. At this time of tight finances, the Government are piling on extra pressure and putting the NHS at risk with this reorganisation. The Health Committee warned in January that the NHS efficiency challenge was

“already a high-risk strategy and the White Paper increased the level of risk considerably”.

Now nearly £2 billion that was promised for patient care is being held back to cover the cost of reorganisation, and hospitals are being forced to cut back on costs by one third over the next five years, as all are forced into foundation status by 2014.

I was in Wigan this morning, where the chief executive of the hospital trust told me that the hospital must make £14 million in cost savings this year and similar amounts the following year. He described that as an almost impossible task. More importantly, however, it puts at risk the strategy for better services and better value for money, and the strategy for more integration of hospital and community services. He said of the Government’s plans that the sheer distraction of reorganisation and insistence on competition will scupper our chance of doing that.

The pressures of this high-risk reorganisation are one the reasons that, just one year into this Government, patients are starting to see the NHS go backwards again under the Tories, with waiting times rising, operations delayed, services cut back and front-line jobs lost. This is not just a problem with the timing or pace of change, however, and nor is it a problem of presentation. In fact, the closer people look at the plans, the more concerned they become, which is why there is growing criticism of the Tory plans for the NHS from doctors, nurses, patients’ groups, NHS experts, the Health Select Committee, peers in all parts of the House of Lords and now even the Lib Dem leader. The closer people look, the more fundamental and far-reaching they see these changes to be.

Today, the Royal College of General Practitioners warned the Prime Minister that his health Bill undermines our comprehensive health care system and will cause “irreparable damage” to the core values of the NHS. So far Ministers have branded such criticisms as scaremongering, but people in the NHS are already starting to see this happen. The Government’s first act was to remove national waiting time standards—the patients’ guarantee that they would be seen and treated quickly—which the Health Secretary described as “clinically unjustified targets”, but the patients do not see it that way, and nor do the surgeons. The president of the British Orthopaedic Association described the delays now being faced by patients as “devastating and cruel”.

The NHS Bill takes the break-up of our NHS still further. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence decisions on what drugs or treatments patients should have on the NHS become optional for commissioning consortia, and for the first time since 1948 the Secretary of State will not be responsible for delivering a national health service or for defining its scope. In future, the power to decide what health services will be provided free at the point of need—as now—and what further services will be charged for will rest with the new commissioning consortia. That was the basis of the concern expressed today by the Royal College of General Practitioners. These consortia will be able to meet and take decisions in private, and to outsource commissioning to private companies; but they will not even need to have a GP on their board—in fact, they will not need to have a board at all.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Royal College of General Practitioners. What does he think it makes of his policy, revealed in Pulse, to strip GPs of all financial responsibility?

[John Healey]

When the hon. Gentleman reads his next edition of Pulse, he will see my correction of that report, and note that the first five paragraphs were all reported and contained no quotes from me. He ought to know that after a survey by the British Medical Association found that more than half of doctors believed that they would spend less time with their patients as a result of these changes, the chairman of the BMA council, Dr Hamish Meldrum, said:

“This survey shows that the government can no longer claim widespread support among doctors as justification for these flawed policies.”

It is not the five clauses that set up the GP consortia that cause the most concern. It is the 85 clauses that set up the NHS as a full-scale market, and it is part 3 of the Bill, which opens up all areas of the NHS to private health companies; removes requirements for proper openness, scrutiny and accountability to the public and to Parliament; allows NHS hospitals to go bust and face a commercial insolvency scheme; places the judgment of the new competition regulator—just like those for gas and electricity—at the heart of decisions about the future of the NHS; and, for the first time, makes the NHS subject to the full force of UK and European competition law. That means that, in the long term, we will see clinical planning in the NHS being replaced by market competition, service integration being replaced by corporate cherry-picking, public accountability being replaced by commercial confidentiality and the public ethos at the very heart of our NHS being replaced by the profit motive.

I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that no Bill is better than a bad one, but I say to him that this is a bad Bill. That is why we have opposed it from the outset, and that is why we say that it must be shelved in its current form and that radical changes must be made. For us, for the NHS and for NHS patients, this is the test of the Prime Minister’s promise to protect the NHS. I commend the motion to the House. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary should be setting a good example to others. I call the Secretary of State for Health.

16:07

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) has not only presented a weak motion to the House but managed to make a weak speech in support of it. The motion is completely silent about the problems that the NHS faced when we came to office. It is completely ignorant of the challenges that the NHS faces, and completely devoid of any recognition of the ongoing efforts of NHS staff to offer the very best standards of patient care, day in and day out. I am happy to make it clear, however, that I support the staff of the NHS every day, as we all must. I am not interested in a motion that ignores that; I am interested in supporting NHS staff to deliver the best possible care for patients.

This debate is supposed to be about the future of the NHS, but the right hon. Gentleman had nothing to say about its future. He wanted to talk only about politics and the Health and Social Care Bill. What happens in the NHS every day is not the same as the content of the Bill, important though that is; it is about quality of care and the outcomes that are being achieved for patients. I will ask the House to reject the motion, because I intend to use the debate to be positive and to show how we will give the NHS a stronger future.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State supports the staff of the NHS, but is it not the truth that the staff of the NHS do not support him?

[Mr Lansley]

That is complete nonsense. This is not about me: it is about what the staff of the NHS want. They want the ability to be able to deliver care for patients without being told what to do by the top-down bureaucracy and targets of the Labour Government. They want the ability to deliver the care that patients need, to join up health and social care and to integrate the pathways of care. Our Bill is about giving them the structure that will allow them to do that. They want every penny that we as taxpayers provide to the NHS to get into the hands of front-line staff, and for the absolute minimum to go in waste and inefficiency. That is what they want, and that is not about me, it is about them.

A stronger NHS will require change, so that it no longer spends £5 billion a year on bureaucracy.

[Mr Watts]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why all that money was being spent on bureaucracy.

[Mr Watts]

Given that today and on previous occasions the Secretary of State has claimed that the Government are not trying to privatise our hospitals, will he publish all the documents that have passed between his Department and my NHS trust, because they will demonstrate that that is exactly what he intends to do? He intends to try to privatise my hospital.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know, because the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) has told him in the past, that when NHS trusts are moving to foundation trust status, there will be an agreement, but it is not about privatisation. When the hon. Gentleman’s party was in government, it said that the only way Hinchingbrooke NHS trust could turn its management around was for it to be prepared to look for the best possible management. That is the extent of what we are talking about, and it was done under his Government.

This will require change. We are not going to spend £5 billion on bureaucracy. We are not going to let the number of managers double in future as it did under Labour, and we are not going to let the number of managers increase six times as fast as the number of nurses. Since the general election, we have 3,500 fewer managers and, as a consequence, 2,500 more doctors and 200 more nurses.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

On 19 March, the interim chief executive of Monitor said that under this Bill, doctors talking to providers about health care would be the same as Marks & Spencer talking to their suppliers about which brand of washing powder to buy. Is that the Health Secretary’s vision for the future of the national health service?

[Mr Lansley]

No, not at all, and I do not believe that Monitor believes that either. The hon. Lady can see that the proposal in the Bill is clear. It was the Labour Government who established Monitor as a regulator and who introduced competition into the NHS. The Labour Government did all those things, but Monitor’s job is not to impose competition rules but to deliver what is in the best interest of patients.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State is a decent man and an experienced Minister. The reason his speech was so weak is that he had no conviction because he has been forced by the union paymasters of the Labour party and of the shadow Leader of the Opposition to deliver the sort of speech previously given by the far left who inhabit the Benches way over there. My right hon. Friend should not listen to those voices; he should press ahead and make a difference for patients, not politicians.

[Mr Lansley]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the shadow Health Secretary is a decent man, and at the turn of the year he quite decently expressed his support for the Bill’s principles and his understanding that it was consistent, coherent and comprehensive. It makes one wonder what happened to him in the interim. Did the trade unions—the paymasters of the Labour party—get to him and tell him that they did not like the idea that patients should be able to get the care they need or the idea that we should get resources into the front line rather than into the vested interests of the NHS?

What we are going to do is put patient care at the heart of our reforms. We are not going to let hospital productivity continue to decline as it did over the last decade. Under Labour, we saw a 15% decline in productivity, yet we heard nothing from the shadow Health Secretary about that. It is this Government who are taking action to improve hospital performance by changing the way hospitals are paid to reward excellence—for example, by not paying for unnecessary readmissions of patients who are discharged too soon.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

Hereford hospital is labouring under a very expensive private finance initiative contract. Does my right hon. Friend not think it a tragedy that the last Government cast good sense and good economics away, forcing so many hospitals into PFI?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point—that it was under the Labour Government that many of these projects were undertaken, and they are leaving an enormous bill in the NHS for future taxpayers and future NHS organisations to meet. A contract is a contract, as the right hon. Gentleman and the House will understand, and we inherited contracts from the Labour Government, many of which were very bad contracts, such as the ones on IT that we have had to renegotiate. Frankly, it is due to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury and ourselves at the Department of Health that people have been put into the Queen’s hospital in Romford to look at how we can resolve some of these PFI problems and reduce those costs. We need to increase productivity in the NHS and cut out much of the waste in it.

It is us who will usher a new era of transparency into the NHS, shedding light on those areas that the previous Administration sought to cover up. Before the election, how often were patients having to go into mixed-sex accommodation when the rules on single-sex accommodation were breached? We did not know, because when Labour Members were in government they would not tell us. Since we started publishing the data in December, the number of patients put into mixed-sex accommodation without justification has halved.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State talks of service to patients. Does he accept that the amount of time for which patients must wait for treatment is extremely important to them? Does he also accept that the number of people waiting more than four hours to be treated in accident and emergency departments is at its highest for six years, and that the number of people waiting more than 18 weeks for non-urgent operations is at its highest for three years?

The Secretary of State attacks our targets, describing them as “top-down bureaucracy”. Does he not accept that they are actually a guarantee that people who cannot afford to go private and pay will not have to wait in pain, but will be treated within a reasonable time frame?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s premise. Waiting times in the NHS are stable. We had a conversation about that during the last session of Health questions, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber and did not hear it. The average waiting time is nine weeks. The operational standard requires 90% of admitted patients to be seen within 18 weeks—that is in the NHS constitution—and it has been maintained, although the figure was 89.9% in February after a winter during which critical care beds were full because of flu.

The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne talked of four-hour waits in A and E as if the fact that a patient had been discharged within four hours were the only issue. He should go and talk to the families of patients who, in the past, were discharged from the emergency department at Stafford general hospital and left to die.

What matters is how long it is before a patient is seen by a qualified professional, and how long it is before that patient is treated. What about those who leave without being seen? What about those who are not given the care that they need, and have to return to the emergency department? Those are the things that matter to patients, and those are the things that are now part of the accident and emergency quality indicators which, this April, we said that we would publish for the first time. It is we who are focusing on services for patients. Labour Members had 13 years to look at what really mattered to patients and at the real quality of what was delivered to patients, but they did not do it, and we are going to do it.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Pausing and listening and getting the detail right are about grown-up politics. Opportunism and flip-flopping are about the Opposition.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), the former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Sadly, despite massive increases in funding over 15 years, there has been an undoubted catastrophic decline in NHS productivity. Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us on the Government Benches feel that if we are to save the NHS there is no alternative to more co-operation with the private sector, and that he should stick to his guns?

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend made that point when he chaired the Public Accounts Committee, and it should silence Labour Members, because the Public Accounts Committee has said exactly the same thing since the election under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge)—that productivity in the NHS declined consistently under Labour.

Let me make clear that if we are going to make—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House is in a very excitable state. The issues are of the highest importance and they provoke strong feelings, but the debate must be conducted in an orderly way, and the Secretary of State is entitled to a decent hearing.

[Mr Lansley]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I remember Labour’s scaremongering during the election about cancer waits, for example, but in 13 years in government they never actually looked at cancer survival rates. They never looked at the results for patients. It took this Government to publish the first outcomes strategy for cancer, which made clear that what matters to patients—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I will give way in a moment. That strategy made it clear that what matters to patients is not only how quickly they see a consultant, but whether they survive.

[Mr Bradshaw]

If things were so terrible under the Labour Government, why was public satisfaction with the NHS at record levels when we left office, and why were waiting times at record lows? Both are now going in the wrong direction. Will the Secretary of State please tell us—we have not yet received an answer to this question—what will happen in those areas now that GP consortia are to be voluntary? He has already abolished the primary care trusts, so who will be responsible?

[Mr Lansley]

It was also a period during which complaints to the NHS reached their highest ever levels. If we ask the public who they think are best placed to design the services patients need, we will find that the answer is their general practitioners, hospital doctors and nurses, not politicians on either the Government or the Opposition Benches. This is about doctors and nurses being in charge, not politicians.

It took this Government to focus on cancer outcomes. It took this Government to provide the drugs patients need through the cancer drugs fund. Under Labour, patients went without new cancer medicines that patients in every other European country were getting access to. It is this Government who are investing in more diagnostic equipment, and more screening and early diagnosis, so that we get better outcomes.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I must say that I admire the consistency with which the Secretary of State defends his proposed legislation. However, will he tell us what he plans to concede, given the threatened veto by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Liberal Democrats?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not want to correct the hon. Lady, but everything I have been saying up until now has been about defending the NHS and defending our focus on delivering better results by giving the NHS greater front-line devolved responsibility. That is not a matter of debate and disagreement between the coalition parties; we are all in favour of that. The point is this: how can the Bill best support the principles on which we are agreed? I thought the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne and the Labour party were agreed on those principles; that seemed to come out from his interview last week. Indeed, at the end of his speech today I was not quite sure whether or not he agreed with us.

[Mr Baron]

Given that our cancer outcomes are well below the European average, the need for NHS reform is well established. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know from my having raised the issue with him previously, the entire cancer community will breathe a sigh of relief if the guaranteed funding for cancer networks can be extended to 2014 when the transition period for GP commissioning comes to an end, as we would risk losing a lot of expertise if we were to end it in 2012. Will he address that point?

[Mr Lansley]

The support for cancer networks will continue during the course of this year and the start of next year, but when the NHS commissioning board takes responsibility for commissioning, including the relationship with consortia, it will need to decide how to manage its commissioning responsibilities. However, as I have told my hon. Friend in the House previously, it is now looking—we will look at this over the coming months—at how it can use networks as a basis for having precisely the kind of commissioning structures we want, and it is my expectation that that would include cancer networks that are not only helpful for providers, but that tie together commissioners and providers in understanding the future strategy for cancer.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lansley]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will give way again a little later, but first I want to make a couple of further points.

The House knows of my commitment to the NHS; Opposition Members know of that, too. They know that I have not spent seven and a half years as shadow Secretary and Secretary of State to see the NHS undermined, fragmented or privatised. They know that that was never my intention; it is not my intention. Before the last election, we were absolutely clear that we would protect the NHS, but we are doing more than just protecting it; we are strengthening it. We are enabling clinicians to lead a more integrated, responsive, accountable NHS—not fragmented, not privatised, not based on access to insurance, and not compromising quality for price—and, equally, an NHS that is not run by a top-down, unaccountable bureaucracy, but that is locally led and locally accountable.

As the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne admitted, this is a comprehensive, consistent and coherent vision, and it is an evolution of the better policies of the last 20 years. It was the last Labour Government who introduced patient choice; we will extend it and give patients the information they need to make it work. It was the last Labour Government who introduced practice-based commissioning; we will make it real, with health professionals designing integrated pathways of care with decision-making responsibilities. It was the last Labour Government who introduced foundation trusts; we will deliver on their broken promise to take all NHS trusts to foundation status. It was the last Labour Government who introduced payment by results, but left it half baked, distorting services and hindering joined-up care; we will change it so that it genuinely supports the best care for patients. Of course, it was the last Labour Government who brought the independent sector and competition into the NHS, but we will not follow their lead by giving the independent and private sector providers the opportunity to cherry-pick services and by giving them financial advantages over NHS providers.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the meeting patients needs programme put forward by the previous Government, which closed down many accident and emergency units and many children’s wards, will not happen again under this new regime? Will he confirm that that is because local people and local GPs will be consulted first, as opposed to having the programme driven through with no support and no consultation, as under the previous Government?

[Mr Lansley]

I completely understand and agree with my hon. Friend. I thought it was outrageous for the shadow Secretary of State to say, “Oh, they promised a moratorium and now some closures are taking place.” Why? Because we were left what were, in effect, faits accomplis by the previous Government and it was impossible to change them. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) would feel the same as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle).

[Andrew George]

I can confirm that we agree on the issue of principle and that I am not questioning the Secretary of State’s personal commitment. The issue remains one mentioned in the motion: the extent to which the policy in the Health and Social Care Bill is not just another top-down reorganisation of the sort that the coalition Government said they would stop and the extent to which the policy being driven through Parliament, on which a listening exercise is taking place, delivers what is in the coalition agreement. The debate is about the extent to which the Bill reflects the coalition programme agreement.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that the coalition agreement supports, in essence, all the principles of the Bill, with the exception of the specific consequence of the abolition of the strategic health authorities and primary care trusts. As with the whole of the Bill and its related measures, that proposal was the subject of collective agreement and it flows directly from the belief, shared not least by him and his Liberal Democrat colleagues, that we need much stronger local democratic accountability in the NHS. We are constructing health and wellbeing boards as an integral part of local authorities, and he will know that the overwhelming majority of local authorities which have volunteered to be early implementers of that approach believe precisely that democratic accountability is an essential part of the future of the NHS.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

Let me just make some progress. We need this modernisation for the NHS because of the challenges it faces in the future. We need to deliver £20 billion of efficiencies over the next four years. I remind the House that that requirement was set out originally under a Labour Government in 2009 without the merest hint of irony—I say that given that they created the inefficiencies in the first place. Today, I can give the House some figures that the Labour party would wish that people did not know. If Labour’s spending plans for the NHS at the last election had been implemented over this spending review period, the NHS budget would have been cut by £30 billion compared with what we have put into the NHS over the spending review period. So let the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne get up now and explain: how was the NHS going to deal with £20 billion of efficiencies while he was cutting £30 billion out of it, instead of it getting the extra £11.5 billion it is getting from taxpayers through this coalition Government?

[John Healey]

After 20 minutes of the Health Secretary’s speech, the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) finally brought him to his own plans and he was clearly very uncomfortable. What does he say when the Prime Minister wonders how he got the Government into such a mess over his plans? What does he think of the chair of Monitor’s observation that the approach being taken is a combination of

“previously unannounced policies, a complete failure to build the necessary political and professional consensus and an apparent disdain for the detailed planning of implementation”?

That was said by one of the Government’s allies.

[Mr Lansley]

I suppose the one thing the right hon. Gentleman has learned about being in opposition is that it is best for a party to try to forget everything that it did in government, because it will not be held to account for it. He has also recognised that the best thing is to have no ideas of his own. He does not even seem to know whether he agrees with our ideas or opposes them. We do not have any answers from him. The right hon. Gentleman’s quotation was from the former, not current, chair of Monitor, who knows perfectly well that these measures were in our respective manifestos and were brought together in the coalition agreement. They have a mandate. From my point of view, this is not just about the electoral mandate but about how we can deliver the best care for patients and see through principles that I thought the right hon. Gentleman’s party, as well as ours, believed were right.

Let me make it clear that the challenges in the NHS are about more than just clearing up Labour’s mess. We must recognise that there are now more pensioners than children under 16, alcohol-related admissions to hospital have doubled and emergency admissions have risen by 12% in just four years. Obesity in this country has doubled in the last 25 years. Under Labour, the demand for health care was rising while productivity was falling. The only way that Labour could cover those risks was by massively increasing the budget and that is no longer an option. Mounting pressure on the NHS is inevitable and the status quo, as Labour recognises, is not an option. The NHS needs modernisation.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give us an update on the tally of the number of GPs who have signed up to the new consortia to support the NHS reforms?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I will. Some 220 pathfinder consortia have come forward, representing the equivalent of 45 million patients across England—that is, 90% of the population. They are not obliged to do so. They have volunteered to come forward to demonstrate that they can deliver better services for patients.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

Let me explain—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am going to try to be helpful to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). When a Minister gives no indication of giving way, a Member must not simply stay on his or her feet. The situation is clear: the Secretary of State is not giving way at the moment. Once again, I appeal for the restoration of some sort of calm. The Secretary of State should be heard with a degree of civility—[Interruption.] Order. I ask Members to reflect on how our proceedings are regarded by members of the public whose support we sought not that long ago.

[Mr Lansley]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The principles we are pursuing are simply stated as

“a greater role for clinicians in commissioning care, more involvement of patients, less bureaucracy and greater priority on improving health outcomes”.

The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne will no doubt recognise those words, because they are his own from January, when he said that he supported the general aims of our reform.

We are already delivering on our vision. We are extending patient choice and involving patients more in decisions about their care. We are cutting back Labour’s waste and reducing the bureaucracy that stifles and undermines doctors and nurses. We are putting clinicians at the heart of commissioning, with almost 90% of the country now covered by new pathfinder consortia.

We are driving down hospital-acquired infections, sustaining and improving the performance of the NHS, stopping Labour’s arbitrary box-ticking and focusing on the outcomes that matter. We have a world-leading framework for the results that matter to patients: reducing avoidable mortality; enhancing recovery after treatment; improving quality of life for those with chronic conditions; maximising safety and cutting the number of infections; and continually improving patients’ experience of their health care. Those are the outcomes for which we and the NHS will be accountable.

Let me be clear: there will be substantive changes to the Bill to deliver improvements for patients. There is only one issue for me, however: will it deliver better care for patients? That is why we will pursue NHS modernisation and why we will stick to our principles. It is why we are listening to improve the Bill. That is what the coalition Government are committed to. Today, led by the NHS future forum, we are engaging with the health service and beyond to ensure that the legislation delivers on those principles.

Unlike the Labour party, which has retreated to its union-dominated, regressive past, we will not retreat. We will be progressive with those principles. Just last week, the right hon. Gentleman called for a return to Labour’s top-down targets and for GPs to be stripped of all their financial responsibility. He has called for the NHS to be run by a bureaucracy, not by doctors and nurses. Critics of the Bill must answer this question: if they do not want patients, doctors and nurses to be in charge of the NHS, then who do they want to be in charge?

The right hon. Gentleman has turned his back on two decades of NHS modernisation. We will never accept the Labour party’s prescriptive, top-down bureaucracy or its waste. We did not accept Labour’s plan, which would have meant taking £30 billion out of the NHS in England over this Parliament and we will not follow the route that the Labour party in Wales has taken, where it is cutting the NHS. Instead, we are increasing the NHS budget over this Parliament by £11.5 billion. We will equip the NHS to deliver better and improving services by using more resources more effectively. We will empower patients with information and with choice. We will empower doctors and nurses to shape services for their patients. We will bring together the NHS, public health and social care in a combined local strategy. We will make the NHS genuinely locally led, while meeting national standards. We will focus relentlessly on the quality and outcomes we achieve for patients. We will protect the NHS and strengthen it. We will do that not by living in the past, but by modernising for the future. We want a modern service that is true to its core values. The Labour party’s motion offers no future for the NHS. We on the Government side will give the NHS a stronger future, and I urge the House to reject the Labour party’s motion.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is extensive interest in speaking in this debate, as a result of which I have imposed a seven-minute limit on each Back-Bench contribution.

16:36

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

The national health service is about people—those who work in the NHS and the patients for whom they care. It produces heroes on a daily basis. In the last year, I spent long nights at my late wife’s bedside as she battled against cancer. I am reminded of Andrew Agombar, the consultant surgeon who twice operated on my late wife, and of his relentless commitment to trying to save her and to serving the public. I am reminded of the conversations I have had in Barnsley hospital with doctors and nurses. I am reminded of the GPs who provide an integral part of the British way of life and I am reminded of the porters, cleaners and volunteers. They are all heroes and are all dedicated to the very best principles of our NHS.

In my family’s darkest days, we saw the true genius of the NHS—a genius based on care and compassion, commitment and dedication, principles and standards. The market can be a useful tool, but there are limits to its ability to deliver those values. There is a reason why Bupa does not do accident and emergency, and we must never allow an ideological free-market agenda to undermine all that is great about the NHS. That is what the Government are in danger of doing. I accept the need for fiscal responsibility and I acknowledge that the Secretary of State’s proposals have the purpose of moving health care more into the community and away from hospitals, but the patient, not the market, must always come first. The risk is that the British people will pay for these reforms three times over while patients see little or no improvement in their care.

The previous Labour Government delivered the biggest hospital-building programme in NHS history based on private finance initiative funding, which the then Opposition supported. Consequently, many trusts are now locked into 20 to 30-year fiscal plans. In order to realise the benefits of the investment that Labour put into the NHS, those trusts will require stable funding over this period. Without it, much of the existing investment could be wasted.

GP commissioning is another example of the Bill’s inefficiencies. The taxpayer could end up paying to fund the community or the private investor.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has just given an eloquent explanation of why the market should be ignored in health care, but he has also said that the whole of health care spending should be fixed in stone for 30 years just to suit the PFI contracts signed by the previous Government.

[Dan Jarvis]

I did not say the market should be ignored. The point that I was making is that ultimately it is a matter of priorities.

What will be the cost of making NHS staff redundant, before the additional cost of rehiring by the GP commissioning bodies? To me, none of this makes sense, and it leads many health officials to question whether the Health Secretary fully understands what impact the reforms will have on the front line morally, economically and logistically, and in this confusion the NHS is placed at risk.

Why not use the facilities that the Labour Government spent £100 billion building over the past decade? Would it not be simpler to keep the PCTs? Surely it makes far more sense to increase GP involvement to allow for clinical oversight, and use the facilities and the staff base that we have spent the past decade investing in. Of course there are problems in the NHS which need solving, but the Government’s plans are not just a misguided attempt at privatisation by stealth; they fail to acknowledge that the past 13 years of reforms ever happened.

As well as issues of cost, the proposed reforms are a threat to the accountability of the NHS—at a local level, with the removal of the non-executive directors, and nationally, with the transfer of responsibility from Whitehall to the NHS board. How will we know whether we are getting value for money? What impact will the reforms have on local waiting times? If the Secretary of State genuinely believes in these reforms, what accountability mechanism is he introducing to judge how well they are working? The Department of Health has not explained how the reforms will address the challenges of longer life expectancy, advances in technology and greater public expectations.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is making a thoughtful speech. The incoming Government inherited an NHS which has had a massive increase in expenditure, yet has seen a 15% drop in productivity over time. Does he have any thoughts on what reforms do need to be made? Despite having money thrown at it, the NHS was not delivering in terms of productivity and was thereby letting patients down. What is his prescription to make the NHS stronger?

[Dan Jarvis]

Although I am new to this business, if hon. Members and the Secretary of State had such faith in the reforms, it is confusing to me why they were not put in the manifesto and the people of this country given the opportunity to vote on them at the general election.

GPs will be substituting the calculator for the stethoscope. That is bad for the NHS and bad for patients. Given how far we have come, would not the first year of the Secretary of State’s tenure in the Department of Health have been better spent, for example, on a concentrated investment of effort in cancer care? We must fight the war on bureaucracy, but not at the expense of the war on cancer.

Would not the Secretary of State have better spent his time learning from our European partners how to educate our constituents about the dangers of an unhealthy lifestyle—diet, drink and drugs—and their effect, particularly with regard to cancer treatment? We need to address why a cancer sufferer in Barnsley is less likely to survive than a sufferer in Barnet. These are the NHS reforms that would make a positive difference and that the country expects us to deliver. Instead, in my constituency, the scale and pace of the Government’s cuts are making it virtually impossible for Barnsley hospital to plan ahead. Budgets are being cut while patient numbers are going up.

The Government are proposing the biggest reorganisation of the NHS since its inception—

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

rose—

[Dan Jarvis]

I have almost finished so I shall keep going.

The reorganisation is one for which the Government have no mandate. That raises the question, as I said, of whether the Secretary of State deliberately chose not to include these drastic reforms in the manifesto because he knew how unpopular they would be. The NHS is the pride of its staff, its patients and our country. We all deserve better.

15:28

[Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)]

I do not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) has just said, but I congratulate him on a thoughtful speech and wish to pick up on two points with which I entirely agree. The first was his moving tribute to the NHS staff who provided the care for his late wife. The second point, which is of immediate concern to us, was his recognition that the health service, like all human institutions, must embrace the need for change.

The question before the House this afternoon is how we can ensure that the need for change that the health service faces can be embraced and made a force for good. I open my remarks on that point by agreeing with the shadow Health Secretary, who said only a few short months ago, on 20 January —his words have already been quoted to him—that

“these plans are consistent, coherent and comprehensive. I would expect nothing less from Andrew Lansley”

Nor would I. I agree that that is a fair description of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s proposals. I particularly congratulate my right hon. Friend, and the Government at large, on the fact that, despite that being a fair description of their proposals, they are now engaged in a listening exercise, the purpose of which is to improve a set of proposals that were described by the shadow Health Secretary in the terms I have already quoted.

I particularly welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister have made it clear that this will be a listening exercise on the policy substance, not just a process of balancing political forces in order to cobble together a compromise. If we are to be true to our commitment to the health service, as my right hon. Friend is, we need to ensure that we focus on the problems it faces and put in place structures that will deliver solutions.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister has not broken any promises on the NHS, as the shadow Health Secretary has suggested, and that the Government are investing in the NHS and there is no question of privatising it?

[Mr Dorrell]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State made clear during the listening exercise their determination to ensure that proposals are brought forward that improve the capacity of the structures of the health service to deliver the objectives my hon. Friend has just articulated.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Dorrell]

I will give way once more and will then have to make progress, because I have very limited time.

[Emma Reynolds]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been possible to make the current structures work better? The coalition agreement states, on page 24:

“We will ensure that there is a stronger voice for patients locally through directly elected individuals on the boards of their local primary care trust”.

It is possible better to democratise the PCTs and give greater clinician involvement in them, so does he support some of the calls from the professionals to keep the cluster PCTs?

[Mr Dorrell]

I want to make my speech in my own way. The hon. Lady asked at the beginning of her intervention whether I agree that it would have been possible to introduce quite a lot of this without the need for a long Bill. She does not need to put that question to me, because the Health Secretary made the same point during the last health questions. We are seeking in the Bill to provide a holistic basis—a structure for the health service going forward, and that is an objective, starting from where we are, that it seems entirely reasonable to embrace.

I was seeking to identify the problem that my right hon. Friend’s measures must be designed to tackle, because as he and the Prime Minister have said repeatedly, no change is not an option. That should not be a matter of party political debate because the definition of the core problem facing the health service can be found in the NHS annual report for 2008-09, which was published 12 full months before the general election. I quote from it a single sentence:

“We should also plan on the assumption that we will need to release unprecedented levels of efficiency savings between 2011 and 2014—between £15 billion and £20 billion across the service over those three years.”

That is what we on the Health Committee referred to as the Nicholson challenge, because it was first articulated in the chief executive’s report a full 12 months before the election. That is the challenge that my right hon. Friend has to address, because it is the inescapable challenge in front of the national health service.

In point of fact, my right hon. Friend has made the challenge rather easier than it was in the days of the previous Labour Government, because there is a commitment to real-terms growth in the health budget throughout this Parliament, and because he has given the health service four years to respond to the Nicholson challenge, whereas the original articulation was focused on the three years ending in 2014.

But the substance of the need to deliver unprecedented efficiency gains out of the health service is the constant between the previous Government and the current Government. The articulation of it in the chief executive’s report was “£15 billion to £20 billion”; I have always preferred to articulate it as, “4% efficiency gain, four years running”.

That is what the health service has to deliver against the background of it never having delivered 4% efficiency in a single year, and of no health care system anywhere in the world having delivered a 4% efficiency gain, four years running. So, Sir David Nicholson, 12 months before the general election, was 100% right to say, “This is an unprecedented challenge,” and the challenge was embraced by the previous and current Governments.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Dorrell]

Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? I want to cover what I regard as important ground.

I have expressed the challenge as an efficiency target, but the same target can be looked at differently, and it is important for the House to understand that this is a matter not just of dry health economics, but of the way in which the health service delivers clinical care, because so often in such debates we imagine that the normal health service patient is a normally healthy person who goes to see the GP and is referred for an elective acute procedure. It is as well to remember, however, that such patients constitute 11% of NHS expenditure, and sometimes I wish that we would devote the same attention to the remaining 89%, because that includes emergency patients, with 75% being expenditure on patients with long-term complex conditions, most of whose care would be better delivered by integrated services in the community.

The challenge that we ought to address when we think about the future of the health service involves not just another discussion about bureaucratic structures, but how we deliver the change in the service’s clinical model to ensure that it delivers efficient and high-quality care to the patients who present for care, rather than to the patients as so often described in the policy pamphlets.

That is why it is so important that the structures that emerge from this listening exercise achieve more radical integration than we have yet achieved in the health service—of primary care, community care and social care. It is why the GPs have to be engaged in the process. Once again, that is not a matter of party political debate; the point is made in all the world-class commissioning documents that I do not have time to quote.

My message for the House is that this is an intensely depressing debate, because it is as if the past 20 years never happened. The reality, when we look through the torrent of rhetoric, is that this policy is not a great break from the past; it is a desire on the part of my right hon. Friend to take ideas that were expressed and pushed through by Labour Ministers between 1997 and 2010, and to seek to make them effective in the context of the challenge that I have defined.

16:54

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the thoughtful contribution by the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), who chairs the Select Committee on Health.

I come to this debate as, I believe, one of the longest-standing opponents of the Bill, both as a member of the Health Committee and as a member of the Health and Social Care Bill Committee. As such, I have consistently raised serious concerns about not only some of the detail contained in the Bill but the direction of travel charted by these reforms since they have developed from manifesto to coalition agreement to White Paper, and finally morphed into the Bill itself. I have become accustomed to the protestations and rebuttals of Health Ministers on every issue that I have raised, so I am somewhat sceptical about the listening exercise.

Those issues include the pace and scale of reform, the lack of a credible large-scale pilot to assess the impact of the changes, the conflicts of interest inherent throughout the Bill, as identified in the Channel 4 “Dispatches” TV documentary, and the threat of privatisation by stealth. [Interruption.] Despite the protestations and groans of Government Members, there is nothing in the Bill to rule that out. I can cite some examples, not least in relation to the prison health contract that was recently awarded to Care UK to provide health services for eight prisons in the north-east of England, resulting in 120 NHS staff being displaced and made redundant. There is a clear and present danger of privatisation of the service.

Perhaps the strongest advocate of the Bill, as it stands prior to any changes, has been the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who is no longer in his seat, and who was the Lib Dem steward of the Bill in Committee. On 10 March, he said in an interview in The Guardian:

“This is a change that liberals can embrace.”

On 17 November, in the Commons Chamber, he called Labour’s record on the NHS a “failed status quo” and wholeheartedly backed the Tory NHS reforms. This year, we found out that the Department of Health had at that time been trying to suppress an internal Ipsos MORI poll of public satisfaction with the NHS. That is interesting, because the poll shows record levels of public satisfaction. Perhaps even more disturbing are rumours that next year the Department intends to cancel the commissioning of such a survey. Rather than saying that Labour has failed on the NHS, the survey showed the highest ever levels of public satisfaction.

An even bigger supporter of the Bill, until now, has been the Deputy Prime Minister. On 23 January this year, on the “Andrew Marr Show” he was asked by Mr Marr, of the Health and Social Care Bill,

“Was that in the Liberal Democrat manifesto?”

The Deputy Prime Minister responded:

“Actually funnily enough it was. Indeed it was…I agree it’s an ambitious programme of reform—but over time I think it’ll leave patients with the feeling that they are at the centre of it.”

I am slightly perplexed by the hasty posturing and sudden synthetic explosion of anger by senior Liberal Democrats in the coalition, perhaps in the wake of the meltdown following last Thursday’s elections. I take those criticisms with a pinch of salt.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Health Committee, so one would expect him to be well informed on these matters. I assume that he reads other reports of the House relating to health. I wonder what he would say about the report of the Public Accounts Committee that was recently published, under the chairmanship of one of his right hon. Friends, which says:

“The trend of falling NHS productivity will have to be reversed if the NHS is to deliver, by 2014-15, savings of up to £20 billion each year for reinvestment in healthcare.”

The PAC found that there were serious problems with productivity—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Interventions, by their nature, must be brief, particularly when so many Members are waiting to speak.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Indeed, that was the point that I wanted to make when the right hon. Member for Charnwood was speaking about the level of the challenge faced by the NHS. Sir David Nicholson rightly pointed out that major efficiency savings have to be made and he identified the figure. However, he did not advocate massive organisational change on top of the drive for efficiencies in the system.

During the 28 sittings of the Public Bill Committee, I raised countless issues and made numerous interventions against the health reforms. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State was unwilling to take them earlier in this debate. I have followed this matter very closely. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) asked if I had read the Bill. As a matter of fact, I have read it inside out and could probably give some lessons to a few Members who are in the Chamber. My conclusion is that the policy has remained basically the same, and that only the public relations strategy and the spin has changed.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I will give way just one more time.

[Mr Umunna]

My hon. Friend said that he sat on the Public Bill Committee and he is also a member of the Health Committee. Has any clarification been given during this reorganisation on the operation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and 2006 with regard to employees in the NHS?

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is a key point, and I know that whether TUPE will apply under the terms of the Bill is a legitimate concern of trade unions. However, I will leave it to the Minister to give a definitive response.

My argument is that we need an end to the gesture politics and a radical shift in policy. The Conservatives’ rhetoric and that of their coalition partners must match the reality on the ground. If the opportunity to

“pause, listen, reflect and improve”

is the Health Secretary’s chance to engage with NHS staff, the 98% vote of no confidence against him by the Royal College of Nursing must have been a major hiccup.

It seems to me that this week’s strategy is to let the Deputy Prime Minister flex his muscles. He said yesterday:

“Protecting the NHS, rather than undermining it, is now my number-one priority.”

Perhaps he can tell us what has changed since the White Paper was published in July last year. So far, we have heard that as a result of the listening exercise there may be tweaks to GP-led commissioning consortia to make them more inclusive and accountable, that scrutiny arrangements may be strengthened and that the pace of change from PCTs to GP consortia may be slowed. If that is all the Deputy Prime Minister can negotiate as No. 2 in the Government, it demonstrates, particularly to his own supporters, that he has prostituted his party and the NHS for a position in power.

The Deputy Prime Minister must take heed of the lesson from the Royal College of General Practitioners:

“Intensifying competition in the NHS will lead to the service breaking up, drive up costs, damage patient care, and mean less integration of services.”

The future of the NHS requires him to put aside gesture politics and use his clout to force out the central privatising elements of the Bill; drop Monitor, the economic regulator of the health service; protect national pay terms and conditions for NHS staff; and limit the ability of private health care companies to enter the NHS at every level. He must ensure that the Government do not privatise the health budget, but bring GPs and other health professionals into PCTs to achieve clinical excellence in commissioning, without there being ulterior motives for private profit.

I know that time is short and that many Members wish to speak. My final point is that if the Deputy Prime Minister is serious about protecting the NHS and achieving substantial and significant changes to the reforms, he must force his coalition partners to drop the Bill and start again.

17:04

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I have no doubt that one of the main reasons I was elected to the House was that I promised to bring my clinical experience to bear on the health debate and to stand up for our NHS. I would therefore like to set aside party politics for a moment and give my personal take on the direction that I hope the proposed reforms will take and where we should go from here.

At the heart of the Bill lie issues of choice, competition and clinical commissioning. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) set out clearly the huge funding challenges that face the NHS. We have always had rationing in the NHS, but we are squeamish about discussing it. In an ideal world with unlimited resources, unrestricted choice would of course be a good thing, but it is not deliverable. Because of the limited budget, we need to focus on getting the very best value while openly and honestly involving communities in how we do that fairly. If that happens locally, one person’s local commissioning becomes another person’s postcode lottery.

The central problem with unrestricted choice in the form of the “any willing provider” model is that it forces commissioners to act as bill payers and has the potential to undermine good commissioning. What is the point of commissioners designing high-quality, locally responsive clinical pathways that deliver good value for money for the whole community if patients have a free choice of any willing provider and commissioners have no choice but to write the cheques?

[Mr Umunna]

The hon. Lady has long experience of working in the sector. One of my concerns about the “any willing provider” model is how it will potentially disadvantage teaching hospitals. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), might want to listen to this, because one of the hospitals involved is St Thomas’s, which serves the House, and if he fell ill here he would probably go over there. One of my concerns is about how teaching hospitals will be able to compete with other providers given the extra burdens of training and supervising those who are learning to work in the NHS. Does the hon. Lady share that concern?

[Dr Wollaston]

Of course, one of the greatest burdens on many hospitals is that of the private finance initiative, and I will come to the issue of training later. I am not opposed to competition in the NHS, but it should not be an end in itself. It can have a role in improving some services—take, for example, the provision of mental health services and talking therapies, on which I am repeatedly told that the voluntary sector delivers better results. If I were facing a long wait for an MRI scan, for example, I would not mind if it was provided by the private sector as long as it was free to me at the point of use as part of the NHS.

The point is that competition should be used only where there is evidence that it can deliver real benefits for patients and value for money for the whole patient community. If competition becomes an end in itself, that can actually increase costs and risk fragmentation. For that reason, I hope that as the Bill moves forward, there will be fundamental changes to the role of Monitor. The NHS cannot operate like a regulated industry, and I believe that concern about the proposed role of Monitor is the impassable barrier to co-operation from the professions, without which we will not achieve the great success that we need from these reforms.

We must return to the original promise of the reforms, which was about clinical commissioning and a focus on outcomes rather than targets. For years, commissioning has failed because decision making in primary care trusts has not been clinically led. The NHS has been dogged by illogical care pathways, top-heavy management and a target-driven mentality, often completely divorced from any evidence base. The idea that clinicians should be put at the heart of decision making is still very sound, and it has become divisive only because of the stipulation that GPs should hold all the cards and be the sole commissioners.

Where clinical commissioning is already successful, that is achieved through a collaborative process with multi-disciplinary input. I hope that as a result of the Government’s welcome listening exercise, the call to broaden the membership of commissioning consortia will be heeded, along with the need for a more graduated and phased introduction so that consortia are authorised only when they are ready. The same should apply to foundation trusts. They should take on functions only when it is right for that to happen.

If commissioning consortia are to achieve the best results for their patients, they will need to focus on the integration of health and social care, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood said. I pay tribute to Torbay, which was at the forefront of moves that were widely applauded nationally and internationally, including by the King’s Fund, and that achieved real results for patients, driving down unnecessary admissions and improving outcomes. The integration of health and social care is complicated to achieve, so perhaps Monitor could have a relevant role in it—not arbitrating in disputes about competition law, but driving down costs and facilitating integration. We know that splitting tariffs, for example, could benefit community hospitals. Again, that is complex to achieve, so perhaps Monitor could also help in that regard.

For consortia to succeed, not only do we need to focus on the make-up of their boards, but they must be geographically logical and, I am afraid, cater for geographically defined populations. Giving a free choice to register with any consortium risks encouraging consortia to cherry-pick their patients. One striking feature of the Bill is its sheer scope. All junior doctors will remember the fiasco of MTAS—the medical training application service. We currently have a successful model of deaneries in this country. I hope that we can retain them as the Bill goes forward, because they have a vital role to play in encouraging quality. Of course they are not perfect, and they need to look at regional variants, but we should keep our deaneries.

Speaking of quality, at present, PCTs play a vital role in maintaining what is called the performers list, on which all GPs have to be registered in order to practise in an area. As we move forward, we need to clarify who will take over that role. That is particularly important because we have a crisis with many doctors coming here, particularly from the European Union, who do not speak adequate English, as we saw in the case of Dr Ubani. We need to ensure that the person responsible for the performers list can get rid of this nonsense, so that all doctors not only have the necessary qualifications, clinical skills and experience, but have good spoken English.

I welcome this listening exercise, which I believe is genuine, and I hope that the Opposition will engage with it constructively. The public’s affection for the NHS is well justified. At its best, the NHS is outstanding. Where that is the case, it is not competition that has delivered those good results, but a relentless focus on what is right for patients. We need to do the same in this House.

17:12

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and to serve with her on the Select Committee on Health.

I welcome this debate, which is the first chance that the House has had to debate the NHS after the pause—the listening, reflecting and engaging exercise—since Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill. Something about this debate made me think of the words of The Beatles song “Hello, Goodbye”. Madam Deputy Speaker, you can imagine the discussion in No. 10 between the Secretary of State for Health and the Prime Minister: “You say stop, I say go. You say, ‘Why?’ I say, ‘I don’t know.’” I promise it sounds better when sung. We can see now why The Daily Telegraph said this Saturday that the Secretary of State was to get first aid from the No. 10 spin doctors.

It is right that the Government should take on board the voices in this House and outside—those of the experts, the patients, our constituents—not in reselling their proposals, but in fundamentally changing them. I wish to cover three main areas: accountability, costs and other concerns. On accountability, as a member of the Health Committee, which is so ably chaired by the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), we have heard evidence from expert after expert—from the BMA, which I promise was not whingeing, to GPs, nurses and public health clinicians—all of whom expressed concerns about the lack of detail on the ideas in the White Paper. Matters did not become much clearer even on Second Reading.

Our latest report, “Commissioning: further issues”, published on 5 April, said that there should be no doubt that the Secretary of State has ultimate responsibility, but that is not clear from the Bill. We have concerns about accountability and the governance arrangements for the consortia that will be responsible for £60 billion of public money, but that issue is not clear in the Bill. There are concerns that private and voluntary providers will not be covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which is not dealt with in the Bill either. Concerns remain about conflicts of interest in respect of GPs who are commissioners and providers, but that is not clear in the Bill.

Some PCTs were working with clinicians to provide a more integrated service. A more evolutionary and cost-effective approach would be to remove the non-executive directors of the PCT boards and replace them with GPs. That would have been not a top-down reorganisation, but a progressive and less disruptive approach.

I am staggered by the uncertainty surrounding how much this reorganisation will cost the taxpayer. The proposals in the White Paper were neither costed nor explained, and the spending is not committed, so it must come out of revenue. Professor Kieran Walshe, of Manchester Business School, put the cost at £2 billion to £3 billion, but the Government’s figure is £1.4 billion. The redundancy costs alone amount to £852 million. Sir David Nicholson said that the running-cost envelope was £5.1 billion for the running of the current service and the development of the consortia. In an written parliamentary answer to me, the Minister said that the spend and operational arrangements of pathfinder consortia are not being monitored. That smacks of fiscal incompetence and a Department that has lost control of its budget. It is so out of control that the head of Monitor wrote to foundation trusts, telling them that the NHS must find savings of 6.5% rather than 4%. That is an extra £1.1 billion on top of the savings demanded by the Department.

Members will be interested to know that the head of Monitor compared the NHS under the Government’s proposals to privatised utilities. Does Ofgem have trouble regulating the utilities? It was ineffective in dealing with companies’ unfair pricing practices and companies that made large profits during the recent severe weather.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s plan to abolish the cap on income from private patients is a real concern when hospitals are starved of cash, because it could result in them putting private, fee-paying patients ahead of NHS patients?

[Valerie Vaz]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

We were told by Sir David Nicolson that very little work has been done on what will happen in 2013-14. Just for the record, the UK had the second-lowest debt in the G7 in 2007-08, before the global financial crisis. Which Government are out of control with their spending?

Finally, there are many unanswered questions. I have tried to obtain the legal advice on whether EU competition law applies to the provisions of the Bill from the Secretary of State, but apparently, it is in the public interest not to disclose that to the public. However, in a recent article in the British Medical Journal, Rupert Dunbar-Rees, a GP, and Robert McGough, a solicitor, say that

“the technical argument reinforces the logical argument that the reforms further open up the NHS to EU competition law.”

Who will account for the training of doctors, and indeed health care professionals? That cannot be left at a local level. In A and E, an increased percentage of patients wait more than four hours, the maternity service in Maidstone has been closed despite GP opposition—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but the clock is not correct. If she is following that, she will not know that she does not have that much time left—the clock stopped and did not start again. I would advise her to take about another minute and a half only.

[Valerie Vaz]

At Barts specialist regional cancer care unit, 20% of staff have been cut in two weeks.

An Ipsos MORI poll found that 71% agree that the NHS is the best in the world and that 72% express satisfaction with the NHS, but that was published by the Department only under pressure.

Finally, there have been 6,000 responses to the White Paper. The people of England have given their proposals, but they have not given their verdict on the Bill. They want the Prime Minister to keep his promise. If he does not do so, they will be ready to give their verdict at the next general election.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. May I apologise to the hon. Lady for the error with the timing? It was very gracious of her to ensure that she stayed within the time, which allows others to speak, but I think she will find that she got her time anyway.

17:19

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

This is déjà vu. In the last Parliament, it seemed like every other Opposition day debate was a health debate, normally called by the Secretary of State as the then Opposition spokesman. I trust that his enthusiasm for these debates is undimmed, although given that he has left us, possibly it is.

The Opposition allege that the Bill prepares the ground for the complete privatisation and fragmentation of the NHS through the introduction of an open market, pricing and competition regulation and the general disengagement of Government. However, the often very pained response of Ministers—this was certainly true in the Bill Committee—is that they are building and improving on previous policy, linking clinical decision making to cost control and adding a dimension of accountability that has not existed hitherto. All those statements are true. I noticed that in the Bill Committee, Ministers talked all the time about “refracting mirrors”, “Opposition fantasies” and “deliberate distortions”. In turn, the Opposition talk of “hidden agendas”.

On reflection, I have come to the conclusion that there has to be an explanation for this strange phenomenon, this persistent conflict between interpretations of the same legislation, this clear non-meeting of minds.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Pugh]

I was just about to give the answer, but I will give way.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Is there not a simple solution? It is the Government’s Bill, so why did they not explicitly rule out price competition in the Bill?

[John Pugh]

I have a different explanation, which is that both interpretations can be sustained by a reading of the Bill. It is a kind of Jekyll-and-Hyde thing. I have a vision of the Bill being drafted during the day by a sane, pragmatic Dr Jekyll-like Minister, but during the night some rabid-eyed Mr Hyde with right-wing ideology breaks into Richmond House and changes many of the sentences. That is the only way I can explain the fact that the explanatory notes to the Bill provided in Committee explained very little.

The House might know that I am a long-term critic of the Bill and the White Paper before it. At the annual Liberal Democrat conference in October, I and the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) went around with a double act on the Bill—him for, me against. This is not, therefore, as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) might think, a hissy fit following poor election results. Like nearly everyone in the House, I do not disagree with the Bill’s objectives: more clinical involvement, less bureaucracy and more local accountability. Like everyone else, I am concerned not about its objectives, but about its likely effects. I have met no one who takes issue with the Bill’s avowed intentions, but I have met many who dread its consequences.

According to one reading of the Bill—the Mr Hyde version—the eventual outcome of the Bill will be that the NHS opts out of direct health provision and becomes simply a funding body; NHS hospitals, services and clinics become indistinguishable from private ones; everyone competes on business terms for a slice of whatever funds the Government have allocated for health purposes; and what health care a person gets depends on what can be purchased on their behalf in a largely unconstrained, privately run health market. That is a perfectly consistent view of how a health service can be run, but in our country any party that advocates it commits political suicide. Furthermore, of course, it is likely to accentuate health inequalities and overall costs.

The question for us is this: what will prevent such a situation from arising out of a Bill that appoints a competition regulator along the lines of Ofgem to promote competition, that blurs many of the lines between private and public provision, and which removes the Government’s duty to provide a comprehensive health service? Hence the importance of today’s debate, which, knockabout apart, is crucial to the wider debate on the Bill. To be alarmed by the prospect I have set out is not to oppose competition in principle. The previous Government set up competition and collaboration panels to encourage a degree of challenge in the system. In fact, if hon. Members look at their record, they will see that they were knee-deep in competition initiatives. Neither is holding these concerns to be alarmed by the presence of private business in delivering NHS services. There is not a person here who has not used a private optician or a private pharmacist when they need it. There is a long tradition of involvement by the private sector in the NHS.

Rather, to be concerned about the proposals is to be alarmed by the fear of an unconstrained, uncontrolled market in health—this is a point that has been made previously—partly because it can lead to fragmentation, potential conflicts of interest, profiteering and so on, but mainly because identifying competition as the main engine of improvement in health care ignores the simply enormous gains in service quality, cost reduction, efficiency and patient experience that can be gained through co-operation, collaboration and integration of services.

The NHS is built on the principle of co-operation, in which we, the hale and hearty, make a moral compact to support the lame and the sick. To make commercial competition the main driver of improvement in the NHS, even if it is not competition on price, would be a serious mistake. It would be to subscribe to a perverse and misguided form of social Darwinism. Competition is a mechanism; it is not an end in itself. The role of competition in the NHS, as seen by the Government, is the real issue. The problem is made a lot worse by the hopeless lack of clarity over how European competition law will apply. We struggled with that issue in Committee. We did not resolve it, and I do not think that we will do so.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that in today’s debate, as in the long period we spent together in the Bill Committee, the Government have failed to clarify how competition law will apply? Indeed, they have sought repeatedly to imply that it will not bite any harder on the NHS. Does not that verge on disingenuousness from the Government, if not downright dissembling?

[John Pugh]

I think that that is a bit unkind to the Government. I have been to the Library and borrowed some very big books on EU competition law, and the main conclusion that I have drawn is that the law is not at all clear when it comes to the provision of public services. But that adds to the risks created by the legislation, and gives rise to the awful thought that the fate of our local services, about which we all care, could be decided not by the NHS, not by the Government and not by the public but by case law—European case law, at that—and in the courts.

If we subject clinical services to the same regime to which we have subjected non-clinical services, we will not get the innovative social enterprises strengthening existing provision that people would like to see; we will get large companies financed by private equity muscling in and challenging tendering processes, backed up by legal teams and looking for every weak link or failure to comply with EU regulations. Indeed, that is already happening with non-clinical services.

That is why there is a problem, and it is why private equity is licking its lips. We cannot additionally expect the private sector to come into this game to bid for the unprofitable, high-risk, complex work and not cherry-pick. That is not what businesses do. Good businesses pick cherries, because they need to make a profit. To suggest, as Clare Gerada of the Royal College of General Practitioners has done today, that there is not a problem of untrammelled competition in the legislation is entirely to miss the point. We are not anti-private sector, and we are not anti-competition; we want to see a level of robust pragmatism supported by those with a lifetime’s experience of running health services, and a recognition that good health care is essentially a collaborative exercise. If we cannot get that recognition and the acceptance of the professional bodies for what is embodied in the Bill, everything we say here and every amendment that we make will be utterly pointless.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. A large number of Members still wish to speak, and we simply will not get everyone in unless I reduce the time limit further, so that is precisely what I am going to do. The time limit for contributions to the debate from Back-Bench Members is now five minutes.

17:28

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh). A lot of water has passed under the bridge since the middle of March, when we last debated the NHS. The Committee tasked with scrutinising the Health and Social Care Bill, on which I served—a baptism of fire—finished its deliberations at the end of March. I believe that it was the longest running Bill Committee since 2002, so it was a marathon stint in which we debated 280 clauses and 600 amendments. During those eight weeks, the Government did not accept a single amendment. Some hon. Members made exceptional speeches, dissecting the Bill in detail and arguing against it. I remember in particular a debate about regional specialist services and how they would be commissioned in future. I am afraid, however, that that was as far as it went when it came to changing the Bill. I was therefore nonplussed when, the day after the Committee finished its proceedings, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister expressed their concerns about the Bill and announced a pause in its enactment.

At the same time as the Public Bill Committee was sitting, we saw growing public anxiety about what the Bill would mean to patients and their families. I was contacted by hundreds of my constituents and received a petition signed by nearly 300,000 people from across England. Perhaps that was the motivation for the Government’s change of heart, or was it just political rhetoric with the elections looming? There has certainly been no pause in NHS reorganisation in many areas, including my own, where, as I mentioned the other week, it has actually been brought forward.

The public are beginning to see an erosion of the considerable improvements made in the NHS under Labour, and this is what is fuelling public concern. In Greater Manchester, as Peter Thornborrow, one of my constituents found out to his cost, there are much stricter criteria for cataract surgery, as there are for hip and knee replacements.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Recent OECD research shows that, despite the last Government’s spending splurge on the NHS, Britain still has the eighth worst record of all its members for preventable deaths—we are down there with Poland, the Czech Republic and Mexico. It also shows Britain has the seventh highest potential for efficiency savings in health care—that is, for improving patient outcomes without spending any more money. Is that not a damning indictment of the last Government’s health policy and does it not mean that reform is essential for the future of the NHS and for improving patient outcomes?

[Debbie Abrahams]

How will breaking up the NHS improve that? The hon. Gentleman should be concerned that some of the measures PCTs are having to take are increasing the risks of cardiovascular disease for many patients. As for international comparison of our NHS, it is known to be one of the most cost-efficient health systems in the world.

Bariatric surgery provides another example of where the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines have been replaced with more stringent criteria, rationing access to care in order to balance the books. There are many other examples. According to one survey published last week, demands for bariatric surgery have risen by 17%, but approval for such surgery has fallen by 22%. These are the so-called efficiency savings, as we heard from the Secretary of State, of £20 billion nationally and 4% each year.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

We hear a lot about the effect of efficiency savings on the NHS in England. Under Labour party proposals, Wales is not suffering from efficiency savings, but from cuts of £435 million in the NHS budget this year and £1 billion in the next four years.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that that is why we won the election in Wales?

The savings required are 4%, and if the Government get their way with the new economic regulator Monitor, they could go as high as 7% each year—far more than our NHS is capable of coping with.

My constituent, Peter, was refused a cataract operation, yet his vision was so poor that he was able to see the world only through a haze; as a precision engineer, furthermore, he was not able to do his job and faced the threat of redundancy. In other cases, non-compliance with NICE guidelines—on familial hypercholesterolaemia, for example—is leaving people at extreme risk of untreated cardiovascular disease.

Health professionals have almost without exception castigated the Bill for what it will do to the NHS in completely opening it up to the market, with competition law applying in full and allowing private health care providers to cherry-pick profitable services. A hospital medical director said last week that he did not know how his hospital could continue to provide care for unprofitable patients.

The unprofitable services for most hospitals are elderly care, mental health, paediatrics and maternity, which are essential services for all communities. Instead of service providers and commissioners working together to provide the best quality care they can for their patients, the trend is for hospital trusts to maximise income and compete against each other. We are already seeing that lack of co-operation when PCTs look at alternatives in commissioning. Trusts are reluctant to collaborate when they see that it might reduce their income, even if it improves the quality of patient care. Similarly, the Bill gives GPs a financial interest in restricting or refusing treatment in order to make savings and to get bonus payments from the NHS commissioning board.

Labour wants genuine savings that will enhance patient outcomes rather than produce the diminishing effect that we are currently seeing, and we believe that we can achieve that. We want hospital specialists and GPs to work together to deliver clinical care pathways that improve the quality of patient care and bring care closer to home. One local PCT is trying to introduce the use of drugs that are cheaper—and unlicensed—to treat age-related macular degeneration, but it is under severe pressure from the pharmaceutical industry. That is another way in which we could reduce costs.

There is no doubt in my mind that, unamended, the Bill threatens the founding principles and values of the NHS. It removes the duty to provide a comprehensive health service, and provides an opportunity for the new NHS commissioning board and GP consortia to charge for services. It involves a costly, ideologically driven reorganisation of the NHS that has no mandate from the British people, and no support from health professionals and that will mean the end of the NHS that we know and love. As I have said before, the NHS is not just an organisation that plans and provides our health care; it reflects the values of our society on which this country set such store.

I know that there are many members on this side of the House—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Lady’s time is up.

17:36

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

When in government, the Labour party acknowledged that the NHS would have to make considerable efficiency savings over the next few years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), the Chairman of the Health Committee, has described that as the Nicholson challenge. The more I listen to speeches from Opposition Members, the more I am convinced that their opposition to the Bill is a cynical exercise. Given the Nicholson challenge, if at any time any hospital gets into difficulty, the Opposition will simply say, “That’s a consequence of the health reforms.”

All of us in the House want to ensure that we get the health reforms right. I suspect that for all Members of Parliament the NHS in their own constituencies is one of the most important political and, indeed, constituency issues, but for me one of the main issues was, for much of the last Parliament—and still is—the need to retain the full range of services at Horton general hospital in Banbury. If there are difficulties in the NHS, it is hospitals such as the Horton that will experience them first. It is therefore imperative, for me, that we get the reforms right, but I have every confidence that the Secretary of State and his ministerial team will get them right.

The Secretary of State, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), and pretty well every other health Minister has been to Banbury to visit the Horton. As the Secretary of State made clear to GPs in Banbury not so long ago, GP commissioning enables GPs to put their confidence in their local hospitals by commissioning services for them. In my county we will be replacing an Oxfordshire-wide PCT with an Oxfordshire-wide GP-led commissioning body, with GPs in the county working collaboratively.

In the brief time I have to speak, I want to make two points to Ministers. While I am sure it is right for us to pause and listen, we should also recall that GPs are keen to get on with this task. I have had public meetings in my constituency that have been open to every GP on my patch, and the message that I have received from them is that they want to be catalysts for change: they want to be able to shape health services in Oxfordshire.

GPs throughout the county recently elected Dr Stephen Richards to lead the development of the Oxfordshire GP consortium. His first comment was this:

“GP practices are the bedrock of the NHS. Now, the whole GP community, from partners and sessional doctors through to GP trainees are in a unique position to reshape health care for the population of Oxfordshire.

The new Consortium Lead and the Locality Leads in OGPC”—

the Oxfordshire GP consortium—

“will have much greater influence over the improvement of patient care. These GPs will be accountable to their GP colleagues”

and

“to the public... I aspire to Oxfordshire leading the way in developing ‘Evidence Based Commissioning’. A new form of commissioning that offers contracts based on incentives and agreed improved patient outcomes.”

[Andrew George]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Tony Baldry]

No, I am not going to give way as I am conscious that many Members wish to speak, and Madam Deputy Speaker has already told me off this afternoon for taking too long.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I was not telling the hon. Gentleman off; rather, I was reminding him of the convention.

[Tony Baldry]

I can recognise a chastisement when I see it!

GPs want to get on with things, and while it is important that we should pause and have a listening exercise, we also need to give GPs the confidence so that they continue to plan for GP-led commissioning.

The more I listen to the contributions in the debate, the clearer it becomes that each Member has their own agenda of changes that they wish to be made. Much has been made of the 98% vote against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by the Royal College of Nursing, but I listened to Peter Carter, chief executive and general secretary of the RCN, on “The World at One”, and I was so struck by what he said that I took down a transcript. Martha Kearney put it to him—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

[Tony Baldry]

Am I out of time, Madam Deputy Speaker?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Yes. Thank you.

17:41

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The current situation is extraordinary: the Liberal Democrats originally denied our criticisms of the Bill, but they have now suddenly jumped on board, and all I can say is that they are very welcome.

Both Lib Dem and Tory Ministers have claimed that the NHS is a failure, and the Secretary of State said today that he had inherited Labour’s mess. Labour’s mess was to leave the national health service in the best situation it has ever been in: more successful than ever before and improving rapidly, with waiting lists and waiting times reduced to the lowest they have ever been, and with massive improvements in survival rates. From listening to Opposition Members, people would never imagine that when we came to power 5.9 million operations were being carried out in NHS hospitals, yet when the current Government came to power we—or, rather, the people working in the national health service—had increased that to 9.7 million, which is a rise of 64%. For instance, the number of cataract operations carried out each year had increased from 165,000 to 346,000.

There have been massive improvements, and I personally do not give a toss what the OECD says. The national health service is more cost-effective than practically any other system, and it achieved that by making many different sorts of local changes—not structural changes, but by people going about their professional business trying to do things better. The Labour Government facilitated that in a body that is essentially co-operative in its organisation, ethic and culture. That is because it is based on the pooling of costs: all of us pay in, and if we get ill we get treated without having to pay. That is not going to happen any longer, because under the Bill’s provisions both the commissioning bodies and the hospitals will be able to decide to charge for some of the services that are currently free. The new chief executive at the Whittington hospital has told us all that.

There is not just a pooling of cost and risk in terms of patients. There is a pooling of risk and cost across the national health service, so that these co-operative organisations share the costs of providing treatment and care. That will not prevail if they are forced to compete with the private sector because, as the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) pointed out, the first, and only, legal priority of private sector organisations is to look after the interests of their shareholders. They will therefore concentrate on creaming off the profitable work, leaving the national health service to try to provide the services that are too expensive for the private sector.

I did not support the bits of privatisation that the previous Labour Government introduced so, unlike the Tories, I have been consistent. UnitedHealth took over three GP practices in my area not that long ago and that American-based company has just sold those three franchises to another supplier without any consultation with local people, patients or staff. It regards its function as taking part in a commercial set-up and a commercial transaction, and that is what we face if this Bill goes through.

The problem is that the transaction costs—the bureaucratic costs—will actually rise. Before the previous Tory Government introduced the internal market, the money spent on NHS bureaucracy was just 4%, but that has increased to 12%. I am willing to bet any Member on the Government Benches that the level will go well above 12%, because once legal contracts are required, once the lawyers, accountants and God knows who else gets involved and has to be paid, and once we end up with court actions, the transaction costs will rise. That is why these proposals are a disaster.

17:46

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and I was glad that his speech contained an element of recognition of the excellent contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh), who set out far more articulately than I could many of the concerns about the Bill that underpin this evening’s debate. These concerns have been raised by Liberal Democrat Members and I know for a fact that a number of Conservative colleagues feel the same way about aspects of the reform, although that has not been articulated this evening.

I wish to get one piece of rough and tumble out of the way before I commence with the substantive comments I wish to make in the short time available to me. I will not be supporting Labour’s motion this evening because to do so would be to endorse Labour’s history of having introduced the following: independent treatment centres, which wasted hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money; alternative providers of medical services enforced through primary care trusts; and many other top-down reorganisations, which Labour Members now pretend they are against. It would also mean endorsing their approach to the whole concept of top-down reorganisations, the billions that Labour wasted on NHS IT systems and Labour’s failure to address the unfair funding formula, which set back my part of the country significantly and left it in significant debt, from which it is still trying to escape.

I set out my position in the Second Reading debate on the Health and Social Care Bill, on 31 January, when I refused to support the Government because of the criticisms and concerns that I raised then. I do not need to repeat them now, but I also made it clear then, as I do now, that I would vote against the Government on Third Reading if the Bill were to look in any way like the measure that we saw come out of the Committee and that will come through to the Report stage. I therefore look forward to the outcome of the listening exercise, and hope that it is a genuine listening exercise and that substantial changes will be made to the Bill. The changes that I wish to see are so substantial that they would take the guts out of the Bill.

To the concept of commissioning proposed in the Bill and the idea of handing all that power to one narrow group of clinicians—GPs—there is, despite what the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said about GPs in his area, at best a resigned reluctance and at worst outright hostility about what GPs are being asked to do. I do not go along with the hon. Gentleman’s view that they are keen to get on with it. They are responsible people and responsible professionals; they recognise when they are being asked to do something and they will get on with it, but I must say that they will not do so with any enthusiasm.

Secondly, the substantial elephant in the room is not the risk of privatisation of the NHS, as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), who is no longer in his place, described it, but the marketisation of the NHS. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) put it well: the cherries will be picked by the private sector. Any decisions on commissioning could easily be unscrambled by a process whereby decisions that were intended to try to integrate services could be challenged because they were structured uncompetitively. Those are two fundamental failings in the Bill.

This comes to the heart of what coalitions are about. No one gets their own way, as Labour knows from being in coalition in other places, and it is silly to be childish about that. In a coalition, the parties work together when they agree and seek a compromise where they fail to agree. I would argue that when they cannot come to any kind of agreement or compromise, they should allow Parliament to decide. What I do not like about what is happening is the fact that the Secretary of State is largely implementing this—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

17:51

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and to hear him say that, were this a Third Reading debate and the Bill had remained as it is, he would vote against it. He should not hold his breath, because we have not heard any indication from those on the Treasury Bench that they propose to listen to the reasoned and substantive opposition that we heard in the Public Bill Committee, of which I was a member and where the Government rejected all 250 to 300 suggested amendments, or to that in the rest of the country, where doctors and all the medical professions are united in opposing the Bill.

Earlier, those of us on the Opposition Benches were admonished for the sound and fury coming from us. Mr Speaker was right to admonish us for shouting, but that sound and fury is not born of cynicism; it comes from three things. The first is our outrage at how the history of what the Labour Government did in office is being rewritten and at the suggestion that this Bill represents an evolution of what we did with the NHS. It is not an evolution, but a revolution.

The second is the shameless way in which the Government are misrepresenting that which sits at the heart of the Bill. They present it as trying to bring about patient focus and GP-led improvements to the NHS, but in truth it is about competition and the Government’s belief that competition in health care, like in telecoms or the energy market, is the best way to drive improvements in the efficient allocation of resources, allowing consumer-driven demand to drive efficiency. We fundamentally contest that. We do not think that it is true in many aspects of life, but it is certainly not true in the NHS, a body built on collectivism, co-operation and integration. Those fundamental ethics—the ethos of the NHS—will be undermined by the Bill.

Thirdly, the Bill is a completely unnecessary intervention. We did not need a top-down reorganisation of the NHS, because we got record patient satisfaction and increased productivity in all the ways that matter, as described earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). Crucially, we have a far more efficient and better-resourced system than previously. That prompts the question of why the Government are pursuing this change. They are doing so because they fundamentally believe that the way to drive the NHS forward is an unfettered market and greater deregulation.

That brings me to my substantive point. I want to rebut the notion which we have heard repeatedly from the Government that competition will not bite harder on the NHS as a result of the changes. The Government have told us repeatedly that nothing in the Bill says that competition will impact on the NHS to any great extent. As we all know, however, in 100 of the 300 clauses Monitor is established as an Office of Fair Trading-style competition overlord for the NHS, because as soon as the NHS is opened up to multiple entrants in the market and there are multiple providers of health care services in this country, we will no longer be able to argue that it is a state service that ought to be protected and therefore should not be subject to the vagaries of the market and EU competition law. As soon as we allow multiple health providers into the market, we will have to apply EU competition law, and European case law and arguments between lawyers will inevitably lead to the progressive fragmentation of the NHS.

There is one other point with which I want to take issue. Privatisation is a pretty difficult word to bandy about in politics, but I do not shy away from using it in this debate. We are going to see a progressive and creeping privatisation of the NHS. To argue about marketisation and privatisation is to argue about semantics. We will increasingly see many more aspects of the NHS either in the hands of or being delivered through the private sector. Earlier, the Secretary of State asked us to point out where in the Bill it showed that there would be an increased number of private providers in the NHS. My challenge to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), who is now back in his place, is to point out to me where in the Bill it says that we will not see more private providers entering the marketplace. The Bill provides for that to happen and what will arise from that is the break-up, fragmentation and, eventually, privatisation of the NHS. Those on the Government Front Bench know that—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

17:56

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I agreed with very little of what the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) said when we were on the Public Bill Committee together, and I am afraid that I will not change my view after hearing what he has said today. He touched, however, on the important issue of health economics. In a thoughtful speech, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) made some good points about health economics. Much as I would rather talk just about patient care, given my medical background, health economics are at the centre of the discussion about how we will reform and improve the NHS.

The comprehensive spending review announced that the NHS would see its funding rise by 0.4% in real terms over the next four years. Despite the current economic climate, the Government have stood by their commitment to increasing NHS funding over this Parliament—we are very proud of that—but, even so, it is the smallest increase in NHS funding for decades. Ever-increasing patient demand for health care coupled with Britain’s demographic time bomb means that over the next few years the NHS will have to achieve value for money for its patients on an unprecedented scale.

Our NHS needs to make efficiency savings just to stand still and to continue to deliver high-quality patient care. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) hit the nail right on the head when he said that we need to think about not just the worried well but the 80% to 85% of patients who have serious medical co-morbidities or present as emergencies with acute medical problems in accident and emergency. That desire lies at the heart of the Government’s proposed reforms.

People are living longer, and as they do the number of people living with multiple medical co-morbidities also increases. The majority of people require their health care in the later stages of their lives and if we are to have an NHS that is truly responsive to the demographics of this country, we need to ensure better integration of health and social care. We must stop the silo working that often exists between local authorities and the NHS and ensure that we have a more locally responsive NHS. At the heart of the Bill is a desire to see better integration of adult social care and NHS care, which can only be a good thing in view of this country’s demographics and of the health economics of looking after people in the later years of their lives.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Does the hon. Gentleman share the concern that many councils that will be responsible for the delivery of public health are not ring-fencing the money and are using it to offset some of the cuts that they face?

[Dr Poulter]

I can only say that my Conservative-run, Suffolk council is doing exactly the opposite of what the hon. Lady describes. The Government have committed to putting almost £2 billion into adult social care, looking at the demographic time bomb and looking at better integrating health care with adult social care. I would be very concerned to see councils doing what she describes, because that is not what they are given that money for. If she has had a problem with that at her local authority, she needs to take it up with that authority.

The key to unlocking potential in the health sector lies in cutting the red tape and pointless form-filling that wastes the time of so many front-line staff. Of course, our NHS must have a level of regulation that ensures that products and services are thoroughly tested and that ensures patient safety. However, the over-excessive regulation introduced by the previous Government has been damaging not only to patient care but to staff morale. It has also diverted vital resources away from the front line and away from patients, who are, after all, what health care should be all about. This Government are rightly looking to take simple, obvious and positive steps in improving the overall efficiency of the NHS by scrapping the health quangos that waste £2 billion a year—money that could be much better spent on front-line patient care.

Another issue that I want to highlight in the time left to me is another area of wasteful spending in our NHS—management. Under the previous Government, the number of managers and unproductive non-medical staff increased in the past decade, with the number of managers and senior managers in the NHS almost doubling to 42,000. In many hospitals, more new managers than new nurses were recruited in that time. That cannot be right—it is bad for patients and money is being misspent. As I witnessed at first hand, NHS managers were rewarded at a better rate than front-line staff—at around 7%, compared with 1.8% pay rises for front-line medical staff. That is not a good thing.

The Opposition are very concerned about staff morale, but let me tell them why staff morale is so low: it is because the contributions of front-line staff were badly undervalued by the previous Government while the contribution of managers were over-valued. I believe that what we and the Government need to do is make sure that more money goes into front-line patient care and front-line staff rather than being wasted on management and bureaucracy.

[Grahame M. Morris]

rose—

[Dr Poulter]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me I will not give way because time forbids it.

In conclusion, the NHS needs to be reformed and needs to improve the care it delivers to patients. We can no longer afford to sustain the amount of wasteful spending on management and bureaucracy that occurs in the NHS. We need a less bureaucratic NHS—a clinically led NHS that can once again put its patients first. The NHS has become obsessed with management and process but if we want to reform it, then it must be the patient who counts.

18:03

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I must confess to being somewhat confused about where we have got to with the Bill. I have been here for 14 years and I cannot recall a Bill being halted after it had been through Committee so that we could go back and consult the public. I will be corrected by Members who have been here longer than me, but I cannot remember anything like this extraordinary situation.

Yesterday, I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister on the “Andrew Marr Show”. He said:

“Let me stress this, it’s not a gimmick, it’s not a PR exercise. We will make changes, we’ll make significant and substantive changes to the legislation”.

We have not heard any of that tonight. No one has got up and said, “We are listening,” or, “We are pausing,” or “We are reflecting and we are going to see substantial changes to this Bill.” The Secretary of State is in his place: I would like him to intervene on me and tell me that in relation to GP commissioning, the full £80 billion will be transferred to GPs, as he has frequently stated it would; that they will be in charge of commissioning and that we will not see that altered in any significant way as a result of the interventions of the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister. Members of the Government are trying to say that they are listening and that they are not responsible for all this, but I have here the White Paper that was published back in January, the foreword of which was signed by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health. They all signed up to it, but all of a sudden we are back to pausing, reflecting and listening.

What or who are we listening to? We have heard from the Secretary of State tonight that there are no cuts in the NHS, but let me tell hon. Members the story of Mrs Bell, a constituent of mine who was referred by her GP to a consultant last spring about cataract operations. She received the first operation within 18 weeks, and when she went back for a second consultation about the other eye she was referred for another operation. After 18 weeks, she rang the local health care trust to say that she had been waiting for her cataract operation for 18 weeks, but she was told that that was no longer a deliverable target. She ended up waiting more than 26 weeks for that cataract operation, so no one can tell my constituents or anyone else that we are not seeing cuts to the NHS and longer waiting times for patients.

What is fundamentally wrong with the Bill is that it places the market at the head of commissioning and planning services. The coalition document said that the coalition was going to introduce some element of democracy into primary care trusts, but PCTs got demolished as part of the proposals. My local PCT has been absolutely decimated, because although the Bill has not gone through Parliament yet, people are acting on it: they are voting with their feet and they have all gone. Currently, my area has no one who is responsible for the oversight and planning of our local health care services. Moreover, no one who will ultimately be accountable to local people is responsible for planning local services. All of that has been frittered away; it has disappeared. What we need is some form of democratisation of the commissioning process so that local people can know quite clearly who is accountable and who is not.

Tonight’s vote presents the Liberal Democrats—after we have paused and listened and reflected and after all they have said over the weekend about changes to the legislation—with an opportunity to send a message to the Government. This morning, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, said on the “Today” programme that there will be significant changes to the Bill. If the Liberal Democrats want to send a message to the Government, they should join the Opposition in the Lobby tonight and send the message that the Bill has to be changed. But I will tell them what will happen when it comes to Third Reading. The Whips will get to them, they will be as spineless as ever and they will go through the Lobby defending the Bill’s Third Reading—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

18:08

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I would like to take this opportunity briefly to raise three matters and I hope that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench will, in the spirit of the listening exercise, take note of them. I know from previous experience that these issues concern them. They arise in relation to the public inquiry that is going on at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust.

First, the motion refers to an NHS that refuses to tolerate unsafe care and that achieves quality and outcomes that are among the best. I do not think that any right hon. or hon. Member would disagree with either of those aims. One thing that has come out of the Mid Staffordshire inquiry is the whole problem of unsafe care, particularly the quality of care that elderly patients receive. Mid Staffordshire is by no means the only place for which that has been a problem. It has been highlighted in a recent report as being an issue for other parts of the country as well. For me, the key question is how patient care and safety can be upheld to the highest possible standards across the NHS. Occasionally people have cited the example of civil aviation in this country. Both the Civil Aviation Authority, which has a first-class safety record, and the NHS serve the public. The CAA emphasises continuous improvement and risk-based monitoring. I urge my right hon. Friends to look at the example and practices of the CAA and consider how those might be incorporated in the work of the NHS.

The Health and Social Care Bill contains helpful provisions on patient safety. GP commissioning will bring commissioning closer to patients. It will ensure that if there are problems, they will be heard about more quickly. The health and wellbeing boards will ensure greater local accountability and, again, problems should come to the attention of the authorities more quickly, which did not happen in my own trust. Healthwatch will be established and there will be more foundation trusts.

However, there is a risk of a fragmented approach to patient safety. We have the Care Quality Commission, but as hon. Members who served with me on the Public Bill Committee know, there are concerns about the additional work load that will be placed on the commission. Will it be able to cope with the volume of work? Will it be able to ensure that patient safety and quality of care are upheld across the NHS? I should like to hear the Minister of State’s comments on that. It has been suggested that the critical question of patient safety should be brought to the top of the NHS, perhaps with a directorate within the Department of Health reporting directly to the Secretary of State on patient safety. I should also be interested in his comments on that.

The second point that I wish to make is about foundation trusts, which were key under the previous Government and will continue to be so, but I am concerned about the level of training available to governors and directors. I should like to hear my right hon. Friend’s comments on that. I refer particularly to foundation trusts that are responsible for district general hospitals, which many hon. Members have in their constituency, as do I. Those are the trusts that will probably come under most pressure in the current constrained financial circumstances, and that would have been the case under any Government.

My third point relates to the length of contracts that are awarded. Whatever the position is with competition under the Bill on Report, it is clear that contracts, whether with NHS or outside providers, will be of the utmost significance. I am concerned that contracts are sometimes awarded for only a short period. Hence, a considerable amount of time is taken up with tendering and retendering. I ask for some comments on that.

In conclusion, the Francis inquiry, which we expect to report later this year, will be one of the most significant reports on the national health service in the past 20 or 30 years. I urge the Government to take good note of its conclusions and implement them as far as possible.

18:13

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

At a time when the Health Secretary is being criticised from all sides, it is vital that the message gets through and the listening exercise works, but from what we have heard today there is grave doubt about whether there will be any real change.

The shadow Secretary of State told us about the warning from the Royal College of General Practitioners that the NHS could unravel if the Health and Social Care Bill goes ahead in its current form. The British Medical Association says that the plans are too extreme and too rushed, and will negatively impact on patient care. Nurses voted overwhelmingly for a vote of no confidence in the Health Secretary, and even the Tory-led Health Committee criticised the plans, saying that they were unlikely to improve patient care.

I attended a Save the NHS rally in my constituency on 30 April and spoke to local nurses, doctors and patients to hear their views. One of the GPs who was there to speak on behalf of the BMA stressed how worried they are that increased competition will lead to the fragmentation mentioned by so many other hon. Members. She also made it clear that although the Government boast that 90% of GPs have signed up to participate in a commissioning role, vast numbers of doctors have done so only because they feel they have no option. They know that it is a bad Bill, but feel the Government are imposing a way of working on them and they have no option but to co-operate.

Four weeks earlier I joined health service workers at another public event to demonstrate opposition to the Bill. Even policemen and women passing in their vans and cars were tooting in support of the demonstration, but we know that even the police have learned that the Government have no care for public services, whether health or policing. I also spoke to local nurses who feel that they are being sidelined by the Bill and want more involvement in decisions about the future of the NHS. I, for one, support them and wear my nurses day badge with pride, albeit a few days early.

Nurses certainly do not want a situation where GPs effectively control everything. Why, they ask, should GPs have such universal power? What about other clinicians? What about nurses? Are they not professionals with a tremendous knowledge of what our people need from their health care? I also question why local authorities and councillors who have extensive knowledge of the health needs of their communities are not to be involved in commissioning. Good local authorities work very closely with existing PCTs. Why are they being excluded?

On Teesside we have had nothing but bad news for the NHS since the coalition was formed. One of the first rounds of spending cuts saw plans for our much needed new hospital scrapped in June last year. I know that the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust took the Government at their word when they said the trust had powers to raise the funding itself and it prepared a new business plan on that basis. To make it move from new business plan to new hospital, we need to remove the uncertainty in the NHS, particularly about privatisation and competition, and we need the Government to provide a loan guarantee to help keep borrowing costs down. Without that, some of our communities with the greatest health needs will have to make do at a time when budgets are under pressure.

More recently, people in Billingham in my constituency were told that their new £35 million community health centre would not be going ahead as the Government would not allow the public finance initiative credits for it. Under Labour we made good progress in reducing health inequalities. The new hospital and health centres were part of the strategy to build on that progress, but again the Government have shown their ignorance of the health needs of people in our less affluent communities. Jobs, too, are going—80 jobs from NHS Stockton over the next three years, with 42 jobs set to go at the North East ambulance service, and that is only the start.

Unison, of which I am proud to be a member, has highlighted the fact that there will be more than 20,000 redundancies across the health service as a result of the reorganisation. This represents a personal tragedy for those affected and a colossal waste of talent and resources at a time when the NHS can ill afford it. Redundancy payments alone may be £l billion. To top it all, we know that waiting times are on the increase. According to the quarterly monitoring report from the King’s Fund, waiting times have hit a three-year high. What message does the Health Secretary have for the people in my area and patients waiting for operations, who know that they will have to wait much longer not only to escape continual pain, but to see their quality of life improved?

My message today is simple. The Government must take on board the criticisms that have been made and come back to the House with significant changes. As a priority, we must keep the NHS protected against the full force of competition law, drop plans for a free market NHS and give others their proper role in commissioning services.

18:18

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

This has been an interesting and important debate at an important time for our health service.

[Tony Baldry]

Where are they?

[Emily Thornberry]

I am being heckled already. I do not intend to make a habit of this—the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) can heckle as much as he likes—but I will answer on this occasion. There is another draw this afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) is speaking, but I understand that my hon. Friends will be coming in a moment.

We have heard a number of interesting and important speeches from Members who have shown great expertise and have been serving the community and the public through their work on Select Committees, including the Health Committee. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), and from the hon. Members for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) and for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). Listening to their contributions, we have had a taste of the quality of debate that took place in the Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee. It is a shame that the Government did not give an inch as a result of those debates.

We have heard from the Liberal Democrat representatives, including the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), who talked about the Jekyll and Hyde drafting of the Bill, and the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who said that he is likely to vote against it on Third Reading. We heard a characteristically passionate, robust and articulate speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) asked a very simple question that I will repeat in the hope of getting an answer: what changes will be made as a result of the pause?

I hope that the Secretary of State was listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) because he brought a dose of reality to the debate by explaining the effect the reorganisation will have on his poor constituency and the redundancies it is suffering.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the hon. Lady not concede, perhaps even reluctantly, that the real reason her party is acting as a roadblock to essential NHS reform is that it pays far more attention to its union backers and paymasters than to NHS patients and taxpayers?

[Emily Thornberry]

The great strength of being in opposition, in many ways, is the opportunity it gives us to listen to interested groups of every type, including representatives of the work force, experts and the public, and to hear their concerns about the Bill. Those concerns translated into more than 300 amendments that we tabled in Committee and more than 100 votes. As I have said, the Government considered it wise not to give an inch. However, on the day after the Committee finished its considerations, the Government decided that there ought to be a pause so that they could think again. The very fact that they decided to think again tends to encourage us to think that we might have been right in the first place. What a shame it was that they did not listen to us earlier.

For the Health Secretary, it must seem a lifetime since the Prime Minister said about him:

“He is probably the Health Secretary in the last 20 years who has the greatest understanding and greatest passion for the NHS.”

His Deputy Prime Minister stated in the foreword to the NHS White Paper that the reforms were

“rooted in the coalition’s core beliefs”.

Patient groups, professional bodies and health experts gave the underlying principles of the White Paper a cautious welcome, but I ought to explain to the Secretary of State that there is a difference between giving a cautious welcome to the underlying principles of a White Paper or Bill and reading the Bill and realising that it will not deliver on those underlying core principles. That is why there has been an increasing chorus of opposition. Our difficulty is that, although there were more than 6,000 responses to the White Paper, those concerns were largely ignored. When the Bill was published, those concerns increased to alarm and the criticism became less diplomatic, less polite and more forthright, and yet the Secretary of State continues not to listen. More people began to join the Opposition’s side of the argument. Although at the beginning the Secretary of State might have felt encouraged that he had many people in his “liberate the NHS” team, as more people realised just what the Bill was about, more and more of them decided that they had been on the wrong side of the argument and that the Bill was wrong and so crossed the room.

I pray in aid the comments made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who talked about throwing a hand grenade into the NHS, and those of the Royal College of Nursing, which passed a vote of no confidence in the Secretary of State, with 98% of the vote. Its general secretary said that the Bill

“could well turn out to be the biggest disaster in the history of our public services”.

The British Medical Association called for

“a halt to the proposed top-down reorganisation of the NHS”.

When I listened recently to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), I was reminded of Luke 15.7 —there shall be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over 99 just persons who do not need to repent. The number of people who are moving over to our side of the argument are becoming a flock. They say they realise that the Bill is not what they had first thought it was, that it needs to be fundamentally changed, and that if it is not fundamentally changed it needs to be scrapped.

Lord Owen has said:

“The coalition unexpectedly and inexplicably forged ahead with legislation for NHS reforms of staggering ineptitude.”

Lord Tebbit, who I believe is the Secretary of State’s former boss, has said:

“What worries me about the reforms, however, is the difficulty of organising fair competition between the state-owned hospitals and those in the private sector.”

I could go on. Michael Portillo has said of the Tories:

“They didn’t believe they could win an election if they told you what they were going to do because people are so wedded to the National Health Service.”

The whole of the Liberal Democrats have also crossed the room. Evan Harris has talked about the Bill being “disastrous”. Although I heard the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) say encouragingly that the Bill would give

“a holistic basis—a structure for the health service, going forward”,

the Health Committee’s report has not been so enthusiastic, if indeed what he said today could be characterised as enthusiastic. Lady Williams has said that the Bill is “completely misconceived”, and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has said that it needs “fundamental change”.

The Health Secretary must be feeling increasingly lonely. Perhaps the most deadly time was when the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated:

“I want changes too, and so does David Cameron”.

I appreciate that the Health Secretary has the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) on his side, along with the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). I respectfully suggest to the Health Secretary that he holds very tightly to the hand of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow). It must seem a very long time ago that the Prime Minister said:

“I have been involved in designing these changes way back into opposition with Andrew Lansley. I take absolute responsibility with him for all the changes we are making.”

We will see just how long it is that the Prime Minister stands shoulder to shoulder with his Secretary of State.

There has been great excitement in SW1 bubble land on what effects the NHS reforms will have on the coalition and what the Lib Dems will do next, but the fundamental point is that it really does not matter what happens in SW1; what matters is what happens to our national health service. The Bill is a threat to our national health service. Leaving aside the political shenanigans and the saving of the Deputy Prime Minister or the Liberal Democrats’ soul, what is important is what happens to our national health service. We should be looking at the fundamental principles in relation to that. Everything else is just words, words, words. We are told that we must not rush GPs into consortia, but the majority of them have already been rushed into consortia and their PCTs are being abolished. If that is the extent of the fundamental reforms that the Liberal Democrats want, that would be very disappointing.

We in the Opposition have five tests: delete part 3 of the Bill; keep waiting time guarantees; ensure that consortia are not too small, involve wider expertise and require openness and accountability; ban GP bonuses, stop conflicts of interest and do not allow commissioning jobs to be done by the private sector; and keep a cap on the number of private beds. Let us do that, which would be a fundamental change to the Bill. Most importantly, let us delete part 3.

Instead of wasting time, energy and money on unnecessary top-down reorganisation, the Conservative party should have been building on Labour’s achievements. When we handed over the NHS to the Conservatives, we did so in trust. They should have built on our achievements. I am not saying that the NHS was perfect, but it was much better than it was when it was handed to us. These reckless, costly and ideologically driven reforms are not doing well for the health service. As the hon. Member for Totnes has said, while competition has a role, it is not an end in itself. If we allow competition to run rife within the NHS, it will fundamentally undermine its essence, which is that it is built on a culture of collaboration and co-operation. It is an expression of our fundamental commitment to equality.

18:28

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

At the instigation of the Opposition, we have spent the past three hours debating the future of the national health service, and yet in not one single speech from their Members did we hear any mention of what they would do for the future of the NHS. We heard from the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who is always a joy to listen to. He objected to the Blair/Brown health service reforms and to our proposals to improve the NHS, apparently without fully understanding them. We heard speeches from the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) and for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) that were simply a continuation of what we had to listen to for eight long weeks in the Bill Committee.

We had a sensible and reasonable speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell). My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) made an interesting speech and was right—absolutely right—to encourage the greater integration and seamless provision of social care and health care, because that is so important.

We had an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), which was based on his experiences of having worked in the national health service, and we had a good speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who raised a number of questions. Time does not permit me to answer them all, but I remind him that, because of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Care Quality Commission started an unannounced investigation of nursing in hospitals to look specifically at dignity, respect and safety.

During this debate there have been times when the facts seem to have been obscured, so it is time that we had a reality check: our population is ageing—in 20 years’ time 2.5 million people will be over the age of 85; the cost of new medicines has almost doubled in the past 10 years, from £6.7 billion to £11.9 billion, rising last year alone by £600 million; and new surgical procedures are breathtakingly effective but expensive.

Those are the pressures facing the NHS at a time of economic turmoil inflicted on this country by the previous Labour Government. As a result, there are real challenges that the NHS must meet, so it does no one any good to scream “privatisation” as soon as we start exploring the best ways to safeguard the health of our children and of our children’s children. It is scaremongering of the lowest order, because this Government will never privatise the NHS. We have been, and we always will be, committed to an NHS free at the point of use for all eligible to use it.

In fact, when the Labour party was in government, it introduced private companies into the NHS on a scale that would have produced howls of outrage if we had done the same, but it was not privatisation then and it is not privatisation now. The previous Labour Government gave £4.7 billion to private companies in 2009-10 alone, and, unbelievably, to add insult to injury, £250 million of that money was given to private providers as payment for operations that never even happened.

We want to see a much fairer relationship, one that does not undermine the NHS but means increased choice for patients and better outcomes. That means saving thousands of lives every single year from conditions such as heart disease, respiratory disease and cancer. It means people with long-term conditions having their quality of life revolutionised with the seamless provision of care; the care that people receive being as good it possibly can be, based not on percentages or pie charts but on people’s real experiences; and the relationship between patients and doctors being humanised rather than seen as a means to an end—a relationship of equals based on trust, transparency and the best available treatment from the best available provider.

Every sensible-thinking person in the House knows that patient care can be improved if the NHS becomes more efficient. Efficient treatment is faster, cheaper and more effective. The previous Government knew that as well. We are carrying on their plans for £20 billion of efficiencies, plans that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) brought in, whereby every penny saved will be reinvested in patient care.

To those who say that the plans are happening too fast, let me remind them that this coalition Government are giving the NHS an extra year to find those efficiencies, over and above what the Opposition would have allowed. On top of that, we are protecting front-line spending and, in fact, increasing the NHS budget overall in real terms.

We also want to see the quality of our clinical care improve so that a patient’s care will be among the best in the world, whatever they are being treated for. But these are not just pretty words and noble intentions; we are making real changes and patients can already see a real difference.

We are removing layers of unnecessary management so that clinicians have the freedom to look after in-patients rather than inboxes, and there are examples of improvements in care throughout the country. To look at just one, Oxford’s John Radcliffe hospital has invested in an electronic blood transfusion system that cuts the time taken by staff to deliver blood and reduces transfusion errors to improve services for patients. That saves the NHS £1 million every year to reinvest in patient care, because it is more efficient. That is the reality of efficiency, and it goes hand-in-hand with innovative, forward-thinking care.

Underpinning all our plans is the philosophy that a more integrated NHS is a better NHS—ending stop-start care and making sure that, from the point of diagnosis, every patient has seamless care that spans health care, social care, mental health care and, of course, a reliable support network afterwards so that patients can just concentrate on getting better.

We want GPs and other health care professionals, social care providers and local councils to come together to provide seamless services, whereby, for the patient, the lines drawn between those organisations fade to nothing. Giving autonomy to clinicians, in the form of consortia, will allow that to happen, and I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes.

Let us ask Dr Howard Stoate, who some Members might remember was Labour MP for Dartford until last May. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) does not like this, but she will have to listen to it once again, because he is leading pathfinder consortia in Bexley. GPs such as Dr Stoate take a broader, more responsible view of care, working with others throughout the country and across primary, community and secondary care to manage, treat and refer their patients.

They are all in an ideal position to design services in collaboration with all the different strands of the NHS and, of course, with those beyond the NHS as well. Patients, who will have their own personal care budgets to spend how they like, will be involved every step of the way.

As I have said before, everyone knows that the NHS has to change. The noble Lord Warner, a Labour Health Minister for more than three years under the previous Government understands that point. [Interruption.] I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) laughs, because at the time she thought that he was a valued Minister in the Department of Health. That point about change is in his book—a thoroughly good book, by the way, which I suggest she reads if she has not already done so. He says that reform is essential, because failure cannot be allowed to carry on taking taxpayers’ money and providing a sub-standard service to the public.

Reforming an organisation the size of the NHS is a big challenge, but it is also a big opportunity. What we propose is not simply to tread water or to be satisfied with the NHS just scraping by; we want to see it improve for the benefit of patients in every way.

There is no reason why we have to put up with care that is anything less than world-class, and our plans revolve around that happening: cutting down inefficiency; empowering clinicians; giving them—

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

18:38

Division 268

Ayes: 231

---

Labour: 227
Plaid Cymru: 3
Liberal Democrat: 1

Noes: 284

---

Conservative: 249
Liberal Democrat: 34

Welfare Reform Bill (Instruction)

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

18:55

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

I beg to move,

That it be an instruction to the Welfare Reform Bill Committee that it has power to make provision in the Bill to establish the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission.

This debate is focused on the motion and I do not intend to go through the purpose and effect of the proposed new clause in detail. Members will have the opportunity to debate the measure in full in the remaining stages of the Welfare Reform Bill, including in Committee. However, it may help hon. Members if I set out the Government’s reasons for this change.

We need to be sure that we have the right structures in place to hold the Government to account on child poverty. The previous Government attempted to do that by enshrining in law a child poverty commission. The commission was intended to provide independent scrutiny and to ensure that progress would continue to be made by Government. We supported and still support the concept of an arm’s length body to provide such an external challenge to Government. However, having considered carefully how best to establish the commission to ensure that it can fulfil that purpose, we do not believe that the child poverty commission, as currently defined in legislation, has the necessary remit or power to perform that function effectively.

Why do we want to change the commission? There are three reasons, which I will outline for the House. First, the commission cannot assess or comment on the progress made by Government on child poverty, meaning that it has no power to hold the Government to account. Secondly, we believe that the commission’s advisory role undermines accountability and provides Ministers with a means to delegate decision making to an arm’s length body. For a Government to consult on an important policy matter is absolutely proper, but responsibility should ultimately rest with Ministers. Finally, the scope of the commission is simply too narrow and does not cover issues that are crucially related to child poverty, such as life chances and social mobility. As I have said, this debate is not the place to go into the detail of the proposed new clause. It is intended to address the concerns that I have raised and to ensure that the commission has the functions and power that it needs to drive progress effectively and hold the Government to account.

It is appropriate to use the Welfare Reform Bill to make this change because helping people who are dependent on welfare to help themselves is one of its key aims. The reforms are designed to do that in two distinct ways. First, by ensuring that work always pays and is seen to pay, they will improve work incentives for people who are out of work. Secondly, by simplifying the benefits system, they will increase the take-up of benefits. It is therefore appropriate to use this Bill to make other legislative changes that allow the Government to take forward their new approach to tackling disadvantage, deprivation and welfare dependency in our society, such as these revisions to the child poverty commission.

Why is it necessary to make these changes now? We felt that it was important to consult stakeholders before making changes to the commission. We therefore decided to include our thoughts on the commission in our child poverty strategy consultation document, which was published in December last year. The consultation closed this February, after which it was necessary to consider the responses before deciding how the commission should be revised. Given that time scale, it was not possible to include the proposed new clause in the original version of the Welfare Reform Bill. Since then, we have set out clearly the changes that we wish to make to the commission and emphasised the need for it to be established as soon as possible. If we had waited for a second-Session Bill to put the required changes to the House, it is possible that a commission would not have been established until 2013, and we do not believe that delay is acceptable.

I restate that our intention is to move a new clause to the Bill, amending the Child Poverty Act 2010 by inserting a new section 8 and corresponding schedule. The new provisions will extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We believe that the motion will give us the opportunity to create a stronger and more effective commission, and I commend it to the House.

19:00

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her contribution, and I wish to make a few comments in response. On behalf of Labour I welcome the Government’s motion, and we look forward to the full debate in Committee about the substance of their proposals. However, we are disappointed that we must have that debate in the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, because as she will be aware, a child poverty strategy has been published and there have been a number of criticisms of it. It would perhaps have been better if the commission had been set up first, to inform that strategy. I will return to that point, because that situation perhaps explains why there have been so many comments that the child poverty strategy is insubstantial. I appreciate that the substance of those comments will be featured in Committee, but if I may I wish to make one or two points about issues that the Committee will cover as it examines the Government’s proposals.

The child poverty commission was a significant element of the Child Poverty Act 2010, which received cross-party support and was regarded as a landmark piece of legislation. It was to be a commission of status and influence, which would be evidence-led, examine different approaches, engage with those with direct experience, harness the experts’ views and, as the Minister indicated, work with the devolved Administrations. I hope that when the Committee has discussed the matter, she will ensure that the commission does exactly that.

I am sure the Minister is aware of the substantial point that some child poverty organisations have made in questioning the legality of the Government’s approach to date, given the status of the 2010 Act. They say that because the child poverty strategy has been produced before the setting up of the commission, the Government are acting illegally. I hope she will address that point.

The broadest point that needs to be made is about the Government’s decision to widen the scope of the commission from purely being about child poverty to also embracing social mobility. I appreciate the substance of the argument about social mobility, policy on which underpins any Government action. Of course there are links between child poverty and social mobility, and as I understand it the commission would already have had powers to examine those links. However, the Minister will appreciate that broadening the scope of the commission so far has raised many concerns among organisations, and indeed among many Labour Members. There are links between child poverty and social mobility, but they are not the same thing. There is deep concern that including social mobility means that the commission will lose its edge and its focus on dealing with child poverty. It may well dilute the urge to tackle child poverty.

I have a number of questions to put to the Minister. Given that the matter is now going to the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, may I ask that the commission be established urgently and that there be no further delay? Once its scope has been established, it should go ahead. Will the Minister consult the devolved Administrations on their wider child poverty strategies as a matter of urgency? May we have a guarantee that commitments on child poverty will not be delayed or watered down because of the extension of the commission’s scope to social mobility?

May we have clarity on what the Government’s child poverty targets actually are? The Minister will know that the Prime Minister made a categorical and unequivocal commitment to maintaining relative poverty income measurements. Can she guarantee that that will still be central to the Government’s proposals? Finally, can she guarantee that the commission will retrospectively examine the already published child poverty strategy so that its fundamental weaknesses can be addressed and we can have an altogether more substantial plan? I appreciate that the meat of the subject will be discussed in Committee, but given that we are making a decision this afternoon on whether to enable the Committee to establish the commission, it would be very helpful if she addressed those points.

19:05

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I very much look forward to a full debate on the merits of the Government’s proposal in the remaining stages of the Welfare Reform Bill if the instruction is agreed to. However, I cannot wholly share the Minister’s reasoning on why it is appropriate to approach the expansion of the child poverty commission’s remit in this way.

The Minister said that allocating an advisory role to an arm’s length body would in some way weaken the Government’s accountability. I am confused about why advising should mean becoming responsible, and no doubt she will want to explain that. However, I welcome her acknowledgment of the importance of wide consultation. I hope that that will continue to be the case on the subject of the expanded remit that we are discussing.

I believe the Minister is mistaken to think that the planned child poverty commission would have had as limited a remit as she seemed to imply. As she acknowledged, the 2010 Act and the functions and remit of the commission had cross-party support, and the Act uses a wide understanding of what child poverty encompasses. That includes a number of the building blocks of social mobility, including on parenting, housing and education, that she seems to suggest would be missed. I hope that she can assure us that when the debate is passed on to the Welfare Reform Bill Committee, with its much narrower remit of considering employment and social security reforms, the vital focus on child well-being in its broadest sense will not be lost. That is what child poverty measures are fundamentally intended to address and improve.

I agree with the Minister that two central thrusts of the Government’s welfare reform agenda lie at the heart of our ambitions on social mobility. She is right that parental employment is crucial to how we tackle and address child poverty. Unless parents can access employment that genuinely lifts them and their children out of poverty, the child poverty targets cannot be met. She is right, too, to say that the Welfare Reform Bill is an appropriate vehicle for the discussion of child poverty. It is clear that neither child poverty nor social mobility can be addressed unless the right financial support is put in place for families with children. That includes the social security support that the Bill targets directly.

The reason I mention those two points is that there is considerable international evidence that parental earnings have as much impact on social mobility as other factors such as educational opportunity, and that the most socially mobile and equal countries are those with generous, albeit short-term, social security benefits. That is in striking contrast to the position that tends to pertain in this country and the United States, which is very ungenerous social security benefits that people rely on, in many cases, for quite a long time. It is therefore right that we should debate those issues in the context of the Welfare Reform Bill. In that sense, the Minister’s proposition absolutely stands up. However, this debate also gives us the opportunity to highlight the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Government’s agenda.

The meat of the Welfare Reform Bill includes issues such as the benefits cap, which will seriously damage families’ well-being, and the reduction in support for child care—we are still waiting in the Welfare Reform Bill Committee to see exactly what the Government will propose, although I think that the Opposition will have concerns about it—as well as access to the labour market for second earners or potential earners in couples and the disincentives that seem to be emerging in the design of the universal credit. They are all issues crucial to child poverty and social mobility, and it is right that they should lie at the heart of the Bill.

In conclusion, it is right to debate those issues in the context of the Welfare Reform Bill, albeit not just in that context. Doing so gives us an opportunity to remind ourselves that we tackle poverty, inequality and social fluidity not by individualising and pathologising problems, but through the structural solutions that only Governments can provide. Those solutions include ensuring access to education and training, ensuring that parents can access good quality child care, ensuring income adequacy, ensuring the redistribution of income and wealth to reduce the inequality gap, and ensuring the conditions for sustainable, good quality employment that genuinely enables parents to lift their families out of poverty.

The Government need to be aware that they have at least the beginnings of a credibility problem with those outside this House who are watching and monitoring closely their commitment genuinely to improving the well-being of children and lifting them out of poverty, as the coalition parties, in common with all other parties, last year signed up to do. I very much hope that what we are seeing this evening is not a proposition to marginalise or downplay hard-won gains in securing understanding of the inter-connectedness of poverty, inequality and social fluidity, and, at their heart, the importance of family incomes.

19:12

[Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)]

I am not as cynical as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—I am sure that she does not mind my saying that—although I appreciate that the motion before us is limited and should not be broadened into a big debate about child poverty. There is a great deal of cross-party agreement that tackling child poverty and social mobility is extremely important. There is also cross-party agreement that child poverty levels in the UK are still worrying and that much work remains to be done to improve the situation. Those are areas about which I am sure we will have much more extended arguments in the Welfare Reform Bill Committee. I look forward to having those debates in the next few weeks.

We have learned that if we are really to tackle child poverty, we need to tackle social mobility at the same time. The two are so completely interrelated that working in silos will not be effective in the long term. It is not enough just to tackle the income coming into families; we also need to look much more broadly, including at the education and work opportunities available to the parents. The hon. Lady made the point about income levels in families, but we know that if children and their families really are to be lifted out of poverty, we need to talk about a lot more than that. I therefore welcome the fact that the Government plan to look at the issues in the round, combining the two areas together.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I agree entirely that bringing child poverty and social issues together is important. However, the Child Poverty Act 2010 does not apply in Wales, so we also need certainty that the social mobility elements will be looked at carefully in the Welsh context.

[Jenny Willott]

There are issues with child poverty in Wales. The hon. Gentleman and I represent Welsh constituencies. Child poverty levels in Wales are, I believe, higher than in other parts of the UK, just as incomes are much lower. If we are going to tackle the issue in Wales, just as in England and in Scotland, we need to look not just at welfare packages but more broadly at the opportunities available to children and young people, as well as their parents, so that they get the best opportunities. I hope that the Minister will say what she is doing with the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Parliament. We need a lot of co-ordination with the devolved Administrations, because many issues affecting social mobility are devolved matters such as education. If we are to take the issue seriously, we need to ensure good communication and liaison between the devolved Administrations and Departments in Whitehall.

I look forward to debating the issue further in Committee, but I would be grateful if the Minister responded to a couple of issues this evening. First, can she let us know more about why she feels that combining the expansion of the commission with the proposed change in its remit will increase accountability or ensure that the Government achieve their objectives? For many years Governments have talked the talk, but they have not necessarily walked the walk. I would like the Minister to say more about why she thinks the change will make a difference by delivering good progress on tackling child poverty. I would also be grateful if she gave more detail about the timing of the child poverty and social mobility strategies, how they will interact with the establishment of the new commission and how the process will work.

I welcome today’s proposal and look forward to debating it in Committee in the coming weeks, in what I am sure will be significantly more depth.

19:16

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Let me add two brief comments to our debate today. The first is directed towards the Liberal Democrats, as I read in the papers that social mobility is an issue that the Deputy Prime Minister is going to take under his wing. I feel in a good mood, so may I offer them some advice? We in this House might know what social mobility means, but if my constituents are anything to go by, nobody out there knows what the hell the Government or the Liberal Democrats are going on about when they talk about social mobility. My constituents all understand the phrase “life chances” and whether the Government have a strategy in place to ensure that every child in this country has a chance to get a better job than their parents, but if we continue to talk about social mobility, they turn the volume down or switch off. Although I do not mind facing the electorate in such circumstances, the policy is too important to allow the Government or the Liberal Democrats to continue to go over the top, shouting language that neither supporters nor enemies can understand.

[Jenny Willott]

I completely understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. We would all agree that the phrase does not mean very much to most people, but given that it is the jargon that has been used for many years by Governments of all colours, can he suggest a phrase that would be more helpful and productive and that people would understand?

[Mr Field]

Quite honestly, when we resume debate on the Bill, I would favour the phrase “life chances and poverty” or calling the commission the poverty and life chances commission, because poverty is the aspect that we are trying to break.

That brings me to the second, perhaps slightly more substantial point that I would like to contribute to today’s debate. When the Prime Minister asked me to conduct and submit a report to him about the foundation years, there was concern on the Opposition Benches that the huge intellectual and political efforts and the resources that the Labour Government had put into trying to tackle and finally abolish child poverty might somehow be dissipated, as though that report would be used as some terrible smokescreen. What is so good about today’s debate is that the discussion has moved on from there. I cannot emphasise enough how much I welcome that. However, I want to suggest that building up the foundation years should become a goal, so that a first building block in any strategy would be for many more children to start their first day of education better able to benefit from that education, rather than have primary schools spending most of their efforts doing rescue work. That has not occurred before. If the Government are concerned with that objective, and also with Labour’s commitment to abolishing child poverty by 2020, initially, in the short run, there is no conflict.

I draw the House’s attention to a report commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that was published a couple of years ago. It looked at what ways are open to the Government if they are serious about reducing the number of children in child poverty as Labour defined that in the 2010 Act. There is a medley of ways, but the one that held the greatest prospect for the quickest advances was building up high-quality child care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, if that were in place, many more parents would make the effort to take themselves out of poverty.

In a not-so-recent letter to the Chancellor, I asked him whether he will make a decision soon on the recommendation in my report. I asked him not to increase automatically benefit rates for children, but to see whether some of that money, in some years, could be better spent on building up the foundation years, as we call them in my report. Clearly, if some of that money were transferred from future years into building up high-quality child care, and if we avoided cutting such provision, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said, more children might be ready to benefit from their full-time education from their first day of school onwards. That is the best move the Government can make to reduce the number of children in poverty, year by year.

I rose to welcome the measure, which takes the debate forward. Hon. Members can get excited about it, but if the Government are serious about talking to our voters, they need to drop the term “social mobility” and come up with a phrase that we can all understand.

19:22

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I welcome the proposed instruction to the Committee, on the same basis that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) welcomes it. A wider debate on life chances will assist in the tackling of child poverty. I also agree with him on early years provision, although, frankly, we disagree on the method of funding.

I support the concept of commissions, which was begun by previous Governments. The last one in particular sought to establish a number of standing commissions, and I am glad this Government are doing likewise. I welcome the idea of a standing commission of experts who are free to comment at will—critically at times, but on the basis of objective analysis. That helps the Government, whichever party is in power.

In its representations, Save the Children raised three anxieties on the commission, and I would welcome a Government response to them—I am sure they will respond positively. First, Save the Children says that it is concerned that the commission could have its powers watered down, particularly in relation to commissioning research and consulting relevant experts and groups. It would be worth while reassuring Save the Children that that will not occur.

Secondly, Save the Children says that the commission has an important role to play in maintaining the profile of child poverty as an issue. Therefore, it is essential that the commission’s ability to advise and inform the public debate on child poverty remains within its broader remit. Once again, it would be worth while Ministers giving that assurance to Save the Children. Will there be full publication and openness and transparency? Will the commission have the ability to publish independently, without Government interference?

Thirdly, on life chances and social mobility, Save the Children would like us to examine and explore the Government’s thinking on the expertise they will seek to bring on to the commission. Once again, the Government could reassure the poverty lobby on that. If the proposals are amended in that way, the commission will undertake a worthwhile exercise, be open and transparent, and contribute to and heighten the profile of the wider debate on child poverty.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about the Government’s solutions to the problem, because some Government policies are driving more children into poverty, but at least we can agree that we need a commission that will provide research and independent advice so that we can have an informed debate. On that basis, I welcome the instruction.

19:25

[Margaret Curran]

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I make one or two comments in response to the debate, and thank hon. Members for their contributions? I will not go through them all, because I might overstretch my opportunity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made the important point that connecting welfare and welfare measures is at the heart of tackling child poverty. I hope that when we get to the substance of the debate we examine the proposals for universal credit, which are a substantial change in the welfare system.

I always listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) on these matters, and I will continue to do so. He commented on the centrality of child care, the child care proposals, and the impact of the introduction of universal credit, which is enormously significant. Regrettably, the Government have not fully clarified what will happen in respect of child care, which goes to the heart of the commission’s work. I hope that the commission examines that aspect as well.

Finally, in response to a number of points, I understand the arguments, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that defeating the scourge of child poverty is a central part of Government work. We cannot afford to lose that focus. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) on the consensus that has been established to deal with that scourge. Let us not lose that. Irrespective of other matters, we must target, measure and take action to tackle child poverty. I hope the widening of the commission’s scope will not dilute that, and I look forward to substantial and lively debates in Committee.

19:26

[Maria Miller]

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to some of the comments made in the debate, and first of all to thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) for her support for the motion. It was interesting and useful to hear the comments of right hon. and hon. Members in this debate, and I am grateful for the points that they have raised.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) raised an important point on the language that we use to describe such issues to people who perhaps do not live and breathe them in the same way that we do. That is important, but it is not, along with a number of issues raised by hon. Members, fully within the scope of today’s debate. We should debate such things in Committee, on Report or on Third Reading.

Tonight’s motion is on extending the scope of the Bill to enable that debate, and I am glad that so many hon. Members agree that the measure is appropriate. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead spoke of the importance of child care and getting full responses to his report, particularly on the early years. I remind him and hon. Members that we are committed to consulting on various options on child care and universal credit, although I am asking your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, in straying that far.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East made a number of points, and I hope to cover a few of them. I point her and other hon. Members who commented on the broadening of the commission’s role to our consultation on the various ideas in our child poverty strategy. I remind them that we received 280 responses to that consultation, which was more than those received to the consultation on the original Child Poverty Act 2010. Only around 6% of people who responded felt that broadening the commission’s role was inappropriate. That shows that people understand the value of broadening the issues that are examined when we address child poverty, and that we cannot view children in isolation from either their communities or their families. Hopefully, hon. Members understand and agree with that.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made a number of important points. She asked whether the Government remain committed to the 2010 Act. I should like to say a very clear, loud yes to that. The Government are clearly committed to the income targets in the Act, but as I outlined and as I am sure she will agree, tackling child poverty is not just about lifting people above an arbitrary income line; it is about ensuring that they have the support, incentives and skills necessary to create a better life for themselves. I hope that she would also agree on the importance of incorporating that principle into the commission’s work. We are looking at the root causes of poverty, not simply dealing with its symptoms and moving finances and moneys about.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) raised a number of issues, but I would particularly like to pick up on the one about how tackling child poverty is about more than income. She has my wholehearted support for her sentiments. Using targets in isolation has in the past focused policy on short-term solutions, leading to vast sums of money being spent on financial support without fundamentally changing the causes of poverty. I welcome her support for our approach and the opportunity that will no doubt be afforded by her membership of the Welfare Reform Bill Committee to debate the detail and substance of some of the issues she raised.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East talked about the broadening of the commission—in fact, this was also raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—and was worried that we were diluting the powers of the commission. I would challenge that; we are doing quite the opposite. We are actually reinforcing the commission’s powers by giving it the opportunity to range more broadly over those issues that really affect the life chances of young people in this country. The commission’s duty to report annually on progress towards reducing child poverty will ensure that the issue remains high on the Government’s agenda, and I am sure that nobody needs reminding that it is also in our coalition agreement.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned the expertise on the commission, which might be an issue that we can discuss in Committee or perhaps on the Floor of the House on Report. One reason we believed that it was important to move to a child poverty and social mobility commission, rather than simply remaining with the legislation as it was, was precisely the one he raised: we wanted to ensure that that broader expertise was put in place.

Many other issues have been raised today, but I want to touch on just one more before I close. Hon. Members asked why we believed that the reformed child poverty commission would be more powerful, and why it mattered that instead of having an advisory function, its role should be to hold the Government to account. We believe fundamentally that Ministers are responsible for the strategies put forward. However, section 10 of the 2010 Act clearly allows the Secretary of State to devolve to the commission responsibility for establishing a strategy or to act on advice in a way that could place on it responsibility for that strategy. This is really important and is at the heart of the coalition Government’s approach to ministerial responsibility. We do not believe that the commission should be responsible for the strategy; that is the role of Ministers. That is one of the fundamental changes that we are making, and it will ensure that the role of the commission is to hold us to account for the work we are doing. We do not want to defer responsibility to a commission that after all is not accountable at the ballot box. That is one of the important changes we have made.

In conclusion, we believe that these changes will ensure that the commission is an effective and efficient public body with the necessary powers to fulfil its duties and to hold Government properly to account. Moreover, they will remove the requirement on the commission as currently defined. It is a public body that cannot provide the taxpayer with value for money. There will be further opportunities to debate the content and detail of some of the issues raised today as we move through the various stages of the Bill. However, I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that allowing these changes is both necessary and beneficial to the cause of tackling child poverty, and I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Trafficking in Human Beings

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: The Twenty-fourth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 428-xxii.]

19:34

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. PE-CONS 69/10, relating to the Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA; and supports the Government’s intention to apply to opt in post-adoption under Article 4 of Protocol 21 on the position of the UK and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice.

I thank members of the European Scrutiny Committee for giving us the opportunity to set out why the Government wish to opt in to the EU directive on human trafficking and the benefits it will bring to the UK. I hope that this debate will secure the Committee’s support for this important measure, which I believe further strengthens the UK’s position on tackling human trafficking. I also welcome this debate as a step forward for parliamentary scrutiny. We welcome the Committee’s consideration of the Government’s intention to opt in and its detailed report, in which the Committee acknowledged that the objective of preventing and combating trafficking cannot be sufficiently achieved by member states alone and can, by reason of both its scale and effects, be better achieved by action at EU level. Our intention to opt in is consistent with that view.

I know that Committee members recognise that human trafficking is an abuse of human rights that feeds on the exploitation of victims—men, women and children. The victims of this appalling crime are mere commodities in the hands of organised crime groups, and their exploitation causes severe and lasting harm. We are clear that tackling this crime is of the highest priority. Human trafficking is a complex, covert and cross-border crime that demands an international response. The UK is a world leader in its anti-trafficking work, but that does not mean that we should stand still. Rather, we have a responsibility to lead the way in the fight against trafficking and develop increasingly sophisticated responses to the changing nature of the organised crime landscape.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister welcome the recent developments in the EU that will provide for more border checks within the Schengen area? When the Select Committee on Home Affairs last reported on this, it found that traffickers could pass through the Schengen area without being stopped. These new arrangements, which the EU seems to be putting in place, will mean more checks within the area, which might mean that we catch more people involved in this terrible crime.

[Damian Green]

The right hon. Gentleman might well be right. However, it would be unhelpful for me to comment generally on the developments in the Schengen area that, as he and the House will know, might be introduced as a result of events in north Africa. Certainly, however, I agree with the general proposition that each EU member state has to consider its own border arrangements and internal policing arrangements to make it easier for all of us to work together on an international basis in combating what is by definition an international crime. That means that to deal with this problem we have to work closely with our international partners, and applying to opt in to the directive is a positive step that Britain can take towards this goal.

As the House will be aware, we chose not to opt in to the directive when it was initially put on the table last summer, because the draft text had to go through an extensive period of negotiation between the European Council and the European Parliament. We wanted to be absolutely sure that the text would not change during those negotiations in a way that would be detrimental to the integrity of the UK’s criminal justice system. We wanted to consider a final text that had no risks attached and would not fundamentally change the UK’s already strong position in the fight against human trafficking.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not think that it sends a negative message that we have taken so long to sign up?

[Damian Green]

No, I do not, because once the text was available, we looked at it and made the recommendation very quickly, so there has been no practical delay at all. We have examined in great detail the final text and its impacts on the UK, and have concluded that applying to opt in would benefit the UK as well as—most importantly—the victims of trafficking. Applying to opt in to the directive will maintain our position and will continue to send a signal to traffickers that the UK is very serious about tackling trafficking.

I am absolutely clear, however, that merely applying to opt in is not enough. We have much work to do to ensure that the directive is implemented in an effective way across the UK. There has been great interest in how we will implement certain measures in it, which I will deal with in a moment. The UK already complies with the majority of its measures. We have said from the outset that opting in to the directive will require us to make some legislative changes to ensure full compliance, and we are ready to do that. This will include widening extra-territorial jurisdiction. The directive requires us to establish extra-territorial jurisdiction when the offender is a UK national. It also gives us discretion about whether to establish jurisdiction over cases in which the offender is an habitual resident.

I know that that issue has caused much debate; another is that of child guardians. On this, the directive contains a number of important provisions about assistance and support for child victims of trafficking. We are confident that the UK is compliant with those measures. Local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that they safeguard and promote the welfare of all children, regardless of their immigration status or nationality. We believe that this responsibility should remain with the local authorities that co-ordinate the arrangements for each child to ensure that they are safe and to promote their welfare.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that local authorities are going to need some training, direction and guidance on this matter? The record of child victims of trafficking disappearing from local authority care very soon after their admission is shocking and disturbing.

[Damian Green]

I agree that there have been severe difficulties in that regard. My hon. Friend will know that there tends to be a concentration of child victims of trafficking in certain local authorities, and one of the things that encourages me is the way in which local authorities—particularly those that are the most affected—are now learning best practice from each other and getting a grip on the problem of disappearance, which has afflicted many child victims of trafficking. For instance, Hertfordshire has, by adopting new systems, reduced the number of children who disappear from 36 to two in 12 months.

Great improvements are clearly needed, but we have already seen them being made in some local authorities, which are developing the kind of systems that are effective in enabling them to fulfil their statutory duty to protect children. They have comprehensive systems in place to do this, and adding another guardian to that framework would risk creating another level of complexity in arrangements that are already strong and that ensure the best interests of the child. Even worse, it would risk creating confusion for children themselves if plans for their care were not effectively co-ordinated.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

What would be the difference between having an independent reviewing officer and advocate, and having a guardian? Is it the Minister’s view that the combination of an IRO and an advocate amounts to a guardian?

[Damian Green]

That is exactly my view, and having another guardian would be confusing and potentially bureaucratic. Indeed, in discussions with the very energetic all-party group on human trafficking, one of its leading officers, the noble Baroness Butler-Sloss, made the point that when the directive talks about a guardian, it does not, in her view, mean a guardian ad litem—a legal representative of the child—who would deal with the courts, as happens in “normal” child protection issues. The truth is that the concept of the guardian in the directive is slightly vague, and slightly declaratory, and we believe that our present system is already achieving what the directive wants us to achieve.

Another provision that has generated great interest is the idea of a national rapporteur on human trafficking. Again, we believe that we have equivalent mechanisms in place that fulfil that purpose, in the form of the UK Human Trafficking Centre, for data collection, and the inter-departmental ministerial group, for oversight. I recognise the concerns expressed by hon. Members and others that this function should be carried out by an independent body, and I will keep those arguments under consideration.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on these measures, which are welcomed by many of us. Will he tell us what new police initiatives he envisages as a result of the motion, given the evidence of the success of Operations Pentameter 1, Pentameter 2 and Golf? Focused police effort has made a major difference.

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend is right to say that good things were done during the focused police action under the two Pentameter operations. One result is that combating trafficking has become much more a part of mainstream police work than it was a few years ago. There will be further developments on the activities of the national crime agency and, more specifically, on the new trafficking strategy that will be announced in the coming weeks. I will come to that in a second, if he will excuse me.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I absolutely welcome the Government’s decision to opt in to the directive, as does the all-party group on human trafficking. We are concerned, however, about the Government’s decision on the rapporteur. I am all European and I like that sort of thing, and I hope that the Government have not closed their mind to the idea. I do not think that the mechanism that the Minister has outlined is good enough.

[Damian Green]

I am sure that the whole House will echo my pleasure at my hon. Friend welcoming this opt-in to a European directive. I cannot say how delighted I am to be on the same side as him in this argument. As I have said, I will listen to the arguments about an independent rapporteur, but I would merely observe that only two EU countries have adopted the mechanism that he favours. It is therefore reasonable to say that the jury is out on whether that is the most appropriate way forward.

I want to be clear that applying to opt in to the directive is only one part of the wide range of work that we are carrying out to tackle trafficking. Despite the difficult financial climate, we have protected funding for adult victims. We have set aside £2 million a year for the next three years to fund support provision for adult victims of human trafficking. As part of our wider work to tackle trafficking, we have introduced a new model for funding specialist support for adult victims. This will ensure that each identified victim receives support tailored to their individual needs and in line with the standards set out in the Council of Europe convention. It will also ensure effective co-ordination and monitoring of the support on offer, while enabling a greater range of service providers to support victims of this crime. These changes will result in a more comprehensive system of care that will take better account of the particular needs of individual victims. The flexibility of the new model will also mean that we are better equipped to meet the victim care requirements contained in the directive.

The strategy on human trafficking will set out in more detail the direction of our work on trafficking, and this will be published shortly. As I have just mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), the strategy will set out the steps that we will take across four key areas: disrupting trafficking networks before they reach the UK; smarter multi-agency working at the border; more co-ordination of our law enforcement efforts in the United Kingdom; and improved victim care arrangements. As I said during the anti-slavery day debate in the House last October, the strategy will maintain the focus on victims and also put renewed effort into upstream enforcement, without compromising in any way our commitment to victim care. We will continue to work with a range of partners to achieve this. I hope that the House will support the Government’s intention to apply to opt in to the directive, and I commend the motion to the House.

19:49

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s decision. We asked for it some 40 times before they decided to do it, but that does not make the decision any less welcome. It is a recognition of the need to work between countries in this area of international abuse of human rights. Getting more effective collaboration between countries is critical if we are effectively to drive down the extent of human trafficking.

I genuinely welcome what the Government have done, but I think there is still a gap between refining the law, creating the right procedures and perfecting the administrative procedures that happen on the ground. If we look at our record on apprehending traffickers, we find that the numbers apprehended remain unconvincing. There is a huge gap between the estimated number of traffickers and the number of prosecutions. Victims largely remain invisible unless they are uncovered as a result of raids. Some victims have been identified through the national referral mechanism, but I am concerned about the way in which the NRM seems to have an attrition rate of about 50% after the initial recognition and 50% on the final recognition. Every organisation working in this field believes that a huge number of victims have not yet been identified.

[James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that although, as we heard from the Minister, there are hotspots around the country, there is a danger of forgetting that this can be a problem absolutely everywhere? There is a great deal of unreported trafficking in areas that might not be hotspots but still need to be the focus of Government attention.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I fear that I probably represent a hotspot—one of the few constituencies in which successful prosecutions for child trafficking have been launched—yet I recall hearing a police officer from rural Dorset talking about his experience of finding in a local brothel women who had been trafficked. Police officers involved in the post-Ipswich work were shocked at the number of trafficked women they found in brothels in very nice parts of East Anglia. I think it is clear that this is happening all over the country and that we are not yet drilling down to the bottom of the problem. I know that trafficking is not just an issue across international borders, as it also occurs within the UK. I welcome the fact that the directive reflects that, so that we will be able to deal with internal trafficking around the country, which is a critical issue.

My concern is that, without targets—Pentameter 1 and 2 provided them—the police do not have sufficient incentives to deal with the problem. I agree with the Minister that it is becoming more mainstream police business, but I also know that some police forces have not learned what we have just been reminded of by the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton)—that the trafficking is happening here. It is not given sufficient priority and many victims fail to be identified.

[Mark Tami]

Is my hon. Friend concerned, as I am, about the level of cuts to the police forces, particularly in areas such as port security, where traffickers probe for a weak point when they are bringing people into the country?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under Pentameter 2, an expert team was set up at Heathrow, which was able to identify children who came through the airport without their parents, as they were particularly vulnerable. That team is not replicated at other ports of entry, and there seems to be compelling evidence to show that Eurotunnel is a route increasingly used by child traffickers because that same kind of expertise is not deployed to identify and interdict child trafficking at the port.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech and knows a lot about the subject. Would Her Majesty’s Opposition support the Government in respect of the border police, as one of its roles is to make sure that trafficked victims are not brought in through our ports?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The Opposition will support any effective border measures that help to protect this country’s borders against illegal immigration and to prevent the victimisation of people through trafficking. We are absolutely on side when it comes to both those things. The targets that existed under previous nationally initiated police operations are, in my view, necessary to make this kind of work, which I welcome, operate effectively.

Another theme in the directive is the importance of looking after victims. I am concerned about the recent decision to replace POPPY as the provider of victim care. I think that the POPPY project was the most exemplary pioneer in its work on victim care. One thing it was prepared to do because of its independence was to challenge decisions on behalf of victims who were not identified as victims by the national referral mechanism. Will the Minister give a guarantee that the present arrangements for providing victim care will include a willingness to act on behalf of those victims who have not been identified by what amounts, frankly, to a bit of a tick-box exercise when it comes to the questionnaires issued by the NRM? Will the new victim care arrangements allow decisions by the NRM to be challenged so that people who have not been designated as victims of trafficking can be properly protected?

[Margot James]

I share the hon. Lady’s admiration for the work of the POPPY project. There is no doubt about the excellence of its organisation. It was, however, in receipt of nearly £1 million for doing its work. Does she accept that it is worth at least trying to allow the new organisation, which will provide care for more victims with the same amount of money—we have heard that the actual amount has been increased, but pro rata I believe it will provide care for more—to get on with its job?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

That is what the contract requires of the new organisation. I did not make any criticism of it because I wish it well. It has the job now, although I am sad that POPPY’s talent might be lost as it had powerful experience to bring to bear on the problem. I asked for a specific assurance that the new organisation will be allowed to challenge—and provided with the finance, perhaps retrospectively—in cases where its advisers and support staff believe that a decision by the NRM has been inaccurate. I put that question to the Minister and I am sure he will come back to it in his reply.

I accept that we need value-for-money services. Personally, I thought POPPY provided pretty good value for money for the women victims whom it supported and I hope that the new arrangements will provide a similar quality of support for women, which is gender sensitive and so forth. I know that part of the ambition was to extend it beyond trafficked women to male victims of trafficking—an initiative that I welcome—but I hope we will continue to have the gender sensitivity that is required in the directive and that POPPY so exemplarily displayed.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

As the Minister who announced the result of the competition this morning, I want to make it clear that although the Salvation Army, which won the contract, will expect to administer directly about 25% of the funds made available by the Ministry of Justice, 75%—£1.5 million a year—will remain available to organisations such as POPPY so that they can provide the services that they have provided in the past. Although the Salvation Army has taken over the leading role, it will not do all the work itself, and we will need to use the expertise of organisations such as POPPY.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

As the Minister knows—because we have discussed the matter before—POPPY did bid for the provision and his system did not approve the bid. It is quite possible that the requirements that the Salvation Army will lay on the organisation to which it subcontracts will not be appropriate for POPPY. As the Minister knows, POPPY had to bite its tongue a bit to make the bid in the first place, and I encouraged it to do so. We cannot be certain that it will be able to continue—or afford to continue—to provide a service of this kind.

The Minister for Immigration referred to the rapporteur requirement in article 19. I welcome his recognition that—notwithstanding the memorandum that he supplied to the Committee, according to which this was provided by the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre and the inter-ministerial group on human trafficking—there is a question to be asked about whether some more independent mechanism might be appropriate. I strongly urge him to adopt that route, and I am glad that he has left the door open.

I believe that the inter-ministerial group has met once since the election of the present Government. I do not think that that suggests a great degree of oversight. It also worries me that UKHTC does not provide public reports of its work or accessible statistics. In contrast, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, which is part of the same mechanism, provides detailed figures and reports which enable it to hold the body to account. I think that we need a body which will report to this Parliament, and which will provide it with the necessary figures and details.

I talked recently to representatives of ECPAT, an exemplary organisation that supports child victims of trafficking. They said that the most recent figures they could get out of UKHTC did not break down the details of victims of trafficking—even children—according to nationality and age, which would have enabled them properly to understand how that ghastly phenomenon operates. I urge the Minister to establish a mechanism which can report to Parliament, and which recognises that the job of a rapporteur is not to administer but to find information and report it. At present, the bodies to which he refers in his memorandum do not go in for much reporting.

Finally, let me deal with the issue of child victims. Shortly before the debate, a number of members of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking heard an excellent presentation by Barnardo’s about its work with children who have been sexually exploited. Some have been trafficked, and some are victims of a sexual exploitation of a kind that has parallels with child trafficking. Barnardo’s estimates that there are 1,000 sexually exploited children in Britain today, and that the experience of those children, when they come into contact with the criminal justice system, is of being criminalised rather than treated as victims. I believe that Members on both sides of the House feel shame about that.

There is an urgent need for us to provide proper protection mechanisms for child victims of trafficking, and that will require, among other things, a proper guardianship system. We know that although, in theory, local authorities take responsibility for the welfare of children, that is not always the case in practice. The Minister mentioned some good practice in Hertfordshire, which we welcome, but, as he is aware, that is the exception rather than the rule. We know that trafficked children disappear from local authority care every week, and that, rather than being found a few weeks later, they are never found. It is horrific that those most vulnerable, most exploited children are not being protected. It is not just a question of protecting them against an uncle, or whoever is trying to instruct a lawyer on their behalf when it comes to criminal proceedings; it is also a question of protecting them against continuing re-trafficking, which, as is fairly clear, is unfortunately what is happening to many children in Britain today.

Signing the directive would give Britain an opportunity to make a real difference, but we need a practical strategy to implement its proposals. We were promised that in the spring, and the Minister referred to it again tonight, but progress seems to be at best confused, and at worst even more confused. It is slow and a bit muddled. I have been told by voluntary organisations that have been consulted about what the strategy might include that different Home Office civil servants have been put in charge of it, that meetings keep being arranged and then cancelled, that people are not given papers before meetings, and that the timing of a meeting that was due to happen the following day is changed and no agenda is circulated.

I believe that the increasing number of voluntary organisations that deal with human trafficking—including the excellent Human Trafficking Foundation, which was created by a former Member of Parliament for Totnes—are beginning to feel that the Government are trying to use them as a free research resource without listening to their concerns. We want the strategy, and we want it to be as specific as the last strategy—which, I note, has disappeared from the Home Office website, and which had the benefit of specific targets.

I hope that the Minister for Immigration will be able to reassure us that there will be proper consultation about the strategy, that voluntary civil society organisations will be involved as is required by the directive, that they will be properly involved and not asked to attend meetings without an agenda, and that the strategy will be not merely a high-level document with no specific facts and figures enabling people to be held to account, but a concrete set of promises. It is time that we had such a strategy. It was promised for the spring, and my gardening practice tells me that the spring is very nearly over.

Let me end by welcoming today’s decision, which I am sure the whole House will support, and by urging the Minister to do more to make the provision work well in practice. He has some of the necessary ideas, but we need to ensure that they are implemented.

20:09

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I am very pleased that we are having this debate. The fact that we are doing so is a tribute to Members on both sides of the House and others, including the Minister for Immigration, the Home Secretary, the members of the all-party group on human trafficking, Anthony Steen and the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). It is a collective achievement, therefore.

As Members will know, in Europe alone the estimated value of trafficking is £3 billion, and about 140,000 people are being held in conditions of effective slavery in Europe. This morning, I had a meeting with Croydon Community Against Trafficking, which has done very good work in identifying brothels. From its research, it concluded that there were 65 brothels in Croydon. It passed that information to the police in Croydon, who had identified only eight brothels. This shows the scale of the problem we are facing both in European terms and at the local level, and it highlights the fact that human trafficking, especially for the sex industry, is a significant issue.

I want to thank the Home Secretary again. We have had an extensive exchange of correspondence on this matter over the past three months or so, and there are a couple of points on which I seek clarification relating to the impact the EU human trafficking directive will have in the UK and any additional measures the Government might intend to take. When I intervened on the Minister on the topic of guardians, he said he was confident that the combination of an independent reviewing officer and an advocate was, in effect, a guardian or the equivalent thereof. I am sure he is right, and I hope so too because when we have to respond to the petition on guardians with 600,000 signatures that ECPAT is apparently going to be handing in on Thursday 12 May, it will be much easier if all Members can collectively say that the matter has been addressed. It will save us a significant amount of pain if we are in a position to say that.

It is my understanding that forced begging is already a crime in the UK. I ask the Minister to clarify either now or later whether a comparable legal penalty is attached to that, and whether as a result of the implementation of the human trafficking directive we will follow other countries in recording the figures for forced begging so that we can draw straight comparisons. In my mind at least, there was also some confusion as to whether other offences that are not currently covered in the UK are addressed by the directive and therefore whether we might now have other offences as well as forced begging.

Victims of trafficking receive free medical care, but what support in respect of accommodation, and especially safe accommodation, is there, and does the Minister expect that to be provided to all victims?

On the protection of victims in criminal proceedings, the Home Secretary confirmed that special measures such as witness protection and anonymity are not guaranteed, but are granted on a case-by-case basis. I hope the Minister can give some reassurance that they will be available in cases where that is clearly necessary. Also, there is a suggestion in the response that if legal aid is not available, victims should seek help from non-legal professionals or legal voluntary organisations such as citizens advice bureaux. Given the nature of these crimes, will the Minister consider whether victims should, in fact, receive proper legal support when they require it?

I referred in my opening comments to Croydon Community Against Trafficking, and I congratulate that voluntary organisation on the work it is doing. Following promptings from Anthony Steen, it is trying to expand its network to all the London boroughs. Many of its activities are based on following leads from adverts as they appear in newspapers. I am sure that Members will welcome the fact that Newsquest—which produces many of the local newspapers around the country, including my own, the Sutton Guardian—has given a guarantee that it will not carry these ads. That is not the case for others, however, such as the Advertiser group. I am afraid that on occasion its papers are in the bizarre situation of featuring on the front page articles about raids on brothels that have resulted in their being shut down, while on the back pages carrying adverts for the services of those brothels. I hope the Minister will address that. He has welcomed the actions of Newsquest, and I wonder whether he might like to put a challenge to other newspaper groups in respect of the adverts they continue to carry.

I also ask the Minister to set out how he sees the time scales developing from now on, in respect of any other measures that might be taken or hoops that might have to be jumped through, before we can finally say that the EU human trafficking directive has been adopted in its entirety and we can once again commend all the actions that have collectively been taken to ensure this becomes part of the UK’s legislation.

20:17

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) in a debate on human trafficking. He served with distinction on the Select Committee on Home Affairs a few months ago when we published our report into human trafficking. That took over a year to complete, not because we were not seeking to inform the House more quickly, but because the more we investigated this very important subject, the more information came before us and the more we wanted to get to the bottom of the root causes of human trafficking.

This is a unique debate because Members on both sides of the House are lavishing praise on the decision of the Minister and the Government. That is an unusual situation for the Minister for Immigration, which he should appreciate and put in the bank for future occasions. He and the Government have done absolutely the right thing in opting into this directive. It will make a huge difference in respect of our uncovering the sources of human trafficking and dealing with those criminals who make such a vast amount of money—£32 billion worldwide, which makes trafficking the second largest illegal industry after drugs. If as a result of what the Government are doing today we catch more of these criminals, signing in will be worth it.

It is right that we pay tribute to Anthony Steen for the work he has done for many years. Even though he is no longer a Member of the House, his spirit lives on in the all-party group and I am sure he is watching the deliberations of the House today and that tomorrow I and other Members will be getting an e-mail pointing out all the things we should have said on this matter and all the things he feels we can help him with in the future.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who took over as chairman of the all-party group and has done a fantastic job in ensuring this issue remains at the forefront of the work of Parliament. Given his views on Europe, he is going to make a piece of incredible parliamentary history today in supporting an opt-in to something that has been proposed by the European Union. We should not forget this important piece of parliamentary history. We will hear from others involved in tackling trafficking, and may I say what a good thing it is that the House is relatively full for this time of night?

As has been said, this is of course an issue for this country, but we need primarily to go to the sources of human trafficking to try to find out why and how people are trafficked. As part of that, we need to examine the developments in the European Union, and I raised that issue when the Minister spoke just now. The recent developments on the Schengen arrangements will help us to try to catch some of these criminals. This country is, rightly, not part of those arrangements, so we are observers and we have no direct interest in those matters. We are not the decision makers—this will be done without the United Kingdom’s involvement—but of course we are the beneficiaries of any changes to the Schengen arrangements that mean that the borders of Schengen countries are protected and measures are in place to ensure that those who seek to use the freedom of movement in the European Union for criminal purposes, be it illegal immigration or human trafficking, are checked very carefully. I hope that, although we are only observers, the Minister and the Government will make relevant comments to our colleagues in the European Union about how these measures will affect not only illegal immigration, but, more particularly, because of the nature of this debate, the way in which we deal with those involved in human trafficking. These measures are not an end but a beginning and this Government, Members of this House and others have a constant desire to make sure that we are vigilant against those who are trafficking people.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I have spoken in debates on this subject before and I must say that a lot of the trafficking goes unnoticed. It is now being targeted in new development areas that have a high prevalence of rented property, where people cannot name their neighbours and do not necessarily spot anything untoward when people come and go at early hours. We need to be vigilant in our communities to ensure that we are feeding that information to the police and the local authorities.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the need for vigilance. We sometimes talk about trafficking as if it were a global problem—and of course it is—but it is found in our neighbourhoods. It is a problem for local communities and we need to collect that information and make sure the police are in a position to act on it. In a real sense, this is a neighbourhood watch issue; it is about whether people are prepared to spot what is happening locally and report it to the police.

During the recess, I took the opportunity to visit Tandarei, in Romania. I felt that I had got closure, because I had been trying to do that for a number of years, including with my Select Committee. We had heard about this town in Romania that had been transformed because of the money that had been sent by children who had been begging on the streets of London, Madrid, Paris and other major European cities. We received the co-operation of the Romanian Government, and I wish to pay tribute to the excellent work that they have done. I also wish to pay tribute to the work of the Romanian police, in concert with the Metropolitan police, on Operation Golf, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who is no longer in his place. That international co-operation goes beyond directives of the kind that we are discussing, but the close co-operation of the Metropolitan police and the Romanian police led to many people being arrested in Tandarei.

In Tandarei, we saw a number of very expensive villas that had been built as a result of the proceeds of trafficking and a number of very expensive cars. We spoke with the mayor and other officials there and I must put on the record the fact that they, of course, denied any involvement in human trafficking and denied that children were being sent from this remote Romanian village to London, Madrid, Paris and other major cities. However, they did say that money had been flowing into Tandarei. The figures that we were given showed that £2.8 million had been transferred through legitimate means—through Western Union and by other means of transferring money—into that town last year, and it is estimated by the authorities that many millions more had gone there. Those who live in that town have said that the children go voluntarily, with the consent of their parents, to raise money for the betterment of their local communities. We therefore have a duty to engage with these communities, through the excellent work of the Romanian authorities and the Romanian Government, to try to explain that this is not the right thing to do with young children and that the best place for them is with their parents and families. As neighbours, partners and colleagues in the European Union, we should also provide whatever help is necessary.

Some people may think that this problem cannot be solved, but I think that it can. I believe that this will be solved by going to the source countries, such as Moldova, a third of whose population has left that country over the past 10 years, and origin countries in north Africa from which people are being trafficked. We have read the stories of those who are now coming from Libya, some of whom are paying huge sums to get out of that country. Some of them end up in Italy, and I spoke this morning to the Italian ambassador about the problem. Last week, I spoke to the Greek ambassador about the number of people from Moldova and Afghanistan who end up in Turkey. Many of those people have just one ambition, which is to live in the United Kingdom, and they will pay any amount of money in order to do so.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

A lot of tonight’s debate has focused on the supply and the trafficking, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need a double-pronged approach and that we should also put emphasis on those who use these establishments? Does he agree that the police and local authorities need to educate and prosecute the people who make use of these establishments?

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Of course, the previous Government introduced legislation making it an offence for someone to engage in sexual relations with someone who may have been trafficked. We had a debate about that and it is an absolute offence. He is right to say that we must limit the supply by intelligent policing and co-operation, and that we must reduce the demand by being very firm on those who are part of that system—he leads me to an excellent place to end my speech. If this Parliament can do that and if the Government can opt into this directive, we will have moved a step closer to eradicating this terrible, terrible problem.

20:29

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and, as usual, I agreed with every word he said. I very much appreciate his kind words about me and, in return, I shall say that the work of the Home Affairs Committee under his chairmanship is most welcomed in this field.

It would be wrong of me to start without mentioning the two excellent Ministers on the Treasury Bench, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), and my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, who have played an important role in bringing us to where we are tonight. They have both had the time and the patience to talk to the all-party group on human trafficking and we appreciate that.

I welcome the directive and I should also congratulate the previous Government, because, on a non-party political basis, we are building on their work. They took us into the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, which is now being embodied in EU law. The all-party group, under Anthony Steen, did much in the previous Parliament to push that Government in that direction and it is the role of our group to continue to push this Government. Although we welcome the debate and will lavish praise on the Government tonight, we will return to particular points and push the Government hard. My great concern about the EU directive, which I have expressed on many occasions, is that it must be seen as the minimum, not the maximum. We must go much further than it does.

For me, the great thing about opting into the directive is that it sends a message to EU countries that in this country we are serious about the problem, which will encourage other EU countries to do more. We cannot stop human trafficking on our own; we must work with our European neighbours to stop it. To that end, I am pleased with the all-party group’s initiative to try to set up similar all-party groups in other parts of the EU. We have obtained a grant from the EU to do that.

I praise both Ministers for the decision on victim support. The Under-Secretary has not blown his own trumpet enough tonight, as, at a time when there are cuts, it is quite amazing that the Government have managed to increase the funding for victim support. Personally—this is my view, not necessarily that of the all-party group—I think it was right to award the contract for looking after adult victims to the Salvation Army. I have seen the proposal and how it will spread a network of safe homes across the country, involving many different organisations. In a way, it is a big society solution to the problem. Although the POPPY project did an excellent job, it was very London-based. More victims will be looked after better by the new solution and I congratulate the Ministry of Justice on that.

There is one great scandal on which we will continue to press the Government. Adult victims of human trafficking are looked after in this country, previously through the POPPY project and now through the Salvation Army, and they are put into safe homes and helped back into normal life. They can either go home to their country of origin or settle properly into this country and they are given help in bringing prosecutions against the dreadful people who do the human trafficking. It must be far worse for a child victim of human trafficking than for an adult. A young child, aged 15 or so, might be brought into this country having been told that they will have a job in a store, but might suddenly find that they are in a brothel and repeatedly forced to have sex. That must be far worse for a child than for an adult.

What happens to those child victims? As a child, the local authority has to look after them, but there is no particular provision for local authorities to look after trafficked children. They do not even identify them—the provision is a bolt-on to the local authority system. All that happens is that these children are taken into care and then re-trafficked. That scandal must be sorted out. I am pleased that the Government have just awarded a grant to Barnardo’s to set up a safe-home system for children. Admittedly, there will be only 16 children to start with, but that has to be the way forward. We must treat trafficked children differently from ordinary children who come into local authority care. The all-party group will be pressing the Government on that issue over the next few months.

I also welcome the Government’s four-pronged approach to trafficking and to setting the new goals. I also welcome the fact that they are taking time to reach a decision, as I would prefer them to take as long as possible and to get it right. I do not really care whether in Government terms the spring finishes at the end of July, so long as we get it right. There was much criticism of the Government before, saying that they would not opt into the EU directive, but they have done so. Now, there is a lot of chatter that the Government will make a mess of the strategy on human trafficking, but I do not believe that. I hope that when it comes before us we can have another debate and can push the Government further. We are clearly moving in the right direction.

There are two issues about the directive that I want to mention which I think the Government are going to have to consider seriously over the next few months. The first concerns the rapporteur—I have only just learned how to say that word because it is foreign. It seems to me that the Dutch model is better than any of the others. It has a rapporteur and a secretary and they account for the whole cost of the system, so it is a minimal amount of money. The rapporteur reports independently to Parliament once a year on how trafficking is going in the Netherlands and how the Government’s policies work—that is her entire role. It would be really good if we could replicate that system in this country. Of course, I think that our first rapporteur should be Anthony Steen, who was in the Palace of Westminster earlier talking about this very debate, but whomever we might consider for the role, we should look into doing that.

The second issue, which is perhaps more difficult, is the requirement under the directive to have guardianship. I shall be at No. 10 Downing street on Thursday, helping to deliver a petition about guardianship that I believe has more than 600,000 names as a result of a campaign by the Body Shop and ECPAT—End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes. This is a difficult issue—I do not want to pretend that it is not—but we have to get to grips with it and I hope that we in the all-party group can work with the Government to find a solution.

The Government have done an excellent job on this and I respect the effort and time that the Ministers have put in, as well as the constructive criticism that has come from the Opposition. This is a night to celebrate, but I shall come back in future weeks to criticise.

20:36

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to be here this evening to welcome the Government’s proposals. I know that we are going through the European scrutiny process and that we have a right to our debate, but there might be a small tinge or last flourish of Euroscepticism in the forcing of a debate after the date on which the Government had hoped to sign up to the directive. I have seen the letter to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, so I know that the Government have respected the scrutiny process and the Committee’s wish to have a debate on these issues. That is to be commended for scrutiny purposes and I do not think it will take anything from the eventual signing up to the directive.

I once asked the Prime Minister about his moral compass in relation to this issue, and it seems that our collective moral compass has come through the magnetic storm of Euroscepticism and out the other side pointing in the right direction. I welcome that greatly. I do not think that the probing questions asked by those who perhaps did not want us to do things on the basis of an EU directive, but wanted us to set up 27 arrangements with other countries, were unhelpful because they made the Government think hard about what was in the directive. Some of the issues that I pressed hard on, such as extraterritorial jurisdiction, are very important and I hope that the Government might join the European Parliament in getting the same clause on extraterritorial jurisdiction into the directive on sexual exploitation and the abuse of children, as that is currently being resisted.

We have done this just in time. The ECPAT and Body Shop petition has been running for some months and when I looked after it had been closed on 5 May it had 887,575 signatures calling for guardianships to be set up as part of our response to the trafficking of children. I believe that the petition will be presented on Thursday at No. 10 Downing street on behalf of those organisations. ECPAT has also been supported by the Body Shop financially in its work.

A month ago, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland reported on his research into the trafficking of children. From the evidence he had collected, he said there were at least 80 cases he could verify and possibly 200 of which he had had notice. For a small country such as Scotland, that is a lot. If the figure were extrapolated for the UK, the number would be massive—much higher than the figure of 1,000 mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and that is just for children. It worries me that there is a massive amount of trafficking going on—perhaps for the purposes mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who talked about what he had seen in Romania. Clearly, there is a lot of trafficking going on that we have yet to find out about—much more than some estimates. Some of it might be just to reunite families; some of it might be for benefit fraud; some of it might be for exploitation through cheap labour or begging, as I have seen in other European countries; and some of it might be for other, more nasty, reasons, including sexual exploitation and abuse.

We have a long way to go. According to the reports I have seen, there were only eight successful prosecutions for people trafficking in England last year. What seems to happen, according to the data that I have, is that the accused plead guilty to a lesser charge. There is not supposed to be plea bargaining in this country, but we know that it happens. The number of proper cases and final prosecutions is very low. There was one well publicised case of a woman police officer who pressed for research into human trafficking, because she had seen it going on, and was told by her senior officer, “We’re not interested in human trafficking. In this force we’re interested in burglaries.” In a case reported today by Barnardo’s, a judge commented to a 14-year-old who had been trafficked and used in a sex ring that it was just a lifestyle choice that she had made. That is frightening in this day and age.

We have much to do about the scale of the problem. I sent the Minister a number of parliamentary questions. I was told that the trafficking toolkit from 2003 was available to all law enforcement agencies. That was the answer to my question about how many people had been trained by the police forces in this country to handle human trafficking. It was confirmed today by the people from Barnardo’s that only a quarter of police forces have proper child protection units running, so we have a long, long way to go.

I have received information from contacts throughout the EU. The Human Trafficking Foundation run by Anthony Steen is keen that we should reach out and form organisations such as the one run by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) in all the countries of Europe. For example, when I went to Hungary, I met representatives of three organisations who could give me lists of 400 women trafficked and re-trafficked—turned over, new women brought into Switzerland by one organisation, and children trafficked from Kosovo to Albania and elsewhere in that part of the world for begging, theft and possibly sexual abuse. It is important that we get round Europe, make contacts, recognise the scale of the problem and see it as a European problem and one that is much wider than the EU.

We need a new approach to victims, as was said from the Front Bench and supported by the hon. Member for Wellingborough. We should realise that, if we can separate the victims from the traffickers, we can deal with the traffickers better, but when they are mixed up and it is suggested that those involved in prostitution rings are somehow accepting of it, we blur the images and people start to think that those in the brothels are the trouble and the problem. It is a massive money-making operation exploiting women as they have been exploited for generations, but now that is transnational and we must do something about it.

We should take a new approach to the many active organisations. I do not know how the Salvation Army bid will work and who it will work with, but following the debates that we have had here on slavery and trafficking, I have been contacted by organisations that work with Moldova, for example, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) mentioned. One organisation in London works with an organisation in Moldova trying to stop the young girls coming out of care homes being picked up immediately and offered work which ends up as prostitution in other European countries. We must break the cycle in the country of origin, as was said from the Government Back Benches. There are many organisations actively working in this field that we must pull together and see as a great force.

Barnardo’s commented that sometimes the authorities think that people who act as guardians—that was not the term used, but the role is similar—looking after the women and children coming out of those rings are treated as though they are amateurs, because they are not professionally paid and they are not formal social workers. In fact, they are more highly skilled and have done more sensitivity training and skill training than many receive in their wide curriculum as social workers. We must start treating such volunteers as part of the force that we can turn to the advantage of those children.

I will finish by making one further point, as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) is present. We have had a debate on the EU directive on combating the sexual abuse of children. I hope that our Government, who do not have a statute of limitations on sexual abuse crimes, will persuade the EU that in its directive there should be no statute of limitations on those crimes. The current bid from the European Parliament is for a 15-year statute of limitations, which would expand provision in many countries. We need that to be taken out, so that when we catch a person involved in such crimes, at any time, they will be prosecuted and jailed.

I have been made a UK representative of the Council of Europe’s ONE in FIVE campaign, which is intended to promote the Council of Europe convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, which the UK has signed up to but not yet ratified. I think that we should ratify that convention. I hope that Members who are listening to the debate do not see this problem just as something that happens on their streets and that they have to worry about only in the context of their constituencies. Every time Anthony Steen went abroad with the European Scrutiny Committee, he took the chance to reach out by making contacts, talking about the issue and convincing people that they should join in and act as the all-party group does here, and I will do the same every time I go abroad. When Members who are listening to the debate are in contact with parliamentarians in other parts of Europe and beyond, they should talk not just about the positive things, but about the need to come together to shut down that network and protect the people who are exploited from country to country, for whatever reason. That will defend the people on our streets and in our communities much more than thinking that we can do it alone.

20:46

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The details of this European directive are to be welcomed. They will strengthen Britain’s ability to prosecute those who carry out these horrendous crimes and ensure that adequate care is provided for victims of human trafficking. This debate is taking place close to the 224th anniversary of the first meeting of the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade. On 22 May 1787, 12 men, led by Thomas Clarkson, met in a printing shop in London and sparked a movement that led to the abolition of the slave trade within the British empire in just 20 years.

Human trafficking is a modern-day version of the slave trade. When people think of slavery, they think of 17th-century ships transporting Africans across the Atlantic. When children study slavery, they look at the role slaves played in the British empire or the impact slavery had on the American civil war. For many, the issue is resigned to the history books. However, the United Nations estimates that 12 million men, women and children are enslaved today. This is likely to be a conservative estimate, with the actual number closer to 30 million. In other words, slavery and human trafficking is very much a contemporary issue. The nature of slavery has changed dramatically, so it is important that we continue to review how we combat human trafficking.

The changing nature of slavery can be demonstrated by a study conducted on the retail cost of a slave. The study looked at slavery over the past 4,000 years and concluded that in the period up to the 20th century, the average cost of a slave was around £24,000 in today’s money. After advances in technology and the population explosion of the past 100 years, the cost of a slave today is estimated to be around £55.

Rather than being kidnapped, many of those enslaved today walk into it. They are searching for employment in order to improve their families’ lives. When a seemingly legitimate offer of moving away from home with the promise of a decent paid job is made, many take it. They give all their savings to groups or individuals who transport them thousands of miles away from home. However, they soon find that the job is not what they were promised, and when they try to leave, they are forced through violence, or the threat of violence, to stay. Given that they are often in a country illegally, with no documentation, they have no choice but to stay. Those who are most at risk from human trafficking are therefore among the world’s most vulnerable people. In addition to providing support and prosecuting those who commit criminal acts, we need to ensure that the root causes of why people become trafficked are addressed.

In conclusion, the measures in the EU directive will strengthen our ability both to prosecute criminals and to support victims. Britain has a long history of leading and shaping international responses to issues such as human trafficking, a crime that is transnational and in all our interests to eradicate. I hope that Britain will continue to do that under this Government, and that any latent Euroscepticism will not get in its way.

20:49

[Damian Green]

We have seen that this is a matter of considerable importance to everyone in the House this evening, and there has been a remarkable degree of cross-party consensus. I am very reassured by the level of support for our intention to opt in to the directive. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said that it was a unique experience for an Immigration Minister to receive unanimous support from the House, but I think that he was being characteristically understated: the House appears to have given unanimous support for opting in to a European directive. This debate may have been low key, but it is genuinely historic in that regard. In the last few minutes of it, let me address the points that have been raised.

I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who speaks for the Opposition. I smiled at her opening remarks, because I remember sitting in her position when the previous Government were deciding whether to opt in to the Council of Europe convention. I spent about 18 months urging them to, and I probably used exactly the same words as she did when I welcomed their decision eventually to do so. I take her point about wanting more referrals under the national referral mechanism, and, as several hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, the new national crime agency and the border command within that will be helpful in toughening up the whole response to trafficking, including the police response to the national referral mechanism.

Several hon. Members questioned the police commitment in certain areas to fight trafficking, and there is more to be done. That is one reason why we are introducing the national crime agency, but in defence of the current system I should say that tackling organised immigration crime is the second-highest priority of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, after fighting drugs, so it is high on the list of those who fight organised crime.

The hon. Lady mentioned the POPPY project, and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) explained the new system, whereby there is not just a new provider in the Salvation Army, but a new process of using a prime contractor. Different contracting agencies will buy a range of skills, and I hope that that will make the new system less London-centric, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) rightly pointed out.

There were also questions about protection at the railway border, St Pancras, where Eurostars arrive, but I should point out that Operation Paladin, a successful exercise run jointly by the UK Border Agency and the Metropolitan police, operates there, so it is not true to say that the station is a soft spot. Of course, all passengers on those trains will already have gone through controls in France or Belgium, too.

The hon. Lady also asked whether the new protection regime would allow for the challenging of NRM decisions. All support providers are asked to, and helped to, provide information about victims’ experiences and circumstances to the competent authority precisely to ensure that the correct NRM decision is reached and to advocate on behalf of victims in the provision of services. That will continue to be the case under the new contract.

I slightly parted company with the hon. Lady when she said that the process of coming to the new strategy had been slow and confused. I gently point out to her what she, as a former Minister, will know perfectly well: this is the first day for six weeks that the Government have been able to make policy announcements, because we have been in pre-election purdah. That is one reason why the definition of spring in Whitehall is reasonably elastic. We have this period every year when we simply cannot make announcements, but it is now coming to an end.

I am grateful for the general support of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). He asked about forced begging and criminal offences, but the directive requires the UK to criminalise only trafficking. The UK is already compliant with that requirement, subject to the requirements that I mentioned to amend our offences regarding extra-territorial jurisdiction and internal trafficking for labour exploitation. The required penalties for the offence of trafficking are as set out in article 4 of the directive. There is no requirement for any penalties specifically relating to forced begging or any other provisions about forced begging or other offences. I hope that that answers the question. He also talked about legal representation. In the UK, victims of crime are not a party to criminal proceedings and therefore do not need assistance with legal representation.

My hon. Friend mentioned the role of the local press and the acceptance of adverts that many of us would prefer not to see in local papers. I completely agree with the points he made. It has always struck me that this is an example of where consumer power might be useful. If the readers of those newspapers told them that they found such adverts offensive and therefore would not buy the newspapers or products that were advertised in them, I dare say that newspaper groups would stop carrying those adverts.

On the time scale, as I said, we are applying to the Commission to opt in because the directive has already been completed. The Commission has to decide within four months to let us in, which I presume will not be a problem, and then, over a period to be determined by the Commission—a number of years, possibly two—any primary legislative changes will need to be put through this House.

I particularly welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough about the Salvation Army. I hope that this measure leads to a spread of expertise and a greater tapping into new expertise in helping victims. I am grateful for his kind remarks, and I echo what he said about Anthony Steen and praise his own successor chairmanship of the all-party group on human trafficking.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) has developed great expertise in these matters. In response to his first remarks, we are seeing the scrutiny procedure working. The substance of this measure is very important, but the process is quite important as well. Proper parliamentary scrutiny of a European directive is leading to a good legislative result in this country, so this is good for Parliament as well.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the number of convictions. Since May 2004, there have been 166 convictions for trafficking, including 153 for trafficking for sexual exploitation, of which three are for conspiracy to traffic. Since December 2004, there have been 13 convictions for labour trafficking and six for conspiracy to traffic. Those figures all run to the end of January this year.

Finally, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) for putting the matter in its proper historical perspective.

The measures set out in the directive very much reflect the existing position in the UK and the work that we are already doing to combat human trafficking. Subject to Parliament and the Commission agreeing with our intention to opt in, I look forward to working closely with the Commission, the practitioners and our corporate partners to implement those measures. It is simply intolerable that in 2011 human trafficking still plagues this country. We should not rest until we have it under better control, and opting in to the directive will mark an important step towards achieving that aim. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. PE-CONS 69/10, relating to the Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA; and supports the Government’s intention to apply to opt in post-adoption under Article 4 of Protocol 21 on the position of the UK and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice.

Business without Debate

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Companies

That the draft Companies Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 3 March, be approved.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Climate Change

That the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Nitrous Oxide) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 22 March, be approved.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Defence

That the draft Defence Science and Technology Laboratory Trading Fund Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 24 March, be approved.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Question agreed to.

Public Administration

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That Mr Charles Walker be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Alun Cairns be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Country of Origin Marking

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Angela Watkinson.)

20:59

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to open this important Adjournment debate. I must begin by declaring my interest, as outlined in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

We are all passionate about developing our manufacturing base. It is vital that we, as politicians, do all that we can to promote British manufacturing and production to begin to rebalance our economy. I will place an emphasis on country of origin marking for manufactured products such as consumer goods, but I am sure that other Members will raise other areas.

This debate comes at a useful time, because only last week or the week before, Stoves, the cooker manufacturer, released information from a survey it had conducted with consumers, which found that half of British consumers were baffled about what products were made in Britain and what products were not. It also showed that two thirds of British consumers wanted to see a “Made in Britain” mark on products. I could not agree more with that sentiment, except for one small point: it should not be “Made in Britain”, but “Made in Great Britain”.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that the food industry is different from other industries in that it is possible to make a chicken pie in Nottinghamshire using south American chicken, and say that it is made in the United Kingdom. Does he agree that there are many loopholes that need to be closed?

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. The manufacture of chicken pies is not an area of speciality for me, but I am fortunate that in the village of Wombourne in my constituency, there is a McCain factory that produces some of the finest smiley faces in the world. Members will be pleased to hear that they are all made from British potatoes. It is not only McCain’s smiley faces that are important. British people want to see British brands manufacturing in Britain once more. We need to give those companies an incentive by making it clear what products are manufactured in Britain.

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if a customer is given more information, such as the country of origin, there is a high probability that businesses will move to countries with better records in ethics and sustainability?

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend makes an important and prescient point. I will go on to touch on the ethics of where products are manufactured.

Forty per cent. of British consumers have stated that if they knew that products were made in Britain, whether they be food products or consumer products such as chinaware, glassware or clothing, it would influence positively their decision to buy those products. We want to promote manufacturing. If the Government can do anything to promote our products and encourage people to buy them, they need to do so.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

The Toyota plant at Burnaston is making the new hybrid Auris, and they are being branded as, “Made in Britain”. It is really interesting that manufacturers are starting to do that themselves.

[Gavin Williamson]

Absolutely. There is a real sense of pride. That pride was felt even by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills when, not long after the general election, a JCB—another great product from my home county of Staffordshire—was proudly displayed in front of the Department in the full livery of a Union flag. Well, if it is good enough for BIS, I say it is good enough for the rest of the country.

Britain is still a great manufacturing nation, despite the many years of decline and the fact that employment in manufacturing has declined from 4.3 million to 2.5 million. We should not be disheartened, because we can rebuild this great manufacturing nation and have a second industrial revolution, with manufacturing businesses spawned right across the nation—hopefully, most importantly of all, in South Staffordshire. I am sure all Members would agree with that.

[Heather Wheeler]

Or South Derbyshire.

[Gavin Williamson]

Yes.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

Or South Norfolk.

[Gavin Williamson]

Anywhere with the compass direction “south” in its name.

The Government can make the simple move of ensuring that all manufactured goods have country of origin markings. That can help in various sectors—food has been mentioned, but I particularly wish to point out chinaware, glassware, clothing, domestic electrical appliances and furniture. People would know when they made their purchases that they were buying British, supporting the British economy and making a real difference.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

The manufacturing sector in my constituency is very small, but we do have a growing food production sector and are trying to add value to locally produced food. One of the big issues is that people want to buy ethically produced food and be sure that animals have been treated properly. In buying British, they know that that is the case. My hon. Friend’s points are therefore very important to the food sector in my constituency.

[Gavin Williamson]

I know that my hon. Friend has been involved in promoting all manufacturing businesses in his constituency, including a Welsh cake shop in Betws-y-Coed, which I am sure is there as a direct result of his interventions and help.

My hon. Friends who have mentioned ethics touch on a vital issue. Country of origin marking makes it very clear where products come from and the standards to which they have been produced. I always notice, Mr Deputy Speaker, what a fine and wonderful suit you sport on occasions such as today. I can only imagine that it was manufactured by one of the finest tailors in all of Savile row, as you always look so elegant and wonderful as you sit there looking nobly over us all. Without a shadow of a doubt, that is a direct result of fine English craftsmanship. Many Members do not have sufficient income to support such fine wear, but when we go to the tailor’s, the gentlemen’s outfitters, Tesco or wherever we go to purchase our suits, we make our choice based on price, quality and design. We need transparency about where products come from.

When I have been to China and Vietnam and seen some of the factories that produce consumer goods for the UK, I have seen that it is not just the wages that are different from those in the UK but the working conditions and the humanity with which the work force are treated. I did not think I would often make a speech in the House and find common cause with the TUC, but I agree that we need to tell people in Britain that when they buy something cheap, they are not paying a high price for it but other people are. We need to make it clear which products are British and which are Italian, German or from any other part of the world, such as China or Indonesia.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on an extremely passionate speech, which I am sure will gather much support throughout the House. I agree with his point about informing consumers, because in debate after debate, we are told that we need consumer power to influence matters. However, we can deliver that only if the consumer is informed, so I fully echo his comments.

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend touches on an important point. Indeed, supposing I went back to my old trade of being a potter and I set up a company called Gavin Williamson English Chinaware, what country does my hon. Friend the Minister think a plate sold by my company would have been produced in?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

I think my hon. Friend is asking a rhetorical question, and I would like him to give the House the answer.

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend gives a very wise response. The simple reality is that such a plate could come from any country. It would not have to come from England, which is a great tragedy, because that is misleading consumers. We should treat customers with honesty and dignity so that they can make their choices on prices, design, value and so much more.

[Mr Spencer]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. There is a thirst among consumers for information. He makes a strong case about ethics, so would he support extending labelling to detail not just place of origin, but whether a food product contained genetically modified materials or whether a meat product was halal, so that the consumer could be informed?

[Gavin Williamson]

I am fearful, because as soon as we get on to meat products I am always at a disadvantage—I can talk about chinaware. My hon. Friend makes a point about the integrity of products, which is something that we need to encourage. We only have to look at Waitrose to see a business that puts the highest standards on telling its consumers where its products come from, and people reward it with their custom.

[Mr Bacon]

Let me help my hon. Friend on meat products, particularly pork products. Is he aware that 70% of imported pork in this country is produced overseas to standards that would be illegal here, yet it can still be packaged in a way that makes consumers believe that it is British?

[Gavin Williamson]

That is a great tragedy, and it is common not just in food manufacturing. So many of the products that we see on the shelves of so many retailers right across the country are passed off as British when actually they are not. They are often manufactured to far lower standards. We have to take a lead on this issue.

I must confess that when I got this debate my heart fell slightly. In my heart of hearts I know that the Minister will probably not quite be able to give me answers that I so desperately want to hear coming from his lips—that he is a passionate believer in country of origin markings and that this is something that we will roll out as a Government, helping manufacturing businesses large and small, right across the country. I had a look through something that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills had produced setting out some of its concerns. I know that the Minister always listens closely to Members of Parliament, as we want to guide him away from the sometimes, let us say, constraining influence of officials and give him some exciting information to go back and challenge them with.

One thing that officials constantly say is that the benefits to consumers are questionable. I cannot understand how any official could ever say that the benefits to consumers were questionable, when all that we would be doing is telling them where products come from. What could be more pure, more innocent or more helpful to consumers than telling them about the integrity of the products that they are buying—that is, about whether they are right and true—or where they have come from? Officials will probably say that country of origin marking will increase costs. I assure the Minister that it will not, for the simple reason that companies that are significant producers in furniture manufacturing, domestic appliances, chinaware, glassware or other sectors will already have to do country of origin labelling if they want to export into the US, Japan, South Korea and China. I remember exporting an awful lot of chinaware to China, and I always had to put the country of origin on the product. There is therefore no extra cost to manufacturers, because we already do it.

I spoke just this morning to the chief executive of Royal Crown Derby, Hugh Gibson. I asked him, “Why do you want this country of origin marking?” and he said to me, simply, “Gavin, on every piece of ware that I produce, I put my Royal Crown Derby back stamp on it, and proudly, ‘Made in England’.” He added, “Other producers put their back stamp on products but no country of origin. I can only assume that they are ashamed of where they produced that product.”

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Does he agree that such labelling is in the interests of British exports? All around the world, whenever I pick up a coffee cup in a hotel, I automatically, as a true Staffordshire man, turn it over to see whether it has come from Staffordshire, whether from Steelite, Dudson or one of the other fine companies that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) so ably represents.

[Gavin Williamson]

We cannot forget that “Made in England” and “Made in Great Britain” have value for consumers in this country, but probably more so around the globe. If we are not seen jealously to guard the labels “Made in England”, “Made in Great Britain”, “Made in Staffordshire” or “Made in the West Midlands”, and show that they are important to us, why should they mean anything to the rest of the world? We need to show the world that we are proud of “Made in Great Britain”, but if we do not insist upon having such labels on our products, why should the world believe it?

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will probably say that it is difficult to enforce such a provision. However, if we introduced it initially to some sectors and then further, it would be self-enforcing, because businesses that are involved in the manufacture of the product will be on to trading standards immediately if they see any products that do not have country of origin marking. I must speak very highly of Staffordshire trading standards. I am sure that it and Stoke-on-Trent trading standards and many others throughout the country would be very proactive in enforcing the measure and in ensuring that the law and writ of the land is obeyed by all.

The Minister’s officials might say that businesses do not want such a measure, but manufacturers do. Oddly enough, retailers and importers do not want it, but 95% of companies that employ people to manufacture products in this country will say, “Yes, we want it. Yes, we need it,” because that labelling is showing our added value on the products that we produce in this country when we create British jobs.

I should like to extend an invitation to the Minister. I shall put a week of my recess aside to take him around as many manufacturing businesses that produce goods in this country as possible, so that he can listen to every single one of them say, “Yes, we want country of origin labelling on products so that people know that ‘Made in Britain’ means something in this country.”

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

With the hon. Gentleman’s permission, I was hoping to have the opportunity to make a few comments before the Minister speaks. I am just taking out an insurance policy to ensure that I do.

[Gavin Williamson]

Yes—I was just coming to the end of my speech.

Finally, officials might be concerned about what message country of origin labelling sends out to the world. They might say that country of origin marking on our products says that we are not a free-trading nation. I assure the Minister that there is not a country out there that does not recognise Britain as one of the most laissez-faire nations in trade and promoting world trade around the globe. No one would doubt our commitment to that, and I am quite sure that no foreign nations would do so either. This is a real opportunity to send a message to British business, industry and manufacturing that we are proud of what they do, and that we value the British work force and British products. I therefore urge the Minister to support country of origin labelling.

21:20

[Joan Walley]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) not only on securing the debate, but on bringing it to the Chamber in the manner he did. In calling it a generic debate about origin markings, he not only talked about issues affecting the ceramic and pottery industry, which is of major concern to me as a representative of parts of north Staffordshire—as opposed to South Staffordshire, which he represents—but made it clear that this is an issue for all kinds of trade. Hopefully the food that we eat—whether labelled as genetically modified or for the quality of the pork, chicken or whatever—is all served off plates and ceramics made in and from Staffordshire. I am grateful, therefore, for the permission of the Minister and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire to speak briefly in this important debate and to put a few comments on the record.

In Staffordshire, this debate has all-party support. MEPs on all sides have led the debate on the ceramics and potteries industry in the European Parliament. For that reason, I believe that the Minister has a particular opportunity to think again and perhaps to listen to some independent thoughts, as was the case in the preceding debate. Given the decision taken in the European Parliament approving a proposal for origin markings, it is possible for the UK no longer to oppose the idea in the discussions involving the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Objections to the proposal have been raised—by Germany, I think, as well as the UK—but we now have a unique opportunity not to be afraid of going along with what the European Parliament has said. It is in all our interests to have country of origin markings.

For the potteries and ceramic industry, it is clear that this issue has been going on for far too long. Time is now available to debate this matter, and much progress has been made in Europe. From the point of view of jobs, it is certainly in our interests to have “Made in Britain” markings. Like my colleagues, I have been talking with the British Ceramic Confederation, which at times has been wholly in favour of this proposal. Some of its members have not been in favour, but perhaps they have been those who like to think that what is manufactured under their brand is not manufactured here. Nevertheless there are real issues about transparency. We hear so much about choice, and when people go out and buy a product, they want to be able to make an informed decision. They want information consistent with the best trading standards practice so that they can know what they are buying and where it was manufactured.

By reconsidering their opposition to origin markings, the Government could give us the opportunity to enable British manufacturing in Stoke-on-Trent to proceed in the way it needs to. We have lost so many jobs in the pottery industry, and it is not in our interest for people buying ware—whether for wedding gifts or whatever—to have the impression that they are buying a brand-name product manufactured in Stoke-on-Trent, if it has been manufactured in the far east, the United Arab Emirates or elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will recognise the long-standing complaint and that the European Parliament has given its support to the proposal. Rather than kicking this idea into the long grass, the British Government have the opportunity to do what they say they want to do and support UK manufacturing, the importance of which the Chancellor has spoken about. Items of ceramic ware designed and manufactured in places with the best innovation need to have on their turn-it-over side an origin marking stating “Made in the UK” or “Made in Britain”, and ideally “Made in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire” as well. If the Minister could look again at this issue, in the spirit in which the debate has been brought to the House today, we could really make some progress on it. I urge him to liaise with all the MPs and MEPs who have been working for so long on this campaign, to see what progress we can make.

21:25

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) on raising this issue and on the passion with which he spoke. I am aware of his background in the ceramics industry, and he has shown the House his knowledge this evening. Ceramics is a UK sector with a well-deserved worldwide reputation for the design and quality of its products. It is also a sector that has had to restructure, often painfully, to remain competitive and successful in the global marketplace. I am also aware of the importance that the UK ceramics sector attaches to the clear origin marking of its products, and its strong, consistent support for the European Commission’s proposal for an EU regulation on the compulsory labelling of certain imported products.

I share my hon. Friend’s pride in products that are made in Britain. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is also proud of Britain, and we have been showcasing British design, engineering and manufacturing in exhibitions every two months in the entrance to the BIS headquarters across Parliament square at No. 1, Victoria street. Those exhibitions have been a celebration of the success of UK engineers and manufacturers. The companies’ products that were showcased were excellent examples of cutting-edge UK innovation and ones that were vital to contributing to a low-carbon future. The companies have come from a cross-section of UK manufacturing and, in the context of this debate, I am extremely pleased that one of the leading UK ceramics companies—Dudson, one of the world’s leading specialists in the manufacture of ceramic tableware—has been part of the showcase. Other UK ceramics producers have a similar global reputation. We are proud of British manufacturing, and my hon. Friend rightly referred to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech about driving the UK back into growth through proclaiming what is made in Britain, invented in Britain and designed in Britain.

The Government are not opposed to labelling, or to labels such as “Made in England”, “Made in Scotland”, “Made in Wales” or “Made in Northern Ireland”. That is positive country of origin marking, and it should be done because UK manufacturers believe that it is the right thing to do, for themselves and for their customers. That does not need legislation, however; it can be done voluntarily. There is no legal bar to such marking, and many producers already do it. Of course, in most circumstances, there is no legal requirement in the UK or anywhere else in the European Union for goods to be marked with an indication of their origin, but producers may do so if they wish. If overseas competitors see origin marking as a marketing benefit, they will follow suit. It is essential for the consumer that any such labelling is clear and accurate, and does not mislead. Indeed, it is a criminal offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Practices Regulations 2008 to give consumers misleading information. However, it is important to recognise that UK business, including the ceramics sector, operates in a global economy. The days when the majority of goods bought by British people were manufactured here have unfortunately passed. The UK is a trading nation, and it relies on open global markets, as I am sure my hon. Friend recognises. This provides consumers with benefits such as lower prices and greater choice through variety, quality and price of products.

I agree about providing appropriate consumer information, but we must be clear about what is important to the consumer. A Eurobarometer survey across all 27 EU member states last autumn asked a number of questions about consumers’ purchasing attitudes towards country of origin labelling. I accept that the ceramics sector was not covered by the survey. However, in relation to textiles and clothing, 75% of those questioned said that origin did not affect their purchasing decisions. For electronic products, the figure was 68%. That is not to dismiss my hon. Friend’s comments; I simply want to highlight the need to be clear about how consumers rank price, design, brand name and origin in their purchasing decisions.

[Gavin Williamson]

Does my hon. Friend accept that country of origin labelling is even more important for luxury products, to which this country is increasingly geared to manufacture? That is why we need to be proud and specific about what is produced in this country and to protect that market.

[Mr Davey]

There is absolutely nothing wrong, as I have said, with British manufacturers being able to describe and label their products as “Made in Britain”. The question is whether or not they wish to do that; it is totally voluntary and there is nothing to stop them doing so.

[Joan Walley]

The Minister referred to the 2008 regulations, and I was very much involved in trying to get them on to the statute book. The point about having transparency and ensuring a level playing field is important. The real issue is that goods are being sold in a confused way, and consumers are buying products without realising that they are not manufactured, designed, decorated and so forth in the UK. They are paying large amounts of money, without knowing that the goods are being manufactured overseas. If our manufactured goods, when exported, have to have the country of origin indelibly marked on the underside of the wares or on the packaging, why can we not have the same rule applying in this country, which would not be inconsistent with the general agreement on tariffs and trade?

[Mr Davey]

As I said, the hon. Lady knows that British manufacturers are completely free to put country-of-origin markings on their products. Many of them, particularly in the ceramics industry, believe that so doing gives them a marketing edge. I will come on to deal with the European Commission proposal, which both the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend mentioned. It is important to do so because that is part of the policy debate on which we are focused.

As currently drafted, the EC proposal would require the compulsory country of origin marking of certain imported, mainly consumer products. It might well be to this matter that my hon. Friend is directing his remarks. Let us be clear about what these products are. They include crushed and finished leather, including footwear components, saddlery and travel goods; textiles, clothing and footwear; ceramic products, glassware, jewellery, furniture and brooms and brushes. Those items are all defined by customs code classification. In the case of ceramics, the Commission proposal covers floor and wall tiles, tableware, kitchenware and giftware.

The European Parliament, voting on the draft regulation last autumn, proposed that the scope should be narrowed to cover only end-consumer products. This would limit it to products subject to further processing or assembly in the EU, although some flexibility was proposed for certain textile and footwear components. At the same time, the European Parliament proposed adding to the list of products covered by the regulation: tyres for agricultural vehicles, tyres for forestry vehicles; certain inner tubes; metal fasteners such as screws, nuts and bolts; non-electric hand tools; furniture casters; and taps, cocks and valves.

The House will perhaps understand from that list one of the reservations held by the UK about this proposal. It is the absence of any objective criteria for determining why a particular product is or is not within the scope of the proposed regulation. In our view, it is not enough that a particular EU industry believes that its imported competition should be origin-labelled. At the moment, the best the Commission have offered as “criteria” is where its consultation has shown that there was “value-added” by requiring origin marking. Even the Commission admits that this is a pretty loose criterion. The European Parliament has not even addressed the issue, so I invite suggestions from my hon. Friend—perhaps he is about to make one—and others, on what might constitute meaningful and objective criteria in this regard.

[Gavin Williamson]

I must confess that I am no expert on the numerous EU regulations, but I have always believed that this Parliament is sovereign. If we think that we have a good idea that will benefit British business—that consumer products coming into this country or manufactured in this country should have country of origin labelling—let us just ignore the EU, create our own Bill and put it on the statute book. I say we should just ignore Brussels, start from scratch and enact what we think will make a difference for Britain.

[Mr Davey]

I think that my hon. Friend misunderstands the position. It seems to be Brussels that agrees with him and, I am afraid, his Government who do not. I do not think that he can blame Brussels, and indeed I expected him to pray Brussels in aid. He, like Brussels—or some parts of it—wants to regulate, while the Government are saying that we want to think twice before adopting the regulatory route. I hope he recognises that the premise of his intervention is not entirely valid.

[Mr Spencer]

My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) mentioned the pork industry. The United Kingdom Government introduced regulation of pork production that applied higher animal welfare standards to British pigs. By not labelling products that come from other parts of the European Union, we are effectively allowing meat from pigs that have been subject to poorer welfare standards to sit on shelves next to our pork and to command the same value.

[Mr Davey]

The position is quite complicated. We are discussing the current European Commission proposal about country of origin marking on goods imported from outside the EU. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon)—whose point has been repeated by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer)—was referring to agricultural products imported within the European Union, from other EU countries. That involves a slightly different regime. The United Kingdom has supported a political agreement on the “Food information for consumers” dossier, and we are pleased to see that it has reached the second reading stage.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not question me in much more detail, because this is a matter on which Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are focusing. I think I have it made clear that his question relates to a different issue, to which a different approach is taken. I should add that my wife never allows me to buy any pork other than British, and that I would not want to do so anyway.

The proposal that may well have sparked tonight’s debate was originally presented by the Commission in 2005. At that time, it provoked a very mixed response from member states. Many saw it as primarily a protectionist measure, because its origins lay in concern in the Italian textiles and clothing sector about imports from China. Others argued that there was a need to address persistent breaches of copyright and design protection in relation to consumer products. That was coupled with the view that consumers needed such information to avoid being misled about the origin of products. While the UK recognises the validity of all of those concerns, we do not believe that this proposal is the best way of addressing them, and we continue to have strong reservations about it.

[Gavin Williamson]

I too have some reservations. What I was trying to convey in my earlier intervention is that I would always be very sceptical about whether anything that came out of Brussels was a good idea. Why do we not put together our own set of proposals for Britain, building on what is good in the EU proposals, and put them on our statute book?

[Mr Davey]

I think that my speech will deal with many of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. I am afraid that he is in danger of supporting the Brussels-based regulation while the Government support a British deregulatory approach, but I hope that as I continue my speech I may be able to win him round to our approach.

As I have said, we have strong reservations about the proposal, but, unlike some member states, the UK does not oppose it outright. The Government have been ready to engage directly with the Commission and supporters of the proposal, notably Italy, and to explore ways forward. My Department consulted widely when the proposal was first issued. We consulted UK business and other interests, including other interests within Government, and that consultation has been repeated on a number of occasions to ensure that we remain abreast of the latest developments.

A clear majority of UK interests were, and remain, opposed to the Commission’s proposal. They include the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Retail Consortium, the hallmarking association, and a number of sector as well as consumer interests. Within Government, the UK Intellectual Property Office and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have also consistently opposed the proposal.

[Joan Walley]

The objections largely come from retailers, who have a vested interest in being able to import without making the full information available, so there is not transparency at the point of purchase. Why will the Minister not listen to manufacturers such as Steelite in my constituency, which does everything the Government are asking yet cannot compete fairly?

[Mr Davey]

First, the views of British retailers and consumers are not to be discounted. Both this Government and the previous one have paid a lot of attention to getting a good deal for consumers in respect of competition policy and consumer policy. However, the list of business interests I set out a few moments ago included the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, who do not represent retail interests alone.

The Commission’s proposal, while never formally withdrawn, is now actively back on the Brussels table. The European Parliament is pushing the proposal hard, deploying its new powers under the Lisbon treaty in the trade policy area. Last autumn, it gave its formal support to the proposal and proposed a series of amendments. The proposal is now back with the Council to consider, but there remain deep divisions between member states, close to a 50:50 split. Nevertheless, technical level discussions began in February and are ongoing in the commercial questions council working group. These involve trade policy and customs officials from the 27 member states. The UK is participating fully and constructively in these discussions. However, there has been resistance from the Commission to recognising that the trade policy landscape has changed since 2005. It has refused a request from many member states for an updated impact assessment, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire agrees that regulations should have an impact assessment.

A number of free-trade agreements have been negotiated by the EU over the last five years, all of which contain a provision explicitly prohibiting discrimination between EU-produced and imported products. Only recently, World Trade Organisation members raised concerns in Geneva about the compatibility of this proposal with WTO rules. While it is true that some other WTO members have country of origin requirements—in the case of the US, these are both long-standing and comprehensive—our research has not shown, as many claim, widespread comparable requirements in most other countries.

The UK retains its position of having strong reservations, but however strong they might be, reservations are capable of being overcome. So far however, neither the Commission’s explanations nor the European Parliament’s amendments have allayed our concerns. Our main concerns in addition to those arising from our overall approach to new regulation and the absence of objective product coverage criteria, to which I have already referred, relate to the need for this regulation and the costs imposed on business and on public authorities. There are genuine issues in relation to trade mark and design breaches and mislabelling of imported goods from some sources, but the Commission has yet to demonstrate that this proposal adds anything other than an additional administrative and cost burden to existing EU legislation, which includes the EU intellectual property rights regulation and the unfair commercial practices directive. The latter makes it an offence across the EU for products to be labelled in such a way as to mislead consumers. This includes information about the country of origin of products.

The proposal is also likely to impose increased costs on producers, distributors and consumers. We estimate the proposal could prove more costly than the Commission has claimed—experience in the North American Free Trade Agreement area suggests up to 2% of the sale price, which is twice the Commission’s estimate.

There is a further important cost dimension in this time of public expenditure constraints. The enforcement regime would, despite Commission claims to the contrary, impose additional burdens on national customs authorities. The proposal envisages additional physical control at the border. This detracts from efforts to strike a balance between effective control and facilitating free movement of legitimate trade across borders. The increased resources needed to implement this regulation, for example, those relating to the need to make verification inquiries, to which not all countries are legally obliged to respond, could have a negative impact on the priorities of UK and other customs authorities in respect of tackling illegal drugs and dealing with alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.

Finally, I wish to address the issue of consumer information. UK consumer interests have been opposed to the Commission proposal from the outset, partly because they consider existing provisions to be adequate but primarily because they saw it as a protectionist measure. Similarly, the Commission’s own consumer consultative group came out against the proposal. The proposal is still being considered by the Committees that scrutinise European legislation in this House and in another place. The Government have undertaken to keep them abreast of developments in Brussels, and I wrote to them last on 12 February with an update. I am sure that those Committees will also take note of tonight’s debate, particularly the passion with which my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire introduced it. May I end by congratulating him on his remarks, on securing this debate and on ensuring that this House had a full chance to hear the arguments on both sides?

Question put and agreed to.

21:46

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Monday 9th May 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Monday 9 May 2011

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Monday 9th May 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Coastal Erosion: Kent

[Michael Fallon]

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much will be spent on Kent's coastal defences by the Environment Agency in each of the four years commencing 2011-12.

[Official Report, 4 May 2011, Vol. 527, c. 782-83W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Richard Benyon:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) on 4 May 2011.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Richard Benyon]

Total flood defence grant in aid for sea defences in Kent in 2011-12 is £15,019.40. This includes both capital and revenue funding.

Finance for schemes beyond 2011-12 will be determined by the reforms which will be announced in due course following our recent consultation on future funding of flood and coastal erosion risk management in England.

The correct answer should have been:

[Richard Benyon]

Total flood defence grant in aid for sea defences in Kent in 2011-12 is £15,019,400. This includes both capital and revenue funding.

Finance for schemes beyond 2011-12 will be determined by the reforms which will be announced in due course following our recent consultation on future funding of flood and coastal erosion risk management in England.

Written Ministerial Statements

Monday 9th May 2011 Written Statements

Monday 9 May 2011

School Teachers Review Body's 20th Report

Monday 9th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

The 20th report of the School Teachers Review Body (STRB) is being published today, making recommendations on the matters referred to it in October 2010. These were whether there should be a limit on the value of discretions that can be applied to head teachers’ pay and on a pay uplift for those unqualified teachers who earn £21,000 or less. I am grateful for the careful consideration which the STRB has given to these matters. Copies of the STRB’s 20th report are available in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of both Houses, and online at

http://www.education.gov.uk and http://www.ome.uk.com/.

The STRB has made recommendations concerning limits on the discretions that can be applied to head teachers’ pay; and processes to ensure a focus on effective governance and rigorous justification for rates of pay which reflect the nature and degree of challenge required for a head teacher’s post.

I am grateful to the STRB for these recommendations which, subject to consultees’ views, I intend to accept.

The STRB has recommended that a non-consolidated payment of £250 should be made to those unqualified teachers who earn £21,000 or less; that the £250 is pro-rated for part-time unqualified teachers; and that consultation should seek to identify a simple and cost-effective method of payment.

As indicated in my statement of 21 March 2011, subject to consultees’ views, I intend to accept these recommendations.

My detailed response contains further information on these issues.

“Climate Resilient Infrastructure: Preparing for a Changing Climate”

Monday 9th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

This morning I will launch “Climate Resilient Infrastructure: Preparing for a Changing Climate”. This outlines the Government’s vision for an infrastructure network that is prepared for the future changing climate to help protect the economy and its future growth. The document encourages a much stronger focus on adapting infrastructure to the impacts of climate change as part of a green economy.

Publishing this document fulfils a commitment made last year, when the Government launched the country’s first ever national infrastructure plan, to publish a document focusing on adapting infrastructure in the energy, ICT, transport and water sectors.

The document makes it clear that climate change will have significant implications for infrastructure in particular from more unpredictable extreme weather. Higher temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, rising sea levels and more frequent extreme weather events ranging from drought to freezing winters, mean it is necessary to look now at how to prepare new and existing infrastructure for the impacts of climate change.

This approach will help minimise risks of disruption to infrastructure and higher economic costs to business and the country from climate change. That is why my Department’s business plan has a priority to

“Support a strong and sustainable green economy, resilient to climate change”;

adapting infrastructure to the impacts of climate change is a key part of delivering on this priority.

Hundreds of experts in infrastructure and engineering have been engaged throughout this work to provide a thorough analysis of the challenges and potential solutions to increasing the climate resilience of infrastructure. “Climate Resilient Infrastructure” makes the case for action, identifying who needs to act, the challenges they may face, the opportunities available and how Government can assist.

The infrastructure we rely on to keep the country running is already vulnerable to severe weather; this risk will only increase if we are not proactive and adapt to climate change. The document I am launching today emphasises the importance of early action now to minimise this risk. Importantly, it also sets out the economic opportunities climate change could present to our leading infrastructure and engineering companies.

The document covers UK Government policy in England and in the UK for reserved matters. The House will be updated on progress made in implementing the actions in the document when the Government publishes its first adaptation programme, required by the Climate Change Act in response to the climate change risk assessment due in January 2012.

I have arranged for copies of “Climate Resilient Infrastructure: Preparing for a Changing Climate” to be placed in the Vote Office. The document is also available on DEFRA’s website at www.defra.gov.uk.

Written Ministerial Statement (Correction)

Monday 9th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

I regret there was an error in my written statement issued on 4 March, Official Report, columns 49-50WS.

The cost of a full bespoke human hair wig was given as £239.65. The correct cost is £239.45.

7/7 Inquest

Monday 9th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The coroner’s verdicts into the deaths of those who were tragically killed on 7 July 2005 was handed down on 6 May.

Lady Justice Hallett’s inquests have been more wide ranging than any previous reports on the attacks, considering both whether the attacks were preventable, and the emergency service response to the attacks. We now have a comprehensive picture of what happened in the lead-up to that terrible day and on the day itself. I hope that the detailed, open and transparent inquests will have brought some measure of comfort to the families and to all of those affected by the events of 7 July 2005.

Lady Justice Hallett has found that the deaths of the 52 victims of this atrocity could not have been prevented. In her concluding remarks she said that

“the evidence I have heard does not justify the conclusion that any failings on the part of any organisation or individual caused or contributed to any of the deaths.”

The coroner has issued a report under rule 43 of the coroner’s rules 1984 with recommendations directed to me, the director general of the Security Service, the Secretary of State for Health, Transport for London, the London resilience team, the London Ambulance Service and the Barts and London NHS Trust. The report makes nine recommendations. The Government and the relevant agencies will now examine the coroner’s report and recommendations in depth and respond as quickly as possible and within the 56-day period set by the coroner’s rules. I will, of course, inform the House of the Government’s response once it has been provided to Lady Justice Hallett.

The Government, emergency responders and the security and intelligence community are constantly seeking to learn lessons and to improve the response to the terrorist threat we face. This includes learning from the 7 July attacks and from other incidents and there have been a considerable number of improvements made since 2005. The UK’s counter-terrorism strategy has continued to develop in response to the evolving terrorist threat and we intend to publish a revised version of that strategy before the summer.

Our police and intelligence agencies work day in, day out, to keep our country safe but, despite their efforts, it will never be possible to stop every single terrorist attack. It is important that we remain vigilant against the threat of terrorism.

Judicial Diversity Taskforce (Annual Report)

Monday 9th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord McNally, has made the following written ministerial statement:

The report of the advisory panel on judicial diversity, chaired by Baroness Neuberger, was published in February 2010. It contained 53 recommendations, one of which was that a judicial diversity taskforce, comprising the Ministry of Justice, senior members of the judiciary, the Judicial Appointments Commission, the Bar Council, the Law Society and Institute of Legal Executives, be constituted to oversee implementation of the recommendations.

Once established, the taskforce met for the first time in March 2010, and accepted the recommendations of the advisory panel and committed to their implementation, subject to consideration of the financial and resourcing implications.

One year on from the inaugural meeting, the taskforce met to discuss progress. I have deposited in the Libraries of both Houses copies of the first annual report. “Improving Judicial Diversity Report May 2011”, from the judicial diversity taskforce, which details progress achieved to date.

The report indicates that progress has and is being made in respect of all of the recommendations. However, we must not be complacent; there is a need for a much greater sense of urgency and commitment if we are to achieve meaningful improvements in the diversity of the judiciary and legal professions.

The statistics contained within the report, show that there is a significant way to go, which can only be achieved through concerted action by all involved, the Executive, the judiciary, the JAC and the legal professions to ensure that a person’s gender, race, religion, disability or sexuality is not a barrier to becoming a judge.

The judiciary can only become more diverse if those who are eligible to apply are equally diverse. It is therefore just as important to ensure that the legal professions themselves maintain the pool of diverse talented individuals, that they address the issue of retention within the professions and also undertake proactive initiatives to publicise the positive benefits that can be achieved through a judicial career.

The role of the taskforce will therefore be to provide a firm hand upon the tiller. Our common aim must be to remove the barriers, whether real or perceived, so that we attain our goal of improving the diversity of the judiciary by 2020.

Rosemary Nelson Inquiry Report

Monday 9th May 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I am pleased to inform the House that the report of the Rosemary Nelson inquiry, chaired by Sir Michael Morland, will be published on Monday 23 May 2011.

In my written statement to this House on 5 April 2011, Official Report, column 61WS, I confirmed that the process to check the report in order to meet the obligations on me in relation to article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and national security had been completed, and that the report could be published in full. I have advised Sir Michael Morland of this. Monday 23 May is the earliest date on which the report can be published given the recent Assembly Elections in Northern Ireland and the need to make the relevant arrangements for publication.

I will make a statement to this House at the time the report is published. With the permission of the Speaker, I confirm that I will allow an opportunity for members of the family of Rosemary Nelson, as well as the other represented parties at the inquiry, to see the report privately and be briefed by their lawyers on its contents, some hours before the report is published. Some Members of this House will similarly have an opportunity to see the report in advance of publication, to enable them to respond to the statement made to this House at the time of publication.

House of Lords

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Monday, 9 May 2011.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked By

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the current situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is of serious concern. A new state-level Government have still not been formed following elections last October, preventing any progress on reforms. The process of government formation in the federation entity has proved divisive and problematic. Conclusions adopted by the Republika Srpska National Assembly on 13 April represent a serious challenge to the Dayton agreement and the rule of law. We have strongly condemned these conclusions and have made it clear that we will not tolerate such attempts to undermine Dayton or the rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that extremely helpful reply. Is it not the case that the plan by the President of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, to hold a referendum is clearly against the provisions of the Dayton agreement and confirms the country's depressing dynamic back towards dissolution? Given that the country would be unlikely to go through dissolution without returning to bloodshed, will the Government give us their assurance that they are prepared to use every means possible to protect and preserve the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and act against those who would seek to put it at jeopardy?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ashdown on his constant concern, backed by his huge expertise and familiarity with this issue, which as we all recognise is a serious one and trending in the wrong direction. Will I give that assurance? Yes, I certainly will. We will, if necessary, argue for the European Union to deploy fully all incentives and deterrents at its disposal and we will use all the pressures available to us against what looks like a blatant and clear attempt to contravene the Dayton agreement by Republika Srpska and its leader. These are bad developments, which we are determined to see resisted. We do not want the territorial integrity and structure of the Bosnian state undermined, as it would be if these kinds of proposals are pursued.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, is my noble friend convinced that the Republic of Serbia is doing everything possible to exert pressure on Republika Srpska?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The Republic of Serbia is being helpful in some respects. I cannot say that everything one would like to see being done is being done. But the general support is there because that nation, too, has a clear interest in seeing that Bosnia-Herzegovina remains intact and does not fall back into its grim past, which we all remember and which was so stained with blood.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, will my noble friend agree that this dangerous situation, which may well lead to the dissolution of Bosnia-Herzegovina, has been aggravated by the failure to form a state-level Government as well? Does he agree that the EU and Washington need to move swiftly now to knock heads together and to use all legal powers at their disposal to prevent the referendum happening?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, I think we do, and we have to address the fact that, on the Bosnian side, the formation of a Government has been very slow and stumbling, with the largest parties in effect excluded, so there is a very weak situation. That is quite aside from the Republika Srpska side, where, as we have recognised in the past few minutes, a policy is being pursued which, if pushed through to a referendum as proposed, would lead to a direct challenge to the whole Dayton structure. Do we need to move rapidly? Yes, we certainly do. Do we need to support the EU new strategy, including a new figurehead to work alongside the Office of the High Representative? Yes, we do. Will we do these things? Yes, we will.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that in the longer term the only way to guarantee peace and stability in this region is to ensure that all countries are able to meet the Copenhagen criteria and that they are welcomed into the European Union?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is certainly so. Obviously, the aspiration is there for the west Balkans to be part of the European Union in due course. Unfortunately, there are a number of very important conditions, and the noble Baroness is absolutely right to point to some of them. These immediate concerns that we are discussing need to be addressed; it is a question of consolidating the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and preventing its breaking down into the old rivalries. Beyond that comes the prospect of the west Balkans joining the European Union, which we should certainly work for.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, is not the inclusion of Macedonia one of the fundamental ways in which the movement of the western Balkans into the European Union needs to start? That country’s candidature has been agreed but those discussions have been blocked so far by the disagreement between Greece and Macedonia over a name. Surely that is one of the most important areas in which the integration of the western Balkans should start, and others can then follow.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The whole issue of the western Balkans and the particular issue that my noble friend has raised require very close attention. They are full of very difficult problems, which we must gradually seek to overcome. We cannot say that any one starting point is the right one for this process; we have to work on all these fronts.

[Lord Hylton]

The Minister said something about consolidating Bosnia and Herzegovina. Would he agree that this means that work needs to be done at local level and city level to hold the thing together?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Most certainly it does. The work is going on and our own country, the United Kingdom, contributes directly—for instance, with work in judicial training, policing methods and community work of all sorts. This is a central part of the glue to try to bring these communities together again and enable one country to emerge.

Public Expenditure: Reserve

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:43

Asked By

[Lord Barnett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the public expenditure reserve is adequate to meet any potential requirement.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, the contingency set aside in the Government’s public expenditure plans over the period 2011-12 to 2014-15 amounts to 0.6 per cent, 0.8 per cent, 0.9 per cent, and 1 per cent of each year’s total managed expenditure. The Government believe that this is a prudent level of contingency to hold against unforeseen costs during the 2010 spending review period, but it is not intended to cover all possible eventualities.

[Lord Barnett]

I thank the Minister for his Answer, but would not some flexibility be positively helpful? For example, if growth was not as good as we all hoped and unemployment continued to rise, could not additional funds for the contingency reserve be a sort of plan B? The Chancellor need not call it that but just do it, as it would be positively helpful. Indeed, that would help the deficit reduction by increasing growth and reducing unemployment.

[Lord Sassoon]

No, my Lords, that would not be the right approach at all. The words of a distinguished former Chief Secretary to the Treasury in another place on 17 March 1977 got it absolutely right:

“It is no good drawing up elaborate spending plans without the determination and means of ensuring that the planned total”,

expenditure,

“is not exceeded. We have that determination … The contingency reserve regime is strict. We do not allow additional expenditure to count against the contingency reserve until we are fully satisfied that offsetting savings are not to be had”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/77; col. 641.]

That is what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said in 1977, and he got it absolutely right.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, do not the comments of Standard & Poor in the US on the possible downgrading of American debt show the folly of building up too great a deficit, however tempting it might be to spend more money on things which we would all like to see?

[Lord Sassoon]

Yes, indeed. As ever, my noble friend Lord Newby gets it absolutely right. Fiscal discipline is absolutely the watchword of this Government. I should say that the Armed Forces will get all the expenditure that they need in relation to net additional costs of military operations in Libya and elsewhere, but that is the exception to the rule.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, before answering my question, perhaps the noble Lord could tell the noble Lord, Lord Newby, what impact the threatened downgrading by Standard & Poor has had on the funding of US debt. I am sure that I could help the noble Lord by telling him that its impact was nil. Will the noble Lord tell us what criteria the Treasury uses to judge whether events merit using the reserve and, given those criteria, would an increase in unemployment of 100,000 or 250,000 fall within the rules?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, first, in relation to this discussion about borrowing costs, I am pleased to say that as of last week the UK’s 10-year borrowing costs, the benchmark for our gilts, hit practically the lowest that they have ever done, while the margin we pay in relation to the German bund has hit its best position since the general election. We absolutely must do these things to make sure that our interest rates remain low. As to how the reserve operates, I am happy to copy to the noble Lord the published rules that the Treasury uses. However, they are for consideration only in exceptional circumstances and would not be linked to the sorts of factors that he sets out.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, did the European bailout of the Greek Government deplete this reserve and would any extension of that process deplete it?

[Lord Sassoon]

No, it did not and I will not talk about hypothetical situations.

[Lord Peston]

It is difficult not be cynical about any discussion of this subject. I spent the morning—I probably wasted it—looking at the history of what Governments say about their attitudes to contingencies. In all cases, they say exactly what the Minister has said, except for one thing. When the chips are down and they have what they call a crisis, which they are never short of, they spend all the money that they want to spend.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I have been back and looked at the record and it is certainly the case that the previous Government went and topped up the reserve on at least 10 occasions. They increased borrowings when it looked as if expenditure was going to exceed their totals. This Government, when they set a total for managed expenditure, intend that it will not be exceeded.

[Lord Naseby]

Has my noble friend seen the number of recent articles about the Office for National Statistics and the conflict between the figures that it has produced for the output of the construction industry and the figures that that industry believes are correct? The difference appears to be 0.3 per cent of national growth. This is a severe and difficult area and therefore should not the Office for National Statistics resolve that issue once and for all before the next lot of statistics come out?

[Lord Sassoon]

We are straying a bit from the subject of this Question but, as there do not seem to be many other noble Lords wanting to get in, I will say that I know how difficult it is for the ONS to produce these statistics. I am sure that it will continue to look at all ways of improving the way that it deals with the data. There was a one-off change to the way in which construction data were reported and the industry is questioning that. I am sure that the ONS is on the case.

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, I am flattered that the Minister thought it necessary to research what I said 34 years ago when I was that much younger, but could he try to answer my supplementary Question this time?

[Lord Sassoon]

I am hearing that people seemed to think that I gave quite a sufficient answer the first time around. The noble Lord got it absolutely right when he was Chief Secretary and that is what my right honourable friend the present Chief Secretary will be doing.

Israel and Palestine

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:50

Asked By

[Lord Dubs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to encourage a settlement between Israel and Palestine.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in Cairo on 2 May, we renew our calls for both sides to commit to peace talks, leading to a Palestinian state that exists in peace and security alongside Israel. We want to see a resumption of negotiations based on clear parameters supported by the international community: 1967 borders with equivalent land swaps, appropriate security arrangements, Jerusalem as the capital of both states and a just solution for refugees.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the widespread support that there has been for the Prime Minister’s recent positive approach to the agreement between Fatah and Hamas. What is the Government’s view on the Israeli Government’s threat to withhold $105 million-worth of tax and customs revenues from the Palestinian Authority in case it should proceed with this agreement with Hamas?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We think that that is the wrong approach. On the contrary, Israel and the two parties that are now coming together in some reconciliation should now take the opportunities offered to carry the whole peace process forward. It should be recognised that, unfortunately, Hamas’s commitment to non-violence has not yet taken place—it has not yet committed to the quartet principles and we would like to see it be a more effective partner for peace—but on the whole we see these trends as the right ones and we think that the Israeli withholding of revenues is the wrong approach.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

While I support a genuine rapprochement between Israel and the Palestinians—most of the Palestinians, not all of them—is it possible to broker a real deal as long as Hamas pledges to destroy Israel? Is it realistically negotiable?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is right that that is the obstacle. As I have just said in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, we think that when Hamas is ready to be a genuine partner for peace and is committed to the quartet principles, we can go forward. Clearly, though, at the moment it is not and that is undoubtedly an obstacle, as the noble Lord acutely recognises.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

My Lords, given that we all know that a settlement between Israel and Palestine can be based only on a two-state solution, and given that the present pattern of Israeli settlements makes the second state—that is, the Palestinian state—completely unviable, is it not the case that no such solution could ever realistically be achieved without a withdrawal of at least some, if not all, of the current pattern of Israeli settlements?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is right that the settlements issue is also at the heart of this, and there are major difficulties ahead. In discussions on the two-state prospect, there have been some ideas of the settlements existing within Palestinian jurisdiction while, as my noble friend has said, other ideas include some withdrawal. These matters have all been examined in immense detail as part of the move forward, but first there has to be some movement in recognising that we now have opportunities for the peace process to develop in the right direction, rather than the attitude that we hear in some quarters at present that, “Nothing can be done for the moment because we don’t know where anyone stands, we don’t know where Egypt stands and we don’t know where the Fatah/Hamas agreement really stands”. That is a negative attitude. We must overcome that and move forward on all these fronts, including the settlements.

[Lord Hylton]

My Lords, was it not a great mistake to impose completely unacceptable preconditions on Hamas? Has the noble Lord noted that polls recently showed that 52 per cent of Israelis welcomed engagement with Hamas?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I hear what the noble Lord says, but our position remains that we are not prepared to talk to Hamas until it renounces violence, recognises Israel and adheres to the quartet principles. That is and will remain our view. If Hamas changes its attitude and moves forward, and if the partnership with al-Fatah comes to a positive conclusion, we will be prepared to review the situation, but at the moment that is our position.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recent withdrawal of residency permits from any Palestinians is a grave violation of basic human rights, and diminishes the capacity of many faith and community leaders to contribute to a peace settlement? In the case of Suheil Dawani, the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem, it also further alienates the small Christian community in the Holy Land.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, these are further concerns. I was about to say irritants but they are more than irritants; they are the sort of worries that we raise again and again with the authorities concerned and with the Israeli Government. We will do so in the future as well.

[Lord Clarke of Hampstead]

My Lords, many people will be pleased—if that is the right word—to hear that the Government are not prepared to deal with a terrorist organisation until it renounces its determination to drive Israel into the sea. Does the Minister agree with me that the first stage in getting the understanding that the Government are looking for is for the people who are lobbing missiles into Israel, almost on a daily basis, to be brought to book?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is clearly one of the necessary cessations that must occur. However, one must take a balanced approach and recognise that it goes hand in hand with an acceleration of the easing of the supply of provisions into Gaza, where conditions have been horrific. These things all move together. If one concentrates on just one transgression on one side, progress is inevitably halted. However, the noble Lord is absolutely right that one of the essential conditions is for one of the key parties concerned—Hamas—to desist, or to persuade minorities that it may control to desist, from shooting rockets into Israeli towns, wounding and damaging completely innocent people.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that power is given to the extremist wing of Hamas by the relentless Israeli colonisation of the West Bank and east Jerusalem, and that without a cessation of that at least there is no chance that the moderate majority within Hamas will be able to bring about the conditions that he mentions? At the same time, will he urge the Israeli Government to observe the results of the forthcoming Palestinian elections and not scupper them, as they did in 2006 by kidnapping 26 Hamas MPs?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Balanced handling of settlements and the Jerusalem problem is at the centre of the whole situation. Urging the Israeli Government to proceed in a way that will not scupper—in my noble friend’s words—any progress is something that we do in our constant dialogue with the Israeli authorities. We will certainly continue along those lines.

Fraud: Staffing Levels

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:59

Asked By

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the staff levels at Government agencies dealing with financial, banking and tax fraud.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, the Government are determined to step up the fight against fraud. This important work is done by both government and non-government bodies, including the Serious Fraud Office, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the Financial Services Authority. Ensuring that staff levels are adequate is a matter for each individual body, but I understand that the SFO expects to be able to adjust its numbers as necessary to meet its business needs, and that HMRC will be increasing the number of staff tackling fraud and tax avoidance.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but he must be aware that HMRC will suffer massive cuts over the next three years, and that the current level of tax fraud and avoidance, on its own estimate, is £40 billion a year. Will he therefore look urgently at that state of affairs and have regard to the position of the Serious Fraud Office, which has lost roughly half its most senior personnel in the past few months to American law firms and banks, which makes its role in tackling complex fraud super difficult?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, this is an extraordinarily difficult area. As my noble friend says, the level of tax fraud and uncollected tax receipts is extraordinarily large. That is precisely why, within a tight settlement for HMRC and every other department, HMRC has been allocated an additional £900 million over the spending review period. That will take up the number of full-time equivalent staff dealing with fraud and other tax avoidance matters from 20,000 at present to some 23,000 by 2014-15. That adjustment has already been planned for. As far as the SFO is concerned, we are clearly not talking about remotely the same order of magnitude of numbers of people, as that body has fewer than 400 people. The new management of the SFO has taken enormous strides since 2008, when the management changed. For example, the average time taken over its investigations has dropped from an average of five years on pre-2008 cases to some 15 months on newer cases, and the conviction rate has significantly increased, so the SFO is very much showing how it has become more effective with less resource.

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

Is the Minister satisfied by the resources that were made available for the investigation into the Phoenix four—the people involved in the so-called saving of Rover—which has resulted in no criminal charges being made, and literally a slap on the wrist being given to the directors who behaved so scandalously and betrayed the trust of so many people in Longbridge?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I will not be drawn into second-guessing decisions taken by the investigating authorities on any cases. However, I have heard absolutely no suggestion that the investigations in that case were in any way circumscribed by a lack of resource.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that, while the additional £900 million that HMRC has to fight fraud is very welcome, the hollowing out of the HMRC regional structure means that many individuals and firms around the country now feel that there is no adequate, as it were, day-to-day supervision of their tax affairs, and that therefore they can get away with it? Will he take back to his colleagues at HMRC the fact that it is not just the people dealing with fraud who need to be reinforced, but that we need to have a continuing robust structure of local management of individuals’ and companies’ tax affairs if fraud is not to take place in the first place?

[Lord Sassoon]

I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing up that specific issue. Of course the question of local coverage is important. I will do as he suggests and take that back to my ministerial colleagues and to the management of HMRC.

[Lord Eatwell]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that many of the organisations involved here, especially the FSA, have suffered serious and debilitating rates of staff turnover in the past few months—in part explained by the uncertainties associated with the reorganisation of financial regulation and management. A major source of that uncertainty has been that the Government’s Bill to change the status of the FSA and associated organisations is at least four months late. When will the Government bring this legislation forward? Why did they not get on with it and end the uncertainty?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I suppose it is my fault for raising the FSA in my Answer, even though it is not a government agency and therefore, more than the other bodies we have been talking about, manages its own affairs. I would not for one moment, though, agree with the noble Lord’s assertion about the state of staffing at the FSA, which continues to do an important and extremely difficult job—albeit within a flawed regulatory structure. We have been through rounds of consultation. If we brought the legislation forward too quickly, I would be criticised about the lack of pre-legislative consultation and scrutiny. It is coming forward with due speed because, as the noble Lord recognises, this is a big mess that we have to clean up, we have to get it right this time, and we will do so.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

Will the noble Lord be prepared to place in the Library the response that he gets from his colleagues to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Newby? Secondly, in that reply, will he give details on the number of HMRC revenue offices that will be closing annually between now and 2014?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I will certainly take that away and see whether a useful information note on the regional question can be produced without disproportionate cost. I will certainly see whether an information note can be produced on HMRC’s regional coverage.

Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 (Time Limit for Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 (Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme) (Rights of Appeal) Regulations 2011

Motions to Approve

15:07

Moved By

[Lord Astor of Hever]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 March be approved.

Relevant Documents: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 27 April.

Motions agreed.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

15:07

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clause 3, Schedule 3, Clause 4, Schedule 4, Clauses 5 to 26, Schedule 5, Clauses 27 and 28, Schedule 6, Clauses 29 to 31, Schedule 7, Clauses 32 to 38, Schedule 8, Clauses 39 to 57, Schedule 9, Clauses 58 to 76, Schedule 10, Clauses 77 to 89, Schedule 11, Clause 90, Schedule 12, Clause 91, Schedule 13, Clauses 92 to 96, Schedule 14, Clauses 97 to 99, Schedule 15, Clause 100, Schedule 16, Clauses 101 to 152, Schedule 17, Clauses 153 to 159.

Motion agreed.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:07

Clause 10 : Consultation

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

1: Clause 10, page 5, line 34, at end insert—
“( ) Where the Minister considers that the changes proposed do not warrant a full public consultation under subsection (1)(g), the Minister must publish a copy of the proposal on the website of the relevant Government department or make it otherwise publicly accessible.”

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the Bill’s return after a period of some weeks is welcome. In this amendment I return to the issue of public consultation, a matter that we have debated on a number of occasions. Given the enormous powers that the Bill will give to Ministers—powers embracing the abolition, merger, finance and governance of a considerable number of public bodies—it seems only right that when changes are made to any of the orders listed in the Bill, the public should have a say.

The House did not agree to my amendment to ensure that whenever a Minister proposes to make an order under Clauses 1 to 6, the public should always be consulted. However, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was rather more sympathetic to a further amendment to which I spoke, which would have ensured that when a Minister considers that proposed changes do not warrant a full public consultation, the Minister must at least publish a copy of the proposal on the website of the relevant government department or make it otherwise available. The noble Lord kindly said that he understood the arguments that had been put forward and that where consultation does not take place, a proposal will at least be put on the website. He said that he would consider the issue between Report and Third Reading, and I should be grateful for, and am hopeful of, a positive response from him.

My next amendment, Amendment 6, relates to regional development agencies and the need for consultation on their proposed abolition. I will not reopen the whole question of whether or not it is wise to abolish regional development agencies, but I must say that the longer the economy flatlines, as it is, the more convinced I am that it is a very big mistake to remove a regional strategic body for economic development. I want to raise the issue of consultation, specifically the consultation that will need to follow the Government's proposals to abolish regional development agencies.

One problem with the Bill is that the Government have failed to engage in any pre-legislative consultation on these matters. One example of that is the remarkable decision to fire-sale the assets of RDAs. That has been the subject of a number of comments. I find it extraordinary that instead of the RDAs being allowed to pass on assets under deferred payment schemes to, for instance, local authorities, they are being forced down the route of selling off assets at the worst possible time. There is real concern here that if those assets are sold in the current economic climate, their values will not be at current market levels, to the detriment of the local economy and future work of both local authorities and local enterprise partnerships, which are to take the place of RDAs.

I come to the specific issue of consultation. The noble Lord will know that this matter was raised by the House Of Commons Public Administration Committee in its report. It refers to the evidence given by the Minister, who had been asked what consultation had taken place in advance of deciding to abolish bodies listed in the Bill. The report states that the Minister responded that,

“the level of consultation would have been ‘very varied [...] in some cases, will have been quite extensive; in other cases, will have been very little’”.

He also said:

“These are essentially decisions in principle; these are decisions made where departments will know, or should know and I'm sure do, in a great deal of detail what those bodies do, what their functions are and how they are carried out”.

The committee reports that it reached the view from these comments that the Minister had assumed that the nature of the decision was such that consultation was unnecessary. As the Commons Select Committee stated, that assessment is wrong. It concluded:

“The Government did not consult properly on these proposals. When undertaking such a fundamental review of the machinery of government it is desirable and sensible to do so. We welcome the fact the Government is now taking steps to rectify this, but question how useful consultation can be, given that decisions on the future of many bodies have already been taken. Having agreed to amend the Bill”—

as the Government did, and it has now been so amended—

“to allow for more consultation we expect these consultations to have real effect on the outcome of the review; even if this means reversing decisions that have already been made. We expect the Government to give us such an assurance in its response to this Report”.

In their response to the report published in March, Command Paper 8044, the Government state:

“The Government has always been committed to ensuring appropriate consultation and external input in relation to its proposals. There is a substantial role for consultation to play, and a strong impact to be made on the delivery of these decisions”.

I should therefore like the Minister to confirm that, so far as it affects the bodies listed in the Bill but specifically RDAs, there will indeed be proper consultation, the consultation will be duly considered and, in the light of that consultation, the Government will, if appropriate, reverse their decision. My amendment is intended to ensure, if the Government decide to bring forward any orders that would embrace RDAs, the explanatory document that has to be brought forward in conjunction with the order will make it clear that a proper consultation was undertaken, including a summary of the representations received in respect of the principle of abolition. That would ensure a proper and genuine consultation process. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to be positive on both amendments. I beg to move.

15:15

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 1. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said, at Report your Lordships rejected an amendment in the name of the noble Lord which would have required public consultation in all cases covered by Clause 10. Your Lordships rejected the amendment because the Minister argued that it cannot be appropriate and proportionate for a full public consultation to be undertaken on the implementation of all exercises of power under the Bill, however limited they may be. However, he also said:

“The Government support the principle behind this amendment, which is to ensure that the public are given an opportunity to make their views heard on the reform of public bodies.—[Official Report, 4/4/11; col. 1555.]

Amendment 1 would achieve that objective. It would ensure that the public were able to inform themselves of all proposals for change and were able to contribute to the debate if they wished. The amendment would therefore promote accountability, and it would do so at no cost or inconvenience to the Government.

The Minister may say that the amendment is unnecessary as this is so obviously sensible as a practice that the Government would do it in any event. However, a ministerial assurance given, I accept, in good faith cannot bind Ministers in this or any future Government. Even after the very welcome amendments that have been made to the legislation in this House, the Bill will still confer very extensive powers on Ministers over public bodies, and it is therefore important to make clear in the Bill the essential obligation contained in this amendment.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Pannick, for bringing back these issues because it gives me the opportunity to clarify the Government’s position. As they say, Amendments 1 and 6 revisit the issue of consultation and so I shall respond to them together.

Amendment 1, to which the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Pannick, have spoken, would require Ministers to publish the proposed reform on their department’s website or to otherwise make it publicly available in the event that a full public consultation was not to be undertaken. This is a helpful amendment and one that speaks to an important principle, so I thank noble Lords for bringing it back at Third Reading.

I said on Report that I thought that this was something that the Government could consider, and I can assure your Lordships’ House that we have done so. Supportive as we are of the objective behind this amendment, on balance, we do not believe that such a requirement is appropriate on the face of the Bill. We are debating ostensibly an issue of guidance and best practice, not imposing a legal requirement. For that reason I am able to support the purpose of the amendment but not its inclusion in the Bill. Given that I believe that this is an issue of guidance, I am happy to give a very specific assurance that the guidance for use by officials on making orders under the Public Bodies Bill, to be published by the Cabinet Office, will include a specific reference that departments ought to consider the most appropriate way of making a proposal publicly available.

The Government are committed to increasing transparency and accountability across the public sector. I do not believe that I can honestly stand here and say that I oppose the purpose of the amendment and still be true to that overall objective. I fear that our only point of divergence is on how to ensure that this purpose is reflected in the best way possible when Ministers are developing proposals and drafting orders. It is the Government’s clear judgment that a more practical and proportionate way of achieving the noble Lord’s objective is to capture this issue in the guidance which will be used by departments when bringing forward orders. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, described my pledge to take this back to my colleagues in government as “handsome”. I hope that he will not now consider this an ugly conclusion by the Government. I can assure him that the principle of making proposals publicly available is one on which all sides of the House agree.

I should like to make one further observation on the noble Lord’s amendment. I agree that, in 2011, a website represents a very sensible vehicle for making proposals publicly available; indeed, I should expect departments seriously to consider whether website publication is not appropriate for publicising their proposals. However, my crystal ball will not tell me whether this will be the case for ever. Technology moves on. The statutory framework for consultation on this legislation is set out in Clause 10, and it is intended to be a stable and firm statutory requirement for reforms long into the future. It is guidance, not the statue book, that can be readily updated to reflect whatever is most appropriate at given times. That provides further weight to the argument that, however sensible this amendment might seem, it is not an appropriate addition to the Bill.

I am disappointed that I cannot be more supportive of the noble Lord’s amendment. I know that it is a sincere attempt to improve the Bill and to help the Government deliver a comprehensive and watertight piece of legislation. However, the vote on Report made it clear that consultation must not always be full public consultation and that a Minister must ultimately be responsible and indeed accountable to Parliament for deciding how to undertake proportionate and meaningful consultation. It is therefore not appropriate to seek to alter this legal framework through the noble Lord’s amendment.

I shall now turn to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. This proposed amendment to Schedule 1 in practice concerns the issues of consultation and subsequent procedure, set out in Clauses 10 and 11, and how they might apply to the closure of the regional development agencies. I shall start by once again taking the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the RDAs. I also acknowledge that the noble Lords have a strong regard for the work that the RDAs did and would prefer them to continue.

We have had very thorough debates in the House, in Committee and on Report, on the RDAs. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to these debates. I have explained that the Government's strong preference is to abolish the RDAs, and I have set out the reasons behind this, including why the current arrangements are no longer sustainable. The coalition agreement, the June 2010 Budget Statement and the local growth White Paper are equally clear about the Government's proposal to abolish the RDAs. The Government continue actively to engage with RDAs and interested parties on how closure is to be achieved. Individual RDAs have been in touch with their stakeholders, for example about their asset plans. The consultation and engagement are taking place irrespective of the requirements in the Bill.

I have listened to the arguments for the reform of public bodies to be an open process. Clauses 10 and 11 underline the Government’s desire for this to be the case. Clause 10 requires a Minister to consult on a proposal to which an order made using the Bill would give effect. The amendment proposes that in the case of RDAs, the explanatory document that accompanies an order should include, first, the question that was asked about the principle of abolishing RDAs and, secondly, a summary of the representations received on that question.

The requirements of Clause 10 on a Minister to consult when making an order covered by the Bill are clear. The requirements applied to the RDAs would oblige the Government to ask about the principle of abolition. Similarly, Clause 11(2)(d) requires that any explanatory document should include a summary of representations received in consultation. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendments in this group would provide any additional information for Parliament. Instead, they would unnecessarily complicate the drafting of the Bill. I hope that, in the light of the clarification that I have given with regard to the existing requirements—

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, does the Minister recall that on Report, I asked about the consultation process for RDAs in the light of a letter that the Minister had written to my noble friend Lady Royall, in which he stated that consultation effectively would take place after the passage of the legislation? I asked on that occasion whether in those circumstances the consultation that took place with individual RDAs would be on the basis that each case would be considered on its merits, or whether in effect it was all or nothing in terms of abolition. Will there be an individual consultation in respect of each RDA, with the possibility of a different conclusion in respect of one RDA as opposed to another, or is it to be abolition tout court?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The consultation will be based on the statutory instruments that will be tabled in connection with each RDA. Therefore, there will indeed be consultation, and an opportunity for each regional development agency to have input on its future. The regions of the country, if they feel particularly motivated, will be able to discuss the reasons why they believe no change should be made to their status.

[Lord Beecham]

Will the Government be open to persuasion?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It is the nature of consultation that the Government are open to persuasion: that is the purpose of a consultative exercise. The policy decision has been made. It is the resolve of the Government to implement the policy. None the less, there will be a consultative process, at which there will be an opportunity to argue the opposite case.

I hope that, in the light of the clarification that I have given on the requirements of Clauses 10 and 11, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will not press their amendments. I also hope that, given my assurances on guidance and the problems with adding Amendment 1 to the Bill, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

15:30

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I shall take Amendment 6 first. My noble friend Lord Beecham surely put his finger on it, and it really takes us back to the comments made in the House of Commons Public Administration Committee, which made it clear that, having agreed through this Bill to have proper consultation, that consultation must be done properly. That must mean that the Government have to consider on their merits the responses received. Let me take the West Midlands as an example. There is almost uniform opposition and hostility to the abolition of Advantage West Midlands. There is also a dawning recognition that the local enterprise partnerships which are to be put in its place simply do not have the wherewithal or coverage of the region to do the job that the RDA is proposing. So the question arises of whether the Government, having considered the results of the consultation, will in all fairness give due consideration to those comments before coming to a decision. That is a very important matter.

I was disappointed with the Minister’s response to Amendment 1. All noble Lords know that the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is in the right place when it comes to this amendment. It is disappointing that his department has not been able to respond in the same way. I fully accept that your Lordships' House did not agree to my amendment to make public consultation apply in all cases. However, this amendment modestly suggests that when, in appropriate cases, a Minister decides that public consultation is not necessary, there should be at the very least a reference to it on the department’s website. With the best will in the world, I have not heard any convincing argument as to why that cannot be in the Bill. I do not see why it should be left to guidance which can be changed at any point. Moreover, in referring to that guidance, the Minister carefully used the words “ought to”. He did not say that departments “must”.

This is a matter of principle. I accept that this House decided that there will be circumstances in which it will be appropriate for a Minister not to seek public consultation. In the interests of good governance, however, surely there should be a record, and a reference should be made to it at least on the department’s website. I think that this is a matter of principle and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

15:33

Division 1

Ayes: 179

---

Labour: 131
Crossbench: 39
Bishops: 2
Independent: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 185

---

Conservative: 118
Liberal Democrat: 53
Crossbench: 9
Ulster Unionist Party: 2

15:45

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

2: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Time limit on scheduled bodies
Any entry in Schedules 1 to 5 ceases to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which it came into force (without affecting any order already made by virtue of that entry).”

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 2, which will put a time limit on the bodies mentioned in Schedules 1 to 5, I will not rehearse the well honed arguments which have been put forward many times about the importance of sunsetting. Suffice it to say that the sunsetting of the schedules is one of the fundamental and welcome changes which have been made to this Bill. I am very grateful to the Minister for putting his name to this amendment, which appears for a second time because, I have to confess, I failed to move it on Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am delighted to have added my name to Amendment 2, which is also tabled in the names of the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. As the noble Baroness has said, perhaps she failed to move the amendment on Report, but then so did I. I think we were all caught up in the heat of the moment after a Division, so I am pleased that we have an opportunity to bring it back again. It is the outcome of a constructive engagement across the House and I thank noble Lords for their input into the process and for retabling the amendment to ensure that it becomes part of the Bill.

Grouped with Amendment 2 are three government amendments to clauses relating Welsh Ministers. They are essentially minor and technical in nature and have been requested by the Welsh Assembly Government. Amendment 3 clarifies that Clause 13(6) refers to internal drainage boards which have responsibility for geographic areas partially but not wholly within Wales. National boundaries do not necessarily follow catchment areas. Amendment 4 is a drafting amendment to ensure that the procedure for transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers under Clause 23 applies to transfer schemes set up in connection with orders made under Clause 13. Amendment 10 alters the Long Title to reflect the fact that the Bill as amended on Report grants powers to Welsh Ministers in Clause 13 in relation to a number of other bodies and offices in addition to those powers that already exist in relation to environmental bodies specified in, and by virtue of, Clause 12. These amendments rightly clarify the Government’s intentions for the use of powers in the Bill and I trust that they will be welcomed by the House.

Amendment 2 agreed.

Clause 13 : Powers relating to other bodies

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

3: Clause 13, page 8, line 27, after “board” insert “for an area”

Amendment 3 agreed.

Clause 24 : Transfer schemes: procedure

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

4: Clause 24, page 14, line 35, after “12” insert “or 13”

Amendment 4 agreed.

Clause 25 : Transfer schemes: taxation

Amendment 5

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

5: Clause 25, page 15, line 28, at end insert—
“( ) In relation to a transfer to another public body or to any other body of functions, duties or powers under section 1 or 5, or to a merger (where such transfers are involved), under section 2, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246) shall apply to a transfer which relates to rights or liabilities under a contract of employment whether or not the transfer would, apart from this subsection, be a relevant transfer for the purposes of those regulations.
( ) In the case of an employee of a body whose functions, duties or powers are transferred or merged under section 1, 2 or 5—
(a) a period of employment with the transferor is to be treated as a period of employment with the recipient organisation;(b) the transfer to the recipient organisation is not to be treated as a break in service.”

[Lord Whitty]

This amendment deals with the way in which the employees of the organisations covered by this Bill are dealt with. On one level, I apologise to the Minister for bringing the issue back because we debated it in Committee. Subsequently, I had a meeting with him and he sent me a useful letter. His goodwill in this respect is appreciated. However, I do not think that the situation is as clear as it should be, and I certainly do not apologise to the House or to the Government as a whole for bringing back an issue which is important to what are still several thousand public sector employees in those organisations which remain in the Bill.

One has to accept that some of the anxieties and suspicions relate not so much to the Bill as to the perceived general attitude of some members of the Government towards public service workers as a whole. Many employees of the organisations concerned have huge expertise and have been there for many years. They have done a very effective job on behalf of the population as a whole in those areas of public responsibility.

I appreciate that the Government have reached a conclusion that some of these bodies are no longer necessary. They have also reached a conclusion that some of their functions, powers and responsibilities are best carried out elsewhere, either in central government, the private sector, the third sector or in other public bodies. That has left huge uncertainty among employees. The Minister’s assurances have gone some way towards clarifying the position, but not entirely. The Minister’s position seems effectively to be that where there is a transfer, TUPE will apply, except where there is a public function exemption, in which case the Cabinet Office guidance—the COSoP, as it is termed—will apply, which will give rights and responsibilities equivalent to TUPE. If there are any doubts, what is now Clause 23(6)(f) will apply and Ministers will be able to clarify the situation when the regulations regarding individual organisations come into play.

On the face of it, that is a relatively watertight position and, generally speaking, the principles of TUPE will apply where there is a transfer. I do not apologise for reverting to the organisation of which I was chair until Christmas and which is still in the Bill. For reasons best known to the Government it is listed under Schedule 1, for abolition, whereas BIS’s policy as far as I understand it is to transfer the powers rather than to abolish them. They will be transferred in the main to Citizens Advice, which is a private sector body. If that is the case, it is not clear which powers, functions and responsibilities are being transferred or whether all of them will be, and whether they will all be transferred in the same direction—it is clear that they will not, because Citizens Advice Scotland and the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland will have some, other bodies will undertake others and others will lapse. That is not an unusual situation with the various bodies still stipulated in the Bill; indeed, we have just had a debate focusing largely on the RDAs, some of whose functions will in effect transfer to local partnerships, local government and elsewhere. Uncertainty is therefore quite widespread until the consultative process leading to the regulations makes the situation clearer.

In his letter to me, the Minister has said:

“In any transfer scheme relating to an order made under the Bill, a person will need to … determine a ‘relevant transfer’, as defined by TUPE, is taking place. This will sometimes not be the case, for example where the new organisation will be carrying out a function or activity which is different in nature from the old, or where the exception in TUPE”—

which relates to public functions—

“applies. In the first case, it would not be appropriate to apply TUPE. The reality is that a ‘transfer’ is not actually taking place—employees’ roles are not going to be continued. Accordingly, the situation should be dealt with by their current employer terminating their contracts by reason of redundancy and meeting his liabilities as regards compensation”.

That is quite logical, but, regrettably, it is not what the guidance on TUPE from BIS actually says at present. It effectively says that the responsibility for determining which measures will be regarded as transferred rests not with the existing employer but with the transferee employer—so not the transferor employer.

That has caused some confusion in the past, as it did when Consumer Focus was first set up because it did not seem to be the logical way of approaching things. It made the Minister’s words seem more logical in many respects. But they are at odds with what tribunals have been interpreting under the 2006 regulations and what, in slightly obtuse form, the rather lengthy guidance issued by BIS states very heavily: it places responsibility on the transfer organisation. That is one example of the lack of clarity and we need greater certainty on the record.

Relatively few bodies involved in this Bill are designated for merger, but when there is a merger, everything goes into the merged body, whether or not that merged body will have the responsibility for doing everything that the previous organisation was going to do. In which case, the exemption does not apply, but on the Minister's interpretation TUPE does not apply either.

I am well aware that there is a general view in Whitehall, following the Cabinet Office's guidance and so forth, that says to staff, trade unions and Back-Benchers like myself, “Don't worry about it, you lot. It will all become clear. The Government are committed to applying the TUPE principles”. It is also true that in certain situations, where the function is not continuing, it may be in the interests of individuals for TUPE not to apply. But we still need clarification as to what is a relevant transfer.

In the case of my old organisation, it is not clear what is being transferred. It is not clear to whom and it is not clear whether some functions will not be transferred and whether TUPE or COSoP will be applied. In that respect and in relation to many of the other bodies, we anticipate a consultative document fairly soon. However, I understand that the consultative document on consumer structures that was expected to be issued in March has been significantly delayed and the final outcome of that is again not clear, so the whole process has been put back. I would like the Minister today to clarify the situation. I accept his goodwill in this matter and I assure him that I will not press the issue to a vote, but I would like on the record at this last stage an indication of where the Government stand.

It is not all that easy to rely as a safety net on what is now Clause 23(6)(f), which states that a transfer scheme may,

“if the TUPE regulations do not apply in relation to the transfer, make provision which is the same or similar”.

The clause says “may” and it is sensible in the drafting to say “may” because there are a lot of other subsections to which “may” clearly applies, but it would be helpful if the Minister would say that as far as that subsection is concerned, the transfer scheme “would” make provision for the equivalence of TUPE to apply in those circumstances.

I am asking the Minister to say what he has already attempted to convince me of, although I do not think we are yet there: that in all situations where there is a transfer or merger, individuals will be subject to either TUPE or the public sector equivalent. The default position should be that TUPE or COSoP applies and that in that sense the Government accept their responsibility to all employees of the quangos that remain subject to the Bill and to the obligations that they have in terms of individual and collective procedures under TUPE regulations.

If the Minister can use words to that effect, I will not press him further today and he will go some way to reassure several thousand rather anxious public sector employees, many of whom the Government will continue to need to rely on, albeit possibly in a different guise. I beg to move.

16:00

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend on this amendment and thank him very much for introducing it. As he rightly says, there is a great deal of uncertainty among public sector workers at the moment. Of course, there is a bit of a campaign about the public sector, as far as I can see, on the part of certain sections of the press, designed to give the impression that public sector workers are so much better off than people in the private sector. If you look at it very carefully, that really is not the case. On the other hand, it all adds to the sense of insecurity that many public sector workers feel. Therefore, it is essential that there should be something in this Bill that makes it clear that when people are transferred they have the protection afforded by the TUPE regulations.

Not to give that sort of protection would be to give the public sector workers, who provide the services that we all rely on, the sense that they are disposable. Our workers are not disposable and must be protected in the way suggested in the TUPE regulations. I therefore hope that the Government this time round feel that they have to support this amendment and that it eventually appears on the face of the Bill.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity of coming back on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I am sorry if my prose failed to clarify the situation as well as it might, and I hope that my words and the speech prepared for me provide the clarification that the noble Lord seeks. He used the phrase, “words to that effect”. Let us hope that these words that I am about to deliver are to good effect.

The amendment gives me, as the Minister taking this Bill through the House, an opportunity to say that the Government recognise the valuable contribution made by their staff. We want to be, and feel that we are, a good employer, and staff in public bodies are important for good governance. We are keen to support all those affected by change and are committed to TUPE and COSoP as they currently apply. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, agreed that extending TUPE is not necessarily the best option for all staff, which is what makes this particular matter more complex than it might otherwise be.

The amendment would require that TUPE regulations apply to any transfer of functions or activities that take place as a result of an order made under the Public Bodies Bill. As I did in Committee, I would like to inform the House why the Government believe that existing protection for staff is sufficient and why it would be inappropriate to accept the suggested amendment.

The purpose of TUPE and the European law that underpins it is to protect staff in circumstances where the business that they work for or services to which they are assigned are to be carried out by a different organisation. TUPE ensures that the staff retain their jobs and conditions with new employers stepping into the shoes of the old. When a change falls within the TUPE definition of “relevant transfer”, TUPE will apply and the staff will be protected. The definition is broad and many changes brought about by the Bill will be covered. However, there may be circumstances where it is uncertain whether TUPE applies or is excluded.

Clause 23 gives the Government the power to provide protection to staff in circumstances where TUPE is not engaged. This is underpinned by the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers—referred to as COSoP—which provides that, even where TUPE does not apply to public sector transfers, organisations will be expected to apply TUPE’s principles as a matter of policy. I assure the noble Lord that the Government remain committed to COSoP. In practice, such transfers are effected through legislation which closely follows the provisions in TUPE, including the continuity provisions.

Legislative transfer schemes which are used to effect transfers in non-TUPE situations do not always apply TUPE to the letter. For example, some schemes permit greater flexibility in relation to post-transfer contractual variations. This can assist the process of harmonising disparate reward packages, thus reducing the risk of unlawful discrimination, particularly on equal pay claims, and avoiding unnecessary barriers to reform. Where the change does not fall within the definition of “relevant transfer” because the new organisation will be carrying out a function or activity which differs in nature from the old, it would not be appropriate to grant TUPE protection; the reality there is that there is no transfer of employees’ functions—the staff are redundant and should be dismissed and paid the compensation to which they are entitled. I assure your Lordships that, if there is legal uncertainty on whether a function is to be continued, Clause 23 gives scope for TUPE protection to be provided.

It would be inappropriate to accept the amendment because, in the Government's view, the blanket application of TUPE to all those transfers which are effected pursuant to the Bill is not appropriate and could lead to inefficiencies and unintended consequences. The Bill provides a framework for a wide variety of reforms to public bodies. Given this, it is crucial that those involved in transfers taking place under the Bill retain the flexibility to respond to each situation according to the facts. It is necessary to form a judgment in each case about whether the particular facts fall within the TUPE definition of “relevant transfer” and, if not, whether a transfer scheme which follows TUPE principles is appropriate. Staff could otherwise be compelled to move and, perhaps, relocate—even where their work is not going to be continued—and all those involved in the transfer could find themselves subject to restrictions which are not helpful nor apposite to the situation.

I appreciate the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for again bringing this to the attention of the House. I assure them both that I am quite happy to write to them again and will keep them posted on developments under the legislation, if they wish. In respect of Cabinet Office advice in this area, I am perfectly happy to keep all noble Lords informed on this matter. However, in the light of the assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Turner for her points underlining the issue of uncertainty that surrounds so many employees in these organisations and beyond at the moment. I am also grateful to the Minister for stating pretty clearly the Government’s commitment to the TUPE principles and to continuing to apply COSOP where that is the relevant coverage. I was slightly more dubious about the last two or three paragraphs. There is a slightly schizophrenic nature to the Minister's response. I do not know whether two people drafted his speech for him, as he carefully said at the beginning. On the one hand, there is that very clear commitment, which I appreciate. It is an important message for the Government to get out there. There were then references to flexibility in situations which hitherto may well have been regarded as transfers. I accept that some fine-tuning of TUPE is necessary and helpful, provided that that is done individually or collectively with the employees concerned.

The situation where neither TUPE nor COSOP applies probably requires one-off handling. However, if the principle is that the main principles of TUPE will be held to apply unless there is a good reason why they should not, I would rather have heard a speech from the Minister in those terms—that the default position is that TUPE should apply. However, clearly I am not going to get a lot more from the Government on this one; I think that I have done quite well over the previous stages of the Bill. I suspect that there will be some work for our learned friends in some of these areas, and I hope that the good will extended by the Minister at the beginning of his speech and the commitment to the TUPE principles that he reflected here will in practice be reflected in the proposals for the individual organisations and the approach that the individual departments take when we are drawing up the regulations to implement these parts of the Bill.

I thank the Minister. I am not entirely satisfied, and I suspect that some people outside will not be either, but I will not press this today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Schedule 1 : Power to abolish: bodies and offices

Amendment 6

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

6: Schedule 1, page 19, line 36, at end insert—
“4 The explanatory document required under section 11(2) in respect of the regional development agencies must include—
(a) the wording of the question that was asked about the principle of abolishing regional development agencies;(b) a summary of representations received in respect of the principle of abolishing regional development agencies.”

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we have already debated my Amendment 6, which would ensure that when the consultation takes place on the abolition of regional development agencies, there has to be a proper consultation. It is an important point of principle and I beg to move.

16:11

Division 2

Ayes: 172

---

Labour: 140
Crossbench: 23
Independent: 2
Bishops: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 215

---

Conservative: 130
Liberal Democrat: 54
Crossbench: 22
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Independent: 1

16:23

Schedule 5 : Power to modify or transfer functions: bodies and offices

Amendment 7

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

7: Schedule 5, page 22, line 11, at end insert—
“2 An order may not be made in respect of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority or the Human Tissue Authority unless an independent assessment indicates that making such an order under section 5(1) would increase the cost-effectiveness of the functions exercised by that Authority.”

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, in a nutshell what I and others are calling for is that the HFEA and the HTA should remain untouched until a new research regulatory body is in place with its own statute ready to receive those functions, and that in the mean time there should be a wholly independent external review of the HFEA.

The HFEA is like no other quango. Its work touches deeply on the intimate lives of the one in six couples who cannot conceive naturally, the health of babies, scientific research, cures for diseases now and in the future, the profits of scientific companies, and public morality. It is unique, has an international reputation and was a British first. I am seeking to preserve it from being shattered and to prevent lasting damage being caused to that area.

The HFEA and the Human Tissue Authority, to which similar considerations apply, are both listed in Schedule 5 as bodies that may have their functions transferred or modified under Clause 5. In Committee and at Report, amendments were tabled to remove the HFEA and the HCA from that schedule but, for various reasons, the proposal was not voted on but withdrawn to give the Government a further chance to reflect on the damage that it seems to us will be done, which we were convinced would persuade the Government to change their minds. This did not occur. Indeed, it seems that the Government are developing policy in this area as they go along. I sometimes suspect that behind closed doors there would be relief if the amendments being looked at by the House today were to succeed.

The first two amendments in the group are set down in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, who cannot be in his place today because he has an unbreakable prior commitment but is giving his full support. The amendments seek to rectify an omission—the need for an independent review—and to prove a point that change in the organisations will be for the worse.

We have the support of the key organisations in this field—the Association of Clinical Embryologists, the British Fertility Society, the British Infertility Counselling Association, the BMA, the RCN, the RCOG and the Infertility Network UK. They do not consider that the HFEA should remain in the Bill because there has been no full and impartial public review of the risks and benefits of the new proposals, including the financial costs of all the options. However, as I have said, the removal of the two bodies from the schedule is not now a possibility. There is agreement that there are some elements of its remit that the HFEA could do better. Therefore, there should be an independent external review of the HFEA, with the aim of reducing bureaucracy, increasing accountability and saving money—albeit that the cost to the public purse is only £2 million and can be reduced. Even those who are most critical of the HFEA cannot oppose these two amendments, which call for just such a review.

The consultation proposed by the Government is not at all the same. No doubt the HFEA’s working practices could be streamlined with other regulators. Efficiencies could be found in the back offices and research regulation could be improved. However, there was no need to include the HTA and the HFEA in this Bill. No matter how irritating the HFEA may have been found to be by clinicians, they must surely welcome a review, for if they accept the Government’s way forward the irritations will no doubt increase and there will be no improvement of those functions.

I wish to say a few words about the third amendment, Amendment 9. Just shifting the HFEA into the Care Quality Commission will not achieve money savings or efficiency. The shift will not meet the objections of the professionals to some of the ways in which the HFEA works. I am saying: do not take it apart but make it better, with an impartial review by, for example, the King’s Fund, the Nuffield Foundation or the Wellcome Trust. Indeed, the proposed overarching regulatory body could work with the HFEA to achieve the aims desired by the Government. By splitting away the research functions of the HFEA as the Government propose, there is the risk of creating additional bureaucracy and increasing, rather than diminishing, the burden of regulation. The HFEA and HTA functions will be transferred to the Care Quality Commission, and research will go to a new body that has not yet been created. There is to be consultation about that reallocation of functions, even about the database—perhaps the most important feature to be concerned with in dismembering the HFEA—but in the mean time, the shadow of destruction hangs over the HFEA. That will affect staff morale and retention, and the confidence of scientists and clinicians, who rely on it for legitimacy and guidance, not to mention international respectability.

16:30

I submit that the CQC does not have the experience or expertise in the complex areas governed by the HFEA and the HTA, and there is the danger of losing the corporate knowledge developed over the past 20 years, along with the relationship built up between the HFEA and the clinics. There is no practical benefit in abolishing the HFEA and handing its responsibilities over to the Care Quality Commission. More members of staff will have to be recruited and trained to replace the existing ones. Rearrangement of all external relations will have to be accomplished. The efficiency and cost-effectiveness of that has not been tested. Nobody can understand why that is being done, when other countries such as Canada are trying to emulate what has been done so successfully here over the years to regulate infertility practice and embryology while staying ahead of the field in maintaining safety and patient confidence.

If ever there was a time to protect consumers in this field, it is now. Patients are used to having a single port of call for information and complaints. To disband the HFEA and the HTA sends the message that the Government do not trust the way that tissue, infertility and embryology is handled in this country. It is a message that will go right around the world.

I fear that there will be fragmentation in an illogical way. The latest government proposal is that the licensing of embryo research, the release of identifying treatment data to researchers where it is not practicable to obtain consent, and the provision of guidance to researchers will be hived off to a new research regulatory body. Those things are in fact inseparable from the maintenance of the database, which is of enormous significance in itself, and advice to patients, all of which is HFEA-based now. There is no definite timetable for the establishment of a new, overarching research regulatory body, on which the architecture depends. It depends on new primary legislation, likely to be after 2012. In the mean time, it is proposed that there be an interim special health authority in 2011-12 to bridge the gap until the hoped-for primary legislation in the second Session of this Parliament. It will need more funding from the Department of Health budget.

If noble Lords think that that is incomprehensible and confusing, they are right. The cost of a bridging research agency will no doubt far outweigh any savings—not that we have been told what they might be—that could be envisaged in the transfer of HFEA and HTA functions. That is why the third amendment has been tabled. Our preference, of course, is that your Lordships should vote for the first amendment, which calls for a review, but even so, if there is to be transfer, the Government's intentions have not yet been made plain in detail. Why is a bridging authority necessary? How much will it cost? How can an interim body deal effectively and authoritatively with ethical questions—those specific to the sensitive functions of the two existing bodies? That is why the third amendment is here, for it covers newly revealed policies not hitherto debated or explained in sufficient detail. Can the Minister guarantee that the HFEA and the HTA will remain untouched until legislation is in place and all is set to receive their functions into a new body? Of course we do not know what the other place will do in this area.

Some have said that IVF is routine and does not need special attention. That is not the Government's view, for they rightly propose to stick to the primary legislation. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts will stay in place; they will not go. The demands that they place on laboratories and clinicians will stay, every word of them. Nor do the public think that IVF is routine. Their emotions and intelligence are engaged by every new development—for example, as recently reported, in treating mitochondrial disease, set out in some of the tabloids as having three mothers; in screening embryos; and in protecting the patents on stem cell work. All those who hope for cures for terrible diseases are involved in this debate. The uniting of eggs and sperm, and the resultant possibilities, can never be routine unless one is very hard-boiled. This is what commentators have said. The Guardian said:

“The abolition of the HFEA will leave a major policy vacuum in biotech ethics. Without intervention, it’ll be filled by the Daily Mail”.

The New Statesman said:

“The regulation of fertility and embryology … will now be hidden within the remit of the Care Quality Commission … There will be repercussions … Without a distinct, visible body to oversee reproductive ethics, scientists in the field stand to lose public trust”.

I should have said that I declare an interest, in that I was chairman of the HFEA years ago, and my heart is engaged in this topic for the sake of the patients and because of the whole enormously enriching field that was opened up to me and to many others. I urge your Lordships to do the right thing—to call for a review before committing this pointless transfer, which will save no money and damage British interests. I beg to move.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, I added my name to the first two of these amendments for a variety of reasons. Four or five years ago in a debate on the National Health Service in your Lordships’ House, I remarked that I had identified more than 40 organisations that had the right to inspect, assess and consider health service activities, and I defined those organisations as constituting an intolerable “quangocracy”. I believed that I was the first to create that neologism but since then others have claimed authorship. However, when I heard of the Government’s intention to embark upon a bonfire of the quangos, the two quangos that I would never have contemplated being the first to go on the bonfire were the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority. In my opinion, each of them has fulfilled and continues to fulfil a vital function—vital for suffering humanity and vital for the pursuit of medical research—and I believe that the Government’s current proposals are likely to be damaging to both bodies and their functions.

Why do I say that? Perhaps I may go back. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was established by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill based on a splendid report prepared under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Warnock. From the moment the authority was established, it required that any individuals wishing to work with human embryos up to 14 days after fertilisation would have to have a licence from the authority. In the first instance, that licence helped greatly to improve the treatment of infertility.

However, as time went by, the Act was amended and we went on to develop the pre-implantation diagnosis of genetic disease, allowing individuals carrying harmful genes which would produce in their offspring very harmful diseases to be studied so as to prevent diseases such as cystic fibrosis and Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Later still, amendments to the Act led to many other crucial developments. Further regulations made it possible to use spare embryonic material in in vitro fertilisation programmes to generate stem cells for the treatment of human disease, and that is slowly but surely becoming a reality. As my noble friend Lady Deech said, only recently the HFEA established an expert committee to examine the results of some highly fundamental world-leading research, carried out in my former university of Newcastle upon Tyne, using the technique of pro-nuclear transfer for the prevention of mitochondrial disease. I as a neurologist have seen and tried to help and treat patients with devastating mitochondrial diseases. This is a massive development which is likely to be of enormous value to humanity.

I agree that it is possible to consider the transfer of these research functions to other organisations but let me make one or two important points relating to that proposal. The Care Quality Commission has recently merged the Healthcare Commission, the Mental Health Commission and the social care commission. It has taken on a massive regulatory task. I cannot conceive of any mechanism by which that organisation, constituted as it is, could possibly fulfil the functions of the HFEA without creating within itself expert committees with the right kind of background and expertise to be able to assess the importance of the functions that it will be absorbing from the HFEA. If that is the case, why abolish the HFEA or merge it into a body that is certainly not constituted to carry out those particular functions?

Let me turn for a moment to the Human Tissue Authority. The Alder Hey scandal was a failing on the part of members of my profession. Everyone in the profession knows that when a post-mortem is carried out inspections of the organs that one sees at that examination cannot, except in most unusual circumstances, give you the full diagnostic picture or the information necessary to prove the cause of death, or give evidence that is likely to help in future research. To obtain that information it is necessary to remove the organs and to fix them in formalin. After they have been fixed you then take sections that are examined under the microscope which give you diagnostic information. Regrettably many pathologists took the view that when permission for a post-mortem was given, that gave them authority to retain the organs and they did not regularly seek permission to retain them. Now, of course, the Human Tissue Act makes it absolutely clear that the retention of organs after a post-mortem for examination and diagnostic purposes absolutely requires the permission of the next of kin of the individual who is undergoing a post-mortem examination.

Quite apart from that the HTA has major responsibilities on issues such as the transplantation of human organs. There are many sensitive issues, such as whether someone donating an organ should be in any way compensated, whether it is appropriate that it should come from blood relations or whether well-meaning individuals not related to the individual should be allowed to give an organ for transplant. These and many other issues fall to the remit of the HTA. I recall very well when we considered the Human Tissue Act in your Lordships’ House and in Grand Committee—it took hours and hours of consultation. The Bill as it came to us from the Commons contained several major defects. Those major defects would have hamstrung diagnostic purposes and been immensely damaging to the future of medical research—not least the constraints on the use of archive material which had been removed from patients years before and which were vital for research purposes.

Happily we were able to introduce some major amendments in your Lordships’ House to improve the Human Tissue Act and to establish the Human Tissue Authority. I remember very well, as I am sure will the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that several people in the research community and in the royal colleges said, “Thank God for the House of Lords”. That Act was improved and the Human Tissue Authority was given the appropriate regulations to enable it to fulfil its function.

If the process that the Government intend goes ahead, and if these bodies are merged with the Care Quality Commission, who will be responsible for licensing? Will they carry out inspections and have the authority, under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, to withdraw recognition from people who are not fulfilling the terms of their licence?

16:45

I have heard a suggestion that the research functions of these bodies might be transferred to a future health research agency. I am immensely supportive of the splendid report produced by a committee chaired by Sir Michael Rawlins for the Academy of Medical Sciences on the future regulation of research. The main purpose of the report is to clarify and make easier many of the constraints that have been imposed on multicentre research projects; it is to make medical research easier to regulate and conduct. To convey to that body, if it is eventually established, the responsibilities for research held by these two organisations, will not be its primary function, although of course the Government have not yet legislated—and may not for some time, until the next Session of Parliament—to establish the health research agency. In the mean time, it is crucial that the HFEA and the HTA—which are not perfect; they each have problems, which can readily be resolved without legislation—should be allowed to continue with their functions, because the proposals that the Government have put forward will be inestimably damaging to the future of embryo research and research in a variety of medical fields. I warmly support the first two amendments in the group.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendments of the noble Baroness. My interest is that I appointed her as chairman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority all those years ago. One of the first Bills for which I had responsibility in Parliament when I was Minister for Health was the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, following the very distinguished report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I have also served on the Medical Research Council.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said that umpteen days had been spent debating the Bill. I like that term, and it is absolutely accurate. I, too, when I was a Minister in another place said, “Thank God for the House of Lords”, because, whenever a particularly difficult and emotional issue arose, I knew that words of wisdom could be consulted in the House of Lords. They were a very good touchstone for me when I took on the task.

If ever there was emotion between scientists, clinicians, social scientists, theologians and patient groups, it was then. The fact that it has now become a relatively quiet issue does not mean that it does not have the potential to become once again extremely noisy. It speaks for the hugely effective way in which the HFEA has gone about its work, and the confidence that it has built not only in the United Kingdom among all parties but, as has rightly been said, around the world. If clinicians are irritated by the HFEA from time to time, that makes me even more convinced that there must be something good about it, because there is a distinction between the mind of the scientist and pioneering doctor, and the ethical balance of those calling for slightly more caution, control and constraint. When the area is that of the creation of life outside the body, it is a moral issue: we should never forget that.

The Minister, who is sympathetic, thoughtful and kind, and who listens endlessly to requests from Members of this House, has already been extremely accommodating. He has agreed to coherence and transparency; he has agreed that he will not rewrite the ethical standards; and he has agreed that most of the functions should be kept together. Nevertheless, the Care Quality Commission has a huge agenda of work, as was rightly said by the noble Lord, and most of its activities are of a different nature from those of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, so can the Minister give us further assurances and find a way to meet the objectives of the noble Baroness’s amendments?

Amendment 9, which is about the establishment of the health research regulatory agency, is even more important to me because it seems to be a prerequisite for the changes taking place. Of course we all believe in what we have now learnt to call a bonfire of the quangocracies. The easiest thing for any junior Minister to do is to make their name by setting up a quango; it is much harder to make your name by shutting down a few quangos, and we know it needs to happen. However, like other noble Lords, I urge the Minister to think very carefully before he puts the HFEA and the HTA at the top of his list.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

My Lords, I shall speak to all three amendments in this group. I declare my interest as chair of the Human Tissue Authority, whose work is so much affected by this Bill. At the start of the passage of the Bill, there was much confusion over its purpose and the future direction of travel for many of those arm's-length bodies listed in it. Much progress has been made during the passage of the Bill. The Government have given due attention to concerns raised, thought through the potential outcomes and clarified many issues for all of us. I want to thank the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the attention he has paid to our specific areas of interest: the HFEA and the HTA. I particularly welcome his statement in the letter he sent to my noble friend Lady Thornton in which he recognised the need for our preferred option, which is to keep the functions of the HFEA and the HTA together, and gave a commitment to discuss directly with the HTA any potential movement of our research-related functions to another organisation.

I believe we are nearly there, but I feel that these amendments are necessary and will act as a safety framework for the Bill as it enters the other place and then goes onwards for external consultation. We are seeking a set of reassurances and safeguards from the Minister to ensure that the hard work everybody has done to shape this Bill will not be lost further down the road.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, have already set out the main arguments in favour of the amendments. I support them and shall not reiterate them. The amendments suggest measures by which the Government could assess the cost-effectiveness of the proposed moves, and I urge the Minister to consider utilising them. In his letter to my noble friend Lady Thornton, the Minister addresses the need for an impact assessment, but he proposes only a partial assessment. I believe that a full and thorough assessment is needed in order to give a true picture of cost-effectiveness. We are all looking for ways in which to reduce costs and bureaucracy and therefore see an increase in cost-effectiveness as the gold standard we should aim for in the public services we provide. If a saving is made in one area only to increase costs in another, that would be unacceptable. It is for this reason that I urge the Government to conduct a full impact assessment, not a partial one.

The HTA is already recognised as an efficient regulator with a clear focus on improving value for money. We are a lean organisation costing only £1 million in government grant in aid and we will reduce that by 14 per cent in cash terms this year. We have reduced our licence fees across all sectors this year, including a 30 per cent reduction in the research sector. I have already raised and evidenced my concerns that any proposals to transfer the HTA's research functions would not achieve either simplification or financial savings. Indeed, we estimate that it would impose additional regulatory and financial burdens on around 200 establishments across various sectors. So I suspect it will not surprise your Lordships to know that I am concerned to ensure that cost-effectiveness is real and not just perceived as an outcome of this assessment.

I now turn to the amendment that deals with setting up the new independent health research agency. As I mentioned, I seek reassurance from the Minister in a set of safeguards. The Government have set out a draft transfer timetable, and have made clear their intention to cause the least amount of disruption to all involved by enacting all transfers of the HTA and HFEA functions at the same time. None of this can happen until the health research agency has a legal basis in its own right and it has been decided whether any HTA functions should transfer to it. Will the Minister therefore outline a more specific timetable for its establishment, and reaffirm his commitment to hold off transfers until then?

In addition, the amendment would require that a separate ethics committee be established within the new agency to undertake the ethical considerations of any functions that are transferred. This would be paramount in ensuring that we do not lose public and professional confidence through this period of change and that we continue to ensure that tissues and organs are used safely and ethically and with proper consent. Finally, therefore, is the Minister minded to establish such a committee and so accept this amendment in full?

[The Lord Bishop of Guildford]

My Lords, I support both this amendment and the two related amendments that follow it. They would guarantee in one way or another that the enormously valuable work of precisely the present ethics committee of the two bodies is continued. I speak in general, so far as a Bishop can ever speak, for the Christian churches and for other faith communities for whom the human embryo and human tissue have moral significance. That is not to say that the present ethics committee is in the pocket, so to speak, of the Bishops or of any faith community leaders. It is not, and the range of views and commitments of its members is and should be wide. However, it would be a serious mistake not to have an ethics committee or expert body specifically to weigh the moral as well as the medico-scientific questions that are involved in this very proper research, not least into the tragedy of infertility.

Also of great significance for me is the serious support of the relevant professional bodies, so I urge the Government to consider these amendments very favourably.

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, I declare an interest because my wife is a pathologist who works in the National Health Service. She does no forensic work. Nevertheless, I declare that interest appropriately.

A number of noble Lords have mentioned the importance of the role of the House of Lords in considering such difficult and complex matters. We had plenty of evidence of that even before the Bill came to your Lordships' House, at least in debate on these two issues. Indeed, we had a very fruitful debate on 1 February this year in the Moses Room on the questions. There is a great deal to commend the amendments, although I have some difficulty with the fact that they link the two bodies. They are quite different in many ways and have a somewhat different track record and set of relationships.

I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, and I do not disagree with any of it. She put forward her case clearly, but she focused in particular on the HFEA. A whole set of very important issues are involved there, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister may be able to give some kind of comfort to her and her colleagues, because I have a lot of sympathy for her case, as I do for much of what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said. However, one of the difficulties has been that although there is clearly a need for legislation and for a body that undertakes these matters—the operation of the HTA in Scotland has been rather better than it has in England—it is important to draw to the attention of your Lordships' House that the impact of the way in which the legislation has been interpreted and conducted by the HTA has not inspired confidence, particularly among pathologists. I heard what my noble friend said about that proving what a good thing it is, but that does not show a very nuanced understanding of what is going on.

17:00

One of the problems, which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and other medical noble Lords will know very well, concerns the final diagnostic tool, the post-mortem. We all have our thoughts about diagnosis from a clinical point of view but in the end you will get a definitive answer from the pathologist after a full post-mortem and all the investigations. When I was training, the Government’s ambition was that 10 per cent of all non-forensic cases would have post-mortems conducted. Why? It was in order that there would be a proper audit of clinical diagnosis. Is that the case? On the contrary, it has gone completely in the opposite direction. There are whole departments now where month after month scarcely a post-mortem takes place. We are now coming to the point where many members of the Royal College of Pathologists feel completely deskilled in the process of conducting post-mortems because there has been a feeling of a hostile environment in the conduct of post-mortems. We have to recognise this.

I shall quote from a letter written in February by the president of the Royal College of Pathologists to the right honourable Andy Burnham, the Minister. It is an eight-page letter from which noble Lords will be relieved to know I will quote only a short amount. The letter states:

“The Royal College of Pathologists does not contest the need for legislation on the uses of human tissues that led to the Human Tissue Act 2004—though we do continue to protest, with others, that aspects of that legislation are not working as intended and that the parallel Scottish legislation is much more sensible. Nor do we deny the need for a regulatory body such as the Human Tissue Authority. But it seems obvious that the HTA and the profession need to work together with mutual respect, and that at present neither group is displaying that respect. The recent actions of the HTA have considerably exacerbated an existing problem. Since the events”—

he refers to earlier events to which he has referred in the letter—

“pathologists will inevitably perceive the Human Tissue Authority as an aggressive regulator, all too ready to wield the force of the criminal law even when, it transpires, a crime has not been committed”—

thus wielding the law against medical practitioners. The letter continues:

“Changes in the attitudes of pathologists cannot be expected to occur without very visible and major changes in the Human Tissue Authority”.

The letter goes on to list a page of suggested changes.

That is not to say that there should not be some kind of authority or legislation. But it is important to put on record in your Lordships’ House that everything had not been going smoothly and suddenly the Government have come in to knock over something that was working perfectly well. As I say, I exclude the HFEA from that discussion. That is not the issue for me.

Having said all that, and giving that as a backdrop to my sense that it would be easier if the HTA and HFEA were not in the same amendments because they involve different issues, I have considerable sympathy with the intentions behind these amendments. They are thoughtful and are an attempt not to knock the whole applecart over. They try to ensure that the transitional arrangements, and where we come to at the end of the journey, are building and capitalising on all the very good things that have happened and that none of that is lost. In that regard, I hope my noble friend may have some comfort for those who have put their names to these amendments and that they will find some satisfaction.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I wonder whether I might start by expressing my warm thanks to my noble friend Lady Bottomley for intervening in this debate. I had been dithering about whether to do so because for reasons I cannot understand my Front Bench regard me as a bit of a troublemaker on this Bill. Since no one could possibly accuse my noble friend Lady Bottomley of being a troublemaker, she has leant me a cloak of respectability, which I now put on. I agree very much with what she said. I should perhaps declare an historic interest as chair of a hospital trust that did transplants at the time that the Alder Hey events came to light and was, therefore, much interested in the introduction and passage, and the subsequent success, of the Human Tissue Act. So I have some longstanding interest in this.

But even without that, there is a concern that what we may be doing here is upsetting arrangements that appear to have worked pretty well without being at all clear about what we are going to put in their place. My noble friend also referred to her concern, as I have done on an earlier occasion, about whether the Care Quality Commission, which already has more on its plate than it can deal with, can take on any more until it has settled down to what it is seeking to do at the moment. Given the eloquence of the speeches made, particularly those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Warwick, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and others, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give these amendments very careful consideration indeed.

I hope your Lordships will not think that I am indulging myself if I take this opportunity to express my gratitude for the kind words said at the last knockings of the Report stage about my absence at the time through ill health. My particular thanks go to the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Whitty, for picking up a couple of my amendments, even though they did not get what I would regard as perfect answers. I am also grateful for the very warm words of the shadow Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who I am sorry not to see in her place. She was kinder about me that I ever thought I would deserve, and as a result probably caused more upset on these Benches. It would be tempting as a counterpoint to say that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach saw me here last week and his first words were, “Should you really be here? Wouldn’t you be better off at home?”. But that would be very unfair because he has been genuine solicitous of my welfare and has actually offered to release me from slavery even when he thinks I would not cause trouble. I am very grateful to him.

I have already indicated to my noble friend Lord Howe that I have some sympathy with these amendments and that I shall listen carefully to what he says if he does not want to accept them. I want simply to tell him that what he says will have to be good.

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

I rise to speak specifically in support of Amendment 9, to which I have added my name. However, I want first to record my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the Front Bench for the very courteous way in which he has tried to respond to these issues throughout the passage of the Bill. The reality is that we should not be at this particular juncture now. If we had had proper consultation before these proposals came to light, we would have been able to argue the issues out sensibly and carefully. I recall the way the last Government treated the draft tissue and embryo Bill. They created a committee of both Houses that looked carefully at the issues and prepared a report. It was accepted by them and actually changed the legislation that was going through the House. With hindsight, we can always do things differently, as we learnt last Thursday.

I think that Amendment 9 is crucial. The Academy of Medical Sciences made a proposal to create a health research agency that was not just supported by the medical and research professions, but by all the political aspects of all the parties in both Houses of Parliament. It is rare for that to occur. I have argued with the Minister that the real crux of this Bill is not knowing what you are actually going to move to. I think that the concerns about the CQC are a little unfair. The reality of the situation is that the CQC already regulates and inspects a significant number of premises and establishments that deal with the use of embryos, embryo research and the clinical application of techniques using embryos. There is already significant duplication, so to argue that a new body would either increase or decrease duplication would depend on how you finally decide which functions will go to which organisation.

Health research is also crucial. The report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has rightly been mentioned often today. She established firmly back in the 1980s the fundamental issue of the special nature of the embryo, particularly when dealing with research. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is absolutely right that the founding of the HFEA has enabled research using the embryo, particularly when we started to look at stem cells and admixed hybrid embryos, to go through. That is because there has been a regulatory authority for which there has been public as well as clinical and academic support. We throw that away at our peril.

I put it to the Minister in Committee that we could not move to an interim authority for health regulatory research and believe that we could maintain continuity and credibility within the research communities both here and abroad. Unless we establish the health research agency, we will lose ground. It is too important an area for us simply to say, “Well, we'll wait and see’. In his incredibly helpful letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the Minister referred to setting up an interim authority. However, in Committee, I proposed to my noble friend that a new clause be inserted in the Health and Social Care Bill to set up the paving legislation for the new regulatory research agency. My noble friend makes it clear in his letter to the noble Baroness that that Bill is now on hold for a while for a variety of reasons. Surely this is an excellent opportunity for the draftsmen to put into that Bill a clause which enables the agency to be set up. At one fell swoop, an early place in the legislative timetable—literally within the next six months could be given to an agency that all of us agree needs to be in place. Amendment 9 offers the Minister the opportunity to respond positively today and we could go ahead with those proposals.

The second part of Amendment 9 deals with the incredibly important business of an ethics committee. Many people who are not involved in the ethical consideration of these issues believe that this is somehow a sop or an add-on. It is not; it is fundamental to maintaining confidence in the research frameworks and the regulatory authorities. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister responds to the amendment he will give us clear direction on how the new agency will have an ethics organisation which meets the aspirations not only of this House but of the research and clinical communities.

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, I have not decided whether I shall vote for or against the amendment if it is pressed. I shall listen very carefully to the Minister’s response.

One of the greatest ethical issues involved in this treatment is its lack of accessibility. It is a highly privileged treatment, because it is mostly in the private sector. It is true that the NHS provides some, but many health authorities have based their fees to some extent on the private sector. Therefore, the hard-pressed PCTs have not been able to offer as many treatments as many people recommend.

When I left practice running a large IVF clinic some five or six years ago, we were charging very much less than is currently charged by clinics. We were still able to turn more than £1 million a year over to research and provide the Hammersmith Hospital with a great deal of surplus income, which was then used to treat other patients.

One of the key issues with which the HFEA has not dealt is the high cost of IVF treatment. In my view, it is a scandal. There are clinics that treat patients for around £3,400 a cycle. It is only when you look at their websites that you see that they are charging up to £1,100 to £3,200 for drugs that should be obtained on contracts at around £500 to £700 per cycle. Embryo freezing will be increasingly required if we are to limit the number of pregnancies that result in multiple births by transferring just one embryo each time. One clinic in London charges £915 for embryo freezing. That is for a mechanised treatment that is extremely easy to do in the laboratory. If that were not enough, the storage fees are £325 a year. Given that liquid nitrogen, which is what the embryos are stored in, costs a few pence a litre, that seems somewhat excessive, even allowing for the costs of regulation. I am afraid that the HFEA has shown itself to be completely unable to deal with this issue at all. This privileged treatment is a shocking issue.

Secondly, one thing that the HFEA claims to be doing is giving accurate information to patients. This morning, I trawled a few IVF clinic websites. A prominent clinic in London—which I can name but will not—argues on the front page of its website a 69 per cent IVF success rate. That figure is repeated twice on the website. It is only when you delve into the small print that you realise that it is nowhere near that. That is the cumulative success rate over several cycles of treatment. Another clinic argues that it has a 30 per cent success rate in women over 40 or 42. That is a biological impossibility given that the implantation rate alone of a patient under 40 is something around 18 per cent per embryo—at best 25 per cent. What the site does not say is that this is for pregnancy but not delivery of a live baby. It does not take into account the vast number of miscarriages that presumably these patients are going through. This kind of misinformation occurs again and again.

The Bridge fertility clinic offers a 71 per cent pregnancy rate per blastocyst treatment and 67 per cent success rate for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. As someone who has been intimately involved with pregenetic screening of this kind, I find those figures, frankly, quite incredible. Perhaps they depend on very few patients being treated and a good deal of luck. But that is highly misleading. These treatments have not been validated by the HFEA. Presumably, that is why it has allowed advertising to continue.

Then we come to the ways of promoting treatments that are not acceptable in this country. There are several clinics in London alone that offer their services in, for example, Mauritius—that is one of the Harley Street clinics—the USA, India and Spain. There they can display all sorts of unvalidated success rates on their websites and in addition can offer treatments that are not acceptable in the United Kingdom, such as multiple embryo transfer. Why has the HFEA not withdrawn the licences of those clinics? Why has it not argued that this is dishonest and dangerous?

Then, of course, we have the question of the database, which has been referred to already. The database ought to be very valuable but, sadly, in practice it is useless because we cannot follow up patients in the long term. That is a very serious issue. As the Minister knows, epigenetic issues—early experiences in development from fertilisation onwards—may have a profound effect on our health when we become adults. IVF in this country is not followed up in this way, so we have no way of knowing whether some of the treatments or exposures of the human embryo may be more likely to cause damage at a later date.

Then we have the question of another issue, which the HFEA seems to have been totally powerless to deal with. That is the issue of treatments without any evidence base that they work. Let us take the example of immune therapy, which is charged at anything from £1,000 to £3,000 a time, in addition to the already high fees of IVF. Where is the evidence that immune therapy actually improves the success rate of pregnancies? I do not know of that evidence—and, indeed, the treatment may even be damaging or harmful to the patient’s residual immune system.

Then we have preimplantation genetic testing, which is testing of embryos genetically when IVF has previously failed. I accept that preimplantation genetic diagnosis works, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has said, and it is a valuable technique in a few patients. However, there is actually no evidence base showing that preimplantation genetic testing in people who do not have a genetic defect, as widely used by many clinics, provides a helpful and improved chance of a pregnancy afterwards. The control trials and the control evidence are not there, and this treatment—if it is done at all—should be done on a research basis. However, the HFEA has failed to license it on that basis. The same applies to the treatment of assisted hatching. These are not small treatments; preimplantation genetic testing is charged in one clinic at £2,690 in addition to the £3,000 or so charged for the IVF and the £800 to £1,000 for the drugs that the patient pays for. At this stage, patients who are desperate will do anything to ignore the avarice of the people who might be treating them. This is a massive issue, as it is with another treatment, widely offered, of assisted hatching, in which a little piece of damage is done to the zona pellucida around the embryo or egg in the hope that it might improve the pregnancy rate. Over many years it has not been shown to be really effective, but it is still widely sold without any proper regulation.

We have heard from a number of speakers in this debate that the HFEA is the envy of the world. If it is the envy of the world, why has no other jurisdiction accepted this method of regulation? It is not used in Singapore, the USA, France, Israel or Australia, the countries that are most successful at reproductive treatments. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should not have a proper culture of regulation or a proper ethical standard in how we deliver medicine, but the current workings of the Act of Parliament are now not suitable for the original purpose. We have outgrown it. With the burgeoning private practice that has occurred with this treatment as a result of the failure to fund it in the health service, we have an increasing problem, which is very far-reaching.

It is true that there are virtually no good academic units in the United Kingdom that really produce cutting-edge research in the field of reproductive biology where it applies to humans. That was not true 30 or 40 years ago, when we led the world, in places such as Cambridge, London, Edinburgh and many other centres in Scotland. Now we cannot find people to appoint to chairs in reproductive medicine. The chair at Hammersmith was left vacant for three years after my retirement, and eventually they decided not to seek anyone to fill it. They could not find somebody who was a suitable academic because people are being attracted to the highly lucrative business that IVF provides. In my view, this is a very serious problem.

One of the most respected academics in this field is Professor Alison Murdoch, in Newcastle, who has pointed out something really quite interesting. I take her view very seriously as I believe that hers is an example of a really well-run, ethical practice. She points out that regulation of in vitro fertilisation is now far greater than regulation of, for example, abortion. That does not seem to make sense. I listened very carefully to the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Guildford. However, does he really believe that the protection of the embryo is more important than the protection of the foetus or the protection of research on the newborn child, the patient who is pregnant or the elderly patient who may be about to die from various diseases? Surely the notion of centralising our research under one body makes good sense, because we can then have a rational basis for important ethical decisions. I shall listen with great intent to how the Minister responds to this debate. However, I am not convinced that, even if we vote for this amendment, it would be a good idea to vote for the preservation of the HFEA as it stands.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I shall be brief as we have been debating this for a long time. I spoke to this issue in Committee and, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who is not in his seat, I was the only one to argue against preserving the HFEA’s current status and role, particularly on the clinical side.

I start by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, about the medical research authority. I totally agree with him that the Academy of Medical Sciences report has been widely accepted and backs the establishment of such an authority. It will also have an ethics committee because, according to the report, it will take over the national ethics service, which is currently run separately. It will therefore have an ethical body to assess the ethical issues related to all medical research. There cannot be any doubt about that. Last time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, asked—and I have his permission to repeat the question—whether, in the interim, the Minister will find a way of establishing such an authority before the legislation is put in place.

I turn to the HFEA and its other role. Yes, it is true that we should all feel a glow when we mention the HFEA. When it was established, soon after the birth of Louise Brown, a voluntary licensing authority established by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Medical Research Council had been operating for two years. Its creation gave both clinicians and the public the confidence that the newspaper headlines of the time—that monsters would be created in Petri dishes—would not be realised. It is true that in its formative years the HFEA did a fantastic and useful job in establishing and licensing premises for delivering good care to those requiring IVF treatment. Yet the world has moved on. More than 1 million children the world over have been born following IVF treatment.

There is no reason to think that the clinical care provided for patients requiring infertility treatment, including IVF, is any different, or should be any different, from the care provided for children with cardiac anomalies. Both treatments are properly regulated by the CQC and the professional organisations. We hear of units being shut down because of poor outcomes; so let us consider the recent performance of the HFEA. How should we measure it? We should measure it against the success rate for IVF. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, mentioned, apart from spurious claims, there is no evidence that our outcome for patients requiring IVF treatment is any better than anywhere else in the world; in fact, it is poorer than in some other countries. Measured against promoting better outcomes for the patients, the HFEA has not delivered.

17:30

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, that clinicians would complain if threatened, but these clinicians are not complaining because they are threatened—they are complaining because they think that they could do better if they were not so harshly regulated by an authority that looks at more and more ways of regulating. It has become a legend in its own mind. It makes the delivery of clinical care more difficult and, therefore, the outcome for patients poorer.

The noble Lord, Lord Winston, was right to mention the promotion of research. One of the objectives in setting up the authority was to promote research to improve the outcomes of patients with infertility. In fact, it blocked the use of valuable data. The noble Lord mentioned the example of using epigenetic factors—environmental, dietary and other factors—that would affect the health of the babies born. There has been an ideal opportunity to do so over the past 20 years, but we failed to.

Let us be quite clear: the glow that we feel about the HFEA may be slightly tarnished. We have to ask which of the functions we need to retain. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the medical research authority will be set up soon and that it will take over all the research functions of the HFEA. Let us have a debate about whether the HFEA delivers now when it comes to improving care and outcomes for the patients. That, I think, is when we will find that it is currently found wanting.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, my noble friend Lady Warwick and other noble Lords for their determination to have the future work of the HFEA and the HTA clarified during the course of the Bill. I join others in thanking the Minister for his patience and accessibility in discussing the different aspects of the issue.

We have had another excellent debate that has illustrated why it was necessary to bring the issue back to the Floor of the House for further discussion. The House needs to heed the voices raised across the Chamber—as well as the pleas contained in the letters that we have received from some of the parents of Alder Hey children, the letter in the Times this morning signed by a galaxy of medical experts and the briefing from the BMA on behalf of several organisations—as a sign of increasing concern.

Since Report, the Minister has kindly written to me explaining further the Government’s proposals for the HFEA and the HTA and the staged break-up that seems to be the Government’s preferred option at the moment. In brief, the break-up involves HFEA and HTA functions being transferred to the CQC except for research-related functions, which will be transferred to the health research regulatory agency, presumably covering what have been broadly referred to as the ethical issues. To facilitate this, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, explained, a special health authority will be created in 2011-12 and there will be primary legislation to establish the agency proper in the second Session of this Parliament. Presumably, the ethical issues will therefore be dealt with by the interim body in that process. Notwithstanding the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, regarding the Health and Social Care Bill when—indeed, if—it reaches us, it is clear that there will be primary legislation to establish the new research body.

I am further grateful to the Minister for his explanatory letter because it served to strengthen my view that these bodies should never have been in the Bill in the first place. It also illustrated for me the question that I want to put to him: why go through such disruption, risk, lack of stability, potential loss of expertise and expense for the next two years prior to the introduction of primary legislation to establish the new health research agency, which will address all of these issues? Why not agree the amendment that establishes an independent assessment of the work of both bodies? That could feed into the pre-legislative process and consultation, which will include all the questions that need to be asked, leading to primary legislation in about two years’ time. If the Government go down the route that the Minister is proposing, they intend to launch a consultation this summer, as outlined in the Minister’s letter to me, and then presumably will break up the agencies at some point towards the end of this year and the beginning of next. That means that at the beginning of 2012 the agencies would be broken up and then, by the end of 2012, we would start the pre-legislative programme to set up the new research agency.

That is why we on these Benches will be supporting all these amendments. It is not that either the HTA or the HFEA should be preserved for ever; indeed, it is clear that my noble friend Lord Winston and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, have grave problems with the HFEA. I make the point to the noble Lords, which I have also done outside the Chamber, that that is not the point of the Bill. Passing the amendments would actually be more likely to address their concerns than would leaving the situation as it is. In other words, there is no guarantee that their concerns about the HFEA, which I am sure are legitimate, would be addressed if we left the Bill as it is without the reassurances.

The one thing that we know is that there is going to be a health research agency. It is an idea of merit. It is also a proposal that is ideally suited to the expertise and inclination of this House; the Select Committee, the pre-legislative scrutiny, the draft Bill and, if I may say, the skills that the Minister brought to bear when he helped to create both these agencies make this the place where that process should start. I am certain that that would ensure a good outcome.

The amendments are different from the simple deletion amendments that we tabled in Committee and on Report, particularly the third amendment, because it accepts the principle that the Minister may transfer or modify the functions under Clause 5 in respect of these bodies but would require the Minister to have first established the Government’s new regulatory body with a separate ethics committee. It would ensure that there were no gaps between what is happening now with the current bodies and the Government’s intended independent regulatory body in future, a point that many noble Lords have made. However, it would not preclude an examination and independent assessment of the work of both these bodies. It would ensure that the critically important ethical functions performed by these bodies were recognised and catered for, which, in a way, is where we came in at the first stage of the Bill.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have moved or spoken to these amendments. I recognise and understand the sentiments underlying them. I do not in the least wish to argue against or downplay the importance of cost-effectiveness in any legislative changes that we propose, or of ensuring that the right successor arrangements are in place for discharging the relevant functions of the HFEA and HTA. I therefore hope that what I am about to say will satisfy noble Lords that in most key respects I am in the same place as they are regarding the points at issue.

Since our debate on Report I have written to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to set out my reflections on the points that she and others have made. There were common themes: a desire for greater clarity on where the Government intend to transfer the functions of the HFEA and HTA to; concern that the dispersal of functions across a range of bodies would risk fragmenting regulation; and concern over loss of expertise. I have considered these concerns carefully. As I have made clear, we intend to consult in the late summer on the options as to where certain functions would be most appropriately transferred. That remains our aim. However, having taken into account the strength of feeling about keeping functions together, we now intend to proceed on the basis that our preferred option is for all HFEA and HTA functions to be transferred to the Care Quality Commission, except for certain research-related functions that will transfer to the proposed health research regulatory agency. We shall therefore consult on this basis but, at the same time, remain open to receiving views on the way forward from all stakeholders through the consultation process. I hope noble Lords will agree that this preferred option will address concerns about the potential impact of fragmentation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, expressed the fear that the Government’s proposals would lead to a vacuum as regards the ethical focus of these bodies—in the decision-making process for research and treatment involving embryos in particular. Let me explain what we intend. Ethical safeguards—for example, the type of embryo and gamete that can be used in treatment, the need to consider the welfare of the child, and the need for consent in respect of human tissue—are clearly enshrined in legislation in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. These safeguards will remain firmly in place.

In keeping an integrated approach to HFEA functions, the CQC would be the focal point for ethical considerations of treatment licensing that arise from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. There is no reason whatever to suppose that it is not up to fulfilling that role. I say to my noble friend Lord Newton that my department’s officials have had discussions with the CQC senior managers about the proposed transfer of functions. The CQC is confident that these can be taken on effectively. The health research agency will provide a focal point for the ethical consideration of research using embryos. It will draw on expert advice, as the HFEA does now. The aim is to simplify and rationalise the ethical approvals process for all kinds of research. Far from the ethical focus for each type of activity being lost, it will be actively preserved.

My noble friend Lord Willis suggested that we might use the Health and Social Care Bill, now in another place, as the vehicle for the proposed changes, rather than this Bill. I recognise the force of his proposal. He will know why we have chosen not to go down that road. We do not want to add to what is already a substantial Bill. It is important, too, that the Government retain momentum for their planned changes across the ALB sector. The ALB review process has already garnered significant rationalisation across the health sector and we do not want that rolled back. By keeping the HTA and the HFEA within the Public Bodies Bill, we can deal discretely with complex issues and undertake detailed consultation and impact assessments in a timely and considered way. We also, as I have indicated on several earlier occasions, wish to avoid reopening the Human Tissue Act and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which command widespread agreement. Our desire to maintain momentum is why we plan to establish a special health authority to continue and strengthen the work of the National Research Ethics Service and to be a starting point for the simplification of research approval processes. That special health authority would be the platform on which we would build the fully fledged research regulator.

17:45

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough]

Does the Minister not understand the incredulity of many of us? This is a Bill that deals with getting rid of quangos, yet the Minister’s solution is to set up a quango to create time in order to set up a bona fide agency. Surely the Minister sees that by simply delaying the whole process until the agency is in place, everything can be transferred either to the CQC or to the new agency, all at once, without an interim body.

[Earl Howe]

I ask my noble friend to wait a few minutes; I hope I will tell him something that he will welcome.

I turn to the amendments. On Amendments 7 and 8 the issue is not so much the end point that they seek to achieve as the practical implications that they would carry if they were accepted. Let me set out what we plan to do. There will be a full public consultation on our proposals this summer. Alongside that, we will publish an impact assessment, which will include a view about the cost-effectiveness of options for transferring functions. I assure the House that the key comparison for the purposes of the assessment will be between our preferred option and the organisations’ own plans for rationalisation. I hope noble Lords will endorse the idea of a formal impact assessment as the vehicle for doing this. It is a process that, until now, has been accepted by Parliament for general legislative and policy changes. There does not seem to be any obvious reason why that should not be an appropriate way to proceed in this case.

In addition, as I have said previously, there will be a further consultation on the proposed regulations in due course before these are laid. Taken together, these three safeguards should be sufficient to meet the aspirations of noble Lords for achieving a robust evaluation. The approach that we propose on consultation and impact assessment will, I suggest, produce a result that is thorough, transparent, balanced and, therefore, fit for purpose. The amendments, taken literally, would have us go further by suggesting a formal process of independent assessment of cost-effectiveness. This would be neither necessary nor desirable. With the best will in the world, any such assessment would be costly to the public purse, highly subjective—as any assessment of cost-effectiveness is bound to be—and very difficult to measure definitively. Practically, it would get us no further forward than a standard impact assessment. In any issue of this kind, we need to take care that legislation does not set conditions that are impossible to meet. That is why I hope the assurances that I have given will be enough to persuade the noble Baroness not to press these amendments.

In turning to Amendment 9, I will address the question posed by my noble friend Lord Willis. The amendment seeks to ensure that no HFEA or HTA functions would be transferred using the powers in this Bill until the health research regulatory agency has been established. I fully appreciate the reasoning behind this. It very much accords with the Government’s wish to avoid a piecemeal approach to the transfer of functions. In my letter of 27 April to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I said that,

“in principle our preference would be to consult on the draft secondary legislation during 2012 and to commence it after the primary legislation is place that will give the health research regulatory agency the necessary legal basis. In that way, transfer could take place as a single and clear exercise, and in a co-ordinated and least disruptive way”.

In the light of this amendment and the points made today in support of it, I am prepared to go further and give a firm commitment that, subject to the will and views of Parliament, the Government will proceed on the basis of transferring functions from the HFEA and HTA only once the research regulatory agency is established in legislation. I hope that this commitment will satisfy the House. There are problems with including the amendment in the Bill from a legal perspective. It is difficult to envisage how, within this Bill, we could describe with the necessary level of legal certainty the new research body that would need to be established. The detail of what a new regulator will look like and the functions it should hold is a matter for Parliament to debate and determine as and when the relevant legislation comes before it. To make provision for a future body in this Bill risks both describing it in a way that is not accurate, thus making the power to transfer functions redundant, and attempting to limit the discretion of Parliament in relation to future legislation.

The amendment also seeks to provide in this Bill that the research agency,

“must have a separate ethics committee to undertake … ethical consideration functions”

transferred to it from the HFEA and HTA. I fully appreciate the need for assurance that the research regulatory agency will have access to the relevant expertise to deal with the licensing of embryo research and any research-related functions that may transfer to it from the HTA. Therefore, I repeat the assurance that we have consistently given that expertise will follow function, and that we expect that the research agency will have access to expert peer reviewers and others in the relevant fields that are currently available to the HFEA and HTA. However, I suggest that the level of detail on matters such as expert committees is again more appropriate for consideration by Parliament in relation to any legislation that will seek to establish the research regulatory agency rather than attempting to include it prematurely in this Bill.

Although, for the reasons I have given, I cannot accept the amendment, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, I would like to believe that noble Lords who have spoken will not now be too far removed from the Government’s own position on these matters. In view of our developed approach to the transfer of functions and our clear intention to consult on our proposals in an open and transparent way, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Deech]

I thank the noble Lord the Minister and all noble Lords who have spoken. However, I particularly thank the noble Lord the Minister who has, as others have said, been very attentive throughout the passage of the Bill to the concerns of those involved in this field. I know that he has the best interests of the HFEA, the HTA, and all the people involved in them, at heart. When the noble Lord the Minister says that he gives a firm commitment, the whole House believes him and relies on his word.

The noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Winston, pointed to problems: in one case in the HTA; in the other in the HFEA. However, those points, and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, are irrelevant as, whatever problems there are with the HFEA and the HTA will not be solved by moving them lock, stock and barrel to another agency, because, as we all know, the human fertilisation and embryology Acts will remain. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that there is nothing that the agencies can do about costs. They are not able to fix costs. We all wish that the NHS would take on IVF; that would provide a solution to all our problems. However, no one can seriously imagine that if regulation were transferred to another government department, charges would somehow mysteriously come down, the patients would be charged less and nobody would make a profit. Indeed, the stories that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, shared with the House show precisely why regulation is necessary. If the doctors are all competing and jostling for pole position, this again confirms the need for regulation by a body other than a purely medical one.

It is also the case that the law is involved. I am sorry to say this about my fellow lawyers, but there are many things that the HFEA and the HTA cannot do, or cannot do more vigorously, because of the way in which the Human Rights Act came in on top of the existing human fertilisation law and shifted it much more towards the individual, the requirements of the Competition Commission and the requirements of the Data Protection Act, which make it very hard to carry out the research that we wish could be undertaken. If ever there was a case for calling for an external independent review, which is what at least one of these amendments calls for, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has made the case because all those points can be looked at by an external impartial review, which is what we are calling for.

Although there is no time to go into this, other countries do have regulation such as is carried out here. Israel has a system for considering cases on a one-by-one basis. Canada is emulating us. Surely we do not want to be like the USA where recently a woman gave birth to octuplets. Noble Lords who have a spare moment can go online and look up Cryobank and see sperm for sale. Usually the students involved are called Randy and have a PhD from Berkeley or Stanford and sell their sperm online. We do not want to go down the unregulated route followed by the USA. I know from my involvement with the HFEA that we were bombarded all the time with concerns from the public. Many noble Lords will recall that when the HFE Act was revised in 2008, members of the public lined the streets across the road and waved banners that depicted their fear about hybrid embryos as they showed embryos that were half man and half horse because they did not understand the subject yet it meant an awful lot to them. Therefore, it is very important that regulation is put in place. I should not say that the issue was more important than abortion or neonatal care, but all these areas have their own special regulations and laws taking care of them, as this area should do. The points made by the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice, Lord Winston and Lord Patel, perfectly make the case for an independent review.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, to whom I am extremely grateful, seems to have given a firm commitment that there will be only one transfer, if it ever happens, of the functions of the HTA and the HFEA—one jump straight into new bodies that will have been firmly established by legislation. That is very satisfactory and I am grateful to those who have listened to that case. I know it is difficult, but they have listened and we should be appreciative of that.

That leaves just one area of disagreement—the nature of the review. I do not wish to sound sceptical, but government reviews and consultations often start from a particular point of view and present rather limited options, and in the end the Government may well do what they wish anyway. I believe that given the range of problems that have been revealed, not just when I was addressing your Lordships’ House but by expert speakers on the Floor, there is a strong case for a wholesale review by an external learned body before the HFEA and the HTA take the irreversible move into the new bodies, when they are established.

Therefore, the points that lie behind certainly Amendments 7 and 8 have not been met and I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 7.

18:00

Division 3

Ayes: 199

---

Labour: 153
Crossbench: 34
Independent: 3
Bishops: 2
Liberal Democrat: 1
Conservative: 1

Noes: 209

---

Conservative: 131
Liberal Democrat: 57
Crossbench: 12
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1
Labour: 1

18:13

Amendments 8 and 9 not moved.

In the Title

Amendment 10

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

10: In the Title, line 2, at end insert “and other”

Amendment 10 agreed.

A privilege amendment was made.

Motion

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I crave the indulgence of the House to say a few words. Today is 9 May, and we had Second Reading of this Bill on 9 November. For six calendar months, this House has been considering the Bill. The Bill has been much changed by this House; I think we all share the view that the Bill has been improved by this House. This House can be proud of its role of scrutiny, which it has demonstrated in scrutinising the Bill and improving it. It can serve as a textbook example of how this House serves that great and fundamental purpose.

I say a word of thanks to Members of this House for that role. In particular, I thank those on the opposition Front Bench for the constructive way in which we have been able to talk about the Bill from the beginning. They had firm ideas of what they wanted to happen to the Bill; we had ours; but the discussions were always friendly and open. I am very grateful to them. I am very grateful to all Peers who have attended our meetings: those from the Cross Benches, in particular, for their construction of ideas and resolution of some of the impasses which looked difficult to overcome; and to coalition Peers for their support and input. Right to the end, we have been discussing these matters, and the House has been divided on them, but there has been a real sense of partnership on the Bill. That has been particularly true of my Front Bench colleagues who have shared the passage of the Bill with me and have taken particular amendments. I have been reluctant to comment on individual involvement, but I feel that I should thank my noble friend Lady Rawlings, who is my Whip on the Bill and who has been with me more or less throughout its passage.

I conclude by thanking the Bill team, because they have had to work particularly hard not just within the Cabinet Office, which originated the Bill, but across all government departments, because every government department has been engaged in the Bill. I thank them for the way in which we have enjoyed working on the Bill together. They now go to see it through another place, and their job continues. I also mention the Bill team manager, as was, Louise Parry, who during the Easter Recess had a baby daughter. Cecilia is perhaps the most visible token of the Bill's passage through this House, and we are delighted for both of them. They are both very well and I thank Louise for her support to me and to her colleagues during the passage of the Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I must say that when we completed the passage of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, which also took about six months, I never thought that I would be facing the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on another Bill which took so long. I echo his comments: I think that the Bill is much changed; it has benefited from scrutiny in your Lordships' House. I am sure that the whole House would wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his stewardship of the Bill. He has shown great skill and sensitivity to the issues that have been raised. All of us are grateful for the manner in which he has met us to discuss the issues, but his responses in your Lordships’ Chamber have also been in a flavour of seeking a way through. We are very grateful to him.

There has been a cast of thousands on either side of the opposition and government Front Benches. I, too, very much thank my colleagues for their help. I echo the noble Lord’s words of thanks to the Bill team. We are very grateful to them for the help that they have given us over the months. I, too, congratulate the Bill team manager on the birth of her daughter during Easter.

The Bill goes to the other place much enhanced. Because of the sunset clause, although the Bill will deal with a number of public bodies, when that is done, there will be a mechanism for looking at public bodies in future in a way that noble Lords find a very satisfactory outcome.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, before the Bill passes, perhaps I may add a caveat to some of the comments that have been made. I immediately recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the government Front Bench have made concessions on a number of aspects of the Bill, and people in the Forest of Dean and elsewhere will no doubt be very happy with what has happened. However, the noble Lord will not be surprised that my reservation concerns the fact that the uncertainties about the future of the Welsh television channel S4C have still not been resolved. There had been a hope of amendments being tabled at Third Reading. I understand the reasons why that was not allowed, although I recall the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, saying on 28 March that if any of the eight assurances that he was given were not fully delivered, he would want to bring the matter back at Third Reading. The fact is that the S4C authorities have indicated that, of those eight assurances, six are without substance. Therefore, on that occasion the amendment was not pressed to a vote on the basis of assurances which had not been given.

I do not want to go over old ground and I certainly accept that the Government have moved on a couple of points but, if the consultation with the National Assembly had taken place, it would have been very much more satisfactory from the outset. However, with the announcement today of a new chair for S4C—Huw Jones, whom we wish well—we would have hoped to see a line being drawn under many of these matters so that S4C could move forward with confidence. When the Bill goes to another place, three aspects will need to be resolved. The first is the constitutional position of S4C, the second is the safeguarding of S4C’s funding and the third is its right to make managerial decisions without people from the BBC sitting in on them.

On Wednesday, a report on this matter will be published by a Select Committee of another place and it will contain remarkable cross-party agreement on the unsatisfactory nature of this Bill. Therefore, I very much hope that, when the Bill goes to another place, the aspects that have not been addressed in your Lordships’ House will be addressed and we will have the same satisfaction regarding S4C as noble Lords have indicated they have with regard to other aspects of the Bill.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I hope that it will be in the spirit of the debate—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, before my noble friend makes what I know will be succinct and relevant remarks, as his remarks always are, perhaps I may remind the House of the guidance that Third Reading is not an opportunity for debate and that comments should be extremely brief.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

I am tempted to sit down in view of that rebuke but I shall not do so. I only wanted to say, in a modest kind of way, that I know I have been a lot of trouble to my noble friends. I know that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach has been incredibly patient and understanding with me and I say to the Chief Whip that I really did not want to do anything more than be nice to him. Is that allowed? He has done a great job in helping us as a House to do our job, and he has produced the near-miracle—I speak in the presence of a number of ministerial colleagues—of bringing about a Bill that leaves the House shorter than it entered. Can anyone think of a government Bill that went anywhere and ended up shorter when it finished than when it began? That is a near-miracle. My noble friend has brought it limping into port with its superstructure destroyed and most of its cargo dumped, but at least he has got it there. He has contributed to the worst defeat of Henry VIII at the hands of the barons in 500 years, but unfortunately I do not think that it is yet the Waterloo. Henry is regrouping in Whitehall, hoping to find some mercenaries and commoners to come to his aid, and your Lordships may yet have more work to do. Meanwhile, my noble friend and many of his colleagues have done a fantastic job for us with patience, courtesy and understanding, as well as, I think, working behind the scenes to good effect, and I add my thanks to those of others.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

European Union Bill

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Committee (4th Day)

18:24

Clause 5 : Statement to be laid before Parliament

Amendments 24 to 29 not moved.

Clause 5 agreed.

Clause 6 : Decisions requiring approval by Act and by referendum

Amendment 29A

Moved by

[Lord Liddle]

29A: Clause 6, page 4, line 32, leave out “or otherwise support”

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I hope that this amendment will not take up too much of the Committee’s time. Its purpose is to amend Clause 6(1), which currently says:

“A Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of or otherwise support a decision … unless … the draft decision is approved by Act of Parliament, and … the referendum condition is met”.

Amendment 29A would delete “or otherwise support” and Amendment 32A, which is in this group, would add at the end of subsection (1) that,

“the Minister may indicate support in principle for a decision if the Minister also gives notice that a vote in favour is subject to approval by an Act of Parliament and the referendum condition being met, if required”.

I understand why within the logic of the Bill—although it is a logic that we on this side of the Chamber do not accept—the Minister cannot sign up Britain for institutional changes without the conditions of an Act of Parliament or a referendum, if required, being met. However, surely it should be possible for the Minister to indicate support in principle for something that is proposed subject to the requirements of the Act. I do not understand why Clause 6(1) has the words “or otherwise support”.

I hope that what I have just said will find acceptance on the Front Bench opposite and, if that is the position, I shall not delay the Committee any longer. However, it seems that it does not, so perhaps I had better explain why I think that this is an important point.

If Ministers are not allowed on behalf of the Government to give any indication of the Government’s attitude towards any proposal, I do not see how they can be expected to represent this country in the councils of the European Union. Can they not discuss with their partners what they might and might not recommend? There is a danger, it seems to us, that the Government are trying to turn our Ministers in the Council of the European Union into perpetual “no” men and women who every time they are asked a question about what might happen can only say, “No, this isn’t permitted under this Act of Parliament”.

18:30

If that is the Government’s attitude, it is very revealing. I presume that the Government are saying that by definition any proposal for institutional change should be rejected. It is a kind of putting into law in a very rigid way the doctrine of thus far and no further. We have heard many times from the Front Bench opposite that this Government aim to be constructive in their relations with the European Union and that they see a positive role for it, but I cannot understand why a clause prevents a Minister engaging with our partners on a discussion about institutional change and whether this might in certain circumstances be acceptable. It seems to me that it will put the UK completely at odds with our partners, confirm the traditional view of Britain as an awkward partner in the European Union and, because the EU will ignore us and go ahead under enhanced co-operation, almost will the creation of a core Europe that advances with Britain in the outside lane.

I find it extraordinary, as do my colleagues, that the kind of thinking behind the Bill is that Britain should somehow be content with this creation of a core Europe of which we are not part, because as any time an institutional issue arises all that our Ministers can say is, “No”, and cannot otherwise indicate support for the proposal. Under the text of this clause we will end up with no ability on the part of Ministers to offer leadership in Europe and no ability to offer leadership at home when institutional issues are under discussion. I hope that my suspicions will be proved wrong and that in fact Ministers will be free to indicate support for measures subject to the requirements of the Bill. Otherwise, it is a denial of the leadership that we all want to see from this country. I beg to move.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I speak in support of the probing nature of this amendment and wish to ask noble Lords on the government Front Bench to give some thought to an aspect that was not precisely raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It is what I call the chicken-and-egg problem. By definition, there cannot be a decision on these matters which are taken within Lisbon unless the Council takes a unanimous decision. There will not be a decision on which the Government can hold a referendum unless they have agreed to it, so you have a chicken-and-egg problem of a massive kind. What will the Minister do in the Council? Will he say, “My lips are sealed”? In that case, it will go through because it will be considered an abstention and he will have allowed it to go through. This is a bizarre situation and I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend to bring about.

Perhaps the Minister will confirm my understanding that the Government, in giving their agreement to a unanimous decision in the Council on matters that fall within the scope of Lisbon—not changing the treaty by the intergovernmental conference route—they intend that the British Minister will say that he is agreeing to this decision and that the agreement will be formalised only when in some cases our Parliament has approved it by primary legislation, or in others there has been a referendum. However, he will agree to it in the first place, otherwise there will not be a European Union decision that can be put to a referendum and you will find yourself in a fine old tangle. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify this as I cannot believe that the Government seriously wish to put themselves in a position where they cannot even participate in the debate about a decision in Brussels because, perish the thought, what they say might be interpreted as support. Oh, terrible and fantastic—everyone will fall down at that stage.

I do not think that makes any sense, and nor do I think necessary the requirement for a referendum that the Government are trying to impose. In a later set of amendments, I will argue that that requirement is excessively imposed. It is not necessary because all those requirements can be retained without preventing the Minister in Brussels behaving in a normal, sensible way—that is, participating in the negotiations. If the British Government think that, basically, it is in our interests for that decision to go ahead, they can say that it can go ahead but that the following national processes then have to ensue. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to clarify the situation.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, for the purposes of this very narrow amendment, we accept that the Minister of the Crown cannot agree anything without a draft decision being approved by an Act of Parliament and the referendum condition being met. That means that in the case provided for in Clause 4 there is a referendum if necessary and the referendum result is positive. Most of us on this side of the House think that that is a monstrous situation to put the country in. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the amendment, we accept that and that the Government will not be able to agree to any of those decisions without a referendum or an Act of Parliament, and in many cases both.

The amendment is designed to question the words “or otherwise support”. That is why I am just as shocked as my noble friend Lord Liddle that the Government cannot accept it. What is the purpose of including “or otherwise support”? Surely, throughout the Bill the Government have been arguing to prevent this country acceding to or being party to any decision on constitutional change, such as the introduction of qualified majority voting, without going over these thresholds of Acts of Parliament and a referendum. The words “or otherwise support”, as in the text, imply that it is an additional restriction. What does that mean? We would like specific answers from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, if he is summing up the debate on the behalf of the Government. Does it mean that a Minister would not be able to say, “I personally support this but I need the agreement of my colleagues before I can go along with it.”? Is the text designed to prevent that sort of conversation taking place? Is it designed to prevent the Minister saying, “The British Government support this, amazingly, but we’ll have to have a referendum because we have imposed this Act on ourselves”? Is that what “or otherwise support” means? Does the Minister want to intervene and perhaps answer my questions?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, perhaps it will help the House if I read the wording in Section 6 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. It states:

“A Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of or otherwise support a decision under any of the following unless Parliamentary approval has been given in accordance with this section”.

In addressing that clause and in resisting the amendment of the MP for Wells, Mr Jim Murphy said:

“If the European Council sought to come to a decision based on consensus, the provision in clause 6 would mean that we would have to vote to break that consensus by not abstaining. That is the important protection contained in clause 6(1)”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/08; col. 1669.]

All that we are doing is repeating what the previous Government put in the Act that ratified the Lisbon treaty.

Perhaps it will help if I go on to explain that this does not in any way mean that a Minister or their officials cannot express support for a decision in principle, pending the completion of the process of approval provided in Clause 6.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful for that intervention, but I must say to the noble Lord—I think that he will agree in principle—that it is a very bad excuse for a Government, when bringing forward legislation, to say, “This may be bad legislation with bad wording, but we copied it from a previous Government”. That is not the way that legislation should be brought forward in this or any other House. All proposed legislation should be justified on its own merits and on its own text; the Government of the day should be prepared to defend the texts that they bring forward and should not say simply that they are reproducing what may well be the errors of the past.

I move to the text before us. It would be useful to have on the record a clear statement from the Government of what this is intended to mean to Ministers. If the Act is passed, Ministers will need to know what scope they have for taking part in discussions. If the noble Lord says that they will be allowed to say, in the example that I quoted, “I personally am in favour of this, but I do not have support yet from my colleagues so I will take it back to them”, that would be useful to know. If they will be allowed to say, “The British Government are in favour of this in principle, but we need an Act of Parliament and a referendum”, that would be a very reasonable thing to say if this Act was passed. However, it is extremely important that we get this clear.

I will explain to the noble Lord why it is so important. There is an issue of good faith. We are parties to the treaty of Lisbon. The noble Lord probably voted for the treaty, and his noble friend Lord Howell probably did not. Nevertheless, we as a country are committed to the treaty of Lisbon, and we are therefore committed to the clauses of the treaty—including Article 31(3) of the TEU, which we will debate in a moment—which provide in certain circumstances for a decision by the Council to go to qualified majority voting to reach a decision. The treaty of Lisbon provides for these possibilities, but we are coming along with a proposed Act of Parliament—a Bill—that is designed to prevent Great Britain from ever being a party to mechanisms that we signed up to when we agreed to the treaty of Lisbon. If it appears that we are going to be censoring Ministers and saying, “You cannot take part in good faith in debates and discussion, you cannot have a normal exchange of views, you cannot make statements that you are in support of things and so forth”, this would constitute a determination to make sure that our contribution in the Council will be extremely negative and unproductive.

This is a matter of good faith and is about whether the Government—we had this discussion in another context during the debate on the Bill—want to bring about deliberately a degradation in the good relations between this country and our EU partners. I trust that they do not. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said on a number of occasions that they do not and that it was quite wrong for me to harbour that black suspicion. I hope that it is quite wrong of me, but it is therefore very important to see what kind of constraint will be imposed on Ministers. I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention, which has gone some way to explaining the practical effect on a Minister of the Crown who takes part in the Council of Ministers. Anything further that he can add would be of great practical importance when Ministers find themselves in difficult situations in future discussions where they have to have regard to the Act, if it is an Act by that point.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, moved his amendment, he was careful and modest enough to say that it was a probing amendment, following which it was possibly unwise for the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to go in feet first when it was explained to him that the legislation was repeating what had been in previous legislation—apart from the referendum—and say, “That does not excuse it because it is bad legislation”. However, all the arguments that he applied about lack of flexibility surely would have applied before if his arguments were right.

18:44

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, understood what I said. I stand by it, will repeat it and will ask him whether seriously he disagrees with it. This House and any serious legislature or democratic assembly anywhere in the world should look at the text of Bills proposed to it on their merits. It is no excuse simply to say, “We are just repeating mindlessly some formula that already exists”, without being prepared to justify it.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

Yes, but the noble Lord's criticism might have been a little modified in the light of the explanation that the Minister gave, rather than being put forward in quite such an aggressive manner.

In an equally probing spirit—because I, too, would like to understand this—perhaps I might ask the Minister two questions. Is he saying, first, that there is a distinction between a draft decision and a full decision, and that a Minister could indicate an agreement in principle to a draft decision? That was what I understood happened when we debated the European financial stability mechanism—the first of the three bailout funds, if I may call them that, that were arranged—when my noble friend Lord Howell clarified a certain amount of confusion in the House. Some noble Lords thought that we were making a final decision; he made it clear that we were not, that Parliament would have to decide on the principle of the matter, and that there would be another debate later. If that is the correct example of how this operates, we can see that there would be plenty of time for flexibility and consideration.

Secondly, are the words “or otherwise support” meant to cover also a position where abstention on a decision occurs? Where there is a requirement for unanimity, abstention cannot stop a proposal going through. It may be that that, too, is covered by the words. I have seen the words of Mr Murphy that the Minister quoted, and I think that that was one of the points that he was making.

[Lord Blackwell]

My Lords, I oppose the amendment for the opposite reasons to those that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and others gave for promoting it. It is important that it is very clear that the UK Government are not enabled to support or enable moves to go forward in Europe that imply a treaty change or a substantive shift in competences, without it being very clear that the UK Government must have support in a referendum.

The issue for me is that if the words “or otherwise support” were removed from Clause 6(1), the only restriction would be on a Minister of the Crown voting in favour. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, there are many situations in which a vote may neither be required nor be part of the procedure. Simply by sitting still or abstaining, Ministers may enable something to happen that would have binding consequences for the UK. To remove the words “or otherwise support” would completely nullify the provision. The discussion has led me to wonder whether the wording goes far enough, or whether we need additional text stating “to otherwise support or allow by default” a decision to which the provision applies. I would like an assurance from the Minister that this will catch all those situations where abstention, sitting on the hands or complicity would enable decisions to move forward.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, I found that contribution extraordinary. Is the noble Lord seriously suggesting that if you sit on your hands and do nothing you are positively supporting something? Is he seriously suggesting that if the procedures are such that an abstention may produce a particular result in a vote, by engaging in that abstention and not participating in the vote one is somehow allowing it to go through? We are one country among a group and, as such, we have the options of supporting something, not supporting it or abstaining. You can decide, “I support it”, “I do not support it” or “I am not going to say whether I am going to support it or not”. The first of those is clearly support. The second is clearly not support. The third is an intermediate position which is neither support nor rejection. In those circumstances, I cannot for the life of me see how the words in the Bill can cover that intermediate position.

[Lord Blackwell]

I am suggesting that because, as the noble Lord will know, in Councils in Europe if you abstain or are simply absent from the meeting you do not prevent binding decisions being taken that would have an impact on the UK. If there is a decision about something that implies a transfer of competence from the UK of the kind that this Bill deals with, I would not want a situation where the noble Lord or a Minister representing the UK could—by simply not turning up—avoid his obligation to say to the European Union that a decision cannot go through because it is subject to a binding referendum in the UK.

[Lord Richard]

I do not want to pursue this too much, but is the noble Lord again seriously suggesting that if you do not turn up to a meeting you are supporting something? That is an extraordinary proposition.

[Lord Blackwell]

If by not turning up you allow a decision to be taken that binds the UK, you are implicitly supporting it.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

Noble Lords on all sides of the House must now surely recognise that this amendment is a mistake. I feel absolutely sure that it is an honest mistake, but it is a mistake based on a misunderstanding of the rules in the European Union. In order to work well in the European Union, you have to recognise that members come from many different states—as they have always done. In order to draw the members together so that they come to the meetings and all the rest of it, the European Union has different sorts of rules that are designed to attract them, to make absolutely sure that they come to the meetings. There are some very tough rules indeed if you do not turn up, and that is why this amendment is such a mistake. We cannot pass it because it would so gravely handicap United Kingdom Ministers in the Council of Ministers.

This way of working is commonplace throughout the European Union. If you do not turn up when it is a unanimous vote—and many votes are unanimous in different European Union institutions—you will be deemed to have agreed. That is what forces people to come from so many different nations. It is an enormous effort and very expensive for the Union and so on, so there are a number of rules that act like a magnet. This is one of them. Therefore, with the greatest respect, I suggest to noble Lords opposite—to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, for example, and others—that they should rapidly withdraw this amendment. It is a little embarrassing. If it were to go through, we would be the laughing-stock of the Council of Ministers.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I have a slightly more general question to put about a thread which is running through all our amendments and proceedings. It concerns the Government’s attitude to enhanced co-operation. We have heard much about the general position of Ministers who would find themselves isolated in the Council of Ministers because, although they might support a proposal, they would have to take it to a referendum that they might lose. That is why I ask: how serious is that, really? If nine or more countries wanted to go ahead with a proposal—it used to be eight, but I think it is now nine under the Lisbon treaty—what would be the Government’s attitude to it? How worrying is enhanced co-operation? I imagine that the Government may say that they do not particularly want a two-speed Europe. Of course, some of us would prefer a third speed or gear—a reverse gear. But it would be nice at some point during our proceedings to understand how the Government view enhanced co-operation generally.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I shall respond to the spirit of the probing amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, rightly moved. It is useful to probe on this. I do not think that I can respond to all the points that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, raised, because they seem to me to stem from a deep conspiratorial assumption about the implicit plot behind the Bill, and I suspect that reasoned argument cannot reach that deep.

I should point out that Articles 235(1) and 238(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union make it clear that abstaining in a decision requiring unanimity is effectively counted as a supportive vote, and so an abstention could be classed as supporting a decision. Those of us who have been involved in any way in Brussels decisions will know that formal voting is not the most common form of decision-making in Brussels. A great many are taken by consensus and the chair taking the sense of the meeting. That is no doubt part of the reason why the previous Government, in their wisdom—I am not saying that they were always wrong, let alone that they pursued conspiracies of their own—put in this phrase “or otherwise support”. That does not mean that a Minister cannot indicate support in principle for a decision if the Minister also gives notice that a vote in favour is subject to approval by Act of Parliament and to the referendum condition being met, if that is required by the decision.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, was determined to get enhanced co-operation into the discussion even though we are not discussing that amendment. Enhanced co-operation is under way. The British Government are indeed involved in the process of enhanced co-operation on patent law. We do not believe that Britain will become more marginal because enhanced co-operation takes place among others. After all, if one looks at what is happening with European co-operation in defence, one will see that the United Kingdom and France are, in effect, leading in defining practical co-operation in that regard. The myth behind the Bill—that we will somehow be pushed to the margin, which the noble Lord thinks is a good thing but the noble Lord, Lord Davies, thinks is a wicked thing—is not the case. In an EU of 27, which is about to be an EU of 28, 29 or 30, it is likely that there will be a number of issues on which smaller groups—which will often including the United Kingdom, though sometimes not—will move ahead on their own through enhanced co-operation. In most cases that will not require treaty change. They will merely be moving ahead because it is not possible for all 27, 28, 29 or 30 to agree. Therefore, that will not be caught by the Bill.

[Lord Liddle]

If Britain agreed to enhanced co-operation but the member states participating in enhanced co-operation then decided under the provisions of the Lisbon treaty to change the decision-making process to qualified majority voting, would the Bill cover the situation?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

As a hypothetical situation, at that point it would because it would be a change in power and competence. The enhanced co-operation itself would not. That is the distinction. Let me reiterate: a Minister can make very clear that the Government support a decision but that they must also seek the necessary approval of Parliament and the public first. Britain is not alone in this respect. This is the way in which national Governments very often have to proceed.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Now that Minister has dealt with enhanced co-operation, can he go back to the chicken and the egg? It would be quite nice to know how he thinks the Council will conduct itself in taking decisions in this matter. This is nothing whatever to do with absence from the Council, which is a complete red herring. This is about what you do in a matter that requires unanimity. Without unanimity, there is no decision in any of the matters that we are talking about. I think that that is common to the understanding of everyone in the House. How is that unanimity achieved so that the British Government can submit the matter to their Parliament or to the public through a referendum if they have not expressed a view, because then there is no unanimity? There is a serious chicken and egg problem here.

19:00

This is a probing matter. There are, for example, very well known procedures in Brussels, which I suspect the Government would take advantage of in circumstances such as this, whereby the Council would indicate that it could only reach political agreement on this occasion and that legal force could not be given to it through an A-point in the Council, or whatever, until the British Government had passed legislation, had a referendum, or whatever. If that is what the noble Lord is getting at, I have to say that the wording, including the wording that he quoted from Lisbon, is a long way adrift from that and will cause Ministers considerable difficulties if this becomes law. I hope very much that he will now be able to clarify whether we are talking about political agreement, which of course involves support—you cannot have political agreement without support—or legal agreement, because the British Government would be prevented from giving their legal agreement to the matter.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this is not entirely new. We all understand that Her Majesty's Government have often said in Brussels that they can make only partial agreements, subject to a parliamentary scrutiny reserve. That is the normal way in which we proceed. The noble Lord is very experienced in this regard and will recall a number of instances in which decisions have had to be taken with parliamentary scrutiny reserves on board.

On the requirements of Clause 6, we are, after all, talking about the consequences of joining in with unanimity decisions that will involve the transfer of power and competences. That is the “added” part. Otherwise, the complex negotiating processes of Brussels, in which a number of noble Lords here are extremely expert, will continue with Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of a number of other member states saying that they can agree to something only subject to later parliamentary approval. That is the established practice of the Germans, the Danes, us, the Finns and others. The Bill might not be as elegant as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, would like, but it merely restates the familiar circumstances from the Lisbon treaty ratification Act.

[Lord Tomlinson]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but he leaves me rather confused. I try to think of the big picture all the time. Here we are trying to inspire the British people, to eliminate their scepticism about Europe, and to get them to love Europe and to feel connected to it. How on earth do some of the things that the Minister is talking about make a single contribution towards that process? He makes the British Parliament sound more bureaucratic than the worst European bureaucrat.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I simply do not accept what the noble Lord has said. I have been quoting from an Act from the last Government—his Government and that of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, who was a Minister in it and who has now rubbished it. The Bill restates established practice, which in no way means that the British national media will—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I suggest that the reference to a scrutiny reserve is not quite right. A scrutiny reserve prevents a decision being taken, so the decision is not taken until the scrutiny reserve is lifted or the Minister goes into the statistics of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and decides that he will override the reserve and does not apply it any more. There is no decision until the scrutiny reserve has been dealt with, so the chicken and egg point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, is real. I hope that we do not need to pursue it much further tonight, but it does need to be thought about.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am very willing to reflect on this point and see whether we can return to the House with any words of comfort, but I fear that we are chasing headless chickens around the yard a little. I will leave it to others to decide whether the eggs are headless as well.

To conclude, we are not the only Government who—I will give way once more to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, but I hope that if he wants to criticise me in future, which he is very welcome to do, he will do so on the basis of what I actually said and not on what I have not said. I did not rubbish the Government of whom I was proud to be a member; I said that this was a general principle that applies to the Minister today and that applied to me when I was a Minister. If you bring forward a Bill in this House or the other House, you must be expected to defend the text on its own merits. It is no excuse to say simply that you are replicating text from the past. That was the point that I made. I made no normative statement about the text at all in that context; I simply made that general principle clear.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I thank the noble Lord for making that so wonderfully clear.

I hope I have managed to persuade your Lordships that there is no sinister intent behind these words. They are not part of a dreadful right-wing Conservative plot, so there is no need to add the qualification that Amendment 32A would require. May I also say, since the Daily Express has been running a range of quite absurd stories—the latest being that government buildings are being forced to fly the EU flag—that we must recognise that we are operating in a world in which, for many years, previous Governments have failed to stand up to some of the complete nonsense that has spread through the British press. Unfortunately, we now find more and more nonsense spreading, and part of what this coalition Government intend to do is to spell out the advantages to Britain of being in the European Union in order to get back at some of the nonsense put out by the Daily Express, which unfortunately, as noble Lords will know, is no longer part of the Press Complaints Commission process and so the commission has very few controls over what it puts out, but that is another matter.

We will take this matter away and look at it again. However, as I say, the words used in the Lisbon treaty amendment Act were there for a good reason, and the words used here are also here for a good reason. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Before the Minister sits down, may I be allowed to put in a word on behalf of the Daily Express, about which he has not been wholly polite? Millions of people in this country actually welcome the campaign to leave the European Union which the Daily Express has started—it is the first national newspaper to have done so. Whatever noble and Europhile Lords might feel about the Daily Express, I would at least like to put in a word on behalf of the rest of us.

[Lord Tomlinson]

Before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that these millions of people who follow the Daily Express campaign with such avidity brought such success to UKIP in the local elections?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I apologise for introducing this tangential issue into the debate on the amendment, and I really do think it is time for the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, to respond.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, we are in Committee and it is not necessary for noble Lords to interrupt or question the Minister on the basis that he has not yet sat down when in fact he has. It is in the power of noble Lords to intervene at any time unless there is closure or we have become fed up with discussing the issue. Now that I am doing so, I have just one final question.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, appears to think that transferring a matter from one Bill, whether it is by a previous Government or a sitting Government, to another is out of order. Transferring that item from a Bill by the previous Government in relation to the very important Lisbon treaty is the sensible thing to do because it brings forward the protection that that Government made to this Government, who, by agreeing to it, confirm that it is good for Parliament and is proper to have in the Bill.

[Lord Radice]

I should like to raise a matter of pure curiosity. Did the previous Government’s Bill refer to a referendum, as does this clause?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I suspect that the noble Lord may know the answer to that. As I have made clear, when we are not discussing questions of the transfer of power and competence, these questions do not apply. As for the parliamentary scrutiny reserve, these questions occasionally do apply. As the noble Lord will be aware, the thrust of this Bill is partly to respond to those who fear that the European Union much prefers to talk about process, competences and institutions than about policy and outcomes. We want a European Union which focuses on policy and constructive outcomes and does not spend too much time focusing on institutions.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, of course this side of the House will not pursue this amendment and we will withdraw it. Before I withdraw it formally, I should say that I am very glad that we have put forward this amendment because it has raised some interesting points. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has not been adequately answered by the Government. In this discussion, we also have had a first: it is the first time since we started Committee stage that the Government have said that they might go away and look at something, which is quite remarkable. We have been passing rather like ships in the night.

The government Benches on the one hand and the Opposition and opinion generally throughout the House on the other hand have been talking, although not really engaging. This is the first time that the Government have said that they will consider the wording. I should have thought that if the need is to find a form of words to cover the agreement on a consensus without a vote one could find more specific words than “or otherwise support”. I see no objection to adding something on the lines of what is suggested in Amendment 32A in order to make clear that this is not intended to be a restraint on Ministers.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

Is it not proper for this Bill and, therefore, this Government to use the correct wording found in the Lisbon treaty? That is exactly where the wording comes from.

[Lord Liddle]

The noble Baroness may have a point—and she may not. I would prefer that in legislation before this House we use words which are clear as to their meaning. I have the greatest respect for Jim Murphy who is one of the most talented people in today’s Labour Party. The fact that the Minister has managed, with the help of his civil servants, to dig up one of his quotations does not put me off at all. I think that better wording could be found than that which is in this amendment.

The fact that the Government have said that they might go away and consider the wording perhaps shows that there is something about the spirit of Schuman Day; namely, that we are prepared on Schuman Day to be a little more positive in considering reasonable points about this Bill. In withdrawing the amendment, I hope we are clear that this is not a Bill which will turn our Ministers into people who have no alternative but to say no in European meetings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 29A withdrawn.

19:15

Amendment 30

Moved by

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

30: Clause 6, page 4, line 33, leave out “to which this subsection applies” and insert “under Article 140(3) of TFEU which would make the euro the currency of the United Kingdom”

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, I should like to start by offering an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for something I misheard on our second day in Committee. I was not here on the third day and this is my first opportunity to correct that which I misheard. After I had spoken, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said:

“Is it not true that none”,

of the judges of the Court of Justice,

“would pass muster as a judge in even the lowest and least distinguished of British courts?”.

I thought that that was an assertion and I did not reply because I did not think that it deserved a reply. But on looking in Hansard I see that it was a question. I apologise for mishearing the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and for not answering his question. Clearly, the ears of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, are better than mine and he spotted that it was a question. He began his subsequent remarks by saying that,

“the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is not going to answer”.—[Official Report, 26/4/11; col. 90.]

As a result of what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said and that reply, I feel that it is necessary for me to say that my silence did not in any way imply assent. I feel that it is important to put into the record what I think about the judges of the court, of whom I have known about 12 or 14. In this House, there will be some who remember with respect and affection Lord Mackenzie-Stuart. There will be many of us who would wish that Sir David Edward was here with us. The present judge from the UK, Judge Schiemann, is an immensely distinguished jurist with, behind him, I think, nine years in the High Court, eight years in the Appeal Court and seven in the Court of Justice. And all of us will remember the contributions that Lord Slynn of Hadley used to make from these Benches to our debate. These four men have been British justices in the Court of Justice and to none of them, by any stretch of the imagination, could the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, apply.

I greatly admire the imaginative and irrepressible verve that the noble Lord brings to our debates but it is really important that we should not make absurd allegations about a serious institution and serious people. I thought that it was important to set the record straight and to say what I would have said had I not misheard the noble Lord at the time. I hope that the Government Front Bench will confirm now, as I am sure that it would have done had I not misheard, that it agrees with me and not with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on the quality of the judges of the Court of Justice.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I do not know how many of the legal luminaries to which the noble Lord has just referred are present members of the Luxembourg court. I would merely say that those of us of a Eurosceptic bent do not really regard the Luxembourg court as a court of law at all. We regard it as the engine of the treaties, endlessly pursuing, in its judgment, the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe.

I do not think it was the Luxembourg court, but we owe it to the Daily Express, which recently ran a two-page spread complete with colour photographs, to see a summary of the members of the Strasbourg court. I do not think that they pass muster either. Of course, if there is a judge in the Luxembourg court who would pass the muster which I have suggested he may not, then I am happy to apologise to him, or indeed to several of them. But that does not alter my strictures and the strictures of the Eurosceptic movement in this country regarding the Luxembourg court and its proposals over the years. One thinks again of Article 308 as it then was, and other flexibility clauses in the treaty, which it has used and adapted relentlessly to pursue the project of European integration.

Those are my comments and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for his apology.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. Unless I misheard again, the noble Lord did not end his remarks with a question, so I am not going to respond except to say that the Strasbourg court is, of course, elected by parliamentarians. I do not think that the Strasbourg court has anything to do with this discussion, which is about the European Court of Justice, but I am grateful for the words of apology from the noble Lord.

I turn to Amendment 30. Here in Clause 6 we are in a different part of the forest. We have abandoned treaty land and treaty amendment by any form, and now we are into decisions of various kinds and the mandatory referendum requirements for those decisions. By definition we have therefore left coalition agreement territory because we are not talking about treaties any more. We are now dealing with the 56 categories of decision on which a mandatory referendum could overturn an Act of Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out at the start of the Committee, that would be unprecedented. These referenda are entirely unnecessary because a Government, if they wished, could always choose to say no in the Council. The law requiring referenda is particularly unnecessary because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out during the third day of debate, not having a reference in the Bill to a particular requirement for a referendum does not mean that a Government could not, on the day, choose to say that they wanted to have one. All this does is tie the Government’s hands, which of course some would want to do.

Why have we got into this curious mess in these extraordinarily detailed thickets—and we have not yet looked at Schedule 1 where mandatory requirements are to be imposed? I can think of only two rationales. The first was the one that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, talked about in a different context during the third Committee day. It might be called the Odysseus rationale. We would have a British Minister, let us say the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, sailing past Brussels and insisting that he be tied to the mast so that he cannot be lured by the siren voices with their seductive song. He wants to be able to say, “Look, guys, I have nothing against what you are saying, but I can’t possibly agree with you. If I did, we would have to have a referendum back home”. It is the wax in the ears and tied to the mast provision—the Odysseus provision. I think that it is very pusillanimous. I would have found it very hard to brief Mrs Thatcher, as Prime Minister, on this point. Mrs Thatcher thought that if you disagreed with something, you disagreed with it. You said no. You did not say, “I am terribly sorry. There is nothing much we can do about this because we would have to have a referendum and we do not want one”.

It is insulting to our negotiating partners to turn up tied to the mast. They expect to do serious business, but the Brits cannot do so because of this Act on the statute book. The Brits therefore cannot take part in negotiations. It will feed the temptation and tendency for people to do things in smaller groups without consulting us because we are such a bore.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. According to his argument, Ministers will be put in a position where they have to say, “I cannot agree because we will have to have a referendum”. Why is he assuming that a referendum cannot be won? Why is it not possible for a Minister to say, “I agree to the draft decision. We will put it to the people and we hope and intend to win”?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

That is a fair question in relation to, say, the euro, which is the subject of Amendment 30. If we were to decide that we wished to join the euro, it would be totally reasonable for the Minister—I would like to see the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in this role—to say to his ECOFIN colleagues, “We would now like to join the euro, but this is a big one and I am afraid that we will have to have a referendum on the issue”.

[Lord Gilbert]

Forgive me for being impertinent, but could the noble Lord define his pronouns? He said, “If we were to decide”. Who are the “we” he is referring to?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The British Government of the day. My point, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, is that when you look at the sort of decisions in Clause 6, they are the kind which the British public are not going to be remotely interested in. The public prosecutor and all that is not referendum stuff. It is therefore particularly difficult to play the Odysseus rationale because everyone knows that you are not going to have that referendum. You are going to block the decision in Brussels in order to postpone sine die the referendum. That will be the effect of what you say.

There is a second possible rationale, which is the one we hear from time to time from the Government Front Bench, usually in the context of the treaty. It is the one that particularly worries me. I think it worries the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and everyone who knows about the way in which opinion in Brussels is moving now. It is the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, comes up with when he says, for example:

“The picture of a dribble of referenda on small issues completely misunderstands the way in which the European process works now or will work in the future, whether this Bill is on our statute book or not. I have obviously explained that insufficiently because the message has not got over, but as we continue our debates I hope to be able to make clear that the pattern will not be dissimilar to the pattern of the big treaty packages in the past”.—[Official Report, 3/5/11; col. 369.]

There is a worrying misunderstanding here. In Brussels, everyone is determined that there should be a discontinuity. Everyone is determined to break with big treaty packages. That has been true for 10 years and it is why the convention invented the passarelle. Why do people want to avoid big treaty packages? If efficiency is your criterion, it is more efficient to make a change when the need arises. It is not very efficient to put the change in a hover and say, “We’ll wait for the next big package”. It is more transparent and democratic to give member states the right to agree or disagree with single specific decisions. It is good to get away from the awful IGC business of trade-offs, where people do a market haggle and things go into treaties which some would say should not be there in order to buy somebody else. The issues should be considered separately and on their merits, and they will be in future. That is why the convention produced the ideas that it did about accelerated methods of treaty reform—and passerelles in relation to decisions that do not require treaty reform.

19:31

The really sinister reading of the Minister’s repetition of this argument is that he is not describing—he knows that that is not the way it is in Brussels—but he is prescribing; he wants that to be the way it is going to be in Brussels. He may want to hold things up. He may want the EU to become inflexible and more brittle. He may want referenda always to be held on mixed bags of issues, making them even more arcane and unsuitable to a single yes/no answer. I cannot think of a third explanation. The rationale for Clause 6, which we are told is all about trust, is either distrust of ourselves—the Odysseus explanation—or distrust of reform, a feeling that all changes must be for the worse.

Amendment 30 is a simple amendment which accepts that, for the euro, there is a requirement for a national referendum. It also suggests that there should be no requirement, other than for treaty reform, for a referendum on anything else. If the amendment, which stands in my name among others, is carried, we will have accepted that there should be referenda for treaty reform, and now for the euro, but not for the thickets or plethora of decisions which we are about to go into. I beg to move.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, it is quite difficult in this debate not to get drawn into some sort of Second Reading speech when we have amendments, such as those of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, which basically fillet the whole Bill and seem designed to ensure that it does not have the effect that was originally intended.

I am always amazed when I listen to people supporting these sorts of amendments that they do not seem to realise how totally disillusioned the British people are with our progress as we creep, by grandmother’s footsteps, further and further into an integrated Europe which nobody really wants. I rather liked the analogy of Odysseus being strapped to the mast with wax in his ears, because we should remember that the reason why that happened was so that he would not hear the sirens’ songs and be dashed on the rocks. I hope that our Ministers will be strapped to the mast with wax in their ears because we will otherwise be merely drawn further and further into Europe and into an integration that people in this country do not want. I sincerely hope that we will oppose these amendments, which seem to be designed precisely to remove what the Bill is trying to do, which is to reassure the British people that we will not be drawn any further into Europe by this rather surreptitious process that has been going on under successive Governments for many years now and has led to a great sense of disillusion among the British people.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I shall speak to a number of the amendments in the group which are in my name and support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, got in ahead of me, because he has enabled me to realise that he has neither understood what the amendments are trying to do nor understood what they are not trying to do. So I shall try, since that is the spirit of Committee stage, to say a little bit about them.

I hope that I shall not be totally out of order if I express some regret that so many of these amendments have been bundled together when they are completely contradictory. There are amendments in the group which add more to the list of 56 referendums with which we are threatened and there are amendments, such as those which I support, which subtract. They are not two branches of the same subject; they are two completely contrary views of how to pursue Britain’s national interest in Brussels. However, having said that, I am happy to address all the amendments, particularly those in my name.

The reasons that we have to take seriously the need to reduce the number of subjects on which there might be referendums are numerous. The proponents of the legislation have simply ignored the views of the Constitution Committee of this House. I have not heard a single word from the government Benches answering the committee’s report in which it said that referendums should be used in the EU context only when matters of major constitutional importance are at stake. I shall not go through the whole list in Clause 6 to show which matters are and are not—most are not—covered by that; the euro clearly is, which is why there is no question of trying to suggest there should not be a referendum on that matter. However, that is one reason for shortening the list.

The other is that if you have 56 items—or, as some speakers on later amendments in this group will no doubt urge, more than 56 items—which could trigger referendums, you are chopping at the base of representative parliamentary democracy and the sovereignty of Parliament, because you are handing over huge chunks of it to a different process which does not involve Parliament. That is another reason for cutting down. A further reason for taking this matter seriously, as I hope the Government will, is that given by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. So far, the Government’s response to these criticisms of this great cascade of potential referendums has been totally inadequate. Their response has been what is now described in the argot as “Calm down, dear”. They say, “Don’t worry, it won’t happen. None of these things will happen”. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, said the other day that there will not be all these decisions in Brussels that require referendums; they will all be bundled together into a big package. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, that is fundamentally against Britain’s interests. I do not wish to accelerate construction of a large institutional package of measures of the sort that was passed in the form of the Single European Act or Maastricht or Lisbon. It is not in our interests to do that, but that is precisely what we will end up doing. Alternatively, and it is really quite serious, we will end up having serial blocking in Brussels, which is what I think some noble Lords opposite would like; that is, when each decision comes forward, the British Minister will block it because they will not want to have a referendum on it, either for opportunistic reasons or for perfectly substantial principled reasons. Together, they will all add up to a situation in which Britain’s good faith will be queried. Our partners will then be propelled either into the large package, which is not in our interest, or into enhanced co-operation. By definition, since we are talking about matters that require unanimity, they will have been brought around the Council table to a point at which 27 of them—or more if there are more members of the Union than now—have said that they are prepared to go ahead and one, Britain, has blocked it. That is the absolute perfect building block for enhanced co-operation—for marginalising ourselves and being completely ineffective. Therefore, I am arguing that we truncate the list of matters on which there should be a referendum.

I now turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. This is certainly not removing the whole meaning of this legislation. No one from these Benches is contesting the completely new innovation; namely, that the Government will submit to a referendum any measure that is negotiated in an intergovernmental conference and results in a new treaty or a treaty amendment reached through intergovernmental conference. That is the meaning of Clause 2. No one is contesting that. No one is contesting the referendum on the euro. Those of us who are moving amendments in this block need to be clear about what we are not doing as well as what we are doing.

Thirdly, we are not challenging the coalition agreement in any way, which merely stated that there would be a referendum on treaty change. No one here is contesting that. It is probably not formally covered by the Salisbury convention, but the Government have a majority in the other place and have the right to have their legislation. However, the Government have added a huge amount to that coalition agreement in this case and these amendments address that. That is why we should take them seriously.

Finally, these amendments do not take us back to the position that this Parliament agreed when it ratified Lisbon. At that time, it subjected these matters—the Article 48(6) matters and the passerelles and so forth—to resolutions in the two Houses but not to primary legislation. In the Bill, the Government are introducing a requirement for primary legislation in all these matters and some others too which are not required for referendum. None of these amendments contests that shift, which is a shift to increased power for the Westminster Parliament in ratifying things agreed in Brussels. That is not being contested.

Those three things that are not being contested are important to understand as well as those things that are being contested, which I argue are also important. I hope that these amendments can be treated seriously and not considered to be wrecking amendments. They are not wrecking amendments. If the Bill is passed with these amendments it would still be a major constitutional innovation in this country. It would still institutionalise the holding of a referendum whenever an intergovernmental treaty were agreed in Brussels.

No one should try to tell those of us who tabled these amendments that we are not accepting the spirit in which the coalition was founded and the spirit in which Parliament conducts its business. The amendments are perfectly legitimate. They would put Britain in a much stronger position in Brussels because Ministers will still have to say, “I can give only political agreement to this unanimity requirement. I cannot give legal agreement to it. Before I can give legal agreement to it I must go back to London and seek an Act of Parliament to enable me to give legal agreement to it”. That is how these amendments will leave the situation.

That is a strong position for a British Minister. But it does not involve a whole cascade of referendums. I believe, along with others, that it is frankly a sick joke to suggest that this will improve Britain's relations with its partners in the European Union. Alas would it were so, but it will not. It will organise a whole series of difficult moments which may well lead to our marginalisation. We all know from last week that that is what referendums are in this country. They are confrontations between two schools of thought. They are bitter and lead to hard feelings.

Anyone who tells me that organising a series of referendums in this country will improve the way that people think of the European Union cannot be stating that with any seriousness of purpose. It cannot be so. We have all known in the history of Britain's membership of the European Union that when we get into a confrontation over European issues, support for Europe drops sharply. When we have a period of relative calm and tranquillity and of reaching agreement in Brussels in a sensible way, sometimes striking compromises, support rises. Please do not tell us that this Bill will improve support for the European Union in this country. It will have the exact opposite effect.

19:46

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

My Lords, I oppose the amendment put forward by the noble Lord. My reasons are not in spirit different from those of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick. I wish this Bill to succeed and I wish to reconnect the British public with the European Union movement of legislation and with what happens with our Members of the European Parliament and Ministers. But I profoundly agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton at Epsom, that these amendments would hollow out the Bill completely. The noble Lord and I might differ on other things to do with the Bill, but I agree that these amendments would have a completely negative effect. We would be left with a hollowed-out Bill that simply would not be worth putting before Parliament again.

Indeed, if I can tweak the noses of some of the noble Lords opposite, if we agreed these amendments we would be left with merely a referendum on the euro, which I understand is what the previous legislation from the Opposition put forward, whereas other points in that legislation were not acceptable.

The amendments in this particular group go right against the philosophy of the Bill itself. As a former Member of the European Parliament, it is galling indeed for MEPs to receive something between 30 per cent and 35 per cent of the vote. It is shameful and shows how weak successive Governments have been in putting European Union thinking, philosophy and practices—good or bad, positive or less than positive—in front of the British people, who are the ultimate deciders. We have failed as Members of this House and of the other House, and other member states have not had that failure. I put that point forward previously.

The common purpose of this Bill, for those of us who support it, is to regain not just the trust but the knowledge base that the British people used to have so many years ago with the first referendum in the early 1970s. A huge amount of work was put forward by those who opposed membership and those who supported it. The result was that on the table was a mass of information about what grew to be the European Union. Indeed, looking back at those speeches reminds one of the profundity of the knowledge base put forward by different Members of both Houses of our Parliament.

The curious thing about these amendments—

[Lord Tomlinson]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, but when she romanticises about the 1975 referendum, would she perhaps reflect that it was a rather shoddy device from the Labour Party, to which I belonged at that time, and the House of Commons? That party did not have a decisive policy in relation to Europe, and this was the shoddy compromise to make sure that we got away with it.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I am perhaps just a few days younger than the noble Lord. What I recall as a campaigner with my father, my uncles and my cousins, was that we wanted to put forward the maximum amount of knowledge to the voters. All I am suggesting—and I think, correctly, that it is evidence based—is that the information flow is now so weak that nobody in the United Kingdom knows very much about the European Union at all. Indeed, the level of ignorance is shameful and it has to be put down to us in Parliament and to successive Governments. We have the knowledge and we should be putting it forward. The core purpose of this Bill is to reconnect—to use that wording again—with the British public, to bring the knowledge base forward. I suggest that these amendments would destroy that purpose, and that is not a proper thing to do. The public have a right to know, and if we do not tell them they cannot know.

The curious thing about the amendments is their self-contradictory terms and the disparity in what they seek to achieve. Some amendments propose to extend referendum provision to common fisheries policies, rights of citizens and the ECHR, which is outside the parameters of this Bill. The Bill does not transfer those powers or competences from the UK to the EU, so it is a very curious set of amendments.

The amendment that troubles me most of all is the one that would remove our capability to stop qualified majority voting with the veto for areas in common foreign and security policy. I hardly need to remind the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that Article 42(2) of the treaty of Lisbon states:

“The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides”.

Here I refer to Amendment 28A, which would remove our capacity to stop that happening sometimes. Article 42(2) goes on to say:

“It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with … constitutional requirements”.

In other words, I am talking about irreversible decisions to transfer power and/or competences from the UK to the EU on issues such as a common EU defence policy—for example, with a European army, whereby the UK might lose its freedom to decide if and when we send our troops. There would have been no Libya; we would have had to wait for the Italians to agree, for example. Do those who propose the amendments recognise that that is what could very easily happen? A move to qualified majority voting from the veto on any important policy area in part 3 of the TFEU is set out in Schedule 1 on the common foreign security policy, enlargement and direct taxation. These are traditional red lines for us and these amendments would destroy our position.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am a bit puzzled by the noble Baroness’s line of questioning over whether those of us who tabled amendments, including myself, understood that point. Of course we understand that it would require, as she read out, a unanimous decision, including the British Government’s decision, to do that. Nobody doubts that; it means to say that there are no circumstances in which we could be forced to take that decision against our will, and nobody is suggesting that we should. I do not really see what the issue at stake is in that matter. It requires unanimity, like everything else in this part of the Bill. The assumption appears to be—and perhaps it is shared by the noble Baroness—that we are legislating for some weak-kneed, limp-wristed British Government of the future, who will simply give everything away and collapse in a heap. I can see noble Lords’ heads nodding—and there you are. You have proved beyond peradventure that you are trying to break one of the rules of the British constitution that one Parliament does not legislate for another.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

The point of my remarks is very simple. I believe most profoundly, along with a number of others who support the Bill, that that is exactly the sort of transfer of sovereignty—absolutely au fond the transfer of real sovereignty of the kind that matters most of all to us, which is our defence—which should surely be put in front of the British people. I refer to the making of a common defence and security policy. Let us take Amendment 28A; let us recall that the Council of Ministers and the European Council and the institutions of the European Union in their wisdom can make unanimous decisions without many people being present—not only without ourselves being present but without others who would agree with us and are also members of NATO, for example. So we can have a unanimous decision without core members of NATO being present. Those are common defence and security policy issues. I believe most powerfully that that is the fundamental transfer of real sovereignty, which puts many other things in the pale. It really matters.

I would be aghast if that happened through the mechanism that the Government have put forward in this Bill, which is a good Bill and not a great constitutional Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, suggested. I do not think it is that at all; it is a very good, solid, small and middle-of-the-road Bill, which opens the door for us to speak directly to the British public. I cannot help but feel that if we close the door again, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and his colleagues would recommend, and put down a referendum merely on the euro, which it is extremely unlikely that we will ever join—look at Greece, for a start—and we do not have referenda, it will all be done by Twitter anyway. It will all be done on the web. This mass of knowledge base that the public have will be expressed in another way, and our Parliament will become ever more excluded from what in effect will be the national debate.

My only point is a simple one. The integrity of the Bill is demonstrated by the linkage with the people. The only way in which we as parliamentarians can offer the people a true linkage is by referendum power. I was interested and pleased to see—result or no result—that 42 per cent of the electorate turned out on the referendum last Thursday. People want to express their views. They want to be asked; if they are given the knowledge, they will respond. They are very used to it these days—are not we all, with iPhones and so on? It is most foolish and self-defeating to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, did, that these amendments, which are in many ways contradictory, as I have already pointed out—some going too far and some not going far enough; in that sense they are really wide of the mark in some respects—do not remove the context in which the Bill is based and would not be foolish in terms of Britain’s future.

[Lord Goodhart]

My Lords, I am entirely in disagreement with what my noble friend has been saying. This Bill is full of absurdities, and the most absurd of those is that referendums will have to be held for changes in 56 sets of EU rules, even if they are minor changes that are of no particular interest to members of the public.

There is a large number of these possible proceedings, listed especially in Clause 6 and Schedule 1. Of these, only one—the decision to make the euro the currency of the United Kingdom—would clearly justify a referendum. In practice, it is inconceivable that there will be any decision to seek to make our currency the euro. It is arguable that a decision under the Schengen protocol to remove UK border controls would also justify a referendum, but none of the other matters in the Bill does so.

20:00

Let me give an example. There are references in Clause 6 and Schedule 1 to a body called the “European Public Prosecutor’s Office”. That is the subject of my Amendments 36 and 42, which are in this group. The EPPO does not yet exist and may never exist, but under Article 86 of TFEU it could be created. The EPPO would then be responsible for,

“investigating, prosecuting and bring to judgment … offences against the Union’s financial interests … in the … courts of the Member States”.

The powers of the EPPO could be extended to include,

“serious crime having a cross-border dimension”.

I do not at present wish to support the extension of an EPPO to the United Kingdom but it may be accepted by other member states, provided that at least nine states join in.

It is possible that the EPPO might prove to be a useful and effective organisation and a future Government might wish to join it. The powers of an EPPO are not unimportant and an Act of Parliament would be justified, but why go on to a referendum? How many citizens of the United Kingdom would be affected, as individuals, by the EPPO? How many might be charged with,

“offences against the Union’s financial interests”?

Hardly any; if anyone is prosecuted by the EPPO, it will probably be bankers or fraudsters. How many might be prosecuted for,

“serious crime having a cross-border dimension”?

Again, it would be only a few corporate bodies or fraudsters. A referendum on the EPPO would be of far less interest to the public than any on a Bill to, let us say, reconstruct the National Health Service, which is not going to be the subject of a referendum.

Referendums are also expensive. The cost of the AV referendum will be large but a referendum under this Bill will cost even more because it will be harder to couple it with parliamentary or local government elections, unless it is decided that it must be delayed for up to a year until we have the next electoral event. Not just one on the EPPO but any referendum under this Bill, except for those on joining the euro or opening the borders, would frankly attract very few votes. It would be a waste of time and money and attract a minimum of people. Almost all the other provisions in Clause 6 do no more than refer to the possibility of qualified majority voting or the substituting of the ordinary legislative procedure for a special legislative procedure—that is, that the special procedure will be replaced by the ordinary procedure. These matters are suitable for decision by Parliament but are patently inappropriate for referendums.

I finish with a statement contained in a government hymn-sheet which was circulated among my Liberal Democrat colleagues a few days ago. Referring to the group which we are now debating, it says:

“This goes against the whole purpose and philosophy of the Bill. It only—cynically—leaves the referendum provisions for the euro, and so returns to the dreadful political status quo”.

There is nothing whatever that is cynical in those of us who object to referendums when they would be inappropriate, or who believe that it is not the status quo but the proposals in the Bill which would be dreadful.

[Lord Tomlinson]

My Lords, I take great pleasure in following the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He dealt with that specific example of the European public prosecutor's office and quite rightly pointed out, rather rhetorically, how many would be affected. My question is: how many would care? In addition to his views that it would be a waste of time and money, I have one much more serious complaint about it. It would be the greatest democratic turn-off that we could have and would encourage a process of non-participation in public decision-making. Our democracy is in sufficient difficulty without us placing additional obstacles between the success of our democratic systems and the use of so-called democracy through referenda on many of these trivial issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, spoke earlier about disillusioned citizens. My view is that Clause 6 drives a coach and horses through any sensible concept of parliamentary democracy. I can conceive of little that would more enrage our people than to see Parliament surrender its powers on anything other than the most serious constitutional issues in which the people ought to be engaged. We proudly go out and talk to all sorts of people about being the mother of Parliaments. I feel that with Clause 6 as it is, a lot of people might be tempted to question the paternity.

The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, reminded us that she has been a Member of the European Parliament. I remind your Lordships that I, too, spent 15 years in the European Parliament. To the best of my knowledge and belief, nobody at any time during those 15 years raised any of the subjects in Schedule 1, demanding to have a say in resolving such decisions.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I cannot raise the question of age discrimination, because that is now illegal, but might it be a little before my time that the noble Lord was in the European Parliament, and that, for example, the section which I have just quoted from the treaty of Lisbon is entirely new? The noble Lord might realise that things have changed.

[Lord Tomlinson]

I am glad that the noble Baroness felt it necessary to point that out. However, since I left the European Parliament, I have had the privilege of representing your Lordships’ House in the Convention on the Future of Europe, which kept me a little abreast of some of the things that were going on. There is an idea that any one of the subjects listed in Schedule 1 is appropriate for public engagement through a referendum, in the hope that that will then provide the missing link to inspire the people of Britain in relation to Europe, but not one of them has that inspirational quality. If we are going to inspire people about Europe, as I said at Second Reading but will not repeat now, we have to address the issues of great concern: the environment, what we are doing on world poverty, the role of Europe in the world, and the things which we do together and which have created success, rather than engage them with every bit of trivia that we can imagine. In terms of referenda subjects, that is what Schedule 1 is.

As regards how we are going to behave, we have 56 areas of decision-making where referenda could overturn the wish of what we have always thought of as a sovereign Parliament. What are we really going to be saying to our negotiating partners? Will it be, “We’re really in favour of this measure but we can’t vote for it because we’re not allowed”, or, “If we give you a nod and a wink about being in favour of it, we have to put down a formal disclaimer? We certainly can’t abstain because that will be interpreted as support”. That will really be inspirational and reconnect the British people with decisions on Europe.

What will we in fact find ourselves doing? Rather than abstaining and giving reasoned objections, as regards many of the 56 areas of decision it will be easier and less absurd for a Government to vote against and to deny progress. In consequence, we will be marginalised in Europe, with other countries making each of the decisions that they need to in their national interest. We will be the defenders of their national self-interest by having created conditions that we cannot possibly fulfil.

We should be sensible about the Bill. I am not one who wants to make modest amendments to it; I think that it is a shoddy and shabby Bill that serves no useful purpose to the body politic and has no benefit of engagement, apart from to half a dozen anoraks in the odd referendum that there might be. If we really want to serve the British people, we will get rid of the Bill, and if we cannot do that, we should produce at least half a dozen sensible amendments that take the guts out of it, particularly Clause 6.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that it is a pity that so many of these amendments have been lumped together; it would have better if they had been somewhat disaggregated. We are talking more about Clause 6 than about Schedule 1, and whatever the objections in general to the Bill and the things listed in Schedule 1, I find it difficult to understand why people do not regard Clause 6 as eminently reasonable. That clause is about a substantial increase in competence and transfers of power.

All the areas listed are where Britain has special arrangements or opt-outs. It is true that they do not require treaty change but they are none the less significant and affect us in different ways, so, given the Bill, it is logical that they should be subject to the referendum provisions. Those issues include the euro, the European army that was referred to, border controls and the European public prosecutor. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, with great respect, as I always do, but I think that the establishment of the European public prosecutor is actually a very big issue, one that would be suitable to have a referendum on. I shall say a bit about that in a minute.

An argument was put forward from the Benches opposite that in having Clause 6, which deals with the passerelles, we were going against the Lisbon treaty after it had been ratified. That is not really the case; although those passerelles exist and were in the treaty, they say that we “may” do this, not that we “will” do this. These are significant changes.

I may add that I am told that the Germans have altered their treatment of passerelles to give more say in any ratification of parliaments in future, so this does not go against the Lisbon treaty. In any case, the argument that the passerelles represent the will of Lisbon may sometimes be true, but sometimes passerelles were put in the treaty simply because countries could not agree; one group of countries wanted to go ahead faster while another group did not, so they decided to compromise and have a passerelle to leave the issue for a later date. I remember it being reported that one of the Finnish participants in the Lisbon treaty said, “The passerelles were where we failed, where we couldn’t agree”.

[Lord Dykes]

When my noble friend referred to the Germans, he would accept, wouldn’t he, that, like us and other member states, they are very keen to enhance the involvement of the national parliament in European decision-making at various different levels, including therefore making that process easier for the parliament to be involved in, but at the same time with the expectation in Germany, which is natural there, that the parliamentarians will be voting enthusiastically for any changes if they come to a vote? In the mean time, the basic law repeats the important clause on continued European integration.

20:15

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I think that it is common ground that we are all in favour of increased national involvement in treaty changes and changes in the competences and the power of the European Union. That is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has gone out of his way to emphasise. That is common ground; the argument is about where there should be referenda. My argument is that, whatever the general arguments about the Bill, these provisions, particularly the European defence policy, the euro, our borders and the European public prosecutor are suitable projects on which to have a referendum.

I said that I had listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and that I always do. I was with him on a committee that considered the European arrest warrant, and I was in a small minority in expressing strong reservations about it. Some of the arguments that were put forward then were, “Well, it’s going to apply only to a few criminals”, “It won’t apply to very many people”, and, “Why should people be worried about appearing in a court?”. Many of us would argue now, though, that it was a hugely significant transfer of powers that has now worked out in the way that it was intended to. There have been many examples of injustice, certainly several that are known to me personally, and it is something that I very much regret. I hope that we might return to that subject and amend the arrangements that exist.

Article 86 of the TFEU, which refers to the possibility of the public prosecutor, talks about,

“offences against the Union’s financial interests”.

Fair enough if we are talking about offences against the Union, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has often emphasised, but one wonders in what ways those words might be stretched. One notices that subsection (4) says:

“The European Council may, at the same time or subsequently, adopt a decision amending paragraph 1 in order to extend the powers of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to include serious crime having a cross-border dimension”.

I know that the noble Lord said that he was not in favour of that extension, but this is a big area and one that is suitable to give great consideration to. Peter Hain, Britain’s representative at the convention leading up to the constitution that never was, strongly opposed participation in the EPP. He said:

“Criminal prosecution should be essentially a national responsibility. Our national prosecutors must be accountable to national courts and ultimately to our national parliaments. The European Public Prosecutor would be accountable to neither”.

It is true that these are not treaty changes but they are big increases in competence, brought about through the passerelle, which we do not have to endorse. In ratifying Lisbon, we were not endorsing that we would automatically let these things go through. For that reason I am strongly against the amendment.

[Lord Goodhart]

The noble Lord is right to say that the European arrest warrant has not worked out as properly as it should have done or as we expected it to at the time. However, this matter wholly involves people who are concerned with international crime. How does the noble Lord see that it could operate to the damage of ordinary citizens of this country, who make up the vast majority of those who find themselves in court?

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I am very sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is not here; he was here earlier. I read what he said the other day. If I have in any way misrepresented his views, I am sure he will correct me. I read that he was very firmly one of those in the previous Government who took the view that the best way of dealing with international crime was not by the creation of new international authorities but through co-operation between national authorities. That was his very firm view. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for what he said about the European arrest warrant. I know he felt it should have been combined with a system of European bail, which would have made it very different.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I want first to address some of the general points that have been made in this debate and then focus on Amendment 42, with which I thoroughly agree. I very much support the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on that. Several general points have been made. Some of this debate has been a bit of a Second Reading debate, which is a very good thing. These issues are extremely important and I accept that many of these amendments cut across the thrust of the Bill itself. They force the Government to explain exactly what their purposes are. That is a most important aspect of this evening’s proceedings. We are making some progress. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for recognising that we on this side of the House are very much in favour of enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of European Union decisions. If the argument was about that, there would not be an argument. We would be pretty much in agreement and would have put the Bill to bed long ago. The issue is entirely about referenda, and whether it is sensible, practical and ever seriously intended to have referenda. It is important that, as a result of the proceedings of this Committee, we elucidate that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that he thought it was a sick joke—strong words, but justified—to suppose that the Bill would in any way enhance our relationship with our partners in the EU or enhance the British public’s support for our membership of the EU. I do not cast aspersions on the sincerity of any Member of this House. I am sure the people who say that they believe that the Bill will somehow enhance the British public’s understanding of and support for the European Union have genuinely persuaded themselves that that is the case. However, it is quite difficult to follow that argument, which is so obviously contrary to the historical facts. We all know what those are: Mr Cameron offered this Bill to his Eurosceptics as a sop. It was put to them as being a victory for the Conservative Party in the negotiations that led to the coalition agreement. Indeed, Mr Cameron and his Whips have been going around the Back Benches of the Tory party, as I know, saying, “You must be pleased with us now. We have at least brought forward this Bill, which stops any further growth in powers for the European Union and preserves parliamentary sovereignty”. That is an aspect we will come to later in the Bill. That is historical fact. That is how it has been presented and the way it happened. There is no question at all of anybody saying, “Let’s see what we can do to enhance the British public’s understanding of and support for membership of the Union”, and then coming up with this Bill. That is not how it occurred.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend Lord Hamilton referred earlier to the importance of connecting again with the British people. Is the noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggesting that military independence, the loss of our decision-making around defence and judicial independence are less important than financial independence?

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I have not raised the issue of defence at all in my remarks, so I do not know where that question comes from. From the Whips, I am told. I do not dispute that interpretation.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My right honourable friend the Prime Minister put forward the Bill, which is all about connecting with the British people, not with the Whips. The important thing is what the British people care about. They care about our defence, our military independence and our financial independence. That is what this Bill is all about.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The British people clearly care very much about the defence of the country; that is another, wider subject. I have no doubt at all that they are very unhappy with what the Government are doing in that regard. As the noble Lord may know, I have always supported a greater degree of cohesion in European defence matters. However, the amendments that we are discussing are not concerned with that issue. I want to get back to the Bill and the amendments that we are discussing.

Amendment 42, which deals with the European public prosecutor’s office, exposes the Bill’s lack of sincerity. Of course it is possible to make an argument for having a referendum about our joining the euro, or possibly about our joining Schengen, but is it really credible in this regard? Does anybody really think for a second that any Government would seriously have a referendum about the public prosecutor’s office? I do not think that anybody could possibly believe that is a realistic possibility.

Article 86 provides for a public prosecutor’s office. It says:

“In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, the Council, by means of regulations adopted in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust”.

The words which state,

“In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union”,

provide the answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, about having national jurisdiction. This country clearly does not have jurisdiction in financial crimes committed in Brussels or elsewhere in the Union against the financial interests of the Union. We are a member of the Union and suffer as a result of those crimes, but our courts may very well not have jurisdiction in such circumstances. Indeed, they are most unlikely to have it.

Who is going to oppose that? If you are going to have a referendum, have one on something that is controversial. If you go to the British public and ask, “Are you in favour of crimes against the European Union? Are you in favour of prosecuting them? Are you in favour of having a public prosecutor who would have jurisdiction in such cases?”, who is going to say no, they are not? It does not really make sense. Article 86(2) continues:

“The European Public Prosecutor's Office shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment, where appropriate in liaison with Europol, the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, offences against the Union's financial interests, as determined by the regulation provided for in paragraph 1. It shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States in relation to such offences”.

What is controversial about that? Where is the substance there for a genuine referendum campaign? Can anybody consider suggesting to the British public that we spend £1 million of their money on having a referendum on such a subject, let alone tens of millions of pounds? The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out that almost certainly a referendum on that subject could not be linked to some local or national election, and so the costs would be disproportionately high. It just does not ring true. I said that on Second Reading and I say it again now. The Government will have to do very much better to try to persuade the British public of their sincerity in that matter than they are doing.

The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, says that the treaty may extend the remit of the European public prosecutor’s office to enable it to deal with cross-border crimes within the European Union. That is perfectly true. He quoted paragraph 4, but it is clear that that decision would have to be taken by unanimity, so we have an effective complete lock on that for the rest of time. There is no threat of that happening without our having to take a decision on it if we wanted to. Of course we should take a decision only with parliamentary support. In fact, we should take a decision to join the European prosecutor’s office in the first place only with parliamentary support—whether through a resolution or a Bill, I do not particularly care; I am all in favour of that.

If the British public do not think that we in Parliament are capable of taking a decision on a matter which is a no-brainer—is it not?—to pursue financial fraud more effectively, then what is the purpose of having a Parliament? It does not even begin to make any sense.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for bringing forward this amendment, as it shows up the complete hollowness of the Bill. It is insincere and simply does not make any sense. It is not for real. It is like dealing with a dishonest salesman: you know perfectly well that what he is saying is not the truth; you try to get at the truth and his real intentions, but it is clear that the real intentions are not the ones being overtly expressed. That is my problem with the Bill. It is a very serious problem. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and to his fellow signatories to the amendment for bringing it forward. I hope that we get an answer from the Government. What is the reason for this obsession with the public prosecutor’s office? A respectable answer may be this: “We are stopping everything. Of course, it would be absurd to have a referendum on the public prosecutor’s office but we want to stop everything. A cat should not be allowed to cross a street so far as competences in the European Union are concerned without having a referendum. We want to be absolutely certain that we are totally pedantic about that”. That may be a respectable answer. It is an intellectually coherent answer but it means that the Government have adopted a policy of complete, rigid, ideological dogmatism in this matter. That is a very revealing point. If that is the explanation, it is very important that the public should know about it.

20:30

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way, particularly after he spoke so eloquently about political dogmatism. He will of course know all about political dogmatism. He has not helped his arguments by his tone of incredulity that perfectly sensible noble Lords across this Chamber might disagree with each other on the importance of giving away power or competence to the European public prosecutor’s office. He should be able to disagree with that without descending to the level of incredulity.

I will tell the noble Lord why his argument does not work. If he thinks back, the article on the European public prosecutor’s office to which he referred, and which I have looked up, talks about the financial interests of the Union. It does not define, word by word, what those interests might be, or what acts those who go against the financial interests of the Union might have to perpetrate to do so. I remind him of the NatWest four and the extradition treaty with the United States. Many Members across this House and, I am sure, in the other place, are extremely uncomfortable about what happened there. Widely defined clauses can contain any number of provisions and can have all sorts of side effects. I just wish that the noble Lord would accept that the article is widely defined.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Baroness has made one of the longest interventions that I have ever taken in my time in either House. I shall not reply at such length, but I will say, first, that I have never made ad hominem or ad feminam arguments in this place; I have tried to address the issues and I hope that she will try to do the same. Secondly, by drawing an analogy with the people who were extradited to the United States for commercial crimes, she has completely misunderstood not only the point I was making but particular articles in the treaty. All the crimes foreseen in Article 86 as matters for the public prosecutor are defined as those that are,

“affecting the financial interests of the Union”.

It is a narrow category of crimes, and there is no way in which that category could be expanded without unanimity.

As I said, it is extraordinary for the Government to decide specifically to provide for a referendum on a matter that can scarcely be of great public controversy. It is very difficult for me or the public to see what national damage could be done. The most respectable explanation that I can think of is that the Government are acting in an utterly narrow-minded and dogmatic fashion. They are displaying the mentality of, if you like, the Spanish Inquisition. There is no flexibility or pragmatism. That would be a very frightening way to conduct our national interests abroad.

[Lord Risby]

My Lords—

[Lord Dykes]

As I hope my noble friend will agree, I have put my name to the amendments and wish briefly to address the House on them, following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Although the noble Lord is no longer in the Chamber, he should receive the thanks of the House for revealing the shocking irony that Clause 6 is in many ways more obnoxious than Clauses 2, 3 and 4 in terms of what it does to weaken Parliament and, ironically, government and ministerial decision-making in European meetings which would take place as a result of the clauses.

Amendments 32, 33, 34, 35 and so on, including my noble friend’s amendments on the EPPO, try again to appeal to the Government to respond reasonably. There has already been a hint, to which the Labour spokesman referred, that the Government were beginning to listen to deep and genuine arguments from all parts of the House against the details of the Bill.

Amendment 32 and subsequent amendments remove the referendum condition from the beginning of Clause 6, to deal with items not covered in Clauses 2, 3 and 4. These are specified decisions postulated in the TEU or the TFEU that do not need a new treaty or Article 48(6) treatment, because the two categories listed mirror the list set out in earlier clauses; and the second category relates to the so-called one-way decisions that are by definition irreversible. Similarly to the previous clauses, especially Clauses 3 and 4, it would greatly improve the efficacy and good faith of the Bill if those subsections were either eliminated altogether or substantially amended to soften the harsh impact of the provisions.

The subsequent amendments in this cluster, under the names of the same promoters, would remove the referendum condition in other areas of decision-making. I will not go into great detail, but Amendment 33 omits the whole of Clause 6(2) to (6) and cancels the need for referenda on QMV, EPPO, social policy items, the environment and so on. Those are all worthy of consideration by the Government once again to reinforce and return power to the British Parliament, which has been seriously undermined by the constant nagging by the anti-Europeans that Parliament has somehow let down the British people about Europe. That is not the case in any evidential way, and we now need to restore the balance to the British Parliament—both Houses—in future. Incidentally, it is interesting to muse that according to page 9 of the Constitution Committee's report, if change in the House of Lords were covered by the definition covering abolition of either House of Parliament, then change in a fully elected House of Lords also should be the subject of a referendum. I bet that it will not be, bearing in mind what happened last Thursday.

Under the clause, no ministerial judgment is exercised on the transfer of power argument, because the primary legislation and referendum are automatic. There are no exemptions. Hence, on Europe Day, I am wearing the Europe tie in honour of the Schuman day. There is one European flag in Parliament Square—that is because it is Europe Day—and the member state flags as well, but Britain is the only leading member state where the European flag does not routinely fly on any government building. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Wallace would try to do something about that in future for the coalition Government.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I intervene to say that the Daily Express said that the British Government were being forced to fly the European flag on government buildings. The noble Lord has just demonstrated that that is a slight exaggeration.

[Lord Dykes]

I entirely accept that. Indeed, no member state is forced to fly the flag. It is interesting that in Germany, France, Italy and other countries, routinely, all or most government buildings fly the European flag as well as the national flag. We know that President Sarkozy, when he has a television interview, always has, alongside the tricolour, the European flag.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Will the noble Lord admit that the absence of the European flag on most of our public buildings reflects the wishes of the British people, if not the wishes of our Europhile political class?

[Lord Dykes]

The British people have not been consulted on that in any way. If they were, they would probably be very much in favour of it. I think that the younger generation, in particular, would like to see the European flag flying alongside the national flag. You can be a patriotic Britisher and a keen European as well, and there are plenty of them.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Lord Dykes]

If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will not give way again at this stage.

The feeling about Clause 6 is mounting that it will have a worse effect than the previous clauses. Yet again, I do not believe that the Government have thought out the dangerous subsections. Any British Government of whatever colour or, in the case of a coalition, whatever combination of parties, could find to their dismay that the communitarian habit of working together by positive and constructive consensus for the greater European benefit and that of the national member states would be stymied by a sudden, brutal UK stop-all on routine matters of state business in the Council of Ministers. We would therefore paralyse ourselves for no good reason other than the propagandistic appeasement of the Daily Mail, the Sun, my noble friend Lord Hamilton and a few other headbangers in the Commons on the Conservative side. I did not mean to say that my noble friend Lord Hamilton was a headbanger; far from it, he is a very respected Peer who succeeded me as chairman of the European Atlantic group, so he must be a very good bloke indeed. We would also bring the whole European Council process to a stop. We recall that in the first section of the coalition agreement on Europe the Government wanted to play a leading role and to be a positive participant in the EU, but this amazingly stupid clause is a funny way of dealing with our aspirations. If it were passed, the Government would henceforth face regular clashes with their partners for no good reason other than to have a clash, and this would come from the member state that insisted on no artificial hurdles and, quite rightly, full QMV for the single market—indeed, full integration in all aspects of the single market.

Lisbon went wider on the machinery of collective decision-making than previous treaties. It included similar techniques to the ones first introduced by the Single European Act, when huge new powers were agreed for the Union without the UK authorities and indeed Mrs Thatcher, in particular, running away, as was alluded to earlier. Why were we so surprised to see other member Governments appreciating our zeal for the Single European Act and wishing to apply its mechanisms to other areas as respectable normative integration between friendly, like-minded and patriotic member countries? Why are we so insecure that we have to agree with Bill Cash and John Redwood on these issues? If the Government were sensibly to accept all or some of the original main amendments in this rather unwieldy and elaborate cluster, they would be doing themselves and Parliament a big favour in sparing us from the agonies that will surely arise under this dotty clause.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, first, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in his criticism of the way that these amendments are being handled. Altogether, 19 amendments have been put into one group, but I believe that a better debate would have been had if we had been able to discuss amendments on individual clauses. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that it would have been far better if we could have had our Ministers tied to the mast with their ears waxed up, as they would not have hit the rocks. We have hit so many rocks during the past 40 or more years that we have been a member of the European Union. Of course, when we joined it, it was not a European Union but a common market, and no one ever thought that it was going to be the sort of European Union that we have now. It was sold as a common market.

Throughout this debate and in previous debates we have heard a great deal about parliamentary democracy. I believe very much in parliamentary democracy and I have been around it for quite a long time. However, we gave away our real parliamentary democracy when Parliament passed the European Communities Act 1972.

[Lord Dykes]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Should he not address himself specifically to this clause and the amendments thereon, rather than make yet another Second Reading speech? He makes exactly the same speech on every single occasion.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I explained why it would have been far better if many of the amendments had been grouped differently. Perhaps we could then have spoken to each and every one of them according to what they were proposing. It is difficult to speak to this conglomerate of 19 amendments, and that is why I want to take up the matter of parliamentary democracy at this stage, particularly as we have heard so much about it. I repeat that we gave away parliamentary democracy when the House of Commons and this House passed the European Communities Act 1972, which of course gave European law superiority over British law.

20:45

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord really means to say that we gave away our parliamentary sovereignty. Surely we have been paying Brussels billions a year to take it from us. We did not give it; we are paying them to take it.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I am afraid that that was by parliamentary decision. That is precisely what I am trying to say. We gave decision-making in relation to Europe to the European Union which has the last word. We talk about parliamentary democracy but when it comes to the push and we discuss the various amendments that have been made through treaty making, we are told that Parliament cannot make amendments to the treaty. All we can do as a Parliament is accept or not accept the treaty. We are not allowed to alter the treaties because they are made by Governments. The treaty they make is the treaty that matters and Parliament has no power at all to amend any provision of the treaties that have been passed since the European Communities Act 1972. That cannot be denied.

In relation to the transfer of power in each and every treaty, particularly in the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty and eventually the Lisbon treaty, we have given powers to Europe without Parliament being able to say yea or nay. That is why we are in this position. It is because Parliament has not been able to make decisions about individual matters and the powers that have been transferred. That is why we have reached this decision. Ultimately, because a referendum was promised on the Lisbon treaty and it was not granted, the people are so outraged that they have demanded that something should be done. Let us make no mistake about it. This issue of sovereignty, this issue of who governs Britain, is not a party political matter. It transcends party politics. It is about who governs Britain. Unless that is realised and the people are considered and given the opportunity of speaking, the European Union will sink further into public disapproval than it already has.

I just want to add that we are told all the time that if we do this or that which does not suit the European elite we will be marginalised. Why on earth should a country of 60 million and the fourth—

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord but it would be helpful to your Lordships’ House if he could indicate to which amendment he is speaking.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

They are grouped so I am speaking to all of them. I am actually speaking in favour of the Government and I was just coming to that. I was going to say that this issue transcends party politics and that the Government have been forced by public pressure, and indeed party pressure though not only from the Conservative Party, to bring forward this Bill to reassure the people of this country that they will have a voice and that we will no longer hand over powers—great powers at that—to the European Union until Parliament has had a proper say, and indeed the people have had a proper say in matters of great note—not on little matters but matters of great note.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

Perhaps the noble Lord will explain, given his right and proper loyalty to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, why he supports amendments that make the euro, which after all is a financial mechanism, of greater value in sovereignty terms than defence, which was the issue that I raised.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

Every issue that transfers powers from this country to the European Union is very important. The Bill is about ensuring that when great powers are transferred, the people of this country as well as Parliament will have a say.

It is a pity that we have got to this stage. Nevertheless, because there has not been proper parliamentary scrutiny over the 40 years that we have been a member of the European Union, we have now got to a stage where the Government have had to bow to the demand that the people should be consulted and proper parliamentary scrutiny should happen.

[Lord Risby]

My Lords, we have heard a great deal in this debate about marginalisation. We should recall the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, who talked about the pragmatic nature of this Government. As we reflect on what the coalition Government have done, we should recognise that none of the grandstanding and grand old Duke of York activity that we have seen from successive Governments has been characteristic of this Government. It is worth reminding ourselves of the pragmatic relationship that has been established by the Government with the institutions of the European Union.

The amendments deal with the removal of all treaty provisions requiring a referendum, except euro membership. I accept the sincerity of what has been said by a number of noble Lords. Nevertheless, I suspect that many who have spoken in this debate do not like referendums at all. I find it curious that they accept the idea of a referendum on the euro when in principle many would not like a referendum at all, and that they thereby elevate the euro to a level of importance that is unique and special, to the exclusion of other considerations in the Bill.

There is a settled view on this in the nation, which should be accepted. However, there are wide areas of EU activity that alienate the public and enhance the view that there is a democratic deficit. Judicial independence, military independence, the ability to control our own borders, social policy including the rights of workers and employment terms and conditions, could not be blocked. Given our history, particularly in the latter area, this is a crucial issue. They are absolutely not crucial.

[Lord Goodhart]

Perhaps my noble friend will explain why judicial independence is damaged by our relationship with the EU.

[Lord Risby]

I will be delighted to. I will come in a moment to a discussion of various elements such as passerelle clauses, which I hope will cover this point.

Clause 6 sets out which passerelles would automatically trigger a referendum if powers or competences were moved from the UK to the EU. We touched, for example, on the matter of defence. This reflects the reality for us that EU member states have different relationships with third countries and different foreign policy priorities. For example, the UK has particularly strong relationships with interests in the Commonwealth. It would be wrong to give the EU the ability to prevent us developing these relationships. I am sure that that is perfectly logical, and it is covered in Article 31(3).

I turn to measures on working conditions and social security. Noble Lords will know that QMV already applies to many decisions concerning the health and safety of workers, working conditions, informing and consulting workers, combating social exclusion, modernising social protection systems, as well as to decisions in areas such as the European social fund. However, there are important things left for unanimity; for example, social security and the social protection of workers, the protection of workers when their employment contract is terminated, et cetera. These things can have a huge impact on the life of an individual nation and the businesses that add to the prosperity of that nation. Any move to QMV could jeopardise independent national decisions on that score. If we look at environmental matters, for example, they are mostly covered by QMV, but there are others that are still subject to unanimity. We would, of course, like to retain national control of what is left on the environment where there is a fiscal element attached to them: town and country planning; the management of water resources or the availability of those resources or land use; and, of course, the choice of energy resources and the general structure of the energy supply. These are very important for people at an individual level, a community level and a national level.

So, as we look at this debate and hear the discussion, I find it rather perplexing that our currency alone seems to have a critical aspect for our relationship with the EU. I think it is misplaced. There are all these other areas of vital concern to our national interest which concern people in terms of our relationship with the European Union. Coming back to my original point, it is precisely because we want to defuse the difficulties that have arisen in terms of public opinion and the public’s attitude to the European Union with a totally pragmatic Government—that has been obvious in the past year—that this Bill is in place. If we have red lines, they have to be very clear and very red. The amendments would make the Bill incoherent and make the public very suspicious and alienated. That is exactly what this Bill seeks to avoid.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, I rise to address the amendments tabled in my name. As I understand it, Clause 6 addresses areas that are suitable for the requirement of a referendum in two of the ways in which a veto could be given up which are not covered by Clauses 2 to 4. They are, through the other part of the simplified revision procedure using Article 48(7) of TEU, effectively a third type of treaty change, and the six specific cases are dealt with by the passerelle.

The amendments are grouped somewhat strangely in that my Amendments 35A, 35B, 48A and 48B are on one side of the argument and all the others, with the exception of Amendment 40A, are in one way or other seeking to reduce situations where a referendum and Act of Parliament are required. Self-evidently, I do not agree with those amendments.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

It is astonishing how little listening and how much assertion there is in this debate. I spent quite a lot of time trying to say that the amendments in this group that I and others have tabled do not seek to remove the requirement for primary legislation by Parliament when any of these changes are made. I speak very slowly because it is a point that the noble Lord has just contradicted. Indeed, they are designed to remove the referendum requirement, but not the requirement for primary legislation, which is an addition to the existing requirement under the Lisbon ratification.

21:00

[Lord Flight]

I thank the noble Lord for his interruption. He enlightens Members of this House as he has done previously. I am well aware that he accepts the Act of Parliament and that it is the referendum to which he is opposed. He obviously lacks faith in the trust of ordinary people and for some reason does not seem to realise that the tool of the referendum is essentially there as a deterrent in order to discourage the EU gathering more power unto itself and the sort of behaviour that we had from the Government who were in power in this country until the most recent general election.

I will, if I may, continue. The amendments in my name cover examples of areas that come to light, on looking at the various territories to which Clause 6 might relate, in which there is indeed scope for power to transfer from the EU without the check of a referendum, and sometimes even without the check of an Act of Parliament. I am quite sure that there are many other areas in which there remains scope for powers to transfer. The point of my two amendments is, above all, that within the range of areas that it might be deemed appropriate to require a referendum, there is balance in the Bill—a whole range of territories that transfer powers but in which referenda are not required.

My amendments relate to two cases. First, as your Lordships will be aware, Article 25 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union allows the Council to adopt any provisions to strengthen or to add to the rights listed in Article 20(2) of the TFEU. Article 25, which deals with the basic rights of EU citizens, appears to allow a fundamental extension of the scope of EU law. This in effect would alter the list of rights in Article 20(2). Article 25 provisions could well amount to treaty change. Extended rights for EU citizens would transfer power from the UK over whether it accorded such rights to nationals of other EU member states. There is clearly a debate here. Is it appropriate that measures that considerably extend the political rights of non-nationals, because they are members of other EU states, could occur without the agreement of the people living in those states?

The second territory is slightly more complex. Currently the EU is not a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. Lisbon introduced Article 6(2) of the TEU, which provides that the EU will accede to the ECHR, and as your Lordships will be aware this is currently being negotiated. The issue here is that any EU law that is modified in response to a finding of non-compatibility with ECHR rights would subsequently be binding on member states, so if the EU accedes to all ECHR rights—and, yes, I am well aware that there has to be unanimity for it so to do and that it has to go through the appropriate procedures in each country—EU legislation could be altered as a result. Therefore, EU accession to the ECHR could result in a transfer of power from the UK to the EU over whether the UK is bound by the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in areas that fall within the wide scope of EU law. So here, again, we have the question as to whether such a transfer is appropriate for a referendum.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but I think it would be helpful if he recognised that the provision in Lisbon that enables the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights is in fact a transfer of powers away from the European Union, not towards it from this country, and it is a transfer to an organisation and a set of judicial procedures to which we are already a party. I therefore find it extraordinarily hard to see how the noble Lord manages to weave this into the tapestry of the Government’s excessive—in my view, in any case—desire to subject matters to referendums.

[Lord Flight]

While there is obviously a differentiation between the European Court of Human Rights and the EU, the point I was making was that if there is accession the result could be an important overriding of UK law by the ECHR and decisions taken by the ECHR in due course becoming binding in the law of this land. This is effectively a change and a giving away of power by the UK to the ECHR rather than the EU in terms of its law making.

To conclude, these two amendments are essentially illustrative. As I commented earlier, looking across the total territory, there are many areas where the arrangements surrounding the EU and bodies such as the ECHR continue to cater for powers being taken without the requirement of an Act of Parliament and certainly without the requirement of citizens having a say in it. The argument that this Bill is right over the top in terms of the areas where it requires a referendum is nonsense. Let me assure your Lordships that there are scores of other areas where a transfer of power could occur where no referendum is being provided for.

Contrary to the arguments put by noble Lords from the other side of the House, a reasonable balance has been adopted by this Bill. Those of us who are perhaps on the other side of the argument would make the point that there are many areas which this Bill does not address where we can still see scope for power being transferred.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I rise to comment on the European public prosecutor, the subject of an amendment by my noble friend Lord Goodhart who is not in his place. The potential establishment of the European public prosecutor finds its origins in concerns about budgetary fraud and the improper diversion of grants and aids. The purpose is to improve co-operation and to co-ordinate legal action among member states. It would potentially involve the establishment of a uniform code of criminal offences of fraud against the EC budget applicable in all member states and a uniform set of procedural rules applicable in investigations. Together that would constitute a so-called corpus juris, which would be enforced by the European public prosecutor’s office. I regard this as a significant potential change as a lawyer, but also not as a lawyer.

It seems that the rationale behind the potential establishment of the EPPO ought on the face of it to attract the support of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it would amount to a substantial change in criminal jurisdiction. The idea of national prosecutors on secondment from the EPPO in the UK is a significant alteration to our system, which provides that it is for the Crown to prosecute criminal offences. Once established, there would inevitably be steps taken to introduce rules which might not sit easily with our common law systems.

Article 86 provides that an EPP,

“shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States”.

This means that we would give up control of a fundamental part of our judicial system; namely, the decision on who can be prosecuted for what and, equally important, the decision not to prosecute in some circumstances. It is now the province of the CPS. The EPP will initially be concerned with only crimes affecting the financial interests of the union, although that definition is likely to prove particularly elusive. However, by a passerelle in the treaty, the powers of the EPP can be extended to cover any serious crime with a cross-border dimension, which gives it a potentially very wide remit. One has to think only of the problems with the European arrest warrant, to which my noble friend Lord Lamont referred, and the definition of serious crimes.

The creation of an EPP has not met with much enthusiasm from our friends on the other side of the House. When the matter was discussed at length in 2002 and 2003, Justice said it thought that a European court of criminal justice would have to be established. The Law Society of England and Wales and the Law Society of Scotland did not think a case had been made out for it. The European Union Committee of your Lordships’ House concluded that a European public prosecutor was not a realistic and practical way forward, stating:

“The benefits of creating another body and in particular an EPP, whose existence and processes could cut across national criminal laws and procedure and which might not be accountable to democratically elected representatives, have yet to be clearly and convincingly demonstrated”.

While even the most ardent Eurosceptic would support all reasonable steps to improve the detection and punishment of fraud in relation to grants and aids, surely this can be better achieved by co-operation between member states in the sharing of information and evidence, and access to information, rather than by the creation of a supranational prosecuting body.

It is suggested that there should be harmonisation of criminal procedures if there is to be an EPP office. The problems with harmonising procedures have been confronted by the courts in this country in the context of the ECHR. For example, Articles 5 and 6 of the convention have had to be interpreted by the courts as to whether they respect or are in total harmony with the right to a fair trial and the right to protect suspects. The courts have had considerable difficulty in the attempt to try to harmonise systems with different origins. It is not impossible that there could be a real conflict between the CPS and its view of what is within its province and the national prosecutor for the European public prosecutor trying to do the same thing.

If a future Government want us to join in with the establishment of a new EPP office, I suggest that the case should be made to Parliament and to the British people. It may not be their everyday obsession, but they should and can be educated, and not just by the Daily Express, about the question of a European public prosecutor. It is an important matter that goes to the fundamentals of justice. This amendment seeks to take away the safeguards that are fundamental to the Bill and to the philosophy underlying it.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, we on this Bench have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay, and much of what I say will probably reflect some of the arguments they have made. Like many other noble Lords, I have found this grouping about as unhelpful as it could possibly be. It mixes together propositions that would reduce the scope for referenda, propositions that would increase the scope for referenda, and does not deal with any of the principles that might guide a move in either direction. So, as briefly as I can, let me summarise what I think the amendments we are discussing actually are. In the midst of all the Second Reading speeches we have heard, we probably ought to try to focus on the amendments.

The first amendments, from Amendment 30 onwards, which the mover of the amendment did address, discuss the situations under which a referendum and Act are required and seek to limit the issue of whether the UK should adopt the euro as its currency. That is to some extent elaborated in further amendments. From Amendment 32 onwards we see amendments that would remove the requirement for a referendum and an Act on the list of Clause 6 decisions and change them so that they would simply require an Act of Parliament. That is a proposition where this Front Bench also has an amendment, and with which I strongly agree.

Indeed, in some of the discussions, including the one just introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I have found it hard to understand the rationale for the proposition that has been made at all. In almost every area that has been described, the Government would plainly have the capacity to say no and to insist on unanimity. If we wished to reject a proposal to change our judicial system, and I can see perfectly well why we should argue that that might be the case, we should—to paraphrase the wife of a recent American president—just say no. It is not hard; it is not a complicated piece of electoral practice. Just say no. There are a number of areas where it is perfectly possible to do so.

21:15

[Lord Waddington]

Does not the noble Lord appreciate that there is a very strong feeling in the country that, very often, the Government have not said no and have allowed the transference of power when there was no interest whatever to the people of the country? The most obvious example was the previous Government giving up half the rebate. What conceivable benefit did the people of this country get from that surrender, when it was given on the promise of a reform of the CAP which never took place?

[Lord Triesman]

I appreciate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, makes, but that was not a surrender of any power or competence. It might be regarded as the wrong judgment to have made about national assets, but it was nothing to do with a power or a competence. It may be felt that past Governments have acceded too willingly to arrangements that they did not like—that point was made very early in the debate this evening—but in almost every one of these areas it is perfectly possible, should this Government wish, simply to say no. They can achieve, without large rafts of legislation, the same result with a word of no more than two letters.

Amendment 40 and subsequent amendments would delete various decisions which would require both an Act and a referendum before a Minister could vote in favour of them. As a result of them, there would be no decisions which required both mechanisms. Our Amendment 40 would delete a number of the paragraphs from Clause 6(5) along with those that others have identified.

We completely agree with the proposition that a referendum would be required in the case of the euro, but we have also previously mentioned other major constitutional reforms as a second possible decision area requiring a referendum. I shall not speak to the amendments in the next group, Amendments 39A and 39B, other than to mention that in them we identify the way in which those issues might be selected as issues for a referendum. It is not a hollow premise; we are testing out ways in which, apart from the euro, other major constitutional changes might also be considered.

We agree entirely with the case for holding a referendum over the euro and we also believe that there are significant constitutional issues—although we know as a result of an earlier debate that they will not include accession of other countries—which might attract a referendum. Indeed, your Lordships’ committee was also clear that this could be appropriate in a number of circumstances. I immediately recognise that somebody will say, “Well, how is it we determine what should count as significant? What will that word mean when the decision is taken?” Looking at the Bill, the mechanism which is currently envisaged seems to me to be wholly inadequate. It has fault lines built into it to the extent that I believe that it will not work. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and I have not agreed about this; I fear, with the greatest of respect to him, that we will not agree about it this evening. Even as alumni of the same college, we will not find that we achieve agreement this evening, because the decisions which would so limit the role of Parliament extend so widely through this clause that it is very easy to see, in the contemporary political circumstances, how they would give rise to a continuous pattern of dissent which I do not think would make the British people feel any more comfortable that their view was being taken seriously or even sought, as has been suggested.

I make this point because it was clear in the intervention, for example, of the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, who is not in his place. It was made equally clear by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and other noble Lords on our previous day in Committee. Their objections to the development of the European Union have been so profound and so marked that almost any opportunity would give rise to triggering the whole sequence that is contained in the Bill—judicial review at the very least.

In this Bill we have the potential to make sure that widespread and protracted campaigning will take place on every issue, not because a practical issue is always involved but because that is the way in which it is possible to organise resistance to the change. It may be that the change merits resistance. I am not arguing that that will never be the case, but it is simply an armoury of tactical approaches that become available for anybody who wants to slow down or block any kind of change at all. If I were of the same mind as some of those noble Lords, I would say “fair enough”. Give me those tactical options and I would probably choose to use them, and of course they will be used in that way.

The practical route seems to be where a degree of independence is possible in determining what is a significant issue so that those issues can be put through the whole process, including a referendum. In Amendments 39A and 39B, we canvassed those possibilities—either a Joint Committee of both Houses or an independent review commission. We would then begin to reach some kind of reality about what it is sensible to do or not to do outside the remit of Parliament itself.

I have listened intently to all that has been said about the role of Parliament as contrasted with the role that might be taken in the conduct of referendums and I find myself in agreement essentially with the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, about the diminution of the role of Parliament. I will come back to the point about reconnection with the electorate because it is important. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said in his opening speech, we will see changes taking place or being suggested in small amounts and pretty much continuously as adjustments of this variable architecture become possible. I acknowledge that that is what many people have objected to.

Parliament, apparently, would gain the confidence of the electorate if it ceased to do the job that it had been elected to do. How that will achieve greater confidence in Parliament completely bemuses me. I have to acknowledge that. There may be many criticisms of Parliament and parliamentarians, but the one criticism that I doubt we will hear anywhere is that people believe that we should give up doing the job that we are expected to do and franchise it to somebody else.

[Lord Waddington]

Does not the noble Lord agree that Members of Parliament are elected to exercise the powers that they have inherited, not to give away those powers in perpetuity?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, I broadly do agree, but that does not alter the general proposition that MPs are expected to take a dynamic and full political role in determining the outcomes of debates in these areas. Whether the determination goes in the direction of giving away no more powers or giving away more powers, that is the job of a sovereign Parliament and people working in a sovereign Parliament.

[Lord Radice]

Does my noble friend think it is because they do not really trust themselves to be parliamentarians? They want to bind themselves—it is the Odysseus complex, or whatever it is—because they do not really trust themselves. Does he think that that could be what it is all about?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, that may be one explanation. The other may well be that they do not have the courage to do it on all occasions and they are afraid of the kicking that they will get from much of the media if they actually fight the case out. That is very much more likely to happen, I am afraid.

[Lord Flight]

I think it was one of the noble Lord’s colleagues who made the point that it was the Wilson Government who first used the vehicle of the referendum because they were unable to take the decision themselves. I just make the point that as a young person who participated in it at that time I thought that it was absolutely correct. The fact that it may have been born of weak political circumstances was irrelevant. I grew up thinking that it was a crucial constitutional matter and the sort of issue that ordinary people should have a chance to have a direct say in.

[Lord Triesman]

I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Flight. I took part in that referendum as a young activist in the Labour Party who believed strongly that we should retain our relationship with Europe. Many of my colleagues were not only in disagreement with me but in pretty hostile disagreement with me. The thing that I remember most about that, apart from the dissent that it opened up—our problem, our party—was that it was a fundamental and critical constitutional issue for the United Kingdom and exactly the sort of thing that I would have believed would be defined as significant in the sense that I have tried to present to your Lordships' House this evening.

[Lord Tomlinson]

There is an important further point to be made. This big, important constitutional issue was devised by those who opposed our membership of the European Union in order to be able to vent all their feelings. It was going to resolve the question. Was it not the fact that the same people who lost in the referendum came back within a few years trying to get a different result?

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, it is of course entirely true. That is the other conclusion that one should draw from some referenda—that whatever the decision of the British people taken in a sovereign way, it does not stop anybody from coming back on future occasions.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords—

[Lord Triesman]

I should really try to make some progress, if I may.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords—

[Lord Triesman]

As it is you, David, how could I refuse?

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

I was one of those who was never in favour of joining the common market and opposed it during the referendum. In relation to the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, the reason why there has been continuous opposition is that the story has changed. As the European Union has become more powerful, the greater the resistance has been from those who originally opposed it and, indeed, a hell of a lot more who now oppose it.

[Lord Triesman]

I suspect that the noble Lord has a slightly different experience of political life to mine, if that is the conclusion that he draws. My conclusion is that you can fight either side in a referendum and find that within a short period you did not like the result, whether things have changed or not, and the opportunity to fight it again will occur. It may very well be, for example, that some of those people who thought that the proposal to change the electoral system should not have been defeated as heavily as it fortunately was last Thursday will come back and conclude that they should have another go on another occasion. I shall not be wholly surprised if they decide that that is what they are going to do, even at the cost of having the experience repeated.

The point about reconnecting with the electorate is very critical. The electorate is dismayed with Parliament and parliamentarians on occasions, for a raft of reasons, and I shall not bore your Lordships by going through all those reasons in the recent past. As I said earlier, I do not think that a feeling of greater warmth towards parliamentarians will be achieved by parliamentarians giving up work in some of the areas that would be regarded as being the nitty gritty, not the big constitutional issues at all. I have looked through the list in Clause 6(5)—paragraphs (c), (d), (f), (g) and (h). I mention those because I am an inveterate campaigner on behalf of all sorts of causes, including those of the party I have the privilege to represent. I have thought hard about having any one of those paragraphs, let alone any combination of them, about how the campaign on them would be fought and what the doorstep would be like as you went around trying to do that kind of political work. It is not because of the ignorance or foolishness of the electorate; that is not the reason at all. Yet there is an expectation that many of those issues will have so much fine-grained detail within them that the electorate expects someone to have done a lot of this work, especially if they have elected those people to come here and do it. In our case, we are not elected but they nonetheless have a healthy respect for the work that this House can do because of the knowledge and expertise that we know is in it.

I suspect that, on most of those issues, you would get far greater traction on the doorstep by discussing the Eurovision Song Contest than you would ever get by a serious attempt to discuss some of these issues in detail. As most noble Lords who have campaigned in politics will know, I know that the kinds of discussions you have on the doorstep are real ones: about wider economic issues and a wide variety of issues. However, it is not typically the case that people want to get into a large number of sub-clauses under the arrangements of Article 312(2) of the European constitution. In fact, to my dismay, I have never had that raised with me anywhere. I look forward to the occasion when it might be.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Lord Tomlinson]

If you went to Rannoch Moor, they talk of nothing else.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Is the noble Lord not making the mistake commonly made by the political class in this country, which contains many distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House—

[Lord Tomlinson]

Including yourself.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Including myself? That is very generous. The mistake is in taking the line, “Really, the people won’t be interested in this. They shouldn’t be troubled with this as they won’t understand it”. Yet if you take almost any referendum on anything to do with the European public prosecutor's office, that will be of considerable interest to the British people. They do not like it and do not want it in any form whatever. The turnout on the most supremely boring of any imaginable subject—the recent AV referendum—was 43 per cent, which really surprised people. I have to put it to the noble Lord that the British people may not only be fed up with their political class but be beginning to have doubt in our system of representative parliamentary democracy. They may want a much greater say on matters in future, like the Swiss have, for example. What is wrong with that system to reconnect the people? That is the system to reconnect them and not, I am afraid, the approach of the noble Lord.

[Lord Triesman]

It is terribly tempting to go into experiences of Swiss referenda in the cantons. Sadly for the House, I have some experience of them. That is what tells me that I should not retell it here because it is not exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, thinks it might be. I hope that the House is not misunderstanding my point, which is not that people are unable to grasp complex ideas or are uninterested in them. It is that, in general, I believe they have a sentiment which suggests that the really critical things should be put before them but that there is also a responsibility on parliamentarians to do a high level of detailed work and to get some of that work done.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

The noble Lord says that he has never been asked on the doorstep about Article 312(2). Of course not, but if he called it the European budget people would understand exactly what he was talking about. Is it not the case that subsection (5) refers to all these different provisions in the TFEU by their complicated numbers but they actually come down to about five or six simple areas that are perfectly comprehensible, like a European army, a public prosecutor and our borders? If the noble Lord thinks that it is appropriate to have a referendum on a complicated issue like the single currency, why can we not have one on the European army?

[Lord Triesman]

That may well be one of the substantive issues that people might concede was necessary, but it is also true—and I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, when he made the point about the interest that we rightly take in the defence of this country—that we already undertake a great deal of what we do in the defence of this country inside alliances about which the British people are not asked at all other than in general elections. They are certainly asked in the context of whether we are willing to sustain an independent nuclear deterrent—another issue that had ramifications inside the Labour Party, I readily acknowledge—

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

I—

[Lord Triesman]

Let me try to finish my sentence. Generally speaking, we have undertaken our defence, either in NATO or in NATO plus one or two others, often under the command of Americans or of others, quite frequently these days with people drawn from the Nordic countries in military command. We have developed alliances, I should add, often in circumstances that are stressful and rapidly moving, when UN decisions have required it and when there have been potential massive attacks on civilians. In those sorts of circumstances and against the economic background in which we are all living at the moment, I did not take huge umbrage when the Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, suggested that the United Kingdom and France might co-operate on the use of aircraft carriers. I did not think that that was a terrible threat to the UK’s security.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

Does the noble Lord agree, when he makes a comparison between the United Kingdom exercising a great deal of authority inside other alliances, that there is a bit of a difference between, say, NATO or the UN and the European Union? None of the other alliances of which we are an important member has the acquis communautaire, and none therefore binds us so tightly into legal provisions that we accept and implement. It is therefore a different story with the EU, and that is what the Bill addresses.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I—

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

Order. You cannot intervene on an intervention.

[Lord Triesman]

I have a feeling that I am going to give way instantly.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I cannot let the noble Baroness get away with that. The North Atlantic treaty says that when we go to war, our forces will be under foreign command. The supreme commander is an American general. That is fact. The Western European Union treaty, the revised Brussels treaty, says that when any of the parties to the treaty is attacked, we are all at war. These are huge transfers of sovereignty that were done, of course, without a referendum—quite rightly.

The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, talks about a European army but that is not what the treaty says. It might in the end be what someone comes up with, but the treaty talks about a European defence force; the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, correctly read out the treaty passage. It seems almost inconceivable to me, though I would like it very much if it were true, that non-aligned and neutral countries—the Irish, the Austrians, the Swedes, the Finns—would wish to get into any kind of binding defence arrangement remotely like the ones that we are already a member of, the Western European Union and NATO. We are dealing with a very remote contingency here. It would be a momentous national decision for us.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, that makes the point that I wished to make about the character of the alliances, even in an area that is as sensitive for us as defence. I suspect that most people would conclude that our membership of those alliances has been absolutely fundamental to the security of our country and would not wish to see them shaken. Were there to be some absolutely massive change in the architecture of defence, it might be so substantive as to require a mechanism that is contained in an amendment and has been in past undertakings that we have made. However, it would be a fairly extraordinary event that looked as though it were even more significant than the arrangements that we have under the provisions of the NATO treaty.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Surely the noble Lord must agree that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, said, these other organisations do not make our law. We can leave them tomorrow if we want, with far greater ease than we can leave the European Union. The EU makes our law, which is a difference. We would be in a very different position with an EU army from the one we are in with NATO.

[Lord Triesman]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made the point that the arrangements made under the NATO treaty, about its command structure and the obligations on members, have the effect, whether described as law or not, of determining how we behave in the defence of this country. It is impossible to argue that that is not substantively the case.

As I said earlier, this clause provides, more than anything else, the opportunity for continuous internal division and splits—not harmonisation or bringing people back to political activism and political understanding but rather the alternative. If the argument flows in the other direction—that we will never use it, or that the process of being bound to the mast is not really there and we will sail by without anybody noticing that it is happening—the Government should, out of courtesy to the House, simply make a statement that this is a form of dressing up a political proposal for people who feel disenfranchised in any respect by what has happened in the development of the European Union. They should say that that is what it is for; it is not at all for anything practical. That is really the status of this clause.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, this has been a very wide-ranging debate, covering all these amendments. Some very wise and profound observations have been made. It would be quite wrong not to say that many of the points raised feed into the arguments, the presentation of the Bill and how Ministers should think about it. There are matters on which to reflect, which we will no doubt come back to again and again. Indeed, on the track record so far, we are likely to come round this course several times.

There are still some serious misunderstandings about the nature and purposes of the Bill. It ranges over several extremely complex issues. The whole EU structure and its legislative underpinnings are enormously complex and have grown over decades from a series of legislation, treaty-making and so on. I do not disguise that for a moment. If noble Lords would find it useful, I am willing to put on record that I am very open, as are my colleagues, to any degree of informal discussions to elucidate what is intended by the Bill, since some noble Lords are perhaps, in their own words, still confused about aspects of it. These amendments are wide-ranging but they nearly all have the same broad objective. They are designed to remove requirements for a referendum or Acts of Parliament from the list of decisions in Clause 6. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, rightly said, their intention is to shorten the list. I want to explain why we should not shorten the list and to deal particularly with the passerelles.

21:45

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I know that it is late but will the noble Lord please not say that these amendments are designed to remove the requirement for an Act of Parliament? Not a single amendment being moved tonight requires the removal of the need for an Act of Parliament. The people who are moving these amendments, including myself, accept that the Lisbon treaty procedures of merely requiring resolutions from the two Houses are inadequate and that there needs to be an Act of Parliament when these powers are shifted—if they ever were, and they could be so only with the agreement of the British Government of the day. Therefore, can we please not have the misunderstanding that this is about more than removing a referendum requirement? That is all that these amendments set out to do.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I accept that. I note that I had already crossed out the words “Act of Parliament” in my notes in anticipating that comment. Unfortunately, in the excitement, I put those words in, so I take them out again. However, when we come to the minutiae, there may be some qualification even to what I am saying.

I want to try to explain why shortening the list is not the right thing to do, and to deal particularly with the passerelle provisions, on which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, commented with his enormous expertise and hinterland of understanding of these things, having been in at the creation of not all the passerelles—some have existed for many years but never been used—but of those that we dealt with in the Lisbon treaty, which we had first seen given birth to in the constitution, which unfortunately came to a sticky end.

I say as a preliminary that all this discussion about referendum requirements against treaty changes and for certain decisions where no treaty change is required, and for giving up vetoes—in other words, allowing the right to be outvoted on certain issues—takes place against a background of huge areas of existing power and competence in the European Union. When one thinks of the enormous range of areas where the European Union can legislate, and where we can develop all kinds of positive ideas and initiatives to enable it to deal with entirely new global conditions of the 21st century, I am always left a little bewildered that we should come back again and again to the probably, I suspect, fairly marginal areas—these may be very small areas indeed—where there is supposed to be a tremendous yen for new treaties and extending the competences and powers of the European Union. These are areas in the margin of the real world of the European Union, where many of us have been involved over many years, and where enormous tasks have yet to be carried out which do not require yet a further extension of the powers and competences of the European Union. I say that just as background; I want to come back to that point in more detail a little later on.

I turn more specifically to the amendments. Of course I am very pleased that the signatories to the amendment have accepted the principle that a decision on whether to join the euro is of such fundamental importance that the people should decide. I have argued before—Ministers have argued, the Government have argued and the Bill argues—that the referendum requirement is a vital part of rebuilding trust with the British people. We perfectly accept the point made by the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House that referenda should not be used, as it put it, as a “tactical device”, and that referenda should, as we argue, be used for more critical issues of fundamental importance. We therefore come down to a central question running through all this debate—what are the critical issues? What are the fundamental problems and matters on which it would be right for people to be consulted before powers are pushed away or—whether through treaties, various procedures, the passerelle device or simply a decision of this Government—they decide to give away a certain power or move in a certain direction?

We begin with a puzzlement as to why the other one-way irreversible decisions in Clause 6 that we are talking about and I shall come to in detail are considered any less important in the minds of noble Lords than the euro. I find it difficult, as do a number of noble Lords who have spoken with great precision and accuracy, to conceive that the monetary independence of the UK should be considered essential to our national identity and economic interest—an argument apparently accepted by the supporters of the amendments—but not the UK’s military independence and commitments to NATO, if it were decided to establish a common EU defence that might well conflict with those commitments. We have held many debates in this House in the past four or five years about the dangers of that.

Why consider just the euro but not the impact that joining the European public prosecutor’s office could have on the UK’s judicial independence, as my noble friend Lord Faulks clearly emphasised. I want to refer to that in much more detail. I note that the previous Government opposed that. The present Government are against it. Many of the Nordic countries think that it is an extremely bad idea. There is very little support at all for the proposition. Yet the suggestion that there should be a safeguard against what would be a major incursion into the criminal justice system in this country is not seen as important. I cannot give all the details, because I know that there are different views on this. What about the UK’s ability to police its own borders? This is a red-hot issue, yet for some reason it is not included in the list.

Allow me to elaborate on some of my remarks. A decision on whether to join a common EU defence is fundamental, as it could result in a common EU army—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that that may not happen immediately; but it could happen—and in giving the EU the power and legal right to decide on the deployment of UK civilian and military assets in a way that is not the case with NATO. It is of course perfectly true that operational command is under an American supreme commander, and that on the battlefield decisions and powers may be taken that can subordinate British forces to others. However, the suggestion that we should move in a new direction and be aligned with some of the European Union’s ideas is a new departure. These would be huge decisions on which the British people should decide that are discussed on the doorstep.

It is reasonable to suggest that Parliament and the people are entitled to ask what extra benefit would be bought by moves of that kind. The UK has long valued its NATO membership and key bilateral defence relationships within Europe, of which the treaty with France announced last summer is one. The UK also values existing mechanisms for security and defence co-operation within the EU. Bilateral and multilateral co-operation is an essential part of our approach in the UK and to wider international defence—as has recently been shown in Libya and earlier off the coast of Somalia, through Operation Atalanta. All that is going on; all that is thoroughly sensible; all that is within the operational activities of the European Union and I find it hard to see why an advance into a completely new area of power delegation and power transfer should be brushed aside. It would be a major development.

I turn to the issue of the public prosecutor, because a good many comments were made on that. It is coalition policy that we will not participate in the establishment of any European public prosecutor. We know that it is a sensitive issue, as was recorded by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union in its 16th report seven years ago. It is perfectly true—the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spoke with great expertise on this—that Article 86(2) provides only for the European public prosecutor to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union. Although that is so, the participation of the UK in a European public prosecutor would mean giving up control of a fundamental part of our judicial system: the decision on who can be brought for prosecution in this country. That is not a small matter. That is a vital principle. As Article 86(2) states, a European public prosecutor,

“shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competence courts of the member states”.

In other words, a European public prosecutor would have power to prosecute in those member states within the prosecutor’s jurisdiction.

In England and Wales, it is the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to prosecute and whether to take over any private prosecution, so powers granted to a European public prosecutor would cut across that well-established principle. As the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, when a Minister in the previous Government, informed this House:

“The Government have consistently opposed the creation of an EPP”.—[Official Report, 1/3/10; col. WA325.]

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Faulks, said on the European public prosecutor. It seems to me highly unlikely ever to be suitable to a common-law country such as us or the Irish. I am delighted to hear the Minister say that it is coalition policy is to play no part in that. It was precisely because of such considerations that the article in the treaty specifically provides for a group of nine or more to go off to do their own thing, so we are in a rather unlikely scenario here when we come to the point on which a referendum requirement is imposed. That is the question of whether the European public prosecutor’s office, set up to look after the financial interests of the Union and prosecute fraud against the Community budget—and unsuitable in this country as a vehicle for doing that—should extend its role to cross-border crime—human trafficking or whatever. That is a really unlikely contingency, because we will not be in the thing anyway. Surely, if we had an issue for a referendum, it should be: should we have common procedures for prosecuting people who traffick children? That issue is referendable. The issue of whether the European public prosecutor's office, in which we will be playing no part, should have its role extended into that area is a very rum one to choose to block. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was absolutely right to say that this provision in Clause 6 is completely inappropriate, although I agree with the noble Lord, Faulks, on the substance of the EPPO.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

All these issues are interconnected. In Clause 6 there are two concerns about the surrender of our veto, and therefore the opportunity for others to outvote us on those matters and the agreement to go along with the public prosecutor proposal, which is, of course, already in the treaty. One is joining up with and adopting the European public prosecutor proposal; the other is the extension of the public prosecutor's competencies and the regime which might follow.

Therefore, those are both areas where, because successive Governments have set themselves against them, one hopes that the matter will not arise. However, it is one of the issues involving big decisions—and they are big decisions; there are five such issues and I shall come to them in due course—where there would not be a treaty change but where, as Clause 6 suggests, the British Government should put the matter to the people in a referendum, and the public prosecution proposal is certainly one of them. Perhaps I may mention the big five issues. I do not want to take an unlimited amount of time over them, difficult as it is to cover all the issues.

22:00

[Lord Radice]

The noble Lord may be right in what he has said—in fact, I think that he is—but there is a very simple answer. Cannot the Government just say no if they do not want any of these things to happen? That is surely the point.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

It is not the point because, as your Lordships have been reminded in the debate in the past half hour, the proposition has been fundamentally questioned that the Government and even our parliamentary institution are always going to be the safeguard, ensuring that unconstitutional changes are not ceded and that powers and competence do not slip away, or creep away as some have said. Today, a majority in this country, so it seems—although we cannot be sure about the opinion polls—wish to have a greater say in these matters. It is not just a question of leaving it to the Government to say no.

I shall finish on the public prosecutor issue by saying that I continue to find it extremely difficult to understand why noble Lords opposite would wish to deny the British people the right to be consulted before any future Government decided to take such a sensitive and important decision on creating or extending—that is my point to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr—the powers of the European public prosecutor’s office.

I was about to elaborate on what I call the big five issues—I shall come to some of the other veto issues in Clause 6—on all of which I think it would be perfectly reasonable to have a referendum. They are: UK agreement for the EU to move to a common EU defence; UK participation in the European public prosecutor, as we are currently discussing, and extending the powers of the public prosecutor, which we shall talk more about; the UK joining the euro, which does not appear in the amendment because noble Lords feel that that one is okay; and abolishing UK border controls under Schengen. These are vital, red-hot issues, all bound up with talk of red lines, which have been mentioned in the debate, and it is almost incomprehensible that noble Lords should suggest that they are not important, critical or fundamental. Of course they are.

Because of the time and the fact that we have been debating this matter for some hours, I shall not elaborate on why the Schengen issues would also be very important and justify a referendum. However, we think that they would, and we believe that it is part of a need to restore trust that that should be on the statute book. If decisions are taken in this area by the British Government, there should be a referendum on them.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister and shall be very brief. Given that a large part of his argument rested on the case that these were very important—in fact, he used the word “red-hot”—issues, can he say how we would sustain the argument that the referendum exercise would be inappropriate for important and red-hot domestic issues, such as council tax or taxation, because it would be for Parliament to make those decisions and not for a referendum of the people?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I can make the oversimple point that referenda have been used rather frequently, including by the previous Government and from the days of Harold Wilson onwards, as we heard. They have been used in this country and increasingly in other countries far more frequently than here. There is a more general point behind my noble friend’s intervention which is that we now live in the internet age. We live in an era in which people still admire, despite its many faults, and still support the principle of parliamentary government, as I most certainly do. There is a constant pressure for wider consultation and empowerment. Sixty-three per cent of people in this country are on the web every morning. People want a say. There is greater pressure coming for referenda. We heard from my noble friend Lord Deben that he does not like referenda. I think that several of my noble friends do not and I suspect that many throughout your Lordships’ House are not very happy about referenda. It is a question of balance and the balance has shifted. The shift is in the direction of a greater demand that fundamentally important issues, five of which I have just outlined—not one, but five—should be put to referenda.

I want to come in particular to the other items in Clause 6. There are six very important areas where noble Lords ask why they are there as they are issues that if decisions gave rise to treaty changes, they would be caught under Clauses 2 and 3. They are in Clause 6 because under the passerelle provisions, on which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is undoubtedly the leading expert, vetoes could be given up in those areas as well. The Government believe that the surrender of those vetoes would be transfers of power and that again there needs to be fundamental reassurance under this Bill and the beginnings of some kind of reconnection and support that there will be no further extensive and sometimes rather furtive concessions of powers and competences. We believe that these two should not be barred. The passerelle system should not be barred in any way, but if we look on it as a possible window for quicker procedures—I would question the quickness, incidentally, as I have some figures showing that it is very far from being quick—nevertheless one should put a lock on that window. That is all we are saying. We are not saying that the passerelle system should not be used but that there should be a lock to ensure that it does not provide the opportunity for power and competences to seep away. I add the point about the length of time taken. Passerelles are not the quick fix that some people suggest. In all the cases that one looks at about the future—of course, there is very little to look at in the past as most of these passerelles have never been used, which is for good reason—the evidence is that they would take six months or a year. They would have to clog up national Parliaments and would not be the easy way of getting round the issue of giving up vetoes.

In that sort of scenario I very much doubt that the British people would understand why they would be asked for their views on whether or not to give up the British veto on, for instance, common foreign and security policy by virtue of a treaty change but be not asked for their say before the British Government could do exactly the same thing through the passerelle procedure. That is why there is concern and why these matters are in Clause 6. I mentioned common foreign and security policy but there is a whole social policy area where there are very serious issues and the surrender of a veto would be a major surrender of power. The environment passerelle has been there since 1987. It has never been used, for the very good reason that countries do not want to use it because it takes time, is complicated and blocks up national parliamentary procedures throughout the European Union. The European Union's multiannual financial frameworks, introduced by the Lisbon treaty, are neither unimportant nor casual. They are highly important and giving up the veto over them would be a considerable departure and concession of power. The remaining vetoes concern not enhanced co-operation itself—which does not affect competence at all because it is not allowed to—but situations where, once we were in an enhanced co-operation operation, there might be pressure for it to go to QMV. All these areas are vital, not trivial. They are critical areas, in the language of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, and there must be reassurance that they will not be, by a tick of a box, by launching into a long and complicated treaty procedure, or even by an Act of Parliament, simply turned into major concessions of power and competence.

I have not begun to answer every question and I will be happy to write to noble Lords about some of the very interesting amendments they tabled. I have in mind in particular the observations of my noble friend Lord Flight. As he said, they did not quite fit into the main thrust of many amendments from noble Lords opposite, but they were very interesting and raised important issues.

We have debated these matters very thoroughly and I will end by saying this. If one believes that the EU has enough competences and powers to proceed and to succeed, and that this is the context in which the UK can take the lead; that, far from being marginalised, we can continue to shape and be decisive in the European Union; and if one recognises that other countries are just as opposed to QMV and the moot case of passerelles—I mentioned Sweden, Spain, Ireland and Estonia, and there could be many others—one will see the case for the Bill. If noble Lords believe that all members of the EU are itching to bring forward new treaties, take new powers and extend competences, despite the fact that that would be a very slow and unpopular process in many countries and would clog up 27 national Parliaments, they will obviously disagree and there is nothing that I can do to persuade them otherwise.

If that is the way they see the future of Europe, and the future development of a successful and popular European Union that attracts and merits the public consensus in a way that it is not doing today, clearly they will also see the prospect of an endless treaty trickle that in my view would be a major contribution not to encouraging trust and support for a successful European Union but to undermining it. To noble Lords who insist on that view, there is nothing more than I can say, except that, in the view of the Government, such a procedure in future—a pattern that would come up against the proposals in the Bill if there were endless treaty changes appearing at all times—would be guaranteed to alienate people even more than they have been already, and would be profoundly hostile and not helpful to sound EU development.

Some noble Lords believe the opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, believes the opposite with great force and vigour. I always admire his energies, but I believe that his proposition that the Bill would somehow simultaneously weaken popular support for the European Union and respect for Parliament is 180 degrees wrong. The Bill points the way to much greater public confidence in Parliament and public commitment to the benefits of the European Union, and our role in it, in a completely changed world and international landscape. That is why I strongly urge noble Lords not to press their amendments, which do not add to the aims and goals of the Bill, or the aims and goals of a better and stronger European Union.

22:15

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I thank the Minister for his disarming response to the debate. It was an interesting debate. I am a little sorry that the Front Bench has not associated itself with the defence of the ECJ that I rather inadequately attempted.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Much of what the noble Lord said on that matter is correct. There is no question of challenging the integrity of the very senior legal figures who have served their country and Europe very well, and I associate myself with some of the noble Lord’s remarks, although some decisions coming out of the ECJ and the European Court of Human Rights are a different matter, and I would question them very strongly. However, I would not question that the personnel involved are men and women of integrity, uprightness and skill.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I am grateful to the Minister. The most endearing feature of the debate was that it was the first of our debates in Committee where we all agreed on something. We all agreed that the grouping was insane. The Opposition Front Bench said that the grouping was insane, and the Minister said that the grouping was unfortunate. One wonders where the grouping comes from. Clearly nobody in the Chamber was in any way responsible for it. It came down from above. Perhaps it came out of Brussels or some dreadful place like that.

It was a difficult debate because of the amendments seeking to subtract, the amendments seeking to add and the amendments of very different weights. At the end of the previous short debate, there was, as the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, pointed out, a very significant move by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who indicated that he might be prepared to go away and think about something said in the debate. I urge the coalition to share this insight.

It would be extremely good if the Minister too would consider at the end of these debates whether there might not be something that he would be prepared to think about further. He has very kindly said that he would be happy to explain, meet informally and discuss, but that had slightly the ring of the schoolmaster: “If you guys only do your homework, you will in the end understand the wisdom of the Government’s Bill”. I am not sure that that is quite going to do the trick. I think it will be necessary to come back at a later stage to the scope of Clause 6, but for the moment, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 30 withdrawn.

Amendment 31 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 32 to 39 not moved.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.19 pm.