House of Commons
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hon. Members
Object.
Lords amendments to be considered on Thursday 31 January at Two o’clock.
Leeds City Council Bill (By Order)
Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.
Hon. Members
Object.
Lords amendments to be considered on Thursday 31 January at Two o’clock.
Nottingham City Council Bill (By Order)
Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.
Hon. Members
Object.
Lords amendments to be considered on Thursday 31 January at Two o’clock.
Reading Borough Council Bill (By Order)
Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.
Hon. Members
Object.
Lords amendments to be considered on Thursday 31 January at Two o’clock.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] (By Order)
Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 29 January (Standing Order No. 20).
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
1. What recent reports he has received on the security situation in Rakhine state, Burma; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I visited Rakhine state in December. I visited five camps for displaced people and spoke to local community and political leaders. The security situation appears to have stabilised, though I stressed to Burmese Ministers the importance of a long-term solution that will not leave communities permanently displaced.
Jonathan Ashworth
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, and pleased that he has visited the camps in Rakhine state. I am sure that he will have seen reports in recent days that Rohingya refugees crossing the Andaman sea to Thailand have been captured by Thai officials and sold on to human traffickers. What urgent representations is he making to the Thai authorities on that matter, and will he give us an update on the situation?
Mr Swire
The hon. Gentleman follows these matters closely, and he is referring to the 949 Rohingya in southern Thailand who were allegedly waiting for their escort to smuggle them across the border. It is worth saying that the embassy in Bangkok has raised the issue of the Rohingya with the appropriate Thai authorities, both bilaterally and through the European Commission, and that it continues to follow the issue closely, including in close conjunction with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is well aware of the plight of the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. Will he update the House on the specific steps that the Government are taking, with the Burmese and Bangladeshi Governments, to ensure a permanent, stable future for those people?
Mr Swire
My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. My response can be divided quite neatly into two parts. First, in the short term, humanitarian access, co-ordination and security must be improved for the Rohingya people in Rakhine. I have seen that for myself and I am satisfied that that is happening. Secondly, in the longer term, those responsible for the violence must be held publicly to account for what they have done. Ultimately, the Burmese have to deal with the issue of citizenship, and that matter is being reviewed at the moment. The Bangladeshis need to play a better part in helping out those Rohingya who are on that side of the border.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
The continued suppression of minority ethnic groups in Burma is clearly incompatible with the development of a proper democracy there. We all wish to see such a democracy developing, but what are the Government doing through their contact with the Burmese to stress that we cannot continue to support democratic development and the development of trade without the Burmese addressing those important issues?
Mr Swire
The situation in Burma is complex, as the hon. Lady will accept. The country is coming out of a period of military rule. We believe that the President has embarked on the right journey, although he could move more quickly to deliver some of the reforms. The solution to 10 out of the 11 outbreaks of violence has been a ceasefire, but we have not yet seen that happen in Kachin state. This Government are helping out, through the Department for International Development, by being the largest bilateral donor of aid. We have also had many exchanges involving Burmese parliamentarians coming here to Westminster. The more engagement that British parliamentarians have with the Burmese authorities to show them how we do things here, the better. Perhaps that might include you, Mr Speaker, if you were able to find time in your diary to show the Burmese what we do here at Westminster and show them what a true democracy can look like.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Staying with Burma, is the Minister aware that the ceasefire in Kachin state has been breached, and that a village with 100 houses in it was burned today? Can he say what representations he is making to the Burmese Government to ask them to continue the ceasefire?
Mr Swire
Yes I can. Indeed, not too long ago I made a statement about the situation in Kachin. We welcome what the President said about Kachin when he reiterated the Burmese Government’s stated commitment to a nationwide ceasefire and to peace building, although we do not recognise one or two other things he has said. It is important that there is a ceasefire in Kachin state and that the military in the area adheres to what the President is saying. It is also important, as I stressed when I was in Burma in December, that humanitarian aid gets to the people in Kachin.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the Minister has noted the urgent and troubling situation in Kachin state, with the three civilian deaths reported last week and the military breaking a very short-lived ceasefire at the weekend. Will he tell us what discussions the Government have had not just with the Burmese authorities on the urgent need for peace talks but with the EU and the United Nations on his assessment of whether the resumed attacks bring into doubt the Burmese Government’s commitment to a ceasefire and their control over the military?
Mr Swire
The hon. Lady raises a good point. There is a genuine question about control over the Burmese military; and until the Burmese military is brought under control, the peace process in Burma and the journey on which the President has embarked will be under serious question. We are anxious to help with what is going on in Kachin: we have increased our humanitarian aid, which now totals £3.5 million—as far as I am aware, the biggest donation in that area from any country. We are also one of the three bilateral members of the peace donor support group, which represents most of the major donors in Burma and is working closely with the Government to move from the ceasefire arrangements to political dialogue with all Burma’s ethnic groups.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
2. What assistance he is providing to ensure access to education and health for women in Afghanistan.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
3. What guidance his Department is giving to heads of mission on the steps that should be taken to ensure continuing support for education and health care for women in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
5. What guidance his Department is giving to heads of mission on the steps that should be taken to ensure continuing support for education and health care for women in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
7. What guidance his Department is giving to heads of mission on the steps that should be taken to ensure continuing support for education and health care for women in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
13. What guidance is being given to heads of mission by his Department regarding the steps that should be taken to ensure continuing support for education and health care for women in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
16. What guidance is being given to heads of mission by his Department regarding the steps that should be taken to ensure continuing support for education and health care for women in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
Supporting access to welfare, including education and health for women and girls in Pakistan, remains a key priority for the UK Government. Despite some fragility, we believe real progress has been made in these areas in these states over recent years. I expect to be able to give more details in answer to questions in the next few minutes.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. Does he accept that one of the real benefits of intervention by international countries in Afghanistan has been the progress made for women? What steps will he take to ensure that, for neighbouring countries as well as areas in Afghanistan, such progress is not reversed?
Alistair Burt
The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to specific progress. In 2002, fewer than 9% of women in Afghanistan had access to any health care, whereas some 57% now have access to it within an hour, whether they walk or use other means of travel. It is important for that progress to continue. To that extent, the Tokyo mutual accountability framework agreed by a number of nations sets some indicators for Afghanistan in return for future financial support post-2015. Support for women, including measures such as the Act on the elimination of violence against women, is a key part of that and we would like to see it implemented as part of that agreement.
Gemma Doyle
Al-Jazeera has just reported a 22% increase in crimes of violence against women in Afghanistan. Despite the progress made, the truth is that many Afghan women cannot access education or health care for fears about their own safety. Will the Minister ensure that Afghan women are involved in planning for the 2014 London summit on Afghanistan’s future? Crucially, will he seek to guarantee women at least a 30% representation at that summit?
Alistair Burt
Yes, it has been vital that women have played an increasing part in political participation. Some 25% of members of Parliament in Afghanistan are women, and there are nine women members on the High Peace Council. Access to education remains key for the future. Some 2.3 million girls are now in education in Afghanistan compared with hardly any when the Taliban were in control. To ensure that that remains the case and in order to improve the chances of resisting violence against women—clearly, a serious issue in Afghanistan—it is crucial to keep that progress going.
John Robertson
As the Minister knows, security is fundamental to the delivery of education and health for women. What discussions has he had with the international security assistance force, his partners in Afghanistan, about the achievement of that security?
Alistair Burt
In many parts of Afghanistan, the security situation is very different from the situation that we sometimes see portrayed in areas such as Helmand and Kandahar. Bamyam province is governed by a woman, for example. Security issues are very different in different places. We have regular contact with ISAF and our own forces about the need to support the civil authorities that are promoting the rule of law in order to ensure that laws prohibiting violence against women are enforced, and our development work will, of course, continue after 2014.
Fiona O’Donnell
We all want to see improvements in access to health and education for women and girls in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. How is the Foreign Office working with the Department for International Development to achieve that?
Alistair Burt
Very closely. Progress in both countries is being handled almost on a mutual basis: many meetings take place at which FCO and DFID officials are present in post together. I have already provided some details relating to Afghanistan, but progress is being made in Pakistan as well. Because 50% of women in Pakistan currently give birth at home and some 12,000 die in childbirth or for related reasons, we have so far contributed to the support of some 17,000 community midwives there. Work of that kind can be done only with the support of the FCO, working with the Pakistan Government, and the good work of DFID and the non-governmental organisations that work with it to provide care on the ground.
Karl Turner
What is the Minister’s assessment of the contribution of women’s education to the long-term stability and development of Afghanistan?
Alistair Burt
It is utterly crucial. There is no recorded instance of a society in which women have been involved and engaged being in a worse position than before. That involvement and engagement is vital to progress.
We are supporting projects including Afghan Women In Business and the promotion of entrepreneurship for women in Afghanistan. The number of women who are engaged in business remains incredibly small, and the female literacy rate is only about 12%. Our work must involve a combination of involving women in education, helping them to become involved in business, and, of course, continuing to support their political participation.
Chris Evans
As the Minister said earlier, more than 2 million Afghan girls have returned to school since the fall of the Taliban, but, according to press reports, hundreds of schools are closing all the time. As military operations are scaled down in Afghanistan, what action are the Government taking to ensure that the education of girls is maintained there?
Alistair Burt
When we talk of the scaling down of military activity, we should bear in mind that that refers to the withdrawal of international and United Kingdom forces from combat roles. In their place will be 330,000 Afghan security forces who know that part of their role will be providing domestic security to ensure that the progress that has been made—such as girls going to school—can continue, and that they will be protected in so doing. The example of Malala, the young woman in Pakistan who was threatened by people very similar to those who are threatening girls in Afghanistan, demonstrates the importance of that.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
If women are to gain access to health and education, they must enjoy the same freedoms in the public space as men. I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his initiative to prevent sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict situations, and on putting that initiative on the G8 agenda. How will it be implemented in Afghanistan, where it is clearly much needed?
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and his initiative to prevent sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict situations, which has been warmly welcomed by Members in all parts of the House and internationally. The G8 summit in April will consider the best way of implementing it, which will involve not just national Governments but non-governmental organisations and human rights monitors. They will be vital to ensuring that women are protected locally, and that those who perpetuate violence towards them are accountable for their actions.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways of supporting education and health care for women in Afghanistan will be a successful transition in 2014? Will he update the House on how the talks in Doha are going? Is there any sign that the United States Administration are prepared to get involved in them?
Mr Speaker
Specifically and exclusively with reference to education and health for women in Afghanistan—nothing else. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knew that.
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that a successful transition is the most likely foundation for the continuation of the progress we have seen on women’s issues in recent years. Consultations are continuing with all parties, including in Doha, but perhaps the most successful line of conversation recently has been in the increased relationship between the Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United Kingdom has been closely involved in those arrangements to ensure that those Governments are working more closely together in isolating the extremists and finding the moderate politicians who will guarantee the future of Afghanistan.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Minister mentioned brave Malala Yousafzai. Does he agree that when such girls have the courage to defy the Taliban in search of an education, the rest of the world has a responsibility to support them and to support education for women in the region?
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The whole world was shocked by the attack on Malala, but what was remarkable was the response in Pakistan from women who felt horrified on her behalf. The fact that she has made such a stand is incredibly important. She is a source of joy to all of us with her recovery. She is a source of pride for us because she came to the United Kingdom to get the best health care in the world for her recovery. And she is a source of inspiration to everyone all over the world, youngsters and parents alike, because of her commitment to education.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
One of the major health care issues facing Pakistan is population growth and a lack of family planning. For example, 80% of maternal deaths there could be prevented. What assistance is being given to Pakistan to address those issues?
Alistair Burt
Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely to the point. We support programmes that will encourage women to take more control of situations in relation to pregnancy and child birth, and programmes are designed to assist that. The more control that women have over those situations in societies such as Pakistan, the better it will be for their general well-being and all-round health care issues.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
Afghan and Pakistani women are not just victims; they are often the most effective and vocal in calling for their right to access services. However, like Malala, they face intimidation and abuse, and often grave sexual violence. What do the Government plan to do to support and protect these women and human rights defenders, especially in the context of the preventing sexual violence initiative?
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend asks a highly pertinent question. These non-governmental organisations and human rights defenders, with their local knowledge, are often those closest to circumstances where people can be identified and protected. It is the intention of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to raise this issue at the G8 summit in April, where we hope the international community will also recognise their importance and ensure that the protocol provides protection for human rights defenders and others who will do so much to ensure the implementation of the Foreign Secretary’s initiative.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
4. What recent reports he has received on the political situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
We continue to monitor the protests in the west bank as well as reconciliation efforts between Fatah and Hamas. We are particularly concerned about the impact on the Palestinian Authority of Israel’s withholding of revenues. We call on Israel to release those revenues in accordance with its obligations under the Paris protocol.
Mr Love
Last month, the Foreign Secretary told the House that he would discuss the diplomatic options with his European Union partners if recent settlement activity was not reversed. Given the likely outcome of the Israeli general election, that looks more distant now than ever. He recently said that he would discuss the
“incentives and disincentives for both sides to return to negotiations.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 709.]
What discussions has he had with his EU partners about those?
Mr Hague
We have many such discussions. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, I made my remarks in the context of the support we can give for what I hope will be a major effort by the United States on the middle east peace process—the greatest effort since the Oslo peace accords, as I have put it. Of course that awaits the outcome of the Israeli elections and the transition of personnel in the re-elected Obama Administration. I will be discussing this with the United States in Washington next week.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
17. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a significant barrier to peace between Israel and the Palestinians is the continued supply of weapons and funding to Hamas in Gaza? What action are the Government taking to try to stop that funding and weapons supply?
Mr Hague
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The behaviour of Hamas and the continued supply of weaponry to Hamas are a major problem in bringing about a two-state solution and peace in the middle east. We call on all states through which such weapons might pass to interdict such weapons and prevent their passage.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
If, as the Foreign Secretary has said, 2013 is to be the year of peace for Palestinians and Israelis, we urgently need both sides to begin meaningful peace talks. On his recent visit to the UK, did the secretary-general of the Arab League give any indication that its members would host urgent peace talks?
Mr Hague
I discussed that with Nabil al-Arabi, the secretary-general of the Arab League, when he was here two weeks ago. The Arab League, like us, looks to the United States to launch a major initiative and looks to be able to give its support to it in the same way that we in the European Union will be able to contribute, as I have said before, and as has been quoted, with “incentives and disincentives”. When the Israeli elections are completed and a new Israeli Government have taken office, it is important that that Israeli Government should be ready to enter such negotiations. It is also important that Palestinians should be ready to do so without preconditions and that the United States should be ready to launch a major new initiative.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
My right hon. Friend will recall that it has been the policy of successive British Governments for decades that there should be a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. In the light of the political situation in Israel and the potential situation after the election, will he give the House his objective assessment of the possibility of ever achieving a solution based on two states and the 1967 boundaries?
Mr Hague
My right hon. and learned Friend accurately describes the position of successive Governments. I have said before in this House that changing facts on the ground, principally the construction of settlements on occupied land, mean that the two-state solution is slipping away. The chances of bringing it about are not yet at an end, but it is very urgent. I do not want to speculate, of course, about the outcome of the election taking place at the moment in Israel, but I hope that whatever Israeli Government emerge will recognise that we are approaching the last chance of bringing about such a solution.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Let me pick up where the last question left off. In a speech to the House in November, the Foreign Secretary said:
“If progress on negotiations is not made next year, the two-state solution could become impossible to achieve.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 227.]
Today, he talked again of the greatest efforts since Oslo. In the light of today’s Israeli elections and yesterday’s US presidential inauguration, can he offer the House a little more detail on the substance of the major American initiative of which he has spoken? What other initiatives will be possible in the course of 2013 if we are not to see the end of the two-state solution, as he puts it?
Mr Hague
The short answer on the details of the initiative is no, because it requires the United States to take the lead. That is not because other countries like us are not willing to play our own active part, but because the United States is in a unique position in the world to help bring Israel into a two-state solution. I will be going to Washington next week and discussing the question with the United States. The Secretary of State has changed and there have been many other changes of personnel in the US Administration, and I have put it to them that this should be the single highest priority for new momentum in American foreign policy, even with all the other challenges we face in the world today.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
For five and a half years now, the Quartet has followed a largely economic policy in the west bank, personified by the work of Tony Blair, presumably to try to help lay better conditions for a political settlement. That strategy has comprehensively failed as the possibility of a political settlement is much further away now than it was then. Is it not now time for the Quartet to focus heavily on the politics rather than the economics?
Mr Hague
It is very important that the Quartet does everything that it can to recognise the urgency of what we are speaking about on both sides of the House. At the same time it is very important that we do everything we can to support a Palestinian economy that is in a serious condition. As my hon. Friend knows, we provide £30 million a year in budget support to the Palestinian Authority, and the Department for International Development has provided £349 million in support of Palestinian development in the current four-year spending programme. However, the conditions are difficult, and other nations need to do more. It is important that the Israelis release the revenues that are owed to the Palestinians.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
6. What recent representations he has made to the Government of India on the safety of women and the rule of law.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
We regularly discuss human rights issues with India, including the protection of women, both bilaterally and through the EU/India human rights dialogue. Women’s rights are on the agenda for the next instalment of the dialogue. I welcome the fact that the Indian Government continue to take steps to promote the rights of women and hope they will continue their efforts in this regard.
Stella Creasy
One in three women will be beaten or raped in her lifetime in this world. Whether the rape and murder of Jyoti Singh, the events in Steubenville in Ohio, what is happening in Congo, or even what is happening on our own streets and towns in Britain, the scale of violence against women and girls is overwhelming. The One Billion Rising campaign is leading campaigners in 188 countries to call for that issue to be a priority for all Governments to eliminate. Will the Foreign Secretary join us in supporting that campaign, and say so today, and will he do all that he can to encourage the Leader of the House to make sure that on 14 February we can debate these matters in a One Billion Rising debate?
Mr Swire
This Government will stop at nothing in trying to stamp out violence of any sort against women, wherever it takes place. Unfortunately, there is too much violence against women even in our own country. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), is taking forward an international campaign to end violence against women, and will represent the UK at the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which will focus on the elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls. I would also say to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) that we are using Britain’s presidency of the G8 to run a year-long campaign, led by the Foreign Secretary, on preventing sexual violence in armed conflicts.
Mr Speaker
The Minister of State has ably demonstrated that there is plenty of scope for a full day’s debate, and to that we look forward with eager anticipation.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
It is estimated that a rape takes place every 21 minutes in India. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the UK should offer specialist advice and training to the Indian police to help rape victims and to protect women from these horrific crimes?
Mr Swire
I share my hon. Friend’s horror at the recent events, not least the rape of the 23-year-old medical student in Delhi. We welcome the steps that the Indian Government have taken to promote the rights of women, including laws on sex-selective abortions and action against human trafficking. We will work, if asked, with the Indian Government, but it is an internal Indian matter, which we shall certainly continue to raise with them.
Dame Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
18. The brutal rape and murder of the young 23-year-old woman was perhaps the starkest example of the brutality faced by many young girls growing up in India. The risk is that all the good intentions sound like impotent hand-wringing. Will the Minister perhaps be more specific about the steps in bilateral discussion with the Indian authorities that he seeks to achieve?
Mr Swire
The right hon. Lady needs to acknowledge that India has a liberal constitution and a strong political framework, and that women hold high-ranking positions in politics and civil society, so we are sure that the Indian Government can continue those efforts. More specifically, DFID is working with the Indian Government, for instance, in Bihar, to help 60,000 more girls to stay in secondary school and give 3 million more women access to wider choices in family planning, health, nutrition, micro-finance, and skills for jobs. It is about enabling women and raising their status in Indian society, and we continue to do that in conjunction with the Indian Government themselves.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the advice that is being given to British nationals planning to travel to India, as they will be concerned about their personal safety following these awful events?
Mr Swire
I have reviewed the advice that we gave this morning to travellers going to India. We have not changed our advice. Clearly, we urge women, wherever they are travelling, to take care, particularly if travelling at night in unfamiliar places, and ideally to travel in conjunction with others. People should always look at the Foreign Office website before they travel anywhere in the world, because our advice is kept constantly under review.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
8. What reports he has received on the effect of rising tension in the East and South China seas; and what discussions he has had with countries in that region.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
12. What reports he has received on the effect of rising tension in the East and South China seas; and what discussions he has had with countries in that region.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I receive regular updates from our embassies on both these situations and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) was in the region last week. We regard these maritime disputes as regional issues and are encouraging all parties involved to pursue a peaceful resolution in line with international law. On the South China sea we encourage progress on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations-China code of conduct.
Ian Lavery
Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the dispute—the protests—in the East and South China seas have been raised with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and does he believe that the tensions will be resolved both peacefully and swiftly?
Mr Hague
Yes, of course we have discussed this with ASEAN and bilaterally with many of the countries involved. We do not take a view on the strength of the various claims, but we encourage a peaceful resolution to these disputes in line with international law. ASEAN specifically has been working on a code of conduct, and we judge the code to be the best immediate prospect of managing the disputes, so we encourage all parties to work with that.
David Wright
I accept what the Foreign Secretary says about this being a regional conflict, but stability in that area of the world is incredibly important for UK trade. In Telford we have a large number of Japanese companies and companies from the region. What discussions has he had with the Japanese Government on stability in that area?
Mr Hague
I discussed this with the then Japanese Foreign Minister in October, Foreign Minister Genba, during our strategic dialogue. The hon. Gentleman is right—the UK has clear interests in the region, including preserving freedom of navigation and ensuring the safety of UK oil and gas companies operating in the region, but I am sure it is very much the right approach to encourage all parties to pursue a peaceful resolution, rather than for the United Kingdom to take a position on the strength of the various claims.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the dispute about the Senkaku islands cannot be regarded as just a regional issue, because of the United States’ commitment to defend both Japan and Taiwan, although the legal position of the islands is not so clear? As it is reported that the Chinese are massing missiles on the coast of the East China sea capable of hitting Japan, we could be facing a very dangerous international situation. As we are friends of all the disputants and their allies on this issue, this is an opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to show his statesmanship.
Mr Hague
When I say that it is a regional issue, I do not mean that the rest of the world is not concerned about it. It is a matter to be resolved by the countries in the region. That is the important point. Of course we have been talking to the parties involved and have urged them to seek peaceful and co-operative solutions in accordance with international law, including in accordance with the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, so we will continue to take that role.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The rising economic importance of Asia is widely acknowledged, as well as the importance of those sea lanes, not only to the Asian economy but to the European and the wider world economy. I concur with the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell)—this cannot be just a matter of regional importance, especially with the increasing level of defence equipment expenditure taking place in that region. Can we therefore look at ensuring that the disputes are resolved through international law and not through military action?
Mr Hague
The latter point is very important and absolutely right, but the best role that the United Kingdom can play in order to contribute to that is to do the sorts of things that I described. I do not think that the United Kingdom taking a position on the strength of various claims would serve very well our objective of trying to bring about a peaceful resolution, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of that.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
9. What recent representations his Department has made to persuade the Israeli Government to cease settlement expansion in the west bank.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I condemn recent Israeli decisions to expand settlements. I speak regularly to Israeli leaders, stressing our profound concern that Israel’s settlement policy is losing it the support of the international community and will make a two-state solution impossible. We will continue to press the next Israeli Government to cease settlement building.
Gregg McClymont
The Secretary of State will be aware that the political process is critical if the peace process is to begin again. I know that the UK Government decided to abstain from the vote on whether to grant Palestine non-member observer status at the UN, but does he believe that the success of the vote was a positive or negative step on the road to a peaceful solution to the conflict?
Mr Hague
Following that vote, there have of course been additional complications, including Israeli announcements on unfreezing settlement applications in the E1 area and the withholding of revenues for the Palestinian Authority, to which I referred a few minutes ago. That has meant Israel taking a step back, and that was one of the things we feared about going to the United Nations General Assembly in November. Nevertheless, it has happened. It is important for both sides to make progress. That will be our message to the next Israeli Government, and it continues to be our message to the Palestinians; both sides should be prepared to enter into negotiations without preconditions.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Clearly the election taking place today will have a significant effect on what happens to the next Israeli Government. What will my right hon. Friend do about the settlement activity to ensure that there is a just and peaceful solution to this long-standing problem?
Mr Hague
This raises our whole approach to the middle east peace process. As other right hon. and hon. Members have quoted in the past half hour, I attach enormous importance to this in the year 2013, particularly as there will be a new or re-elected Israeli Government, and with the US Administration beginning their second term. If we do not make progress in the coming year, people will increasingly conclude that a two-state solution has become impossible.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last week Israeli soldiers murdered four innocent Palestinians on the west bank, including a 17-year-old boy? Taking that into account, along with the fact that Netanyahu said this week that, if re-elected, he will not negotiate on the 1967 borders, what specific action will the Government take to get the Israelis to see that their future survival depends on a two-state solution?
Mr Hague
We will of course continue to put that case very strongly. It is very much in the long-term strategic interests of Israel and peace in the whole region to embrace a two-state solution, because all the alternatives will be more problematic, particularly for the Israelis. I think that many people in Israel strongly hold that view—clearly, views in Israel are divided—and it is certainly our view and that of almost all other nations of the world. The role of the United States will be crucial, which is why that will be top of my agenda when I visit Washington next week.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I draw attention to my entry in the register. Last month I and hon. Members from both sides of the House saw for ourselves measures to segregate Israeli settlements around East Jerusalem and the E1 area, which is bigger still, from the rest of the west bank. What does the Foreign Secretary think would be the consequences for the prospects for peace talks were the Israeli Government to proceed with extending the security barrier around the E1 area?
Mr Hague
Such extensions, and any prospect of building in the E1 area, would of course be extremely damaging to the prospect for a successful peace process. That is why it is so urgent. Now that the planning process for the E1 area has been unfrozen, a clock is ticking, with potentially disastrous consequences for the peace process.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Israeli Government’s response to Britain’s abstention at the UN was, in the words of the Foreign Secretary, “taking a step back”. Therefore, will he please discuss urgently with our European partners the co-ordinated response to the present situation on the ground and use the wish for Israeli to develop stronger trading relations with the European Union as a means of achieving progress in the middle east?
Mr Hague
To be clear, the Israeli response is to the passing of the Palestinian resolution, not to the UK abstention; the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the motivation behind Israel’s policy, which clearly relates to the passing of the resolution.
As to the implications for future relations with the EU, provided that there is a major initiative on the peace process, in particular from Washington, we will all have to work out the “incentives and disincentives” that we can create to support that. But of course that is work to be done over the coming weeks and months.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
10. What assessment he has made of reported clashes between Sri Lankan security forces and Jaffna university students and the situation of those who have been arrested and detained.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
We are concerned about the attacks on students at Jaffna university in November last year. Our high commissioner has expressed those concerns to the authorities in Sri Lanka, and we continue to monitor the detention of those students. We take every opportunity to raise human rights concerns with the Government of Sri Lanka, and I will raise those concerns, including this case, when I visit Sri Lanka fairly shortly.
Mark Durkan
I thank the Minister for his answer and his personal engagement. The attacks and arrests took place on the day after Tamil remembrance day. The region is highly militarised and even this week the Sri Lankan Parliament is looking at legislation to extend detention without warrant. When the Minister visits Sri Lanka next week, will he tell the regime there that he will not be persuaded by the language of reconciliation that it offers the diplomatic community, given that it offers only an arsenal of repression to the Tamil community?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman puts his case well. I expect to have straightforward private conversations with the Sri Lankan authorities. I will make the point that if reconciliation is to mean anything, a straightforward gesture such as converting the current triumphal expressions following the end of the war into a day of national reconciliation, as recommended by the lessons learned and reconciliation committee, would be a good step forward and perhaps start to defuse the tension, an increase of which would be very unwelcome.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Commonwealth Heads of Government are due to meet in Sri Lanka this November, with Australia in the chair. Have concerns about human rights been raised in the Minister’s preparatory conversations with the secretary-general and the Australian and Sri Lankan Governments?
Alistair Burt
Yes, concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka are raised among those who have the interests of all Sri Lankans at heart. The United Kingdom has made no decision yet as to the level of its attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
11. What recent assessment he has made of the UK’s relations with countries in Latin America.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
We are striving to broaden and deepen our relations in Latin America—after years of neglect, I have to say. There were 23 ministerial visits to the region in 2012. We have opened new posts in El Salvador and Recife, Brazil, and will do so in Paraguay this year. We will host the first UK-Brazil strategic dialogue in London on 4 February.
Nic Dakin
Now that the Falkland Islands Government have announced a date and wording for the referendum, what discussion have the Government had with Argentina and its South American neighbours about respecting the Falkland Islanders’ right of self-determination and the outcome of that referendum?
Mr Hague
Of course, we regularly discuss with countries all around Latin America the importance of self-determination for the Falkland Islanders and our absolute commitment to that. I believe that one of the most effective impacts on public opinion and Governments in Latin America in recent months has been the fact that Falkland Islanders themselves have been going to many countries and explaining the history of their islands and their attachment to self-determination.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I note the excellent work of our ambassador and embassy in Chile. Does the Secretary of State agree that our relationship with Chile is particularly important, particularly when it comes to our situation with the Falklands and also Antarctica?
Mr Hague
Yes, it is a very good and important relationship and we have built it up further. For instance, the UK is now the top destination for Chilean students receiving Government grants. The links between our countries are growing, and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), is heading to Chile tomorrow.
Mr Speaker
We now come to topical questions. Demand always exceeds supply, so I remind colleagues that questions and answers should be very brief.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
We remain focused on the terrible events and tragic loss of life in Algeria and are now working to ensure that the identification and repatriation of the deceased takes place as quickly as possible. Our work on countering terrorism with Algeria and other countries in the region has been increased in recent times, and that work will be further intensified in the weeks ahead.
Mrs Ellman
The Bulgarian authorities have confirmed that Hezbollah was responsible for the terrorist attack on tourists in Burgas airport last July. Will the Foreign Secretary renew his efforts to persuade Europe to proscribe Hezbollah?
Mr Hague
Yes. This is of course an important development. I have discussed the aftermath of that terrible bombing several times with the Bulgarian Foreign Minister. It is certainly our view that we need to act against the military wing of Hezbollah, and we will be pursuing that over the coming days.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
T4. While progress is slow in Somalia but things are improving considerably, what does the Foreign Secretary feel about the impact of the London conference almost a year ago?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
My hon. Friend is right to raise the progress that has been made in Somalia. She will be aware, I hope, that we are planning a second conference in May this year that will be hosted jointly by the UK Government and the Somalian Government. It will prioritise the security sector, the justice sector, and building governance in the Somali Government so that they can provide services for their people.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will remember that in October 2011 he and I stood shoulder to shoulder in the same Lobby opposing a motion for an in/out referendum on Europe. He said at the time:
“It would create additional economic uncertainty in this country at a difficult economic time.”
I have not changed my mind—why has he?
Mr Hague
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will have to await the Prime Minister’s speech about this. Talking of changing minds, I understand now from the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition that he is not ruling out having such a referendum in future in any case. Talking of changing minds, the right hon. Gentleman and Labour Members did not support our referendum lock legislation, and I understand now that they have no wish to repeal it, which we welcome. Talking of changing minds, I believe that the Leader of the Opposition said that if he were Prime Minister for long enough he might take Britain into the euro, while now he says that he would not but will still not rule out backing euro membership for the future. No minds change more often on this subject than those of Opposition Front Benchers.
Mr Alexander
Many words, Mr Speaker, but not quite as many answers. Perhaps I can try the Foreign Secretary on this one: if he believes that an immediate in/out referendum will cause uncertainty, why would an in/out referendum many years from now not cause uncertainty?
Mr Hague
As I say, I do not want to anticipate the Prime Minister’s speech. However, I think it is clear from my analysis of the policy of the Opposition that nothing could create more uncertainty than the adoption of their positions, and constant changing of their positions, either in this Parliament or the next.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
T8. In a recently discovered TV interview from 2010, Mohamed Morsi, who is now the President of Egypt, is seen referring to Zionists as “bloodsuckers” and “descendants of apes and pigs”. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of those remarks and of the potential role that Mohamed Morsi might play in helping to arrive at a middle east peace settlement?
Mr Hague
Of course, we absolutely do not agree with any such remarks. My hon. Friend is quite right to give the date, because those remarks were made well before the President of Egypt took office as President. We welcome, since he took office, his maintenance of the peace treaty with Israel and the work that Egypt has done, including engaging with Israel, to try to succeed in bringing about a ceasefire in the Gaza conflict that we saw a few weeks ago. We will continue to judge the President by his actions in office.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
T2. At the global conference that the Foreign Secretary was good enough to host last week in the Locarno rooms, Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, made it clear that a settlement in 2015 would as much reflect national legislation as define it. What steps is his Department taking in bilateral arrangements with other countries to promote that national legislation?
Mr Hague
We do a great deal of that in our bilateral relations. This work was started under the previous Government—I pay tribute to that—and it continues in the current Government. I think we are foremost among Foreign Ministries in promoting the recognition of climate change and the need to act on it within other countries around the world. We have done a lot of that in China and do a lot of it in Brazil and many other emerging economies, so that work has the continued energy that we have all put into it over the past few years.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
As a warm Commonwealth friend and ally to Pakistan, what is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s assessment of the present political difficulties in that very important country in the region?
Mr Hague
Pakistan has many political controversies and difficulties, even by our own standards, but it is approaching an election with the prospect of this being the first democratically elected Parliament and Government in the history of Pakistan that can be succeeded by another democratically elected Parliament and Government. That will be an important milestone in the history of Pakistan, so although many controversies swirl around, we must maintain our robust support for the institutions of a democratic Pakistan. We always make that very clear.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
T3. Colombia’s FARC has just ended its two-month unilateral ceasefire while peace talks took place in Cuba. The Colombian Government refused to agree to a bilateral ceasefire and have now returned to a state of war, but FARC is willing to offer another ceasefire if the Government enter a bilateral truce. Will the UK Government use their influence with the Colombian Government to press for such a bilateral truce as a basis for further peace talks and an end to the war?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
Yes, indeed we will. The hon. Gentleman will know that the official peace negotiations with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia started in October in Norway. It announced a universal ceasefire for two months, and the Colombian Government and FARC jointly announced a mechanism for civil society participation in the peace negotiations, and those negotiations continue. The British Government stand by—many hon. Members have written to me about this—ready to work with the authorities in Colombia to ensure long-lasting peace in the country.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Given the likely change in the political make-up of the Israeli Government following today’s elections, may I urge the Government to redouble their efforts to dissuade the Israelis from a pre-emptive strike against Iran, an act that would be illegal, that would reinforce the position of hardliners in Iran and that could lead to regional war?
Mr Hague
We have made our position on that clear to Israel and we will continue to do so. We believe in a twin-track process, endorsed in this House, of negotiations and sanctions, so we are not in favour, in those circumstances, of a military strike. However, as my hon. Friend knows—he does not agree with this, but it is our policy—we have taken no option off the table for the future. We are now exploring the possibility of returning to negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programme, but that will require a readiness by Iran to enter into realistic negotiations.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
T5. Given recent reports from eastern Congo and news of non-governmental organisations not being able to reach communities, particularly children, with food and medical treatment, what discussions has the UK had with the United Nations about plans and, crucially, a time scale for the comprehensive political framework for the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo?
Mark Simmonds
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this important issue. I will travel tomorrow to the African Union summit in Addis Ababa, where one of my main priorities will be to encourage regional countries to sign the memorandum of understanding, which will go into some of the detail that she has mentioned. There are two elements: one is to resolve short-term issues that involve the M23—talks are taking place in Kampala—and the other is to put in place longer-term strategies that will enable the aid and assistance to get in for long-term sustainable solutions in that troubled area.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
Last March this House unanimously voted for a UK-equivalent to the US Sergei Magnitsky law. Ministers undertook to take that up if the US Bill became law. It now has, so when will the Government produce legislative proposals of their own so that we can ban those with blood on their hands from waltzing into Britain?
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
In this country we operate on the basis of making a judgment, not on speculation about applications, but on actual applications for visas. We have a presumption that someone against whom there is evidence of human rights abuses will not be admitted to the United Kingdom, and that is the policy that we intend to continue.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
T6. Relations between Britain and Yemen are very good, so when can we restore direct flights between Sana’a and London, and allow Yemenis to apply in Sana’a for a visa to come to Britain, rather than have to go to Abu Dhabi or Cairo?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
The right hon. Gentleman is correct that relations between Yemen and ourselves are extremely good, and we continue to be in contact about its national dialogue and progress towards further elections in a couple of years. The security situation remains the most important condition on whether direct flights are reintroduced. The scanners are now in place, but a decision on direct flights depends on training and the overall security situation.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
My former constituent Lindsay Sandiford was sentenced to death in Indonesia this morning for drug trafficking. Whatever our abhorrence of that evil trade, does the Foreign Secretary agree that this is out of keeping with Indonesia’s historic progress towards democracy and human rights? Will he ensure that Mrs Sandiford, who has struggled with legal representation, receives the best possible consular support?
Mr Swire
We are aware that Lindsay Sandiford is facing the death penalty in Indonesia. We strongly object to the death penalty and continue to provide consular assistance to Lindsay and her family during this difficult time. We have made repeated representations to the Indonesian authorities, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised Lindsay Sandiford’s case with Dr Marty Natalegawa, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, during the November state visit of the Indonesian President. We understand that under Indonesian law, Lindsay has at least two further avenues of appeal through the courts, as well as an opportunity to apply for presidential clemency should they be unsuccessful.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
T7. The Europe chief executive of Ford cars has said that to“discuss leaving a trading partner where 50% of your exports go…would be devastating for the UK economy.”Ian Robertson of BMW has said:“To think about the UK being outside of Europe doesn’t make sense.”When will the Conservative party start putting the UK national interest above another bout of ideological self-indulgence?
Mr Lidington
It is precisely because the Government see the advantages to our national interest of active involvement in changing the European Union in the right way that we have succeeded in winning free trade agreements at European level with Singapore and Korea and are successfully pushing for the further deepening of the single market.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the recent elections in Ghana?
Mark Simmonds
I was fortunate enough to attend the inauguration of President Mahama in Accra about two weeks ago, and I can say to my hon. Friend that the elections were free, fair and credible. The election observers uniformly came up with that view. The Ghanaian people and body politic need significant credit for five or six free and fair elections that have enabled the free transfer of powers to take place.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
T9. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the devolved Administration in Scotland on the implications and additional costs of a separate Scottish state establishing new foreign embassies and consulates in the event of a yes vote in the pending independence referendum?
Mr Hague
I am not aware of the Scottish Government asking for the costings on establishing a diplomatic network around the world, but clearly the costs would be very substantial. Scots benefit, as all of us in the UK do, from having one of the largest diplomatic networks in the world and a Foreign Office that is one of the most capable in the world at providing consular support to its citizens. It would, of course, be very expensive to replicate that.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
With E3 plus 3 negotiations on the Iranian nuclear programme effectively stalled as a result of Iranian prevarication, will the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that the British Government are still absolutely committed to sustaining and deepening sanctions against Iran?
Mr Hague
Yes, we are very much committed to that. Indeed, the sanctions that were decided on in the European Union in October are coming into effect in stages now and over the coming weeks. We continue to encourage other countries to adopt similar sanctions, and I warmly welcomed Australia’s adoption last week of sanctions that closely match those of the United States and the EU. Unless Iran takes a more constructive approach to negotiations, sanctions will only intensify.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Will the Minister update the House on the progress made in negotiating the multiannual financial framework?
Mr Lidington
We continue to work closely with other EU member states to try to achieve a settlement, which would be agreed on the basis of a significant further cut from the figures that the Commission currently proposes, and to maintain and protect the United Kingdom’s rebate and so deliver a better deal than our predecessors achieved last time the negotiations took place.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Rising global food prices are a major cause of instability in developing countries, including those in north Africa. The UN has recently described the practice of converting agricultural land to biogas as a crime against humanity. What more can the Government do to persuade the EU and the US to stop subsidising that practice?
Mark Simmonds
The Government are significantly engaged in multilateral discussions aimed at precisely that point and to address high and volatile global food prices, notably at the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation and the G20’s Agricultural Market Information System.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
What contact are the Government having with the Government of Iran, and what are they doing to ensure that the aspiration of a middle east nuclear weapon free zone conference takes place, given that the one due in Helsinki was postponed?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
As co-sponsor of the conference, we are determined to see it progress. It was not possible to hold it by the end of last year, but I remain in contact with Minister Laavaja, the facilitator, to see whether it can make progress. It is the United Kingdom’s intention to continue to press for this.
Mr Speaker
Order. To meet demand for Foreign Office questions would probably require a repeat performance on a daily basis, for which diaries sadly do not allow. I hope colleagues will understand that I could not accommodate any more. We must now move on.
Armed Forces Redundancies
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make an urgent statement on today’s news on Army redundancies.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)
As the House will be aware, the Government announced the process and outline timetable for the armed forces redundancy programme on 1 March 2011—the need for the programme being born out of the strategic defence and security review and subsequent activity to balance the books in the Ministry of Defence. Although in an ideal world we would not need to run a redundancy programme, the Ministry of Defence—like all areas of Government—must live within its means.
Today’s announcement represents the start of the third tranche of that programme and affects only Army personnel. Announcements about who has been selected will be made on 18 June 2013. Applicants will be given six months’ notice, and non-applicants 12 months’ notice, before they leave the service. Although we need to make up to 5,300 Army personnel redundant, the programme will not adversely affect operations in Afghanistan. As with previous tranches there are a number of important exclusions from the programme. Critically, those preparing for, deployed on or recovering from operations on 18 June will be exempt from this tranche. Similarly, personnel who are below the necessary medical standard for continued service will be ineligible for redundancy and will be handled, if necessary, through the standard medical process already in place.
The House will wish to note that because of the draw-down in Afghanistan already announced, a final decision on those who will deploy there in autumn this year will not be made until April 2013. As a result, the final decision on personnel who are excluded as a result of the “preparing for operations” category will not be made until then. We expect at that stage that there will be a further tranche of redundancies in 2014. That is likely to affect Army personnel and a small number of medical and dental officers from the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.
Throughout the process, the Army will seek to maximise the number of applicants for redundancy. At the same time, we have cut back on recruiting as far as is safe to do so, but as the House will recognise, the services recruit from the bottom up, and therefore a steady inflow of Army recruits will continue to be required.
It is worth highlighting that the majority of those leaving the services as a result of tranches 1 and 2 have already enjoyed success in moving to civilian jobs. All those being made redundant, whether applicants or non-applicants, will enjoy the benefits of the career transition programme. The CTP includes career transition workshops, up to 35 days of paid resettlement, and training and financial support for education and training for up to 10 years after leaving. The programme has historically proved successful in assisting service leavers to find work outside the armed forces, and 93% of those who look for work via the CTP are in full-time employment within six months of leaving the services, rising to 97% after 12 months. To that end, 91% of tranche 1 applicants—more than 1,500 in total—have already found employment. That is testament to, and a reflection of, the training and quality that we, as a nation, continue to find in our service personnel.
Mr Murphy
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question, and the Minister for his reply in the absence of the Secretary of State from the Chamber. It is important to say at the beginning that, on issues of national security and respect for our forces, there should always be bipartisanship.
On the human impact of today’s announcement, will any of those who apply for redundancy as a consequence be refused it? Will any of those who have no intention of leaving be forced to leave? What is the total number of people in the pool who are liable for redundancy? It seems that, as a consequence of what the Minister has said today, those currently serving in Afghanistan will not be exempt from the next round of Army redundancies.
All that has created enormous uncertainty for those who are forced to look for other work or who face mortgage problems. In opposition, Labour has convinced many large private sector employers to guarantee job interviews to unemployed veterans. Will the Ministry of Defence now finally agree to try to do the same with public sector employers? Will the Minister work with mortgage providers to support those who are losing their jobs?
The gaps in the regular Army capability are to be filled by a doubling of the reserves, yet progress is concerning. A recent survey by the Federation of Small Businesses worryingly showed that one in three employers said that nothing would encourage them to employ a reservist, while nine out of 10 said that they had never heard of the MOD’s employer awareness events. Will the Minister therefore confirm how the Territorial Army has performed against its 2012 recruitment target, and, in the light of the enormous increase in demands on the hoped-for thousands of new reservists, will he agree to consider legislation to protect reservists’ employment rights so that they do not face discrimination in the workplace?
The Government’s defence review committed the UK to an Army of 95,000, but it did not mention Mali, Algeria, Tunisia, Nigeria or even Libya. The threats have increased, and yet the Army is being cut to just 82,000, which is well below the previous promise. Will the Minister therefore finally agree to reopen the defence review, which once again has had its flaws exposed by world events?
The Prime Minister rightly spoke yesterday of the urgency concerning the Islamist terror threat to the UK from north Africa, but in a “carry on regardless” strategy, the very next day the MOD has announced 5,000 Army redundancies. Unless Ministers have answers, there will be a growing sense in the country that they are unprepared for the emerging threats in north Africa and beyond.
Mr Francois
The shadow Secretary of State asks a number of questions. I will do my best to take them in turn—I might not stick to the precise order, but I will try to get to them.
First, the right hon. Gentleman says that this should not be a subject for partisan argument—the whole House realises that this is an important matter. I will try to respect that spirit, but I cannot escape from pointing out that, although I hear what he says, the reason we are having to conduct a redundancy programme is, ultimately, the size of the defence deficit that this Government inherited. The scale of downsizing required in the Army is a consequence of that. Nothing he can say today can hide that.
That said, let me see whether I can take the right hon. Gentleman’s questions in turn—he asked quite a lot. He asked me to define the size of the pool in tranche 3. The pool is up to 5,300 personnel; it will be limited in tranche 3 to personnel drawn from the Army. It might not reach 5,300. That, in a sense, is the upper number.
The right hon. Gentleman asks whether we would make redundant people who did not want to be made redundant. We will do everything we can to maximise the number of applicants for redundancy. From memory, in tranche 1—when, effectively, exactly the same process and rules were applied—just over 60% of those made redundant were applicants for redundancy. Again from memory, in tranche 2, just over 70% were applicants for redundancy. We will do everything we practically can to maximise the number of applicants in tranche 3. I cannot, in all honesty, give him a guarantee at the Dispatch Box today that we will achieve 100%, but I hope he will understand that, in spirit, we will try to make that number as high as we can.
On exclusions, I set out my reply a few minutes ago. They are effectively the same as for tranches 1 and 2, and details are provided in the written ministerial statement. I have said that there will be a further tranche, tranche 4, at some point later next year. The exclusions that would apply on that date in 2014 should, in principle, be exactly the same exclusions that apply at the moment for this tranche.
On reserves, the right hon. Gentleman expressed scepticism on whether we would be able to meet the target. I believe that on the radio this morning he said:
“I think over time, reducing the size of the armed forces, as long as you put something in its place with a professional reservist force, then there’s a logic to it.”
I agree with him. The question is: can we get to that number? I hope I am in a position to give a reasonably authoritative comment on this, as I served in the reserve forces as an infantry officer in the 1980s. In those days, the Territorial Army, which, as he knows, may be renamed the Army Reserve, had a trained strength of 75,000 men. [Interruption.] He asked me a question; he must let me answer it. We are now aiming to get to 30,000 by 2018. I have to believe that if we got to 75,000 at that time, we can get to 30,000 now.
Our consultation on this matter closed last week. We have had more than 2,500 responses, many from reservists themselves, which is very encouraging. We will publish a White Paper announcing the way forward in spring. As I said in Defence questions last week, we will publish the White Paper, which in military terminology is our plan of attack. We will then cross the start line and get on with it. We are going to succeed.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I, sadly, had to make four officers on operations redundant. Two of them were volunteers, and two were not. It is very sad that we are now having to force people to take redundancy who might otherwise not be made redundant, because other people on operations cannot be made redundant. Will people who volunteer for redundancy, despite being on operations, be allowed to take it?
Mr Francois
In answering my hon. Friend’s question, I pay tribute to his considerable experience in these matters, as the whole House knows. The exclusions apply to people if they do not wish to apply for redundancy and would not be made redundant. If they wish to apply for redundancy voluntarily from within those fields, they are allowed to do so. In essence, they are excluded if they do not want to apply, but allowed to apply voluntarily should they wish to do so. I hope that answers his question.
Mr Speaker
Order. As Members can see for themselves, a large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye and I am keen to accommodate the level of interest. If I am to have any chance of doing so, however, my ritual exhortation to brevity takes on a particular importance.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I think we will come to regret the cuts to our capability. My question relates specifically to medical staff. Can the Minister say exactly how many medics will be made redundant as a result of the plans he has announced today? What impact will they have on medics cross-service, particularly on operations and in places such as the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, and on the expertise and experience in the medical division of our armed forces?
Mr Francois
Mr Speaker, I know you have asked for brevity, but as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the military-managed ward at the Queen Elizabeth hospital it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the wonderful people who work there and the marvellous service they provide to our wounded and injured personnel. Bless you, Mr Speaker.
There may be some small reductions to the number of Army medics in this tranche, and some small reductions in naval and RAF medics and dentists in tranche 4. The details are still being worked through, but the hon. Gentleman, who has done this job, will understand that if we are downsizing the regular forces, it makes sense to downsize concomitantly the size of the medical division—but no more than that.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Minister for his blessing, which is considerably more than either of us offered the other when first we met in September 1983.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Can we have an assurance that those selected for redundancy will not include any of those who have specialist skills, such as intelligence gathering, that would assist in the achievement of the ambitious agenda announced by the Prime Minister yesterday?
Mr Francois
I would say to my right hon. and learned Friend that in rebalancing the regular Army for its new, smaller size, we need to ensure that we have the correct balance of skills in our armed forces, and we will attempt to do that, including for intelligence personnel.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Service personnel numbers in Scotland are at a record low of 11,000. Will the Minister confirm whether that will go down yet further? Only last year the Ministry of Defence said that between 6,500 and 7,000 troops would return from Germany, that a new barracks would be built at Kirknewton and that there would be new training areas in the borders. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are going back on all those commitments?
Mr Francois
For the purposes of this process, Scottish personnel will be treated in much the same way as personnel throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe the House thinks that is right; so do I.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Some of us who have served question the wisdom of cutting regular battalions before knowing for sure that the reservists can fill the large gap that will be left behind. We live in an uncertain world. What objective measures exist for Parliament to gauge progress on this issue?
Mr Francois
As my hon. Friend may recall, he raised this matter with me at Defence questions last week. At the risk of being repetitious, I pointed out to him that we are delighted that recent tri-service and Army recruiting campaigns have already produced a 25% increase in TA inquiries, while regular Army engagements are up 3% against a three-year rolling average. I have taken a close personal interest in the plan to increase the size of the reserves. I understand what lies behind his question, but I genuinely believe that we can do it.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), may I ask the Minister whether he will be accepting voluntary applications for redundancy from pinch-point trades? If so, what assessment has been made of the cost of replacing that essential operational capability?
Mr Francois
I understand the question and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s service in the regular armed forces. We have to wait and see exactly who does and does not apply. We will not know until March who exactly is in the pool of applicants, so it is difficult for me to answer his question now. However, we need to achieve a fully balanced Army at the end of this process, and that will clearly be an important factor in our thinking when looking at individuals.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we are actively seeking to take the people who are accepting redundancy —or being forced to take it—into the reserve forces? Obviously we need to maintain expertise and experience wherever possible, so if we are doing that, will he also ensure that the transitional period is as efficient and speedy as possible, which, as he and I know, has not always been the case?
Mr Francois
The in-principle answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes, of course we are trying to encourage members leaving the regular forces to join the reserves. He is right that there have been some blockages in the recruiting pipeline in the reserves. I have paid close attention to that. I believe that we have cleared those blockages—I know exactly what he is talking about—and, because of that, that we can make the system of joining the reserves much more smooth and effective in future.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
What advice did the Minister take on the impact of his statement on morale and, therefore, the effectiveness of the Army?
Mr Francois
As I have already said, I do not believe that this will affect current operations in Afghanistan. We have of course consulted the service chiefs and—particularly on this tranche—members from the Army personnel branch. I am very conscious that behind every person who may be affected there is not just a service number, but a serviceman or woman and potentially a family. We realise that, which is why we are trying to do this as fairly and practically as possible, given that we understand that it is a difficult process.
Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)
Will the Minister confirm that the painful decisions taken in and since the strategic defence and security review aim to balance savings across manpower, equipment and support? Is it not incumbent on anyone opposing this round of redundancies to say where else they would make the savings in defence or come up with an additional defence budget?
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I remind the Minister that he is responsible for the double-dip recession—he should not blame the previous Government. More importantly, how many civilian jobs will go as a result of today’s decision?
Mr Francois
I should say that this process not only affects our regular armed forces. Civilians in the Ministry of Defence are affected by a parallel programme—I think that by 2015 we will have reduced our number of civilians by approximately 33%. It would be unfair to say that our regular forces are bearing the brunt of the process while our civil service work force are not, because they are being affected in parallel.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
In conducting this wretchedly painful exercise—for reasons that we all understand—which is often heartbreaking at unit level, will the Minister confirm that his duty is to the future shape of the armed forces, that they have the best possible collection of experience and ability to shape manpower and that this will mean making people redundant who do not apply for it? That is a necessary difficulty that, if he is to exercise his duty, we have to face up to.
Mr Francois
I thank my hon. Friend for the spirit of his question. In the Ministry of Defence we are ultimately responsible for the defence of the realm, but as I hope he and the House will accept, I fully appreciate as someone who has served in uniform the difficult side of what we are having to do today. We completely understand that. We are therefore doing our best to proceed as sympathetically and fairly as possible; but we must configure our armed forces for the defence of our country and achieve the target set out in Future Force 2020.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Darlington has a long and proud history of service in the armed forces, particularly the TA. I commend the Minister for his prior service, but as he will have picked up, there is a lot of concern in the House about levels of recruitment to the TA. Will he help us by identifying exactly what level of recruitment to the TA is required and how far we are from achieving it?
Mr Francois
The target is for the Territorial Army—probably to be renamed the Army Reserve—to have 30,000 trained reservists by 2018. By the way, we also want to increase the maritime reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, but they are already nearer their targets. We have looked carefully at the recruiting process. The White Paper, which we will publish in the spring, will lay out our plan of action. We will then move forward rapidly to execute that plan of action. I assure the hon. Lady and the House that I am keeping a laser-like focus on this, because I served in the reserves and I want to see them do well.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the defence of our country is a Government’s top priority? If he does agree, how are we to meet all our commitments, with threats growing almost daily, if we continue to cut our armed services?
Mr Francois
I should also acknowledge my hon. Friend’s service in the Household Division. The defence of the realm is our priority in the Ministry of Defence. It is a priority for any Government, but we are reconfiguring our armed forces to comply with the SDSR. As I hope I have made plain to the House, although we are reducing the number of regulars over time, we are increasing the number of reservists, and I believe we can achieve that new balance in good time.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me tell the Minister that I have never served in the armed forces, but I come from a family of soldiers and I think I have every right to comment today and ask him this. Does he not realise that what he has said today—yet more cuts to our capacity to defend this country—and what the Prime Minister will probably say about Europe tomorrow really means that we will look back on these few days in our history as the end of our country as a significant player in the world peace movement?
Mr Francois
I do not agree with that last assertion. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will not comment on the Prime Minister’s speech tomorrow; there will be no shortage of comments on that anyway. Coming back to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier question of whether we understood that this was a difficult process: yes, of course we do. Do we believe that it is necessary for the reasons that we have outlined? Yes, we do. Will we do it as fairly and equitably as possible? Yes, we will.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I support this announcement, painful as it is for many individuals and their families who have given so much service. My right hon. Friend has shown commendable support for building the reserves, but will he confirm that our target for reserves is proportionately the smallest of any country in the English-speaking world?
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend is probably the greatest living expert in the House on the reserve forces, so I shall not contradict him here and now. I pay tribute to his work on the reserves commission and to all the preparatory work that he and others, including the vice-chief of the defence staff, undertook in order to put us in the position of having £1.8 billion of resources over 10 years to grow our reserves and to make that a practical reality. I thank him for all that he has done on that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his reassurance about retraining for those who have life after military service. This is not just about the value of military redundancies and the reallocation of housing, however; it is also about mortgages for new houses and how best those people should use their redundancy packages. What monetary advice will the Minister give to those who receive redundancy packages?
Mr Francois
We provide financial advice to members of the armed forces at various stages of their careers. When applicants—and non-applicants—go through the redundancy process, the career transition partnership provides them with considerable assistance. I believe that discussions on their financial situation, and on what jobs they might apply for, form part of that process.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State said on Radio 5 Live that there was a logic to making these painful cuts to our armed forces, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no logic to the Opposition’s assertion that the SDSR should be reopened and rewritten?
Mr Francois
The Opposition cannot will the reopening of the SDSR unless they are prepared to will the additional means to do so. My understanding of their current position is that they wish to will it in spirit but admit that they do not have the money.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
In 2012, did the TA hit or miss its recruitment target, and if it missed it, by how much?
Mr Francois
I have already accepted that there were some blockages in the recruitment pipeline. I was aware that there had been difficulties, but I can assure the House that I investigated the problem at close range, as some generals can testify. I believe that those blockages have now been cleared, and that our recruitment and retention—which is also critical—will now improve.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I do not support cutting the British Army to its smallest size since the battle of Waterloo. The Minister is aware of the two-faced approach taken by the Ministry of Defence to those with broken service who volunteered for redundancy in the last tranche. Will he give the House an assurance that no soldier will be treated so shabbily this time?
Mr Francois
I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in all matters military, not least because of Colchester garrison in his constituency, but I do not believe that we have been “two-faced”, as he put it. I do not accept that assertion, but if he wants to write to me with details of any particular case, I will of course look into them.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I am sure that, like me, the Minister is delighted by the safe return to our nation of His Royal Highness Prince Harry and his colleagues. Our nation is of course grateful for their service.
With regard to the Minister’s answers today, will he provide a briefing to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on this issue? The Committee has opened an investigation into how the military covenant and redundancies will impact on service personnel in Ulster.
Mr Francois
I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the service of His Royal Highness in theatre in Afghanistan. Captain Wales, as I understand he prefers to be known in the Army, has done well for his country and his service, and we commend him for that.
On the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I am aware of the military contribution that has come from Northern Ireland down the years, and I hope to visit Northern Ireland in the next few months. With regard to my appearing before the Select Committee, I shall take advice on the matter but, in principle, if it asks me to come, I will be there.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
If I understood my right hon. Friend correctly, there will be not much more than a month’s gap between the announcement later this year on who is to be deployed to Afghanistan and the date on which the redundancies will be announced. How will that affect those who might or might not be deployed, including the 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment, the Staffords?
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend has listened carefully to what has been said, and he is right to suggest that, because of the draw-down of our forces profile in Afghanistan, it will be only in April 2013 that we decide exactly which units will be going there. Clearly, it will then be a priority to look at anyone who might no longer be excluded from redundancy, but in effect, most of those who are in fields that are eligible for redundancy at the moment will have been notified by the chain of command this morning, in parallel with the process of notifying the House.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Hull has always been a strong recruiting ground for the armed forces, but alongside these redundancies, pay and pensions are being cut and many will be affected by the strivers’ tax and the bedroom tax. As I understand it, the cuts that have already been announced will mean that the entire British Army will fit into Wembley stadium by 2020. Will the Minister tell me whether the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday about being able to fight a decades-long campaign against global terrorism was realistic?
Mr Francois
I understand it, once we have our reserves at full strength, the British Army will not be able to fit inside Wembley stadium.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this announcement will not have an impact on the Royal Navy or the Royal Marines, which have already seen a reduction in their numbers? Will he also keep me in touch with the impact that the redundancies will have on the Army units attached to 3 Commando Brigade, and especially to 29 Commando, based at the Royal Citadel in Plymouth?
Mr Francois
Yes, I will attempt to keep my hon. Friend in touch, as he requests. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force were affected in tranches 1 and 2. Tranche 3 relates solely to the Army.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
How many additional special forces does the Minister foresee being needed in the light of yesterday’s statement by the Prime Minister?
Mr Francois
We are normally slightly circumspect about commenting in the House of Commons on special forces, and particularly on special forces operations, for reasons that the House will understand very well. In principle, however, as we look to rebalance the size of the armed forces—both regular and reserve—we will clearly look at our special forces requirements in the light of that exercise.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Last week’s Bury Times reported on the final closure of the town’s Army careers office, and quoted the commander for regional recruiting, Lieutenant Colonel Leanda Pitt, as saying:
“The Army is still recruiting in Bury and there are jobs available now”.
Will the Minister confirm that, if the planned disbandment of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers proceeds, any Fusiliers likely to be made redundant will, as far as possible, be retrained to fill any vacancies?
Mr Francois
That was, in a sense, several questions in one. With regard to recruitment offices, the armed forces, like many other organisations, have had to be aware of the way in which the world has changed. Many people who apply to join the armed forces now do so initially online, rather than walking into a recruiting office in the traditional way. Nevertheless, a number of people still use recruiting offices, so we have rearranged the profile of our offices around the country to try to adjust to life in the 21st century. My hon. Friend also asked about people in the regular armed forces who might be made redundant. Of course, one opportunity would be for them to rejoin as a member of the reserve forces, and we would encourage them to do that wherever possible.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
On 31 December, I wrote to the Minister on behalf of a cross-party group of Members to request a meeting with him about the significant financial losses faced by Army officers who are made redundant shortly before their immediate pension point. Given the responsibility shouldered by those officers during their careers, will the Minister now agree to have that meeting?
Mr Francois
I will consider that request very carefully. I have discussed the matter with representatives of the Army Families Federation and I can assure the hon. Lady that I have looked at the question extremely carefully. I have spent quite a bit of time with officials—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me, I will continue. I have spent quite a bit of time looking at this with officials; it is a very difficult issue. Wherever we draw the line, there will always be some people who are just on the other side of it, and therefore there are always likely to be some people who will miss out. However, if someone leaves the service close to their pension point but not at it, we increase the compensation payment they receive in order to take account of that. Having checked, I found that those payments are, on average, in the order of £70,000 tax-free, and for some higher ranks they could be as much as £100,000 or more—again, untaxed. We have tried to look at the issue sympathetically.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
From my experience as a private sector employer, I know that ex-service personnel can make excellent and productive employees. Will my right hon. Friend give to the House information held by the MOD about the employability and job prospects of those who previously served in our armed forces?
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Ex-armed forces personnel are inherently highly employable, as testified by the fact, as I said earlier, that over 90% of those who go through the career transition partnership have found a job within six months. People often want to employ ex-members of the armed forces because they are a quality product. We will do everything we can through the CTP to support applicants or non-applicants who leave the forces to ensure that as many of them as possible find new careers.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Historically, many areas with the highest recruitment and employment in the armed forces are also those areas with the highest levels of joblessness, such as the south Wales valleys. On the basis that many of those facing redundancy will return to communities with high levels of joblessness, what additional support will be focused on those areas that have also traditionally had the highest levels of recruitment?
Mr Francois
I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s question on behalf of his constituents. As I understand it, however, the figures I was given on what might be called re-employability apply across the UK, so they also apply to Wales. I believe we are doing well in getting new jobs for people in Wales. It is a UK average, but if there is a particular issue regarding Wales, I will look into it and come back to him.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
At a time when all the headlines are concerned with reductions in the strength of our armed forces, how will the Minister convey the message to potential recruits that the Army is still recruiting?
Mr Francois
It is. Some suggestions have been made that because of the redundancy programme we should end recruiting—[Interruption.] Hang on. Past experience shows that if we turn off the recruiting pipeline for a few years, we end up with a black hole in our armed forces structure some years on, which will subsequently be difficult to fill. As I have said, we have reduced the recruitment of regulars as far as we think we practically can, but there comes a point beyond which it is not safe to reduce recruiting efforts for the regulars. We have been mindful of that in going forward. We still want people to join the regular Army.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his thoughtful response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) about those service personnel made redundant, who are calling themselves the “unpensionables”. Given his concerns about the difficulty of setting a cut-off point for those payments, will he consider a gradually accrued entitlement approach to the issue?
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend has obviously looked at this. If he is referring to what some call the taper model, then we have looked at it, but we do not think it works practically. There is then the further difficult problem about the legacy issue of what to do about tranches 1 and 2. It is not as straightforward as it sometimes looks. I can assure the House that I have tried to look at the issue very carefully, but I am not sure, for some of the reasons I have outlined, that we can change the position. We know it is a difficult subject, but wherever we draw the line, there will always be someone just on the other side of it.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend reassure us that armed personnel who have suffered significant injuries will not be subject to these redundancies?
Mr Francois
They will not. We have special provisions and procedures in place for dealing with people who have been seriously wounded in the service of their country. In essence, the policy is that they do not leave the service until it is in their interest and in the interest of the service for them to do so. If anyone is in any doubt about the dedication we provide to our seriously wounded, I would advise them to visit Headley Court, as they would be massively impressed by what they saw.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
It is very encouraging and not surprising that, because of their professionalism, skills, training and tremendous work ethic, 97% of armed forces personnel who are made redundant find alternative employment within 12 months. Because of the individual example they can set for our young people, we need more ex-service personnel in our schools. What discussions is the Minister having with the Department for Education to make sure that we get large numbers of our former troops changing into teachers?
Mr Francois
Again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s service, particularly in respect of the reserve forces. He may know of the troops to teachers programme, which is run in accordance with the Department for Education to encourage ex-servicemen to go into a teaching career, as they often provide experienced authority figures, particularly in areas where some children come from difficult and disadvantaged backgrounds. We also have a programme to expand cadet units in schools, particularly in state schools. We have a target of 100 new cadet units in state schools by 2015. So far, we have had expressions of interest from some 70 schools, and some new cadet units have already opened. The programme is well on track.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that these redundancies will take place pro rata across all ranks, and that nothing in the statement will cause a drift towards a top-heavy Army?
Mr Francois
We had a separate review of senior posts in the Ministry of Defence. We have already reduced the rank, as it were, of some appointments, so it would be unfair to say that senior officers are being completely excluded from changes in the structure of our armed forces. They are not. We are mindful of trying to deliver this in as balanced a way as possible. I hope that, if nothing else, I have managed to convince the House that we have thought about this matter. While this is a very difficult process, we are attempting to do it as sympathetically and fairly as practically possible. We are not magicians, but we are genuinely doing our best.
Unduly Lenient Sentences (Right of Appeal)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the powers of prosecuting authorities to appeal against unduly lenient sentences imposed in the criminal courts.
This Bill aims to correct a fundamental flaw that exists in our criminal justice system. It is currently the case that the defence is able to appeal as of right against any sentence imposed at the magistrates or youth courts, and it may also appeal through leave of a judge against any sentence imposed in the Crown courts. Yet the prosecution has no ability whatsoever to appeal against a sentence imposed at the magistrates or youth courts and only in a few cases at the Crown court. This is the case no matter how insufficient the sentence.
It is simply wrong for the defence to be able to appeal against a sentence if it is too harsh, but not the prosecution if it is too lenient. I do not seek to reduce or change the rights of the defence to appeal. It is right that it can appeal against sentences that are manifestly wrong, but what is right for one side is surely right for the other. I have worked in the criminal justice system for over 20 years. I do not seek to lay blame at the door of the magistracy or judiciary. My quarrel is with the system in which we in this House ask them to operate. We must have a criminal justice system where the scales of justice balance, not one where—in the case of sentencing, at least—the offender is favoured over the victim of crime.
I have met both the Justice Secretary and the Attorney-General to discuss this issue, and had very positive meetings with them. Through you, Mr Speaker, I thank them for the time they gave me. I concede that the Bill involves a cost element and that an extra burden would be placed on the Attorney-General’s office, but that burden would be fully justified in the minds of the public, who are tired of feeling that the system favours not the law-keeper but only the law-breaker.
Let me explain why I believe the Bill is necessary. If, for instance, someone burgles a person’s home, violates his very household, is caught by the police, and is given less than a slap on the wrist, the public rightly look to the system and the House to provide a solution, but currently there is none. That burglar can be let off without the possibility of appeal from the prosecution, but if the court sentence goes too high the defence can appeal, and that is simply not right. We should ensure that courts never feel that they can be as lenient as they like without consequences but cannot sentence too robustly, which is the danger under the current system.
Let me give the House an even more frightening example. Let us suppose that the burglar whom I mentioned ransacked an occupied home at night, drove away in the owner’s car in a careless manner and killed someone by his careless driving, maliciously wounded a police officer when apprehended, caused an affray, in the process of his arrest was found to be in possession of a knife, drugs and child pornography, and later intimidated the witnesses to the offence. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that the prosecution could do if he were let off with, say, a £50 fine.
That is simply not right. The law needs to change to amend a ludicrous and, indeed, dangerous situation that makes me wonder why we have our current system. Why is there such an obvious imbalance in the judicial process? Surely no one believes that our courts are incapable of making a mistake. Courts do make mistakes, and we therefore need a mechanism to right the wrongs that will inevitably occur in any judicial system.
We also need younger people to have confidence in our judicial system. The fact that only the defence can appeal against a sentence imposed in the youth court creates a huge danger that young people, as victims of crime, will feel that the system simply does not care about them. The youth court deals with some extremely serious cases, including cases involving the offence of rape. Great efforts have been made in the House of Commons and the other place, by the police, and by the wider public to encourage rape victims to report the crimes in question. How does that square with the fact that the prosecution cannot appeal against an unduly lenient sentence imposed on a rapist in the youth court, while the rapist can appeal if the court has been too tough on him? How does that encourage more rape victims to come forward? The simple fact is that it does not.
There is a gaping hole in our criminal justice system when it comes to sentencing; a hole that has been overlooked, ignored or pushed aside for far too long. It is time that we allowed the prosecution to have the same access to sentencing appeals as the defence. It is time that we adopted a common-sense approach to sentencing that is balanced and fair and treats both sides equally. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, so that victims of crime can be put back at the heart of our criminal justice system.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Gareth Johnson, Jim Shannon, Alec Shelbrooke, Henry Smith, Mr Dominic Raab, Mr Robert Buckland, Stephen McPartland, Mr Marcus Jones, Nick de Bois, Gavin Williamson and Karl MᶜCartney present the Bill.
Gareth Johnson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March and to be printed (Bill 122).
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) is very grateful for that assurance, which will be noted in the record. I do not think that it is very likely to be repeated.
Mr Speaker
It would no doubt be disorderly, as has helpfully been indicated from a sedentary position, in a disorderly way, by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).
Succession to the Crown Bill (Allocation of Time)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Minister to move the motion, I should inform the House that the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) have been selected.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Succession to the Crown Bill—
Timetable
1.–(1) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
(2) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee shall be completed at today’s sitting.
(3) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
(4) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
(5) Any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed on the second day.
(6) Any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.
(7) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
2. When the Bill has been read a second time—
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply— (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
6. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
7. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
8.–(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.
9.–(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—
(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—
(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has—
(a) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment; or
(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments that are moved by a Minister of the Crown and are relevant to the Lords Amendment.
Subsequent stages
10.–(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.
11.–(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 10.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.
(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
Reasons Committee
12.–(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chair.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the Chair shall—
(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair, and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
Miscellaneous
13. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
14.–(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
15. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
16.–(1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.
(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
17.–(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
18. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
19.–(1) This paragraph applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
20. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
21.–(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.
The Government tabled the motion in order to provide two days of discussion of the Bill in the House of Commons. It is a very short Bill, with just five clauses and one schedule, and it has been tightly drafted to give effect to the agreement by Commonwealth realm Heads of Government to change the rules governing succession to the Crown. It will remove the male bias in the line of succession and the bar on the heir to the throne from marrying a Catholic, and replace the Royal Marriages Act 1772 with provisions that are suitable for the present day. I am confident that all Members will agree that those are laudable aims. They have been public since the Perth announcement in 2011, and I am very pleased that they have cross-party support. Having secured the full agreement of all realms to the text of the Bill, the Government are now keen to make progress as quickly as possible. We believe that, given the narrow scope of the Bill, two days of debate in this place will be ample.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I beg to move amendment (a), in paragraph 1(3), after ‘Reading’, insert
‘and on any Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that has been selected by the Speaker, which shall be debated with the Second Reading,’.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider amendment (b), leave out paragraph 2(b).
Jacob Rees-Mogg
We are discussing what may be the most important constitutional issue to which the House has ever turned its mind, namely, who shall be our sovereign. Who shall be eligible to receive perhaps the greatest office in the world? Who shall be the King or Queen of England?
When the Bill that became the Act of Settlement was debated, it spent six days in Committee. The allocation of time motion allows us two days in which to treat this Bill as if it were anti-terrorism legislation, which seems a particularly inopportune comparison given that it relates to matters that could not be further removed from that type of activity. As far as I am aware, the only constitutional Bill that has been treated to such a small amount of time—or, rather, an even smaller amount—is the Bill that became His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, which, I believe, completed its passage in the House of Commons in under a minute; but that, too, is not a happy precedent.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Is not the point that there really was rather an emergency on that occasion? The King had signified his abdication the previous day, and on 12 December the House had to enact, because there was no existing means of enabling the King to abdicate.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
For once I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. There was a genuine emergency then, but it is hard to see that there is a genuine emergency now. I am a great admirer of the Deputy Prime Minister and Lord President of the Council, because he has managed, in his role and in the coalition, to put into effect what Palmerston promised: that the Government would eventually run out of matters on which to legislate. It is not as if we have an enormously packed legislative programme waiting for this House to turn its mind to and to pass. We spend hours debating the taxation of lorries and other such matters, which get a full day allocated for Second Reading, whereas the succession to the Crown is to be dealt with in a truncated Second Reading debate, a brief Committee stage, and then one day for the remaining stages. That seems to me to be an insult to the nation, to our sovereign and, indeed, to Parliament.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Is it the hon. Gentleman’s understanding, as it is mine, that significant subsequent legislative changes will be required to no fewer than nine Acts of Parliament—the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Union with Scotland Act 1706, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and the Regency Act 1937—and that we require more time to explore the implications and impact of those changes?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Again, I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. We need time to consider constitutional issues properly, because they have complex knock-on effects and their phraseology is crucial to how the Crown might pass in future. If mistakes are made now, we could discover that we end up with consequences that we do not want, or indeed—this comes back to my amendments to this allocation of time motion—that we are not able to consider matters that are very pertinent to parts of the Bill because the phrasing is too narrow and things have been done within a time limit that makes it very hard to extend into these issues.
My amendments seek to allow for an instruction to be debated that would widen the scope of the Bill to include the consequence of a marriage to a Catholic. I speak as a Catholic or, in the terminology of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, as a “Papist”—as a member of the “Popish” religion—and I am happy to do so. I find no shame in being called that; I rather prefer it to the more politically correct phraseology of “person of the Roman Catholic faith”, which is rather middle-management-speak, if I may say so.
It is proposed in the Bill that a Catholic may marry an heir to the throne but may not then maintain the succession by bringing up a child of that marriage as a Catholic. The reason I object to that is because it is an attack on the teaching of the Catholic Church. Canon 1125 states specifically that the bishop, who can give a dispensation for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic, is not to do so unless
“the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church”.
When I got married, it was with great pleasure and joy that I was able to make that promise, because there is no finer thing to be able to pass on to one’s children than one’s own religion; there is nothing finer than to have that hope of faith, that joy of salvation that comes from passing on what has come from one’s own forebears through the generations. In this Bill and under this allocation of time motion, the House is not allowed to consider the natural consequence of what is being proposed by Her Majesty’s Government. I would therefore like the amendment to be made so that we are able to consider the natural consequences of what the legislation proposes.
I would like us to also be able to amend the legislation so that a child of such a marriage that the law would allow could be a Catholic, but to protect the position of the Church of England, which obviously cannot be led by a non-member of that Church, so that under the Regency Act 1937 a regent would be appointed to take on the role of Supreme Governor of the Church of England and to hold the title “Defender of the Faith”—a papal title that has been taken by the Crown since the reign of Henry VIII. That is an entirely logical extension of what is proposed in the Bill and time ought to be allowed to debate it, because when we start these changes and decide that in this modern age we need to be more politically correct and allow Catholics to marry into the throne, we have to consider the consequence.
The consequence of what is being proposed is to leave in the deeply hostile anti-Catholic language contained in the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights. Such language would not conceivably be used by any Member of this House in this more modern age. The consequence is to leave all that, but to take out just a few words. If I may, Mr Speaker, it might be worth my reading out a little of this language:
“And whereas it hath beene found by Experience that it is inconsistent with the Safety and Welfaire of this Protestant Kingdome to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queene marrying a Papist the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe further pray that it may be enacted That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme”.
We are proposing to remove from that fewer than a dozen words and leave the main substance intact. I would happily accept no change at all, because that is the history of our nation.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
My hon. Friend is an extremely great man. As a churchwarden in the Church of England, I salute the Catholic Church for its adherence to a principle that has not always been so prevalent in the Church of England. He raises some interesting points, and his amendment proposing that there should a regent who should be responsible for answering to the Church of England would create a fundamental change in our constitution. Accordingly, I entirely agree with him that this matter should not be rushed through this House or through Parliament. We should not trifle with the constitution of this realm in such a fashion, so I support entirely what he has just said.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend because that is the crux of my view. Let us suppose that we were to make no change. We live with the great history of this nation day by day, and it is a history that I am proud of and love; when we change it, we have to think carefully about the words we use. We have to think about the great offence given to Her Majesty’s loyal Catholic subjects by going back to the language of the Act of Settlement with a minor amendment.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
If the House were to require more time, it would be to absorb the shock of the hon. Gentleman turning from so eloquent a proponent of things as they are to someone who wants to remove, at one stroke, the Act of Settlement, the Act of Union and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. What has turned him from a man of conservative instincts to a radical firebrand in such a short time?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The answer is simple: the amendments being introduced by Her Majesty’s Government. There is no need to change the Act of Settlement and there is no need to make this provision for a Catholic to marry into the Crown, but once we start fiddling, we have to do it properly.
Chris Bryant
I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course it may be that he is a true Tory and he is not happy that some of this legislation was Whig legislation. He referred to some specific words in the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement:
“is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome”.
If an Anglican marries a Catholic in a Catholic service in a Catholic church, it is difficult to argue that that person is not reconciled to or holding communion with the see or Church of Rome. That is precisely the kind of issue we need to tease out.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Once again, I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. That is why it is so important that we should have proper time for this debate and to debate the full ramifications of what the Government are trying to do. The argument that the measure has been agreed by Her Majesty’s other realms is not sufficient. It needs to have been thought through properly in one of her realms first, before we see whether the other realms will accept it. Yes, there might be a child—a happy event for Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge—and let us hope that that is the case, but there would be no harm in allowing the legislation to be dated from today, even if that birth were to take place. There is no urgency. The succession is apparently very secure: the heir apparent is a youngish man and so is his son.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that we would surely hope that no other realm would spend any less time discussing the measure than it looks like we will spend on it this afternoon?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Of course, the sovereign is also King or Queen of Scotland, which is a very important title.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but I think that this is a matter of fundamental importance. We are changing that part of our constitution that is most precious in a rush, as if it is anti-terrorist legislation, and we are not allowing ourselves proper time to consider all the ramifications of what is entailed by Her Majesty’s Government’s position. I therefore hope that the House will consider accepting my amendment to make some improvement to the Bill, although I fear that it still will not allow sufficient time for all one might wish to discuss.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is always a huge pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I must declare my interest as he has—not that I have any ambitions to marry anyone who is in line to succession to the throne—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think it was the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames)—if I am wrong, so be it—who muttered from a sedentary position that it was just as well that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) had no such intention. I ought also to point out that it is just as well for Mrs Maria Vaz.
Keith Vaz
It is indeed, Mr Speaker, and I am most grateful to you for reminding me of my wife’s name.
The interest I should declare is that I too am a Catholic, although, unlike the hon. Member for North East Somerset, I am not from one of the grand Catholic houses. An even greater Catholic than the hon. Gentleman—if there is such a person—the Archbishop of Westminster, has written to the Government to confirm that the Catholic Church supports what the Government are doing, or at the very least does not object to the proposals.
I believe that we need to get on with this, partly because of the happy royal event that will take place some time in July, and also because I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill on the subject on 18 January 2011, following a number of right hon. and hon. Members who in preceding centuries have produced ten-minute rule Bills—if such a device existed before the last century—to try to do exactly the same thing: to modernise the monarchy and provide for equality. I think the previous Member to do that was the former Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, before he lost his seat. Such legislation has a long history and the Government are right to fast-track the Bill and provide, in my view, generous time for it to be discussed. I know that the hon. Member for North East Somerset said that anti-terrorism legislation takes longer, but terrorism order debates that I have attended have had much less time allocated on the Floor of the House.
The first argument for getting on with this is the royal event that will take place shortly. Of course, the Commonwealth agreed the measure on 28 October 2011 and, as the Prime Minister has said, it is retrospective, but it would be absurd if the royal child was born before Parliament deliberated changing the law. It is much better that we should do it now.
I pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister for the amount of time he has spent on this issue. It is clearly not one of the Government’s great priorities, but he has spent a lot of face time in meetings with me and with many others, and spoken to Heads of Government throughout the Commonwealth. I am grateful to him for what he has done. Let us get on with it, let us have the debate and let us pass this legislation.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I rise to speak in support of the amendments. My concern about the motion is that Second Reading will be directly followed by Committee stage. The difficulty lies in the question of the role of Parliament, which one would presume is to legislate rather than to assent to legislation. Very often, Parliament is being driven to assent to legislation drafted in Whitehall.
The difficulty when Committee follows Second Reading concerns our ability to review the issues that are raised on Second Reading, even though we will have further consideration on Monday. The Bill of Rights, for example, was not just a matter between Parliament and the Crown; it involved the people of the country, too. The process of producing this Bill offers us no clarity about how to involve the people of this country in potentially important constitutional changes. I accept that that is not necessary in this case, but there would be circumstances in which a threshold might be met. If we changed documents that, when drafted, said that they could not be changed, that would require assent from the population. That has been accepted in relation to changes to our relationship and settlement with the EU. Perhaps we should be considering more widely when the people should be involved in decisions on constitutional changes, through a referendum or some other mechanism.
Other issues have not been sorted out, such as the lack of equality of treatment between a Queen and a King. A Queen cannot decide what to call her spouse, whereas a King can call his spouse either Queen or Princess Consort. Those questions are not being considered. We need time for issues raised on Second Reading to come back to the House in a proper manner. I accept that, unusually, amendments were allowed to be tabled before Second Reading, but in the future we should avoid Committee stage following Second Reading immediately.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
I warmly support the amendment proposed by the firebrand from North East Somerset. There is an extraordinary coalition of opinion behind the view that more time should be given: it includes royalists, republicans and, allegedly, a member of the royal family, although we cannot draw on his name in support of it. We find ourselves in that position because we have opened Pandora’s box. Long-established opinion was that we should not touch the Act of Settlement at all—it was part of the settled constitution of the land; many people, including Catholics, were opposed to any change; and even though others regarded the gender bias as an outrage, they did not want to open the succession to the throne to further debate—but as we are having the debate now, and as we have these debates only once every 300 years, it is worth suggesting some reforms appropriate for future centuries.
There is no hurry to pass this Bill. If we change the reference to children “born after 28 October” to children “whenever born”, that would solve a number of problems, including the problem of whether it can be applied to the birth of the royal child and in the future. If this is such a splendid idea, I cannot see any reason why it should not operate straight away. It is unlikely that it would have many effects, because most of the possible senior inheritors of the throne are male anyway.
We must consider the opinion of this country on the choice that was handed down to us at a time when they believed in the divine right of kings. I can remember Alf Garnett pointing out to the “Scouse git”, in the manner of working-class knowledge, that royalty were descended from God, and I was told as a child that they had blue blood in their veins, but I think we can now regard royalty as being as good and virtuous, or as frail and fragile, as the rest of us. We are unanimous in paying tribute to Her Majesty, who has had a faultless reign in which she has made no attempt to meddle in politics, but if we look back at history, that has not always been the case. We have had plenty of monarchs who were mad, bad or sad—some all three—and we cannot say with any certainty that future monarchs will have the same personality and strength of character as the Queen.
Apart from their ceremonial rule, the monarch plays a crucial role as Head of State. Insufficient attention has been given to what Robert Rhodes James, a greatly respected Member of the House and historian, wrote about the situation in the Conservative party when it was about to topple Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister. He said that there was great concern in the top echelons of the Tory party about the fact that Mrs Thatcher wanted to call a general election. Parliament could not stop her; the Conservative party could not stop her; the Cabinet could not stop her; but the monarch could. In that situation, the monarch would act and play a vital role as Head of State by overruling a Prime Minister who was acting in their own interests rather than the interests of the country.
It is important that we consider the personality and character of the next Head of State, and I believe that there is a case for considering skipping a generation. It should be up to the public to decide. If the Queen lives as long as her mother, as we all hope she does, we are unlikely to have a change of Head of State for another 20 years, at which time the present heir will be in his late 80s. There will be other considerations, too: doubts have been expressed about his personality and involvement in politics. We should have more time to discuss all the amendments that have been tabled, including the proposal that the public should consider skipping a generation.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
I very much welcome the Bill, and the time that we have to debate it in the House today. Indeed, I do not just welcome it: I, and others like me, have been calling for such a Bill for many years on the ground that we should not have to do this as a matter of urgency, as it is now. I do not blame the Government, who have taken action—indeed, I break with personal tradition and compliment the Deputy Prime Minister on the action that he took in negotiating with our Commonwealth partners to reach this legislative stage—but previous Governments should have taken action on this long ago.
Given the current situation, I appreciate that there is some urgency, but I wish to ask a genuine question of the Minister. It is difficult to understand, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) so eloquently argued, why that urgency means that we have to take more than one stage of the Bill in one day. There is some urgency, but we are not so close to the end of the parliamentary Session or, indeed, to the imminent birth of the new member of the royal family that we could not have more than one day to debate the Bill. I raise the issue because, in general, I have a constant concern that constitutional Bills should be treated properly on the Floor of the House, which means having not just sufficient time, but more time than is allocated to ordinary Bills.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I, too, add my support to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). What an unlikely coalition of high Papist and tight Prod, pleb. Should we call it the “Papal Prod Pleb Alliance”, perhaps stronger than the one formed in the rose garden—who knows? Hopefully, it is an alliance that will be listened to today by the House, as we require more time.
This is an important constitutional issue that affects all the people of all the islands of this kingdom and the many Overseas Territories of which Her Gracious Majesty is Queen. We should take time to go over all these matters and consider them. In an intervention, I said that there were many Acts on which the Bill will impact, spanning from the 1600s to the 1900s. We should look carefully at the implications of all those things. Members assume that they know the intended consequences of the Bill, and indeed we have seen some of them, but there are unintended consequences too, as well as unknown consequences. We should therefore take time to consider what those consequences are.
Recently in Northern Ireland, we had a move to remove a symbol of our state from a public building. People thought that they knew the intended consequences, and thought that there would be minor disruption. There have been over 70 days of disruption costing many millions of pounds, because people did not take time properly to consider the consequences of that foolhardy action. Before we unpick something that is settled—the Act of Settlement, the hint is in the name: it is settled—we should take time. We should take time before we start to unravel that, perhaps causing unnecessary tension across the nation that could have consequences far beyond those intended by the Deputy Prime Minister in the Bill. I support the amendment, as we should take more time and get this matter right.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I want to speak against the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), although I have some reservations about the way the Government have sought, at least initially, to timetable the Bill.
I oppose the amendment, because it is designed to facilitate a great widening of the scope of the Bill beyond its intended purpose and into another area, beyond what was agreed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government. There may be some wider agreement on that, but it is a much bigger thing. It conjures up a nightmare vision: the hon. Member for North East Somerset, perhaps clad in a suit of armour, waving a sword that slices up all the constitutional documents to which he has previously referred with such reverence. That is why I have called him a radical firebrand all of a sudden. What is at stake is the Protestant succession, the position of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, and the coronation oath to defend the Protestant reformed religion—all those things—and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister would have been cautious about going into that territory.
There are issues that we need to discuss, and which can be discussed within this framework, about the consequences of particular provisions, particularly for the children of a mixed marriage such as one that is envisaged, if in effect their opportunity to succeed to the throne was decided for them at an early age. We shall come on to that. My concern was greatest when the Government seemed to want to do this in one day, without an interval between any of the Bill’s stages. I regarded that as unacceptable and would have voted against it if it had proceeded to a vote.
What happens when we deal with legislation is that things are discovered in Committee, and we have to do something different on Report. If we compress the time so much that we do not have an opportunity to do so, it is pretty serious. Even when that has been done in a genuine emergency with terrorism legislation, it has often led to bad consequences, and it is a bad way of legislating.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has just referred to the possibility of a royal son married to a woman of Roman Catholic faith. A child is born, and someone decides of which faith they shall be. Is it the woman, or the man, or even the child, after perhaps 18 years? Who would be the decider of the faith of that child?
Sir Alan Beith
There is no answer to that question. One answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman is that it has very serious consequences, one of which would be the inclusion or exclusion of that child from the right to succeed to the throne and that decision would be taken when it was at a very early age. I hope that there will be an opportunity to discuss that, if the Committee stage is managed such that we are able to discuss the relevant clause.
I was addressing the desirability of legislation having stages. There should be a gap between the stages, and we have now arrived at that slightly happier position because Report will not be for a few days. I am entirely supported in my argument by the Government’s own action in tabling an amendment to their own Bill. Having believed at an earlier stage that it could all be done in one day, they have proved that that is a bad idea. I hope they have learned a lesson from that.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I am not British and not a royalist. I am a constitutional republican and an Irish nationalist. I do not purport to know all the possible consequences of the Bill and I do not pretend to care about some of those that I do know about. However, there are aspects of the Bill and of the consequences of passing it which persuade me that more time is needed. Those who care about these various consequences should be given more time, as should those of us who want to elaborate on some of the issues involved in the Bill—such as the fact that in the 21st century we still leave such sectarian language on the statute book.
The choice that we are making through the amendments that will result from this Bill puts a 21st century licence on arcane and offensive language. The provisions are quite sectarian. If a politician in Northern Ireland used the same language on a political platform, people would talk about incitement to religious hatred, but the Bill, for reasons of constitutional sensitivity, for reasons of ecclesiastical sensitivity to do with the constitutional settlement, leaves that language in place, safe and untouched.
If we were commenting on other regimes, other countries, other states that are being built and reformed, and if they were putting such intense, offensive and exclusive religious provisions into their constitution, we would be calling for all sorts of UN standards to be observed, we would be calling for reports and applying diplomatic pressure, and we would have the Foreign Secretary and others telling us from the Dispatch Box that they were trying to offer good and wise counsel to other people and other Parliaments and urging them not to rush such provisions. But that is precisely what is happening here.
I accept that, in the circumstances, there is obviously a timeliness and an urgency about particular provisions, specifically the gender discriminatory provision. As someone who believes fundamentally in civil rights and equality, I am for any provision that removes any layer of gender inequality from any aspect of the state’s life. Similarly, as someone absolutely committed to civil rights, I would want to support anything that removes any layer of religious discrimination. Although we are being allowed to remove one layer of religious discrimination in relation to the Bill, we are not allowed to address the others layers of religious discrimination that are still provided for and put into the infrastructure of the state. It is not a state that I particularly want to be part of. I have other aspirations in other directions, but I am not here to be subversive in any way. I have always respected the Queen and those who respect the Queen. I met her when I was Deputy First Minister—indeed, I was the first nationalist Minister to receive the Queen officially anywhere on the island of Ireland. As a Member of Parliament I have received her in my constituency and I have met her on other occasions, so I am not here in any way to disrespect. But those of us who have a different take on the Bill want time to bring up some of the issues that we want to highlight, just as we want to hear from others who want to highlight other issues.
John Hemming
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it seems that because civil servants have been tasked with writing something to deal with a very narrow issue, they have ignored all the other issues, and the programme motion is preventing Parliament from properly considering various aspects?
Mark Durkan
Yes, as happens with many such things. When the civil service and the parliamentary draftsmen are asked to look at things, their predictive text mentality focuses only on certain aspects and the rest of us cannot get any other logic or language in there. That is precisely the present situation. We do not have to take huge numbers of days to debate the Bill, but if Members are to be comfortable with how and what they are legislating for, we need more time.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said that we now have separate stages, but the Report stage will be very compressed and when Lords amendments come to the House, there cannot be amendments to them in this House, as far as I can see, unless they are tabled by a Minister of the Crown. There will be a very short Report stage and a short stage for Lords amendments.
Ian Paisley
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for adding to the strange and wonderful coalition that is emerging on the matter. Does he agree that the Government appear to be saying, “We cannot give you more time because we would have to go to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Belize, St Lucia, Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda, St Christopher, St Kitts, Nevis, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon islands, Barbados, the Bahamas and Jamaica and ask them their opinions, and that is just too complex, so let’s push this through in a hurry”? That is wrong. Not only have we a right to raise all the issues that concern us, but all those other territories will have matters that are of concern to them and they should have the same rights as we have.
Mark Durkan
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. None of the arguments or excuses that might be offered for simply microwaving the Bill through in its present form—as the Government are doing today, without looking at the suspect content that we will still be leaving on the statute book—will stand. Those of us who are calling for more time are not calling for hugely more time, nor are we talking about the sort of grand world tour that I am sure the hon. Gentleman would love to go on to consult people in those other Chambers.
I know that some Members, including probably the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), have a deep allegiance to the Crown. I know that the former Member for North Antrim, who just happened to have the same name as the current hon. Member, used to state straightforwardly that he was loyal to the Crown so long as the Crown remained Protestant. I am sensitive to why people have their own issues and their own thoughts, but other people have a different conscience and a different approach.
If some people’s loyalty or allegiance to the Crown is qualified by that religious precondition, those of us in the House who do not share that view have to ask why we, as the price of taking up membership in the House, are forced to recite a form of words that we do not believe. We pledge allegiance to the sovereign and to her heirs and successors, and remember, the Bill will make a change that has implications for who the heirs and successors might be. People are concerned about some of the consequences and the conundrums that might arise as a result of these changes. But I hope that those who have such sensitivities and concerns about succession will have some sensitivity to those of us who are forced, as the price of representing our constituents, to use either the affirmation or the oath. I use the affirmation, and I then hand my letter of protest about that to the Speaker. I use it under protest because I will not swear a lie. I will not swear a lie that I will bear allegiance to someone to whom—
Paul Flynn
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the last time the House discussed an alternative oath, 140 Members voted in favour of it, for all kinds of reasons? It is reasonable that we should return to the matter and have an alternative oath for those who find that they are not telling the truth when they take the oath. It is possible to put words before it or after it which negate the oath.
Mark Durkan
I entirely support my hon. Friend. I indicate that I am reciting the formula only in order to represent my constituents, then I read my formula. No doubt other hon. Members have other ways of doing that. I do that, as I indicated earlier, not to be subversive or offensive in any way, but to be true to the integrity of my own position. I would expect no less from anybody who does not share my views or who deeply differs from those views.
If hon. Members get a chance during the limited time that we have on the Bill to make the point that their allegiance to the Crown depends on its religious attachment in future, will they also consider whether it is reasonable to expect a pledge of allegiance to the Crown to be imposed on the rest us who either do not share that religious precondition or who simply do not share the constitutional outlook which I know is cherished by so many in the House, but is just not part of my make-up as a constitutional Irish nationalist?
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
One of the worst constitutional innovations of the previous Government was their decision automatically to timetable every piece of legislation they brought before this House, which I regretted and opposed at the time. When the coalition Government took office, I was very pleased with their language, because they told us that they were committed to a stronger democracy and a stronger Parliament. What better proof could there be that they not only have those beliefs, but wish to put them into action, than that they not automatically timetable every Bill brought before us?
I rise to speak on the timetable motion because there is a feeling in the House that it is wrong and because it relates to a constitutional Bill. If there is any kind of legislation that should be hammered out and discussed in full on the Floor of the House, it is on matters relating to our constitution. We are the custodians of the constitution. That constitution either expresses the freedoms we believe in or it lets us down, depending on our point of view and the state we have reached. It would be a great day if the Deputy Prime Minister, a former lover of freedom and of an independent Parliament, rose from the Front Bench and said, “I hear what you say. We will give you the freedom to debate this at the length of your choosing.”
Often when we have guillotines, we find that legislation is rushed through with insufficient consideration. Last night an important Bill went through with a big chunk of work left undone by the House of Commons, which means we have to leave it to the House of Lords. There is no reason for that. We could have a few more sitting days, or we could stay here a little later in the evenings. Some of us want to do the job properly and time should be made available for that.
It is even more important to allow proper consideration on something of this magnitude. We have heard today from hon. Ladies and Gentlemen who have a range of very different views on the country they belong to, the oath they wish to swear and the allegiance they wish to show. We are going to the heart of what this nation is, how it expresses itself and how it represents itself at the highest level. I think that it is quite wrong to shorten debate on that. It might be that when we get to the debate we will not need much more time than the Government have allowed, but surely they can trust a free Parliament. Surely, on this issue, they can let Parliament have its way and discuss what it wishes for a reasonable length of time.
Before the Labour Government, previous Governments always reserved the right to introduce a guillotine motion if they felt that the Opposition were behaving unreasonably and not allowing sensible progress to be made. All democratic Oppositions ultimately agree that Governments have a right to get their legislation through if it has been properly advertised and argued for in general elections. Surely, on this issue, this is the time for the Deputy Prime Minister to strengthen his reputation, make his name with a blow for freedom and allow us to speak for as long as we wish.
Miss Chloe Smith
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and I am extremely respectful of the range of views—perhaps we ought to call it the coalition of views—that have been expressed this afternoon. If you will allow me, Mr Speaker, I will tackle a few of the points that have been made and attempt to keep to the point of the programme motion.
I am honour bound to say that the Bill is not being treated as if it were terrorism legislation, as a few hon. Members, and indeed some recent items in the media, have suggested. As hon. Members will know, the usual channels in the House have reflected on the timetable and taken the pragmatic decision to allow two days for debate, rather than any less time. We think that that will provide ample time for any issues to be debated before the Bill goes to the House of Lords. I note that since 2007 a number of Bills have taken a shorter amount of time for the parliamentary process, and among them is another constitutional Bill, the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, which took a shorter time in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords.
I understand from his amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is seeking to expand the scope of the discussion to include provisions relating to the religion of children of persons in the line of succession to the Crown who have married a—dare I say it—person of the Roman Catholic faith. That would of course pave the way for a number of amendments on the matter that he has tabled for consideration in Committee. Although I agree that we should have a full debate on the Bill, and I believe that we will have that in the time the business managers have allocated, I also think that it would be unhelpful, in effect, to disregard the scope of the Bill and add additional areas for debate. We need to focus on the pertinent issues and those that are in the Bill. Having said that, I will attempt to deal with a few of the substantive issues that have been raised.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The Minister refers to the usual channels and business managers, but the fact is that there seems to be widespread concern across the House, and not expressed through the usual channels, about the timetable motion as drafted. We also set out in the coalition agreement that the matter would be decided by a House business committee, which is yet to be established. Would this not be an opportune moment at least to reconsider the programme motion in the light of what has been expressed by many Members across the House?
Miss Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I note his concern, and indeed the range of views that have been expressed this afternoon. I dispute that we have heard only one side of the debate this afternoon; I think that we have heard a range of views on the programme motion.
Ian Paisley
I thank the Minister for giving way, and indeed for the very sincere way in which she has handled the meetings that have taken place outside the Chamber. Does she agree that she is opening a royal Pandora’s box of unintended consequences that will have a significant impact across the kingdom? If she satisfies me today by saying, “The Bill does not change the rule that the monarch must not be a Roman Catholic”, unfortunately she will dissatisfy other colleagues in the House. I think that those matters have massive consequences. I ask her to address that point in her comments on the timetable and the lack of consultation that appears to have taken place.
Miss Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those further points. He seeks to draw me on one of the amendments he has tabled. In brief, I assure him that my view, and that of the Government, is that there is no need for his amendment because those parts of the legislation to which it relates still stand. That leads me to an extremely important point: the Bill, as it stands, has an extremely narrow scope. Therefore, in the view of the usual channels and the Government, it is receiving the correct amount of parliamentary time for debate.
Paul Flynn
There is universal approval in the House for the ending of gender discrimination, but does the Minister not agree that the Bill, rather than getting rid of a religious discrimination, actually reinforces it by excluding people from other religions—evangelical Christians, Catholics, Jews and Muslims—from the possibility of ever becoming Head of State?
Miss Smith
One of the curious aspects of the debate is that we could take almost as long to discuss what is already wrong with the status quo, which is what the hon. Gentleman would like us to do.
I must deal with a number of points that have been made across the Chamber today. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for removing the male bias in primogeniture, and I think that other Members of the House fully support our view on that.
As a Conservative, I do not talk here for political correctness; I talk here for religious equality and freedom. I think it is important that the Bill will end a long-standing piece of unique discrimination. The current provisions are uniquely anti-Catholic because they bar the heir from marrying a Papist or a member of the Roman Catholic faith—whatever term one wishes to use—but I think that much of that terminology is the product of a different age, when the kingdom was threatened by expansionist Catholic realms elsewhere. However, those provisions do not apply to anybody else. They do not apply to atheists, Muslims, Jews, people of no religion or any combination of religions. I believe in the freedom that the Bill will open up by removing that unique piece of discrimination. The changes also do not affect in any way the place of the established Church of England.
Sir Gerald Howarth
Forgive me, but my hon. Friend cannot say that the issue does not affect the established Church of England and that the Bill ends discrimination; it is discriminatory by definition that the Church of England should be the established Church in these islands. What my—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that it is inadvertent and a consequence of the interest in the subject, but interventions are now eliding into the subject matter of the Second Reading debate. The matter with which we are concerned now is purely the allocation of time motion. The Minister is offering her view in response to the contributions to that debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be patient and volunteer his further thoughts ere long.
Miss Smith
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly look forward to far more debate on those matters on Second Reading.
It does not need me to stand here and say that the changes do not affect the established Church because the established Church says that for itself. The Church of England has said:
“The present prohibition…is not necessary to support the requirement that the Sovereign join in communion with the Church of England. Its proposed removal is a welcome symbolic and practical measure consistent with respect for the principle of religious liberty.”
I know that the House will find that welcome.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I think the Church may have missed the fact that Counsellors of State could be Catholic because they tend to have married into the Crown.
Miss Smith
I am grateful for that further erudite contribution from my hon. Friend. I suspect that might be a matter in respect of which he would wish to extend the scope of the Bill, and I shall have to return to that point.
John Hemming
Does the Minister not agree that this is a unique Bill in that it is being sent around to the nations of the Commonwealth?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. It is not actually a Bill yet; we are discussing only the allocation of time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s point will be relevant.
John Hemming
In terms of the allocation of time, the Bill is being issued around the Commonwealth and it therefore needs extra time so that the House of Commons can do its job and make sure that it is not a value burger of a Bill that has not been properly DNA tested.
Miss Smith
On that note, I had best return to questions of process, as is absolutely right at this stage of the afternoon’s work.
It is important to bring out in this debate the fact that the Church of England also said:
“This Government and the previous Government have consulted closely with senior Church of England figures throughout the long process which has led up to the introduction of this Bill.”
The Bishop of Blackburn has said that the reforms
“of the rules of royal succession are sensible and timely.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 May 2012; Vol. 737, c. 168.]
I wish to raise those points because they draw us right back to the notion that we now have an opportunity to make the change for modern times. The process that has allowed us to do that, with consultation, is backing us. The royal household, the Church of England and the Catholic Church have all been kept informed at every stage. As right hon. and hon. Members know, the scope of the Bill has been tightly drawn to give effect to the specific goals agreed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government.
I invite my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset to withdraw his amendment and I commend the allocation of time motion to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I shall now put the question on the amendment.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was going to ask whether, by leave of the House, I might withdraw the amendment. I have listened carefully to the debate. I am sorry to say that whenever Front Benchers on both sides agree one is likely to lose in a Division, although it usually indicates that the House is going to vote erroneously; there is nothing more dangerous than when Front Benchers on both sides agree.
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, because had we come to my second amendment, you would have been able to put the question, “2(b) or not 2(b)?” Sadly, if I am granted leave to withdraw, you will not be able to put it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Succession to the Crown Bill—
Timetable
1.–(1) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
(2) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee shall be completed at today’s sitting.
(3) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
(4) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
(5) Any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed on the second day.
(6) Any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.
(7) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
2. When the Bill has been read a second time—
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others) in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply— (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
6. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
7. If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph 4(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
8.–(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.
9.–(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—
(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—
(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has—
(a) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment; or
(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments that are moved by a Minister of the Crown and are relevant to the Lords Amendment.
Subsequent stages
10.–(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (1) shall thereupon be resumed.
11.–(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 10.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.
(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
Reasons Committee
12.–(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chair.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the Chair shall—
(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair, and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
Miscellaneous
13. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
14.–(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
15. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
16.–(1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.
(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
17.–(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
18. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
19.–(1) This paragraph applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
20. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
21.–(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption, for a period equal to the time elapsing between 7.00 pm, 4.00 pm or 2.00 pm (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Succession to the Crown Bill
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill does three specific things. First, it ends the system of male-preference primogeniture so that, in the royal succession, older sisters will no longer be overtaken by their younger brothers. Secondly, it removes the law that says that anyone who marries a Roman Catholic automatically loses their place in the line, a legal barrier that applies to Catholics and only to Catholics—no other faith. Thirdly, it replaces the Royal Marriages Act 1772.
Under the 1772 Act, any descendent of George II must seek the reigning monarch’s consent before marrying, without which their marriage is void. That law, passed 240 years ago, is clearly now unworkable. George II’s descendants number in their hundreds. Many will be unaware of that arcane requirement and many will have only a tenuous link to the royal family.
The Bill proposes that the monarch need consent only to the marriages of the first six individuals in the line of succession, without which consent they would lose their place.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I have heard what the Deputy Prime Minister has said about the previous situation, but surely the requirement of the monarch’s permission for those first six individuals is arcane in this day and age.
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is not arcane; it is a pragmatic judgment. The Bill retains the requirement for permission from the monarch for those wishing to marry who are in the immediate line of succession. It seeks to confine what had become a sprawling requirement to a much more limited and pragmatic one.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I simply do not understand why the monarch would want to retain the right to forbid somebody to marry and to declare their marriage null and void because consent was not granted. On what basis would they refuse to grant consent—because someone involved was illegitimate, not wealthy enough, a commoner or an actress? Those are reasons that have previously been used for not consenting.
The Deputy Prime Minister
That, of course, is a matter for the monarch. It is a power of the monarch’s that has not been brought into that much dispute for a prolonged period. We had a choice: we could either remove it altogether or trim it radically to the six individuals in the immediate line of succession.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I would like to make progress, but of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister is aware that the six people are being brought back into the provisions of the Royal Marriages Act. The exemption in the Act states:
“other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families”.
The marriage of Louisa, daughter of George II, from whom Princess Alexandra was directly descended, excludes the Prince of Wales, all his children and all their future children from the provisions of the Royal Marriages Act. Bringing the six people in will, in a novel way, include them in the provisions of an outdated Act.
The Deputy Prime Minister
As a proficient historian, the hon. Gentleman will know that the original Act was passed because of George III’s urgent wish to control the marriage of some of his own children. That set a precedent which has remained on the statute book for a long period. We are retaining the right of the monarch to confer that permission, but only to those in the immediate line of succession; the hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is different from what preceded it. Having been in consultation with the royal household over a prolonged period, we feel that that strikes the right balance.
Paul Flynn
Presumably, the Deputy Prime Minister, knows that a Member of this House, who is 246th in the line of succession to the throne, was previously covered by this provision; I will check with him as to whether he asked permission to marry. We heard recently that certain Bills have been blocked in this House, including Tam Dalyell’s 1999 Bill about giving the House, rather than the monarchy, the decision on whether to declare war. We have been told that the monarchy, under instructions from Prime Ministers, has acted to make such changes. Was the royal family involved in producing the figure of six?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said, I accept that there is a certain arbitrariness about the figure of six; it could be seven or five. The principle to limit the powers of the monarch to grant permission to marry to those who are in the immediate line of succession seemed to us to be the right balance to strike, but I accept that perfectly valid arguments of principle could be made otherwise. It is, however, a very dramatic change—pragmatic, but dramatic none the less—from the precedent that has been set from the days of George III.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I really want to make progress now.
The reform that limits permission to the six who are in line to the throne is made for practical reasons; the other two reforms are more about our values. The current rules of succession belong to a bygone era; they reflect old prejudices and old fears. Today we do not support laws that discriminate on either religious or gender grounds. They have no place in modern Britain, and certainly not in our monarchy—an institution central to our constitution, to the Commonwealth, and to our national identity too. With the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge expecting a baby and our having just celebrated our Queen’s 60-year reign, this Bill is timely as well as popular. It is also straightforward and enjoys support across the House, which, as I should know, is a rare thing in constitutional reform issues.
I will come to the Catholic provisions in a few moments, because I am aware that, as we have already heard, some hon. Members have concerns about their implications. On female succession, the real question that we need to ask is why it has taken us so long. This is a nation that prides itself on pioneering equality between the sexes: a nation of great Queens such as Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II. A woman can, and has, been Head of the UK Government, yet still on our statute books, with Parliament’s official backing, we have succession laws based on the supposed superiority of men. That anachronism is out of step with our society, it sends the wrong message to the rest of the world, and it is time for the rules to change.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
As the Member of Parliament for Wyre and Preston North, I represent huge tracts of Duchy of Lancaster land. Henry IV set up the Lancastrian inheritance separately from the Crown and its entities to follow through the male heirs, except where the monarch was a female. Under that separate arrangement for passing on the private possessions of the Duke of Lancaster, inheritance currently remains with the male heir where a male is a child of a monarch. Therefore, if the Queen were to have both a boy and a girl, would we not be in danger of splitting an inheritance so that the changes ensured that the female inherited the position of monarch but the title of Duke of Lancaster went to the son?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Before the Deputy Prime Minister answers, may I say that we need shorter interventions? I hope that that can be taken on board.
The Deputy Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, this Bill deals only with the succession to the throne and not with issues relating to the succession of hereditary titles. We can have a perfectly valid separate argument about that, but it is not within the very narrow scope of this Bill, all the reasons for which have been explained by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith).
Mr Wallace
I am not sure that my right hon. Friend understands. This measure, without such clarity, will disinherit the monarch of the lands that the monarch holds in the title of Duke of Lancaster, given that that is a separate division from the Crown.
The Deputy Prime Minister
Let me make it clear that this is about the succession to the Crown and nothing else. The issues of succession to hereditary titles can be dealt with separately if this House so wishes.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I have taken many interventions and will continue to do so, but I would like to make a little progress.
The Bill builds on the endeavours of the previous Government, who helped to lay the foundations for reform with the Commonwealth realms—
The Deputy Prime Minister
I really would like to make progress on this point. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] I give way.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
This is crucial, because what the Deputy Prime Minister says now could be taken in the law courts as giving interpretation to the law. Has he said that under the provisions of this Bill, the Duchy of Lancaster would be separated from the Crown for the first time since the reign of Henry IV?
The Deputy Prime Minister
No, I did not say that. I said that this Bill deals only with succession to the Crown and that succession to all other titles can be dealt with separately. For clarity’s purpose, my hon. Friend will remember that the Sovereign Grant Act—
The Deputy Prime Minister
May I answer the question? The Sovereign Grant Act 2010 makes a very important change that touches on the succession to the Crown as far as the Duchy of Cornwall is concerned. As the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) may know, the convention is that the male heir to the throne has the title of Duchy of Cornwall conferred on him, but a female heir to the throne does not. The Bill does not change that situation, but the provisions of the Sovereign Grant Act mean that the financial support provided via the Duchy of Cornwall can, in future, be provided to female heirs to the throne as well. To that extent, there is a link between this very tightly circumscribed Bill and the provisions of the Sovereign Grant Act.
The drafting of the Bill has been a long and careful process. I pay special tribute to Rebecca Kitteridge, New Zealand’s Cabinet Secretary, for her extraordinary work in making sure that these proposals can be effected across the Commonwealth realms. Agreeing constitutional change for 16 states, each with its own Government and legislature, is clearly a challenge. From the point at which the realms backed the reforms in principle in 2011, it took one year and two months to get full agreement in writing from everyone. In a phenomenal coincidence—one that I know is hard to believe—we received the final consent just hours before the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge announced that they are expecting a baby.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will make a little more progress and then give way.
The palace has, of course, been actively involved in the process from the beginning, and both the Church of England and the Catholic Church have been kept informed throughout.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
Sir Tony Baldry
I am very grateful. There have been misinformed suggestions in some newspapers that the Church of England is in some way opposed to this Bill. May I make it clear and put it on the record that the Church of England has absolutely no objection to it whatsoever?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. Later in my remarks I will repeat verbatim the form that that support from the Church of England took.
Sir Gerald Howarth
On the Commonwealth, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the 16 realms had given their approval just prior to the announcement of the royal pregnancy. However, that approval was still subject, was it not, to parliamentary endorsement in each of those countries? Therefore, will the Bill come into effect only once the relevant legislation has been enacted in all those countries? If so, when does he expect that that might happen?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My understanding is that it needs to come into force in all the realms. Interestingly, two of the realms, Jamaica and Papua New Guinea, do not, for their own reasons, need to go through the full legislative process. That is partly why we are so keen to keep the precision of the terms of the Bill and the narrowness of its scope, such that it can be easily adopted and digested under all the different parliamentary and legislative conventions that exist in the 16 Commonwealth realms. We now have a very short Bill of five clauses and a schedule. I urge the House to bear it in mind that, as I have explained, the Bill must be kept narrow in order to be adopted across all 16 Commonwealth realms.
I have heard it suggested that we should use the Bill to tackle the gender bias in hereditary titles whereby titles and the benefits that come with them leapfrog eldest daughters and are handed down to younger sons, or can be lost entirely when there is no male heir. Personally, I am sympathetic to that reform and can see why this seems like the natural time to do it, but, for purely practical reasons, it cannot and will not be done in this Bill. Nor can we can use the Bill to mop up any other constitutional odds and ends. Put simply, it cannot be broadened to include UK-specific reforms, because they are not relevant to the realms of the Commonwealth.
Turning to the all-important so-called Catholic question, the coalition Government are seeking to remove the current ban on heirs to the throne marrying Catholics; or, as the current legislation says, rather insultingly, depending on one’s point of view, from “marrying a Papist”. That law is a reflection of the times in which it was written. It followed nearly two centuries of religious strife within England, Scotland and Ireland; the threat of conflict with Louis XIV’s France and other Catholic powers; and tension with Rome. It was an era when legal defences seemed vital against a dangerous threat from abroad.
That does not just apply to the royal accession—in the 40 years after the Glorious Revolution a whole range of restrictions were put in place. Catholics could not vote, they were excluded from all professions and public offices and they could not go to university, could not teach, could not be the guardian of a child, could not buy land with a lease of more than 31 years and could not own a horse worth more than £5. Edmund Burke called the laws
“well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people…as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man.”
Many of the laws were repealed relatively quickly. The ban on owning land was repealed in 1778 and that on voting and serving in the legal profession in 1793. By the time the ban on Catholics from serving in this House as MPs and from serving as judges was lifted in 1829, most of the main restrictions were gone.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Do not worry, I am not going to say, “Ah, those halcyon days.” If, as the Deputy Prime Minister’s colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary has rightly said, the Bill will not rule that the monarch must not be a Roman Catholic, would it not for the sake of clarity be beneficial to include that in the Bill?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Our judgment is that that is not necessary and that the Bill’s intent is entirely clear.
To bring us right up to date—given that the hon. Gentleman referred to yesteryear—it was only in November 1995 that Her Majesty the Queen visited Westminster cathedral, which was the first time a reigning monarch had set foot inside a Catholic church since Queen Mary. That was a watershed moment in relations between the British state and its millions of loyal, patriotic Catholic citizens. Now it falls to us to take a step further in this journey by ridding ourselves of the arcane ban on Catholics marrying the monarch, and this Bill does exactly that.
I know that some hon. Members have concerns—we have heard them today—about potential unintended consequences of the reform. One concern, for example, is that if a monarch married a Catholic their heir would have to be brought up in the Catholic faith, and that, on becoming King or Queen, they would then assume their role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which would, in turn, lead to the disestablishment of the state Church. If we followed that logic, however, we should be introducing bans on marriage to members of every other faith and, indeed, people with no faith. Right now the monarch can marry a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu or an atheist, yet no one is alleging today that we are teetering on the edge of a constitutional crisis.
The Catholic Church does not have any blanket rule dictating that all children in mixed marriages must be brought up as Catholics. Indeed, if we look at the current royal family, we see that Prince Michael of Kent is an Anglican, his wife a Catholic and their heirs, Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella Windsor, are Anglican and retain their places in line to the throne.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I refer the Deputy Prime Minister to canon 1125 of the Catholic Church, which states clearly that a party to a mixed marriage must make his or her best efforts to bring up the children in the Catholic faith. Of course, some Catholics fail, but that does not mean that there is not a rule of the Catholic Church—there is.
The Deputy Prime Minister
If I understand it correctly, the precise wording—the hon. Gentleman may be able to correct me—is “best endeavours”. Equally, however, the Catholic Church has been clear that Bishops are free to decide, which they do on an ongoing basis, to allow a married couple—one a Catholic and the other of another faith—to bring up their children in a faith other than the Catholic faith.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely right. Canon 1124 allows for the Bishop to give permission for a mixed marriage, subject to canon 1125, which is the requirement for best efforts to be made to bring the children up as Catholic. Of course, it is open to the Government to ask the Papacy, via the Papal Nuncio, for a papal indult to get around that for royal marriages. I wonder whether that has been done.
The Deputy Prime Minister
It might be worth reading out the words of the Archbishop of Westminster, who said when it was announced that we would proceed with this Bill:
“I welcome the decision of Her Majesty's Government to give heirs to the throne the freedom to marry a Catholic”.
He also said, crucially, that
“I fully recognise the importance of the position of the Established Church in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today.”
I do not think that anyone has sought, in any such pronouncements, to highlight the risks that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted today.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I want to make progress and quote a statement by the Church of England itself, in a briefing issued to MPs last week. It said:
“The present prohibition on anyone remaining in the line of succession or succeeding to the Crown as a result of marrying a Roman Catholic is not necessary to support the requirement that the Sovereign join in communion with the Church of England. Its proposed removal is a welcome symbolic and practical measure consistent with respect for the principle of religious liberty. It reflects the sea change in ecumenical relations over recent decades.”
I have, therefore, quoted statements from both the Catholic Church and the Church of England and I hope they will provide ample comfort to those who are concerned.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I support the position that my right hon. Friend is taking and I am worried by the argument of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that, somehow, the United Kingdom Government and the monarchy would have to ask the permission of the Papacy, which would, in itself, be a deprivation of religious freedom. These are difficult decisions, but what my right hon. Friend is doing is surely not putting us in that situation.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I want to be clear that there is absolutely no prospect of our entering into discussions with the Vatican in order to bring this Bill into effect.
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
Is it not reasonable to assume, as my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in Government appear to have assumed in the way in which they have drafted the Bill, that on attaining adulthood, an heir to the throne, regardless of the religious affiliation of his or her mother or father, could put his or her duty as the future monarch of our country ahead of any religious faith and decide for him or herself to take a position that would be constitutionally acceptable and protect the monarchy?
The Deputy Prime Minister
That is a practical and perfectly reasonable assumption to make. I would highlight the fact, however, that under the current provisions, even if we did not proceed with the Bill, an heir to the throne could marry someone of the Hindu faith and yet decide, not least because they would be acutely aware of their place and duty in the line of succession to the throne, that their children, if they had any, were to be brought up in the Anglican faith. That assumption acts as a bedrock underneath the status quo. We are only extrapolating that by adding the Catholic faith to all the other faiths that can be involved in a marriage to heirs to the throne.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for giving way—he is being very generous. Does he believe that the monarch would legally be able to refuse consent to a marriage merely on the basis of somebody marrying a Roman Catholic? There is no provision that says what the monarch must bear in mind and, indeed, the old legislation, which we are repealing, makes it clear that it is the monarch with the Privy Council who makes the decision, whereas in this Bill it is just the monarch on their own.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we are not seeking to specify in legislation the terms in which the monarch provides that consent. We are certainly not specifying that that should be done according to the faith of the person who is marrying an heir to the throne.
In matters of constitutional significance, we should of course always proceed with care. Yes, we must always think through the potential knock-on effects of reform, but we also need to move with the times. Discrimination is discrimination wherever we find it, and just as we respect our traditions and cherish our monarchy, the House must never tolerate prejudice in our laws. Equality is, after all, a great British tradition too. I commend the Bill to the House.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Opposition strongly support the Bill. The Labour Government, under the premiership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), began the work on the changes that we see in it. I am pleased to say that our manifesto for the 2010 general election stated:
“Our constitutional monarchy is the source of deep pride and strength for our country…there is a case”—
I believe it to be a strong case—
“for reform of the laws concerning marriage to Roman Catholics and the primacy of male members of the Royal family.”
Those two points are at the heart of the Bill. As the Deputy Prime Minister explained, marrying a Roman Catholic will no longer prevent a person from becoming or remaining monarch, and the Bill will end discrimination in determining succession so that a younger son cannot have precedence over an elder daughter in the line of succession to the throne.
With regard to the first issue, it is surely right that the current exclusion of individuals who marry Catholics be brought to an end, especially as no other discrimination of that kind is on the statute book. The prohibition dates back to the Glorious Revolution, the 1688-89 Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement 1700. Whatever the contemporary justification for those measures, in this day and age there can be no justification for maintaining the restriction on the religion of the spouse of a person in the line of succession. Such an anachronism is an injustice and ought to have no place in a modern country with a constitutional monarchy.
We are equally committed to ending the male primogeniture rule. It cannot be justified that individuals are discriminated against because of their gender, and that basic principle of equality is firmly established in most recent legislation. Modifying the succession rule will bring the British monarchy into a position similar to that of most other European monarchies—I hope that Members will consider that to be an argument in favour of the change. Hon. Members will note that gender equality in succession laws was achieved in Sweden in 1980, the Netherlands in 1983 and Norway and Belgium in the early 1990s. It was introduced in Denmark in 2006 and is anticipated before too long in Spain. The change is in tune with enlightened attitudes in many other European countries as well as here in the United Kingdom.
As we know, there have been many calls for gender equality in the royal succession over the years. Noble Lords and hon. Members have presented numerous Bills on the subject, and I refer in particular to those tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) in 2011, and before him by a previous Member for Battersea, now Lord Dubs. The latter Bill went further than the former, but many of the sentiments in those private Members’ Bills have now found voice in this Bill. I add that there has been extensive and positive consultation on it with the Opposition as well as with interested parties.
Mr MacNeil
In the light of the hon. Gentleman’s words, perhaps he could tell us why, in 2004, when an attempt was made in the Lords to reform the succession, the Labour Government did all in their power to block it.
Wayne David
That is an interesting point, and I am sure there was a very good reason, but I do not think it is germane to our discussion today.
There has been extensive consultation on the Bill, and I note the consent of the Queen, as expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister at the start of the debate.
There is a third measure in the Bill that needs to be commented on. Although the Prime Minister did not refer to it in his statement to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Perth on 28 October 2011, it was referred to in his invitation to the Heads of Government of the Commonwealth, and the Government have recognised the need for the change. I refer to the requirement for all the descendants of George II to seek permission from the monarch to marry. In place of that, the Bill proposes a more limited requirement for the monarch to agree to the marriages of a specific number of individuals in the line of succession. That is surely a sensible proposal.
Paul Flynn
Does my hon. Friend really regard it as a sensible proposal? What percentage of our constituents does he think would accept an absolute prohibition from a relative on marrying the person of their choice?
Wayne David
We are talking about the monarch of the United Kingdom, not everybody else in the country. We have to acknowledge that we have a constitutional monarchy that is quite unique.
The origins of the current stipulation are in ancient common law, whereby the monarch has a duty and right of care relating to the upbringing of his or her close relatives. However, that was taken significantly further by the Royal Marriages Act 1772. Although that statute was promoted by George III’s antagonism towards the marriage of his two brothers to women whom he saw as unacceptable, it was drafted in such a way that it went much further than was necessary to respond to his immediate concerns. Indeed, the ramifications of that law mean that today literally hundreds of individuals are obliged to go through a formal legal process involving the monarch and the Privy Council to have their marriages approved. The Bill introduces a change so that any future prohibitions are of eligibility to the line of succession rather than of the marriage.
I do not question the proposed change, but I would nevertheless welcome clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), of why royal consent is now to be required for the first six people in line to the throne. I heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that it is a pragmatic move, but there has to be some rationale behind it. The constitutional expert Vernon Bogdanor has suggested that the figure might be five, and others have suggested larger or smaller numbers. Perhaps the Minister could clarify why six has been the number chosen.
Chris Bryant
What does my hon. Friend think would happen to somebody who was No. 7 in line and then suddenly became No. 6?
Wayne David
That is an interesting hypothetical question, and I would certainly welcome the Minister’s response, as it is the Government who have put forward the figure of six.
Mrs Laing
Is it not the case that if somebody is in close proximity to the throne but wishes to contract a marriage with a member of the Catholic faith, or in future wishes to contract a marriage of which the monarch would not approve, they have every freedom to renounce their entitlement to the throne and remove themselves from the list of the six people in question?
Wayne David
I suppose it would be up to the individual to decide to do that, but we are talking not about the actions of an individual in certain circumstances but about what the law requires them to do.
I referred to the Commonwealth. We are pleased that the Government have received final agreement in writing from the other 15 Commonwealth realms. The agreement relates to the three elements of the Bill. We understand that to all intents and purposes, Parliament cannot change the Bill substantially, because if there were to be significant amendment the new text would have to be agreed by each Commonwealth realm. That would inevitably cause significant delay.
We are pleased that the Government have consulted the Opposition, and I thank the Minister for her courtesy. We have therefore agreed to the Government’s wish to expedite the legislative process. However, they have wisely recognised the mood of the House as expressed at the last Deputy Prime Minister’s questions and granted two days for the consideration of the Bill rather than one.
Ian Paisley
Is the hon. Gentleman asking the House to believe that faith and religion are now to become completely and totally disposable when it becomes convenient? If a future heir to the throne is raised in a faith different from that of Anglican, when it comes to the choice of retaining something that they believe in their heart, or having the prize of the throne, they could dispose of their faith. That is essentially what we are asking the nation to believe: in secularism, to a degree—that one’s faith no longer really matters.
Wayne David
With all due respect, I do not think that is the case. The Bill strikes a balance between modernity, which we accept we need to acknowledge, and recognising that the Church of England is central to the life of this country and its monarchy. I think a good balance has been struck and I am sure that some of the suggested unintended consequences of the Bill will be considered during our deliberations.
Paul Flynn
When my hon. Friend says “this country”, I presume he means England. As he knows, in the country where he and I live, the Church has been disestablished for 90 years, and happily so.
Wayne David
Disestablishment is, of course, a reality as both my hon. Friend and I readily acknowledge. We must recognise that the monarch has a different relationship with the Church of England and the Church in Wales, and my hon. Friend is right to point out that distinction.
I mentioned unintended consequences. Hon. Members have referred to the Duchy of Cornwall, but it seems to me that the letters patent would need to be altered if the duchy were to be automatically transferred to a female heir to the throne. Otherwise, it has been suggested that the heir apparent could be deprived of the source of revenue necessary to fulfil her responsibilities. I suspect that one or two hon. Members might welcome that, but many more would be concerned. I heard what the Deputy Prime Minister said, but I refer him to the deliberations of the Lords Constitution Committee which referred to that as a specific concern.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
I did not intervene on my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on this issue so I will do so now. There are two possible options for the Duchy of Cornwall. One is that it is held by the Crown but does not entirely revert to it, and the revenue is passed on to a female heir. The second is that, as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, we somehow amend the original charters that established the duchy to allow the heir to hold it in their own right. That would, I think, be a more satisfactory solution given the other constitutional responsibilities of the Duke of Cornwall with regard to the constituency I represent.
Wayne David
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is correct, but if we are to have a package that is watertight and constitutionally thought through, consequences of that type should be addressed as a matter of importance.
A number of Members have referred to the important issue of the relationship between Church and state. According to the Bill, the heir to the throne would now be able to marry a Roman Catholic. It has been suggested that that has implications for the religious upbringing of a royal heir, which might prevent them from being in communion with the Church of England, and then from acceding to the throne. I have been reassured, however, as has the Deputy Prime Minister, that both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England have expressed confidence in the process that has been outlined.
As the Deputy Prime Minister said, Mr Richard Chapman, the Church of England’s secretary for parliamentary affairs, has written to Members with reference to the removal of the prohibition on the heir from marrying a Catholic, and it is worth quoting him again because it is of enormous significance. He said it is
“a welcome symbolic and practical measure, consistent with respect for the principle of religious liberty. It reflects the sea change in ecumenical relations over recent decades.”
That is extremely important and I hope it will reassure those Members who have expressed concerns.
Mr Andrew Turner
It seems to me that we are in danger of considering the issues that have to be covered, such as those relating to the Duchy of Cornwall, after legislating rather than before. That is the problem. We are hoping that things will be done properly but we cannot guarantee that.
Wayne David
Of course we cannot guarantee it, but I have faith in the democratic process and the co-operation that exists across the House, and that these serious issues will be addressed properly. It is important that such matters are considered sensibly here as well as in the other place. I am sure that discussions will take place, and I hope that progress will be indicated before the Bill finishes its parliamentary passage.
Let me refer to an issue that is, in some ways, particular to the people of Wales: the title of Princess of Wales. Since 1301 the eldest male heir has usually been invested with the title of Prince of Wales, and as I understand it, that position is bestowed at the discretion of the monarch. Edward II did not invest his eldest son, the future Edward III, with the title, but investiture later became custom and practice. The position confers no automatic rights or responsibilities, but it follows that if there is to be no gender discrimination in the royal succession, consideration ought to be given to the title of Princess of Wales being given to a female heir apparent.
Paul Flynn
My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way. He will recall from history that the title of Prince of Wales was the result of a promise that the people of Wales would have a King who could not speak a word of English. He could not speak a word of any language, including a word of Welsh. Is it sensible, with the pride of Wales at heart, to continue to perpetuate that royal confidence trick?
Wayne David
My reading of history is that when Llywelyn was defeated by Edward I, a promise was indeed made. The King of England at that time could not, of course, speak Welsh, but he could not speak English either. He spoke Norman French. It is important to make that point when considering such issues because it is easy for some people to translate modern ideas of nationality into mediaeval situations. It is important that the historical reality of the United Kingdom is recognised, and there is a specific niche for Wales with regard to the Prince of Wales, and hopefully, in future, for the Princess of Wales. If it were appropriate to have a Princess of Wales I hope that people in Wales would welcome such a development, and I ask the Minister whether she would welcome such a move.
The Bill is small yet has significant constitutional implications. It reinforces and extends a process of modernisation for our constitutional monarchy that has been under way for some time. The people of this country are, quite rightly, very supportive of the royal family and recognise that not only is the monarchy an important part of our nation’s heritage, it is also a vital element in defining the identity of Britain in the 21st century. The changes in this Bill will help to ensure that the monarchy continues to be an essential part of Britain’s future.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are going to introduce a 10-minute limit on speeches. It would be helpful if Members do not take up all that time or we will have to introduce a further cut to the time limit.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I rise not to arrest the regrettably heady speed of the passage of the Bill, but to join my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)—he made a beautiful speech and would have found support in the Lobby had he pressed his amendments to a Division—and to ensure that the Government leave the House in no doubt about the effects of the Bill as they tinker away out of consideration of, we can assume, political correctness on the one hand and of the European convention on human rights on the other.
I am afraid that the genesis of the Bill is the “good wheeze” school of government. The doctrine is much in fashion, but it does not receive nearly rigorous or formidable enough scrutiny from the House. Although the proposals were a long time in gestation, they are not easy to construe, their consequences are not clear, and they have not become in any way current in normal public understanding, which they should have done, because the Bill touches on British history and tradition but succumbs to the passing enthusiasms of the 21st century. Above all, the proposals interfere with statutes that have slept for more than 300 years, and a common law rule of far greater antiquity. So seriously were these matters taken at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference that Ms Gillard was reported to have said to our Prime Minister on the day the measure was agreed, “Cheer up, Dave. It’s a great day for Sheilas everywhere.”
Therefore, Parliament is more than usually obliged to seek from the Government a clear understanding of what is involved, because we touch today on customs and traditions that go back far beyond the great parliamentary conflicts of the 17th century and will change a system that has stood this extraordinary country in great stead down the generations. For more than 1,000 years, except for the 11 years of the Cromwellian interregnum, England has never been without a sovereign. For 1,000 years, the Crown has been the key to our nationhood and has served to implant down the generations the habit of feeling and acting together in national matters. The Crown has proved to be a most effective means for preserving and strengthening the country’s cohesion and stability. It is and always has been the unifying principle that unites the national family.
When an English sovereign succeeds to the throne, they inherit 1,000 years of unbroken monarchical heritage. These are not, therefore, matters to be treated lightly, nor ones to be trifled with, and, not surprisingly, there has therefore been some confusion about what the Bill is and is not about. The Government, as always, but particularly when dealing with sometimes ill-thought-out constitutional matters, must be aware of the unwanted, unintended consequences that often flow from tinkering with such legislation. They could damage the crucial relationship between Church and state as well as peerage law, and possibly interfere with accepted conventions and laws reaching back down the times.
Consequent to the Bill—this is why my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset was completely right to ask for the House to have more time to deal with the matter—a large number of Acts will require the House’s attention and amendment, including the Bill of Rights 1689; the Act of Settlement 1701; the Union with Scotland Act 1706; the Coronation Oath Act 1688; Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711; the Royal Marriages Act 1772; the Union with Ireland Act 1800; the Accession Declaration Act 1910; and the Regency Act 1937. Those are not things to be consigned to the dustbin of history at the flick of a pen; they require the detailed attention of the House and respect for the part they have played in the architecture of the constitution of this country, which is the guarantee of stability in difficult times.
Although I support the proposals both to make royal primogeniture gender blind—England, after all, has been extremely lucky with its Queens—and to restrict the reach and impact of royal approval for marriage of potential heirs, I should like to ask the Government two important questions, the first of which arises from the fact that there is at least a presumption, if not an obligation, that children in mixed Catholic marriages should be brought up in the Catholic faith. Will the Government assure this House that, in removing the Catholic marriage disqualification, the Bill in no way makes it more likely that a Catholic will become eligible to succeed to the throne, and explain why? If, for example, a young and popular heir is brought up as a Catholic, would it not in practice, never mind the existing law, be difficult to stand in the way of their succeeding?
Secondly, anticipating the very considerable and entirely understandable trouble that my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will have in their lordships’ House, where their lordships will do what they do so well, can this House be assured that the proposed changes to the primogeniture rule for royal succession do not in any way pre-empt whether the same changes should apply to the separate rules for the descent of hereditary titles of honour?
I repeat that these are not matters to be treated lightly. They are very serious and touch on the architecture of the foundation of the law and settlement in this country. I will support the Government on Second Reading, but I urge them to explain in considerable detail—in more detail—what is involved and what consequential changes to other legislation are required as a result of the Bill.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the voice of British conservatism. It seems extraordinary that a Member of this House should refer to the equal treatment of women as one of the House’s passing enthusiasms. That is one of the great changes that have taken place in our generation. It is a joy to see the increased number of women who sit in the House, and the wider mixture of races, colours and creeds.
There is no need for the Bill to be rushed through. If the date were removed from the Bill, we would have years to consider it. There is no question that the royal child will be ready to take the throne for many decades. We have all that time in which to create a Bill that is reasonable, fair and sustainable for the decades to come.
I have the great honour to represent the constituency where the last riot designed to set up a republic took place. In 1839 in the streets of Newport, a group of Chartists arranged to charge a place where they thought a Chartist prisoner was being held. They then intended to stop the post, which was to be a signal to the rest of the country that they intended to set up a republic. At the time, the country was not one to which the description given by the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) could be applied, as it was a country of great deprivation, great injustice and terrible poverty.
The Chartists were protesting against the system as it was at the time, under a monarchy. That is not to say that monarchy is necessarily a bad system, but we cannot ignore the years in which our monarchs, many of whom did not speak English, behaved as tyrants. For some years now, there has been a division between the Commons and the monarchy, symbolised in the House’s tradition of slamming the door on the monarch’s representative when he comes to the House to deliver the summons to hear her speak. This is crucial to us: it is part of our democracy and character.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the part of our history of which we in this democratic Chamber should be most proud is the story of those who worked to establish socialist reforms. What is special about our democracy and admired throughout the world is the fact that we have free speech, we have a welfare state, and we have a sense of fairness and fair play—but all those reforms were hard-won.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman just asked what is special about our monarchy. One answer, perhaps, is that we do not tinker with it.
Paul Flynn
We are tinkering with it today. It must be a matter of some concern, but we are tinkering with it. Pandora’s box is open now, and having tinkered with one part of it, we can tinker with other parts of it.
Mr MacNeil
Many Acts, including and especially the 1701 Act of Settlement, are nothing other than tinkering.
Paul Flynn
Indeed, absolutely. They were based on the prejudices of the past. To look at our history, we can go through the length of this building and see representations of royalty in portraits, coats or arms and statues—there must be at least a thousand—but where would we look to find mementos of the work of the Chartists, the Levellers or the suffragettes? There are precious few, yet they, not royalty, were the ones who contributed to the development of our democracy.
Chris Bryant
I have been wondering about this tinkering business that we heard about from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). Can my hon. Friend point out to that hon. Gentleman that Richard II, Edward II, Richard III, Henry VI, Edward IV and Edward VIII—at least; I have left several out, no doubt—were removed expressly by or through the intervention of Parliament. It is a long-established tradition that the succession is a matter for Parliament.
Paul Flynn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) is the victim of a romantic delusion that history does not support. We should take pride in the traditions of this House.
What we have before us is a piece of rushed legislation, and we all know legislation introduced in haste usually turns out to be bad legislation. Take the idea that we modernise the system by retaining in it the right for a relative to determine that people should not be allowed to marry the person they love. That is not modern; it is another anachronism from the distant past, but we are retaining it and allowing the monarch to have absolute power over the love lives of six relatives. That seems extraordinary. Who put that in? Who decided that that was a good idea?
One problem with the Bill is its narrowness, which means that we cannot discuss the interesting amendments that have been tabled, including one I mentioned briefly earlier that would allow the country a choice. We are in the position, when we look to the next Head of State, of being infantilised by our own Ministers. We are told that certain letters cannot be published because if they were they would imperil the status of the next monarch. Well, if they do, we should hear about that. If there is a doubt in those letters, why on earth can we not, as the elected representatives of the people, have those letters published? Yet the Government recently decided, in spite of a court ruling and a freedom of information ruling, that those letters from the heir to the throne should remain absolutely secret, because if we saw them we might decide that perhaps he is not the right person to be on the throne. What can the country do?
We are still enshrining the mediaeval idea that it is the son—now the daughter, which is a slight improvement—who will inherit, but why not other members of the family? Would not the country like a choice? In a world of referendums and choice, it would be sensible for us to consider a Bill that would allow the country to decide who will have the vital role of Head of State, looking at the situation in about 20 years’ time, when all sorts of factors will be in play. Should it be the heir? Should it be another member of the royal family? Or should it be citizen A. N. Other? I believe that the country might like the choice.
I am very grateful for the chance to speak in this debate. Like all Members of the House of Commons, I think, I will support the Bill, but I believe we have to bear in mind the points that have been made. On religious grounds, the Bill strengthens the prejudice of the past by not allowing all citizens the chance to become monarch. An amendment was tabled to try to future-proof the measure, saying that in the future there might be an inheritor to the throne who decides on a same-sex marriage. What would the situation be then? Would the progeny of that marriage, either by adoption or artificial insemination, be next in line? One could see advantages in bringing new blood into the royal line, which we have seen successfully recently.
There are many aspects to the law of succession that we need to consider. This is not a full modernisation; it is a tinkering. I believe that pressure has probably been put on the Government to ensure that this reform is very limited. In it are the seeds of future problems that will be obvious in the years ahead.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
I rise to support this important constitutional Bill. Even though the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and I do not agree on very much, I think we share admiration and affection for Her Majesty the Queen and what she has done for the country.
The Bill is making history in provisions that I believe are long overdue. I will speak more specifically to clause 1. In 2002, just after I finished working in the royal household, I published an article saying that the Queen Mother’s death would be a catalyst of change in the monarchy and the nation. I remember the time when people lined the streets, others queued for hours at the lying in state in Westminster Hall, many signed books of condolence and millions watched the service. Those were simple signs of deep respect, love and admiration for someone who had touched their lives. Why? The Queen Mother stood for history, service and duty; she embodied a century of experiences, inventions and discoveries, times of war and times of peace. It showed that the British people care deeply about their past, and about history and tradition. Now, 11 years later, we are considering this important change.
Why should we make this change? Partly, it is a legacy for the Queen and the Queen Mother—a legacy of respect for what they have done. Perhaps it is also to reach out to women across the nation to say how much we value women and what they do. No one can doubt the tremendous impact that the Queen has had in her 60-year reign. We need only look at last year’s diamond jubilee to see the huge public support that Her Majesty still has in this country and elsewhere. More than 15 million people in the United Kingdom watched the celebrations on their television screens and the jubilee was thought to have brought more than £1 billion to the economy. More than 2 billion people across the world—about a third of the global population—watched the most recent royal wedding. What those occasions brought to Britain was an increased sense of unity and pride in being British.
Let us not forget the Princess Royal, who has played a full part and cannot be faulted in her role as a senior member of the royal family, absolutely committed to supporting the charities and voluntary organisations she works with. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) said, even though he has concerns about this Bill, this country has had wonderful examples of Queens and we should build on that.
As for the succession to the Crown, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) talked about the Queen of England. As someone who was born in London but brought up in Scotland, I would like to remind him that Her Majesty is not just Queen of England. She is Her Majesty Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories.
Mr MacNeil
May I correct the hon. Lady? The Queen is not Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom; she is Queen Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom.
Mary Macleod
I am so glad to hear the hon. Gentleman being so supportive of Her Majesty the Queen.
Mary Macleod
I think we would all agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady referred to Her Majesty being the Queen of Scotland as well. So far, none of the Ministers has referred to any consultations with the Church of Scotland about this. I wonder whether the hon. Lady knows whether there have been any such consultations.
Mary Macleod
I have no knowledge of whether those discussions have taken place, but I am sure that the Minister will respond in due course.
As we have discussed, succession to the throne is currently based on the principle of male primogeniture, according to which male heirs take precedence and the right of succession belongs to the eldest son. However, many countries, including Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, have already changed that so that the right of succession passes to the sovereign’s eldest child, irrespective of gender. I believe it is now time for change in this country, too, especially when former female monarchs have played an outstanding role in our history and at a time when women are playing such an important role in society. There is agreement among the general public that the rule of primogeniture in particular should change, thereby showing that the monarchy is continuing to adapt to modern times.
There have been many attempts to amend Crown succession over the years—one parliamentary paper lists 12 private Members’ Bills, from Members in all parts of the House, that have attempted to do so since 1979. Therefore, this is a Bill that can be supported by many Members of the House across the different parties. As has been mentioned, the marriage of His Royal Highness Prince William and Kate Middleton and their subsequent announcement that, God willing, they will have a child in six months’ time, provides further impetus to make these changes once and for all.
Some have commented on the timing and the process of change of which this Bill is a part, but since this issue was raised—many raised it in years gone by before it was raised at the meeting in Perth on 28 October 2011—there has been a process of external discussion and debate for the last 15 months. As we can see, the Chamber is not full today, and I hope that everyone who wishes to speak will get a chance to do so. I therefore feel that there has been appropriate time to consider the issues, given the scope of the Bill.
In today’s modern world, where there is a conscious focus on equal opportunities and breaking the glass ceiling, it would seem realistic to expect that the succession principle will be challenged. The Government have done a lot of work trying to get more women on boards, more women in Parliament and more women to set up businesses and, of course, we have had a female Prime Minister.
Mary Macleod
I am sure that we all draw reassurance from the fact that we have had a great female Prime Minister, who achieved many things for this country.
An important purpose of the Bill is to show the importance of the role of women across the land, in the monarchy and elsewhere. It sets an example. It is time for a change and we should make that change now. I am sure that the general public will join me in wishing the monarchy of this country many more centuries of success and prosperity.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod). I agree with what she said about the Queen, who is held in very high respect. I remember that, in my childhood, she was a frequent visitor to the Hebrides, which of course testifies to her good sense and to the loyalty of many in the Hebrides, including myself, to the Queen and to her ongoing reign. Long may it last.
We all agree that, while human understanding has progressed over the past 300 years, the rules governing the succession to the Crown have not kept pace with that. The present monarch is happily the Queen of 16 realms, a shared monarchy of many independent countries. The Commonwealth countries, which comprise a quarter of the nations of the Earth, maintain a looser social affiliation with the monarchy.
We should perhaps reflect on how we got to this point. The Union of the Crowns came about in 1603. Had that been the only Union that we were considering today, I would indeed be a happy Unionist, because the monarch of Scotland took the Crown off England. Many would argue from a legal perspective that that would leave Scotland the successor state, given that the monarchy follows the Stuart line, rather than the Tudor line. That is an argument for another day, however.
Wayne David
Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Tudor line began with Henry VII, who was a Welshman?
Mr MacNeil
I would be happy to acknowledge that. That was probably one of the few times when the Welsh beat the Scots. They certainly will not beat them in the rugby this spring. But we digress once more.
Had Scotland maintained its political independence, we could have kept the kingdoms united, but not the Parliaments. The Act of Settlement of 1701 was disliked by many for religious reasons, but it was also the precipitator of the tawdry political Union of 1707, which, with the help of the coercive Alien Act of 1705 and in concert with straightforward bribery, brought about the union of the two Parliaments.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
At the time of the Act of Union in 1707, were not a lot of the Scottish nobles—for want of a better word—bankrupt? Some people might think that that is where the coercion came in.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman reminds me of the words of Burns. Those people were “bought and sold for English gold”. That gives me an idea about taking people back—the 150 who have a vested interest in Westminster, for example. All that Alex Salmond and the Scottish Government need to do is buy and sell them for Scottish gold. If the vested interests could be bought off in that way, we might bring about independence a bit earlier.
It was the Scottish reaction to the Act of Settlement of 1701 that led to the events that I was describing. The motivator was the desire not for a political superstate but for a unitary monarchy, and the question had to be decided before the death of Queen Anne. Fortunately, for the benefit of the House, the Scottish National party can allay the fears created by the Act of Settlement: the monarchy will continue to be shared with Scotland and England, and the need for the Acts of 1706 in England and 1707 in Scotland will disappear. We can therefore proceed to independence and dissolve the two Unions. I am sure that I am alone in this Chamber in holding that belief, but I am not alone in Scotland in so doing.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has kept the royal household informed at every stage of his plans?
Mr MacNeil
I do not have Her Majesty on my text message list, but if she wanted to drop me an e-mail, I would be happy to respond to it. However, I do know that her personal private secretary is a visitor to the Hebrides and has relatives there. The links are indeed multi-faceted, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth can testify. She, too, has links with the Hebrides and has worked in the royal household. As we can see, the monarchy reaches us all in many ways.
History aside, the Bill is surely flawed. Many people have described how flawed it is. It is only a halfway house —a real dog’s breakfast of broken biscuits. It deals with succession and partially with freedom of religion, but it leaves the question of full freedom of religion untouched. It also leaves with the monarch the bizarre, arcane requirement for marital approval of six people in the line of succession. Some cultures have an adaptation of that requirement in the form of arranged marriages, but here in Westminster, we are institutionalising it.
The Bill affects other realms as well, and I wonder whether they will progress further than this Parliament and deal with this issue more fully, rather than having a halfway house, waiting for Westminster to catch up—as it inevitably will some day. They are free and independent, and by doing so they will save themselves an immense amount of time and hassle in the future, but they will also signal their fairness and egalitarianism to the wider world. Indeed, in Australia, republican zest seems to appear from time to time.
It should be noted that in 1999, the Scottish Parliament pushed for a motion for the removal of any discrimination linked to the monarchy and the repeal of the Act of Settlement. So progressive opinion—at least in Scotland—is 14-years-old before this issue has come to Westminster. While there may be a lot of huff and puff here at Westminster about allowing the monarchy to be Catholic, practically, I do not think it really matters. I do not think that the current or future royals are likely to convert to Catholicism, any more than would the King of Norway or the Queen of Denmark. The fact that a Parliament has gone to such lengths to discriminate against a certain faith group is surely odd in an international context. No doubt it will be ripe for lampooning, perhaps on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” on CNN because it is a step back and truly bizarre. I am sure that history will judge it as bizarre, especially when we think that such contrary views existed in the Scottish Parliament 14 years ago. I am not sure whether bans on Catholics exist in Denmark and Norway—if they are so allergic to the idea—or whether bans against Protestants exist in Spain. Surely there is enough smeddum and sense in those societies to remove such proscriptions.
Equally, I hope that other monarchies do not hold the power over their relatives’ choice of spouse—a power that is rightly alien to their subjects when it comes to their nearest and dearest. When Scotland becomes independent in the next few years, we will certainly retain the monarch, as Canada, New Zealand and Australia have done, but we shall remove such infantile restrictions as we see here today. We will wait until the keystone Parliament—in a way Westminster will always be that mainly due to the residency of the monarch in close proximity to it—catches up. In the meantime, we can look forward to saying, “God save the Queen of an independent Scotland”.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow a number of excellent speakers in the debate, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod). It is a rare privilege to speak in a debate so important and so long lasting in its effects as a Bill to change the succession to the Crown. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that this debate is of enormous importance, so having more time could be justified, but I hope that all the important views expressed in the debate will be heard clearly by the Government and that they will be able to respond in a reassuring way.
Perhaps only once in a couple of centuries, as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) pointed out, does an opportunity like this arise. In this country and on the continent, wars have been fought over royal successions, and in England we owe the birth of our political party system to a debate on succession. The Tory and Whig parties, which dominated the politics of the 18th century, were forged in the fire of the exclusion crisis of 1681, some aspects and implications of which have already been touched on today. As I alluded to in my maiden speech, I believe that our monarchy is one of this country’s great constitutional treasures. Its terms are not to be changed lightly and its history, stretching back over 1,000 years beyond 1066 to King Alfred and the Saxon kings, is something of which we are constantly reminded in this extraordinary building.
The most significant clause of today’s Bill will make a change that many believe is long overdue—equalising the right of women to succeed to the throne with that of men. I believe that this change is more than justified by the example of our current monarch. I do not believe that this is an example of political correctness, but one of learning from the examples that history and our recent experience can offer.
Indeed, through the long history of England and of the United Kingdom we have been blessed with some magnificent examples of female leadership in our monarchs. Perhaps in part because the opportunities were so rare, it has tended to be the case throughout world history that the queens who managed to overcome the obstacles of male-dominated institutions and laws have tended to be exceptional people. Overseas examples such as Maria Theresa of Austria or Catherine the Great of Russia made a lasting mark on their countries.
In England, the reign of the first Elizabeth was a period of trial and crowning glory, with the firm establishment of the Reformation, the defeat of the armada and the beginnings of England’s global influence. The reign of Anne saw the great victories of Marlborough, the establishment of the Protestant succession, and the famous bounty that endowed so many beautiful churches built by Wren across the city of London. The reign of Queen Victoria saw the apogee of Britain’s power and influence, the universal male franchise, and the construction of the very building in which we stand today—a glorious celebration of the union of Crown and Parliament.
However, perhaps more than any of those, it is our monarch today who enables us to see how valuable the role of female leadership can be. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth beautifully illustrated the importance of the Queen’s role and influence here at home. Our Queen, who celebrated her diamond jubilee so successfully last year—when, indeed, she visited Worcester, her “faithful city”—has played a particularly vital role in building and holding together a Commonwealth of nations, which form an unbelievably valuable network for the United Kingdom in the 21st century. She has calmly presided over dramatic changes that saw the constitutions of other countries overturned, and has provided a thread of continuity through one of the most dynamic and fast-moving periods in world history. Her wisdom and experience have proved equal or superior to those of any imaginable man placed in the same role, and the great charm with which she has conducted her reign has ensured the continuing attachment of the British people—and many other peoples around the world—to our monarchy.
When the first Elizabeth faced her moment of crisis, she reassured her people by saying:
“I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king”.
Our own Elizabeth has never needed to make such an apology for being female, and, in an age in which monarchs are no longer expected to lead their troops into battle but are expected to provide leadership and inspiration from a distance, she has proved beyond all doubt her ability to do both.
I mentioned the enormous value of the Commonwealth, and I welcome the fact that today’s debate is informed by extensive negotiations and discussions in that forum. In making their decisions on the Bill, Members can be reassured that the changes under discussion will have the support of other Commonwealth realms, and that they will strengthen and not endanger the bonds that Queen Elizabeth II has so painstakingly built with the nations of the Commonwealth.
I share some of the concerns that have been expressed today—particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset—about other aspects of the Bill, and I think it important for the Government to respond to them carefully. It seems strange to remove one discrimination against Catholics by enabling them to marry into the royal family while retaining another by not enabling them to inherit. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), however, made an important point about the ability of individuals, particularly adults, to make their own choices in that regard.
On balance, I think that this is a strong, simple Bill to update succession to the Crown. I especially welcome its most important provision, which will ensure that in future generations we can have more diamond queens, and perhaps more examples of the sort with which our British female monarchs have already been able to provide the world.
Three and a half centuries ago, my constituency of Worcester was the scene of the bloody battles that began and ended the English civil war. People who laid down their lives on both sides of those battles would view today’s proceedings with some approval. On one hand, the tens of thousands who fought for Parliament would see a Parliament infinitely more democratic than the one of their day, with the ability to rule on the royal succession and to engage in free debate on the matter. On the other hand, those who fought for Church and King—the “faithful city”, and its faithful citizens—would see the beginnings of another chapter in our monarchy, for which so many fought and died. As Member of Parliament for the “faithful city”, I am happy to support the Bill.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a great delight to follow the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). He is a sort of hereditary MP himself, so he knows a little bit about “hereditary”—and we have a few of them around. I was not entirely sure where he was going with the “diamond queen” thing; “diamond geezers” was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan).
I wholeheartedly support one of the main principles of the Bill, namely the change in the male preference primogeniture rules that have come to us through common law. We have taken far too long to resolve the issue. Other countries with constitutional monarchies got on with it much earlier: Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands all dealt with it in the 1980s. Indeed, it was much more difficult for Sweden, because at the time the heir to the throne was a boy, Carl Philip, who was ousted from his hereditary status by his older sister Victoria. Sweden took a more courageous decision and we have been rather slow, perhaps because we have felt so confident about our current monarch. So I support the change in the Bill but I do have some worries. A great deal of reference has been made to Pandora’s box, but that is the wrong image to use, because at the bottom of that box was always hope.
The more worrying concern is that when we pull out one of the threads of the constitution, there is a danger of unravelling the whole jumper—if the jumper is indeed made out of threads. I worry because the religion of the monarch in this country depends on a suite of legislation. The Coronation Oath Act 1688 makes it clear in precisely what words the monarch shall accept the throne and what oath they shall make at their coronation. That was reformed in the 20th century and, in fact, Her Majesty the Queen did not use the prescribed oath, as laid down in legislation. We need to address that issue; in the past Parliament has decided what the oath should be, not the monarch.
Dan Rogerson
Several hon. Members in the Chamber have examined the issues involved, as have many others, who are busy elsewhere, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that out in the country at large there will be little understanding of them? This is perhaps part of the problem. Our constitutional history is fascinating, but if we had a far more transparent and, dare I say it, written constitution, people might understand more deeply what we are talking about.
Chris Bryant
I have always been in favour of a written constitution, but that is not what we are debating. The important job of work that we have to do when we write elements of our constitution into statute is to make sure that they meet any possible eventualities that could come down the road, because we can never imagine precisely what is going to happen. In 1936, we had a crisis because there were no means by which the monarch could abdicate, so we had the odd situation where the monarch announced his abdication and the next day legislation had to be got through the House. As was said earlier, that took only 10 minutes, but none the less we had to make legislation on the hoof.
The Act of Settlement contains two clauses that make different provisions in relation to the monarch. As the hon. Member for 1642 said, section II says that anyone who
“is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist”
shall be excluded from the succession. So I raise the genuine point: if someone marries a Roman Catholic in a Catholic church—the Minister said that Her Majesty has been to a Roman Catholic church—it is difficult to see how that person is not then reconciled to the See of Rome. I hope that the Church of England will be reconciled to the See of Rome. The advances we have seen in ecumenism over the years do not just mean that we have rejected the ludicrous prejudice that there was about Catholicism and the belief that somehow or other a Catholic could not be a patriot. We need to go further, and I hope that in the ecumene of all the Churches there will be reconciliation one day. I know that that is the view of the most recent Archbishop of Canterbury and I suspect it is the view of the current one, so it would seem odd if it were not then the view of the monarch. I want to start asking whether we do not need to change all the provisions in relation to the religion of the monarch. As an Anglican, I would have no fear of a Roman Catholic who accepted a series of oaths to protect the Church of England, as established by law—
Mr Jim Cunningham
In 1960, President Kennedy, a Catholic, took an oath and it did not commit him, in any way, to being against non-Catholics.
Chris Bryant
No, but that was a big issue in the election of that period. The situation is somewhat different in America, as it has a clear division of state and religion whereas this country expressly does not. We have two established Churches in this country: the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. [Interruption.] Yes, the Church of Scotland is established by law.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
That is always an issue of debate. As I understand it, the Church of Scotland does not see itself as the established Church and takes great pride in that fact. I hate to correct my hon. Friend on such an issue, because I know that he is an expert.
Chris Bryant
No, no—I am not a Calvinist. I merely point out to my right hon. Friend that one of the provisions of the 1706 and 1707 Acts of Union is that the monarch, when accepting the Scottish throne, has to make a separate accession oath that guarantees the protection of the Church of Scotland. That is why I say that several provisions in law relate to the religion of the monarch. Section III of the Act of Settlement states that the monarch
“shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England”.
That is yet another provision.
Sir Alan Beith
Surely the position is that although the Church of Scotland is not and never has been established in the sense that the Church of England is, with a degree of parliamentary control, it is a national Church in Scotland and the Queen attends the Presbyterian Church in Scotland and takes communion within that Church. That is where her Scottish allegiance lies, rather than with the Scottish Episcopal Church.
Chris Bryant
Absolutely. I was not confusing the Church of Scotland with the Piscies, as it were—
Chris Bryant
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will give way to the hon. Lady; it is not male primogeniture any more.
Chris Bryant
Yes, but that does not change the fact that when somebody becomes monarch, they have to make an accession oath on the Church of Scotland. That is my only point. We have a suite of legislation and once we start pulling at one of the elements of it there is a danger we will unpack the whole lot.
Chris Bryant
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have given way rather too often already.
I would quite like to change things as I think there are many different ways of being an established Church. I do not want to disestablish the Church of England, but I think that it could be established in a different way.
Chris Bryant
I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Let me move on to the Royal Marriages Act. The Act came into being because George III’s brother, Henry, Duke of Cumberland, had in 1771 married a woman, Mrs Anne Horton, who was not only a widow but a commoner. Horace Walpole thought that
“her coquetry was so active, so varied and yet so habitual, that it was difficult not to see through it and…difficult to resist it.”
It was on those lines, broadly speaking, that the King was opposed to his brother’s marriage. Once the Act was introduced, he learned that his other brother, William, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh, had married Maria Walpole, daughter of Sir Edward Walpole and granddaughter of Sir Robert, who was also a widow and, in addition to all the other problems she might have had, was illegitimate.
The King was somewhat scandalised by all that and the Act was brought in, but it was a phenomenal failure as a piece of legislation because in 1785 the Prince of Wales, George III’s son, married Maria Fitzherbert, who was not only a Roman Catholic but the aunt of a cardinal and who was twice widowed. The King was furious and refused to give consent; the marriage was consequently declared null and void, although even at the moment of his death the former Prince of Wales insisted on having the portrait of Maria Fitzherbert around his neck. In 1793, another relative, Prince Augustus Frederick, had his marriage to Lady Augusta Murray declared invalid. When she died, he married illegally yet again without permission of the throne.
The Act has been a phenomenally unsuccessful piece of legislation and I do not understand why we are keeping any element of it. Why should the monarch decide who their next of kin and the five others who come afterwards should be able to marry and on what basis will they make that decision? All the previous decisions have related to whether someone was a commoner, an actress or illegitimate, and I do not think that any of those issues would concern the British people today. In other countries that still have a similar provision it is not the decision of the monarch—it is the decision of Parliament. Indeed, in the Netherlands, it was decided that one person would be excluded from the succession because of their marriage. Personally, I do not think that we should make those decisions at all.
It is bizarre to insist on six members of the royal family in the line of succession, rather than two, five, 25 or whatever. I urge the Minister to explain why she feels that it is important to keep that provision. If we are going to keep it, there should be a role for Ministers to advise the monarch on whether to refuse consent. Otherwise, someone who was No. 7 will suddenly become No. 6, or someone who was No. 6 may suddenly become No. 7—as will happen later this year. Those people would be free to marry in whatever way they wanted if they were not No. 6.
I warmly support the broad thrust of the two main measures in the Bill, but I am worried that where the Government are going will unpick other things that we should look at in the round, not just in a short Bill.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. It has been a great pleasure to listen to it. I have heard some excellent speeches, made by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), with whom I profoundly disagree, and by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), with whom, frighteningly, I find much common cause—it is as frightening for me as it is for him. I was impressed, too, by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), with whom I very much agree. He does not speak so much for the Conservative party as for the constitution, and we all honour him for that.
I am profoundly pleased that I have had an opportunity to speak before my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), because I suspect—I shall allow him to speak for himself—that when we hear him speak he will not prove himself to be so much a scion of high Toryism as a dangerous radical. We very much look forward to hearing what he says in the fullness of time.
I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, because the intention of the Bill is laudable and sensible, as it will update the rules on the succession to the Crown so that they are in keeping with the modern values of our people. A monarch must reign with consent: that is the case now, and it must be the case in future. The Bill removes unnecessary discrimination, and it tidies up what we might call the sinuous tentacles of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which is welcome. However, I should like to make a couple of points about the Bill’s provisions, which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister, in the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister, will be able to address so that I do not have to make them again in Committee.
In that positive spirit, I shall address the question of retrospection in clause 2. I am instinctively against retrospective legislation, no matter how good the intent might be. Clause 2 attempts to restore to the line of succession those people who have married Catholics down the years. I quite accept that we should remove the disqualification bar preventing people who have married Catholics from succeeding to the Crown, but in making those changes—the Earl of St Andrews, for example, and Prince Michael of Kent will be restored to the line of succession—we are changing the order of succession. Those further away than the Earl and Prince Michael are pushed further from the line of succession by the changes. If we are prepared to make changes to the order of succession by dint of restoring Catholics to that order, is it not right that we make clause 1 retrospective, so that female heirs of the Queen move up the order of succession? Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, is the only living person who would be affected, together with her heirs, so it would not be a massive change to the order of succession, but it would be a logical change and one in keeping with the retrospective nature of part of the Bill.
The second aspect that I wish to address relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda about the Royal Marriages Act 1772. I find myself, strangely enough, making common cause with him. Although I agree that we should remove the Act or change it so that there are not thousands of people to whose marriage the Queen could technically give or withhold consent, it is odd that clause 3 states that
“the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.”
Where did the number six come from? Why not three, five or 12? Six is not a prime number, a biblical number or a lucky number.
Mr MacNeil
The only thing that springs to mind is that if we add up the number in the Queen’s family and the number in Prince Charles’s family, we get six. That is the long and the short of it, I think.
Christopher Pincher
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s arithmetic, flawed though it may be. Perhaps that is why he is a member of the Scottish National party. I look forward to the Minister explaining what the rationale is.
As the hon. Member for Rhondda rightly pointed out, if we put in place a rule that says that the monarch can and must give consent to the marrying of the six persons nearest in line to the throne, imagine a scenario where a monarch has three children, who each have two or three children. The monarch will soon be in the invidious position where grandchild No. 4, who is fifth in line to the throne, must seek consent of the monarch to marry, but grandchild No. 6, who is seventh in line to the throne, need not seek that consent. That does not seem fair.
Chris Bryant
Also, we do not have a capricious monarch at present, but there have certainly been capricious monarchs in the past who might deliberately want to affect the succession and might therefore refuse consent capriciously. There is no means in the Act whereby anybody can prevent the monarch from exercising their judgment capriciously so as directly to exclude a particular person. Surely in the end the monarch should be decided either by straightforward succession or by Parliament.
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Gentleman may well be thinking of capricious monarchs such as Edward II. The 1772 Act, which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset may prove to be a dead Act in any case, allows for any member of the royal family over the age of 25, having sought the approval of the Privy Council, after a year then to seek the consent of Parliament to their marriage. The Bill tightens up the rules significantly. Parliament and the Privy Council play no part in the matter. The monarch can choose or choose not to give consent to the marriage, whatever the age of a member of the royal family within the rules of succession. So the hon. Gentleman has a good point.
I would be interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister why these changes have been proposed. If the point is for the monarch to have some control and leverage over those members of the royal family who are active and who are Royal Highnesses, why choose the number six? It is a narrow number. Why not simply say that the heirs of Queen Elizabeth II should have to ask consent of the monarch? That would be a nod towards the present Act, which recognises George II as the fount of all consent, as it were. It would honour Her Majesty in her diamond jubilee year. It would regularise the situation and give that sort of control to future monarchs. The Minister might be about to say that it would mean that in 200 or 300 years there could be hundreds or thousands of people to whom the monarch would have to give consent, but I suspect that no one here will be particularly concerned about that then—if nothing else has crumbled, our headstones almost certainly will have done.
I support the Bill in broad terms and shall vote to give it a Second Reading, but I hope that the Minister will take on board the concerns that I and other Members of the House have raised to ensure that it is robust; will stand the test of time; recognises and can deal with any unforeseen and foreseen consequences; and provides us with a settled settlement.-
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I rise to speak briefly in this debate. I very much welcome the provision in the Bill that will mean that a younger brother will no longer be preferred to an older sister in the succession to the Crown. It is long overdue. It is an important step on the long and tortuous trek to greater equality of opportunity between men and women in our society. It is a reminder that, in modernising the centuries of tradition, custom and practice that we have all absorbed as part of our upbringing, we need to look at all aspects of our lives and our society in order to develop a society that affords greater equality between men and women.
It is easy to forget, because Her Gracious Majesty has had such a long and successful reign, that had she had brothers, she would not have become Queen unless they and their children had passed away before her. It is welcome that women and men will now be treated equally in the succession to the throne. It gets rid of one more prejudice and sets a good example.
I welcome the clause that allows a potential heir to marry a Roman Catholic without losing the right to succeed to the throne, because that removes a particular religious prejudice. As has been pointed out, marriage to people of other faiths does not disqualify someone from succeeding to the throne. However, the clause raises a question about the religion of any children of that marriage. Whatever religion they are brought up in, and regardless of whether they have any deeply held religious beliefs, they have to become a member of the Church of England in order to remain in line to the throne. Is that a reasonable requirement? Does it not mean that people will simply pay lip service to religion? Is it reasonable for the monarch, our Head of State, to be obliged to be a defender of the faith and to have a specific role in the Church of England? We would not have to worry about whether potential heirs to the throne were brought up in any particular faith, or indeed no faith, if we did not expect the monarch to be an adherent of one particular faith.
We all know the historic reasons for that situation and why the Head of State is expected to be an Anglican, but we now live in very different times. We live in a society in which there are many different religious views. In the UK today, apart from the centuries-old Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, we have a non-conformist tradition that is hundreds of years old. We have people of many other faiths and many people who do not have a faith at all. The Church of England is not the established Church of the whole United Kingdom. In response to the rise of non-conformists in Wales, the Church in Wales was disestablished in 1920, and there has not been an established Church in Northern Ireland since 1871.
The clause is a missed opportunity. It misses the opportunity to decouple the role of monarch from a specific role in the Church of England, which will continue to prevent anyone of any other faith or none from succeeding to the throne. It seems to me that we cannot legislate for someone’s faith. If someone has a faith, they have a faith, and if they do not, they do not, but if someone is expected to take on the role of monarch, we are putting them in a situation in which they will have to pay lip service to a faith, possibly one in which they do not believe, making a mockery of those who have a true faith.
I completely fail to understand the clause about the six persons next in line to the throne requiring the monarch’s consent to marriage. Having had so much equality legislation, we are now legislating for someone to be prejudiced, whether on a personal basis or for any reason, out of jealousy or spite. The clause seems to make absolutely no sense.
Yes, we very much welcome the opportunity for an elder sister to be preferred over her younger brother in the succession to the throne, but I have serious questions about other clauses and the opportunities that could have been taken to do things better.
Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of the Succession to the Crown Bill. I will not detain the House for too long; I will focus my remarks on a significant change—that the gender of a child born after 28 October 2011 will have no relevance in determining the succession to the throne.
We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), a man of great knowledge whom we listened to with great interest. He said that a number of the statutes that the Bill may affect had been asleep for 300 years or so. He may have a point, but it is possible to wake statutes up from their slumber from time to time, rearrange them slightly, improve their sleeping positions and let them settle down and drift off to sleep again until further improvement is required.
Some may say that in 2013 the changes are overdue or at the very least timely, not least in the wake of Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee celebrations last year and the fine example of leadership set by Her Majesty the Queen; I hope to return to that subject in due course.
The Bill makes changes that reflect not only examples of successful female monarchs but the reality of working life across the country; I think particularly of my own constituency. In Erewash, there is a long-standing industrial heritage involving what some would say were traditionally male occupations—upholstery, mining, lace making and engineering have been key industries there.
However, from the heritage of Erewash have arisen industries that have grown, changed and been able to allow strong female leadership to develop across many sectors. There are many instances of women being the main breadwinners in families, my mother being one example. There are many other women in management and in schools. There are also women entrepreneurs who have started small businesses in Erewash and a number of women serving and working hard on the Erewash partnership board, our local enterprise board. There are also many examples of strong female leadership in community groups and voluntary organisations; indeed, Erewash has been represented by three different female MPs since 1992—a tradition that some of us hope will continue for a long time.
It simply makes no sense in 2013 not to apply such rules to the succession of our monarch. I have always been a committed royalist and proud to be so. My family can, to say the least, boast no royal connections or history, but I was raised to respect and support our Queen and country. My family are far from having royal connections, although my great-great aunt Amy was married to one of the farm workers on the Sandringham estate. My mother can recollect visiting the cottage on the estate as a child.
I return to the comments that I made at the outset. Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II has set a fine example during her 60 or so years on the throne. There is every reason to make necessary changes through the Succession to the Crown Bill now. Elizabeth II has brought a stability to our ever-changing and modernising world, but she has embraced her duties and responsibilities and moved with the times.
There are many other examples of strong female monarchs throughout our history, all of whom have their place in setting the scene for this timely change to the rules of succession. I have a particular love for Tudor history, an interest that I developed at school and continued through university. My all-time favourite monarch by far is Elizabeth I; in my office, I have a print of Elizabeth I addressing Parliament. Her courage and determination were among her many qualities which resulted in such a lengthy and successful reign. One skill, of which I am sure you would approve, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that she took much enjoyment and time in preparing her speeches to address Parliament—a skill and a habit in which I am sure we are all well versed.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It occurs to me that Elizabeth I got extraordinarily angry when the Commons dared to discuss the succession and, indeed, imprisoned Members of Parliament for doing so. I therefore wonder whether my hon. Friend might not admire her quite so much in that respect.
Jessica Lee
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, I am sure, agrees that there is a fine history in this country of monarchs hiding their feelings. Whatever historians may report in future, the private thoughts of the current Queen Elizabeth remain private.
Mr MacNeil
I am a bit alarmed by what the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) said about Queen Elizabeth I. Queen Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom is Queen at the moment, so I hope we do not end up in the Tower.
Jessica Lee
I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this point, which has already been raised, and believes that the current monarch is Elizabeth I. I, for one, will not enter into that debate any further.
I will end by quoting from what is perhaps one of the most famous and well-documented speeches made by Elizabeth I. It provides another reason to support the Bill and is a timely reminder that leadership requires determination and strength rather than on whether the sovereign is a man or a woman. When Elizabeth addressed her troops at Tilbury in 1588 in the midst of the threat from the Spanish armada, she famously said, midway through her speech:
“I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too”.
In supporting the changes to the rules on primogeniture, if there were ever words to put the case squarely that women can perform a task of great leadership and strength, they are those words.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
At the outset, I declare an interest in that the changes brought about today will continue to discriminate against people of my faith, but I have absolutely no problem with that. In respect of those people against whom the law will continue to perpetuate discrimination, we have to recognise that that discrimination has worked consistently to date. It is utter folly on the part of the Government to unpick this settled matter, and I believe that they need to tread a lot more carefully. I agree with the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) that we should tread very cautiously and avoid rushing headlong towards the implementation of changes when little consideration and less consultation appear to have been part of the process. We simply do not know what the consequences of the changes will be or what they will achieve.
I say for the record that I agree with the provision to change the rules on primogeniture and believe that it will find wide public approval. However, we have not sought public support for this change to our constitution, and the Government should make provision for wider consultation before they implement it. We ought to be forward-looking and recognise that making such a change now has the potential for significant consequences downstream.
Clause 2(1) opens up a royal Pandora’s box. We should be minimising points of potential crisis, not creating the certainty that there will be a crisis. That is why so many amendments were tabled on this specific matter. While I welcome the points raised and reiterated by the Minister about what the Bill does and does not do, I believe it would be reasonable to insert in it a provision that ensures that the offspring of the monarch—our future monarch, the heir to the throne—will be brought up in the communion of the Anglican Church. I think that would keep a lot of sleeping dogs at rest.
My amendment gives expression to the Government’s own words that the Bill does not change the rule that the monarch must not be a Roman Catholic. If that is the case, they will make satisfactory provision for that in legislation that could alter that settled position. Clarity here would be a welcome addition to the Bill. However, I have listened carefully to the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that that was outside the scope of this Bill. I accept that point and will reflect on it when and if we come to a Division later.
Without such a provision, the Bill could create a set of circumstances wherein a future heir will have to make a choice between faith and throne. To create a situation in which a person has to choose whether to discard a closely held faith for a position is simply unjust. We need to ensure that we do not create the conditions for such a crisis. The Bill suggests that faith in this day and age is a disposable commodity, which is pure secularism. We should avoid that and make the matter clear in the Bill.
If the Act of Succession remains unchanged by the Bill, the Government have a duty to ensure that the Bill does not create confusion at a later stage when a future heir could be brought up in a different faith and then have to discard it in order to inherit. It would be far better to leave the matter alone or to insert a clause that makes it clear that the future Defender of the Faith will be brought up in the Anglican faith, irrespective of the religious faith of one of their parents. Otherwise, the Government should be honest and consider introducing legislation that disestablishes the Church. That is a matter for another day, but one that I hope this Government will not pursue, because it would be a retrograde step.
We have a great and glorious history, exemplified by the ongoing standing of our monarch not only in this nation but across the world, and by how much she is cherished by this nation. We should tread very carefully in trying to unpick and unravel aspects of our constitution that are best left well alone, as they continue to serve purpose for which they were developed.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. Clause 1 is absolute common sense, especially in today’s world. It is a welcome step and I am pleased that it is my Government who have introduced it, though admittedly with cross-party support.
I will spend most of my speech addressing clause 2. I say at the outset that I support an established Church in this country and am happy for it to be the Church of England. Indeed, the whole question of who is eligible to be the heir to the throne or, indeed, to be the sovereign of our nation rests on their Church of England faith. In addition, much is connected with marriage—indeed, it was arguments with the Pope back in the 16th century that led to the establishment of the Church of England, which led to the thorny issues that we are examining today and, let us not forget, to several hundred years of persecution of people on the basis of their faith.
I recognise that the Bill is a symbolic gesture, and on those grounds I welcome and support it, but we should also recognise that it is only a token gesture: the person who will benefit from it is the person in line to the throne, not necessarily their children or, indeed, their spouse, if they are of the Catholic faith. Although I do not pretend to be a canon lawyer, there are certainly things that we need to explore along those lines. It is somewhat ironic that the two Ministers leading the Bill through the House are both self-proclaimed atheists. I suppose that means that they are able to take a dispassionate view of the Bill, but perhaps they do not understand the sensitivity or frustration felt by people of faith about the entrenchment and discrimination that the Bill will undoubtedly perpetuate.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, ultimately, the monarch, regardless of whatever rules Parliament creates, governs with the consent of Parliament and the people, and that plenty of monarchs, regardless of what the statute of their day said, have found to their cost the error of no longer having the consent of Parliament and the people?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend, who is also of my faith, makes an excellent point. Of course, the situation he describes led to the execution of a monarch in times past. Frankly, the person with whom they replaced him is one of the people whom I am determined to write out of parliamentary history at some point, if possible by removing the statue outside. We will leave that debate for another day, but it is not only because he banned Christmas—we can just imagine how miserable he was.
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) seems to share his concern. It was interesting to hear the hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) ask why someone being deemed the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is invalidated by their not being a member of the Church of England. Would a member of the Church of Scotland or the Church in Wales have to convert formally to the Church of England to take up the role of sovereign? I know that Her Majesty takes her faith very seriously—that is one of her many admirable qualities.
Chris Bryant
My history of Parliament is coming out next year, just to inform the hon. Lady that there is no point in her writing one now.
The main reason why a monarch has to have a relationship with the Church of England is that they have to be crowned. The coronation service is provided for in canon law, and therefore in statute law.
Dr Coffey
I thank the hon. Gentleman and look forward to seeing his book. I see him in the Library regularly, where I assume he is researching it assiduously.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will note the fact that the title of Defender of the Faith was originally granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X in 1521. It was then rescinded nine years later, after Henry VIII decided to remove himself from the Church of Rome. It was Parliament that restored that title in 1544.
Dr Coffey
Indeed, but it still decided to do so.
Of course I will not oppose the Bill, and I welcome large parts of it, but the point that I am trying to make is that we should not pretend that it is some great second Catholic emancipation that will remove any particular discrimination.
The question was raised today about what would happen if a future sovereign chose to marry outside the Church of England, of if they chose to marry somebody of the same sex under other legislation that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office are taking through the House. That marriage ceremony would not be recognised by the Church of England under the proposed laws, so what would it mean for their being the Supreme Governor of the Church of England in future?
I do not wish to get into personal things, but it is not a state secret that the Deputy Prime Minister has married a Catholic and his children are being brought up in the Catholic faith. That matter is taken seriously in various parts of canon law, and although, as I said, I do not pretend to be a canon lawyer, I wish to make various points about that. Back in 1970, in the motu proprio on mixed marriage, the Church acted to remove automatic excommunication as long as people tried to ensure that their children would be brought up Catholic. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) will be relieved to know that in the same motu proprio, the penalty for parents who sent their children to non-Catholic schools was removed. Although his alma mater produced a martyr in the Reformation, one cannot say that that school is a Catholic one. I am sure he is about to intervene on me.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I think Henry VI would disagree with my hon. Friend on that.
Dr Coffey
I am sure that the bishop who confers confirmation on the majority of pupils in Eton college is not the Archbishop of Westminster.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister referred to certain royals who had married Catholics. Again, I do not want to get too personal, but one of his examples was a marriage that was dissolved and then annulled a year later; within a month, the same people had married, but the Pope had refused dispensation for marriage in a Catholic church on the grounds that the person who could have been heir to the throne had written explicitly that his children could not be brought up in the Roman Catholic Church but would be brought up in the Church of England. As we know, centuries of back and forth between the Church of Rome and the monarch of England meant that five years later, Pope John Paul II allowed that situation to be validated, which I am sure was welcome.
Such things happen the other way. My grandfather in Godmanchester was brought up as a Salvationist but became a Catholic to marry my grandmother in Dublin. I appreciate that sometimes the Church of Rome can be demanding the other way in wanting to encourage marriages of similar faiths. However, I diverge. My point is that it is important that the Government realise how, in matters of faith, making bland statements about people in church marrying those of a different religion could automatically dismiss the important religious views of the spouse to be. When one of the people due to be heir to the throne married a Catholic, that Catholic converted to the Church of England—out of love, I am sure, for her future husband—but we should not take such issues lightly. This provision is a welcome step, but we should acknowledge that although it removes one element of discrimination, it will entrench others until we have a fresh Act of Parliament.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
I did not intend to speak in this debate but I am one of three Members of Parliament whose constituency includes a significant amount of land belonging to the Duchy of Lancaster. The constituency of my neighbour the Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), includes large areas of the duchy—including a very fine pub, the Inn at Whitewell, which is owned by Her Majesty the Queen, or the duchy—as does that of my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw). We are therefore acutely aware of the nuanced differences between the monarch—the sovereign—and the Duke of Lancaster, as our Queen is known in the county palatine of Lancashire.
When we consider the impact of the Bill, it is important to understand how it could impact on the other titles, assets and offices of our sovereign. I am looking for clarity. I do not oppose the principle of what the Bill seeks to achieve, although I sometimes perhaps favour the route of the old clan chieftains in Scotland of choosing the most appropriate person to succeed rather than the oldest or youngest, or a male or female. The Saxons sometimes adopted a similar tactic.
Today the duchy is more than just a title; it represents huge amounts of land and assets. It owns about 19,000 hectares of land, valued at £350 million in 2010, so a significant asset is attached to the title, and we must understand the problem that the Bill may create. In the next debate, it is important that the Government set out clearly the position that may need to be addressed.
The current Duchy of Lancaster is the second creation, set up for John of Gaunt, son of Edward III, in 1362. It became a powerful duchy, and as a result, when Henry Bolingbroke succeeded as Henry IV and was crowned in 1399, he was keen to ensure that his inheritance and that of his children was kept separate from the Crown and the sovereign, as at that time kings tended to lose their crowns.
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend raises an important point about Henry Bolingbroke, but is that not a demonstration of the flexible nature of the powers of succession, given that he usurped the Crown?
Mr Wallace
One reason I do not oppose the Bill is that I do not live in a fantasy world in which Parliament and others have never interfered with the succession. In fact, if Parliament had not, we might still have a Stuart king. I, as a Scot descended from Jacobites, would probably have been quite happy with that.
Chris Bryant
I hope the hon. Gentleman will not listen to his Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). If Henry Bolingbroke did usurp the throne, the present monarch is not the right monarch. I think it was decided by Parliament that Richard II had already abdicated and relinquished the throne and that therefore there was a vacancy, much as happened in 1688.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. However, Henry IV’s first act on the throne was to pass the charter of duchy liberties, in which he asserted that the duchy was his possession, separate from those of the sovereign and the Crown. That was confirmed by Henry VII in 1485, and for the benefit of officials and Whitehall it is important to note that there has since been no fresh settlement. Perhaps the clarity we are looking for is found way back in 1485.
This is why clarity is important. The Bill, with which I agree, could create an eldest daughter as sovereign, who will take precedent over a younger son. Perhaps that is where the problem lies. If a monarch has two children, the eldest a daughter and the youngest a son, the Bill empowers the eldest to become the next sovereign. It makes no mention of the Duchy of Lancaster or the title of Duke of Lancaster, separate from the Crown, and nor does it mention what will happen to the assets. Without clarity, the Bill might mean that we have today stripped Her Majesty the Queen of £300 million-worth of assets from her inventory.
I do not believe that that is what is intended, but clarity is needed. It is easy to ensure that the income is diverted to the sovereign. It is highly likely that existing statute provides that income from the Duchies of Lancaster and of Cornwall will continue, but the question of ownership and the title requires clarity.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Having considered the Duchy of Lancaster, will my hon. Friend consider the Duchy of Normandy, and whether the Queen’s possessions as Duke of Normandy might divert to a younger male child when the Crown went to an elder female one?
Mr Wallace
I am not an expert on the other duchies in this land, but my hon. Friend proves the point that interfering with succession and fiddling with titles is easier said than done, especially when the titles are so old that they date back to some of the first interferences in succession and the Crown. When the title is linked so much to assets, the House is owed a clear explanation.
Christopher Pincher
Will my hon. Friend invite the Minister to make clear what will happen to the assets and title of the Duchy of Cornwall, which have historically passed through the male line through male primogeniture?
Mr Wallace
I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that there is a difference between the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. My understanding is that the latter comes into existence with the heir to the throne and effectively dissolves when the monarch dies. The Duchy of Lancaster goes back far longer. As far as we can see, it is a separate title and therefore cannot be excluded without excluding the assets that go with it.
I do not expect the Minister to have the 1485 charter at her disposal, or that anyone will be able to produce the answer instantly. I am sure it will take far greater legal brains to produce a clear, concise solution. There might be no problem at all: the charter may make it clear that it does not matter whether the heir is male or female, dealing only with the definition of “sovereign”. That may be the answer, but we need clarity.
As ever, changes such as this are easier said than done. That shows how far back our historical ties go. For 700 years the Duchy of Lancaster has owned some of the land in my constituency. Some of my constituents are tenants of the Duchy of Lancaster and rely for their livelihoods on such things being made clear. They, like Her Majesty the Queen and her assets, deserve that clarity.
Martin Horwood
I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman and perhaps Ministers about any risk to the Queen’s assets. There is an editorial cut-off date in clause 1, so the measure applies only to persons born after 28 October 2011. On a constituency note, that must be reassuring to my constituent Zara Phillips, who would otherwise have gone nine places up the order of succession. I am sure her marriage to Mike Tindall would have been approved all the same.
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend’s point is well made, but the position is unclear. The Government want to get this right, so I hope they will furnish the House with the clarity I seek.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I should probably declare an interest. During the Glorious Revolution, my family plotted in an ice house to remove the Catholics and bring William of Orange to this country. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and I should have a meeting later to try to resolve our differences. That was many years ago, and times have changed considerably since—[Interruption.] I hear an hon. Member say, “Not enough!”, but thank heavens there are a few dinosaurs left.
Wayne David
I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman was relying on parliamentary approval to make sure that he is not in any way conflicting with the laws of the land.
Richard Drax
Treason, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is implying, does not apply to my family—certainly not, and certainly not to me today.
I will speak briefly, because so much has been said and said so well, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). I concur with every word he said. I also concur with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said, not least about the problems we would have if a Roman Catholic married into the royal family. Under current rules, that heir would not be able to take the throne without more amendments to Acts and regulations, which could cause huge angst and difficulty in the years ahead. Either we do the whole thing, or we do not tinker with our constitution, as we are attempting to do.
So many hundreds of years of history have brought the country to this point. We must not ignore the fact that our history comes with bloodshed, religion, all kinds of glorious moments and some very sad ones. We are here at this point today and we should respect hugely what has gone before. I am nervous that nearly 700 years of tradition will be trampled on in two days. Two days of debate is not long enough, and I beg those on the Front Bench to give us more time to discuss this. I am sure that similar views will be expressed in the other place.
We have no mandate to change or tinker with the succession. It was not in our manifesto. My postbag, like those of colleagues I am sure, is not bulging with requests to do what we propose to do. In fact, my postbag is bulging with other, far more serious issues, not least the EU, immigration, jobs and all the other big issues we face. In fact, the only letters I have received on this matter—a lot of them—are from republicans who see any move to tinker with our royal family as a chance to rid the country of our monarchy. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members support the Queen, as I do, and are loyal subjects. It is interesting that even the slightest opening has produced an opportunity for republicans, who want to see the royal family gone, to try and exploit.
Damian Collins
Does my hon. Friend not agree, though, that it would be fairer to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to resolve this matter before they produce their first child?
Richard Drax
That is a good point, but as I understand it the legislation will be retrospective to 28 October 2011 anyway, so why the rush? If that is what is leading us to make this decision so quickly, I would say that it is another reason why we should not be doing so. Republicanism is one example, dare I say it, of the law of unintended consequences.
As I understand it, the Bill was not introduced in the House of Commons until every Commonwealth realm had consented in writing. We are told that the palace has been consulted, but I believe there is still much work to be done. It is a sad day when we are fast-tracking a Bill on this honoured institution through this place in such a short time. As I said, the Bill is going to be retrospective and, as I understand it, the changes will apply to any child born after 28 October 2011. Why not allow us, the law-makers, more time for consideration?
We owe our country’s stability—indeed, the existence of the monarchy itself—to a series of Acts and laws stretching back centuries. They include the Treason Act 1351, the Bill of Rights of 1689, the Act of Settlement of 1701 and the Regency Act 1937. If we insist on proceeding with this Bill, I understand that we will need to amend no fewer than nine Bills and nine Acts.
My final objection to this Bill is that far wiser heads than mine have counselled against such changes, which will have unforeseen and unintended consequences that could shake the foundations of our country. Even the Labour Government under Blair shied away from this, because the complexities outweighed the benefits.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is outlining his objections to the Bill and the speed with which it is rushing through, but does he agree with the principle—I speak as a Roman Catholic myself—of stopping discrimination against Roman Catholics in accession?
Richard Drax
As I understand it, the Bill will not stop discrimination. A Roman Catholic child is not able to inherit the throne under the current law, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset outlined at the start of this debate, so Roman Catholics are still being discriminated against. As my hon. Friend also said, either we change the whole thing or we do not touch it at all.
Wayne David
Just for the record, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, although he was correct to say that the Labour Government under Blair shied away from these changes, the Labour Government under Brown embraced them?
Richard Drax
As my hon. Friend rather amusingly says, “Under who?” Indeed, I do not think we have seen the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) for some time.
To sum up, as a Member of Parliament—
Richard Drax
I am just about to finish and the hon. Gentleman was a little disparaging earlier, so I am not exactly too keen to give way to him right now.
I would like this matter to be considered an awful lot further before any unforeseen pitfalls and unwanted legislation arise. At the moment, I would argue that it appears unseemingly hasty to go down this route. We are Conservatives—I am a Conservative—and we have to protect and conserve our ancient traditions. They are there for a reason, and if we must change them, we should do so reverently and with due consideration.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
The problem with this Bill is in the detail—it has not been properly and carefully considered or well thought through. It is, therefore, full of problems.
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) about the issues concerning the Duchy of Lancaster, which seemed to take Ministers completely by surprise, as if they had given not a moment’s thought to an ancient title that is with the Crown, but not the Crown. That leads on, as I intervened on him to say, to the question of the Dukedom of Normandy, under which the Crown holds the Channel Islands. Have the Channel Islands been involved in these discussions? They are not mentioned in the list of realms otherwise. Have they brought forward proposals to change their feudal overlord—the role that the Duke of Normandy plays—in the Channel Islands? Will the Dukedom of Normandy be subject to clause 1 of the Bill? The same issue applies to the Duchy of Lancaster.
There is widespread agreement that the Crown should be able to pass through the male and the female lines. It is accepted by many people that—by the virtue of a succession of Acts of Parliament, actually—we have had the good fortune to have a most remarkable selection of Queens as our sovereign. However, it is also worth bearing in mind—there is only a tiny little note on page 5 of the Library research paper to contradict this—that there is, in the ordinary commonlaw of England, no primogeniture among women. There is a note from a legal textbook which claims that the Crown is different, but I want to know whether that is actually true, because when we look at the succession of female sovereigns, we see that almost all have succeeded by Act of Parliament. Mary I took precedence over Elizabeth I by virtue of Henry VIII’s Third Succession Act of 1543. The Bill of Rights gave Queen Mary precedence over Queen Anne. The Act of Settlement gave the Electress Sophia precedence over her elder sister, Louise, who, in spite of being alive at the time, was ignored altogether in the succession. Victoria was the only claimant. The succession of our own Queen is the only instance in which there has been female primogeniture. At every other time, the succession has been established by law. I do not understand why the Bill does not clarify that point.
Wayne David
My understanding is that there was no legal basis for the present Queen to become Queen. There was an argument that she and her sister should hold the throne jointly, and it was only as a result of a Privy Council decision that common sense dictated that the senior of the two sisters should become the monarch.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman makes that point extraordinarily well. This is the time, while we are legislating on the issue, to clarify the order of precedence among sisters. Otherwise, there is a risk that clause 1 will simply provide that the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would be co-heirs to the Crown. The question whether Princess Margaret could have claimed the throne in 1952 is an interesting one. Surely the best time to settle this once and for all is while we are legislating on the matter. We should make it clear that, at least as far as succession to the Crown is concerned, female primogeniture has the same effect as male primogeniture, and that the co-heiress problem that exists in peerages will not apply.
I think it was Baron Grey of Codnor whose title was in abeyance from the late 15th century until the late 1980s. That is an example of how having co-heiresses in common can lead to an extensive abeyance. Why is that detail ignored in the Bill? It seems to me that the main reasons are the rush to pass the legislation and the failure properly to consider the ramifications of what is being done. That also applies to how dukedoms will pass. Will they pass as ordinary titles, or are they to be deemed to be within the Crown? If they are deemed to be within the Crown, why is that not in the Bill?
I have already discussed my concerns about clause 2 in relation to Catholics. It is unreasonable of an Act of Parliament to allow a Catholic to do one thing then deny that Catholic the ability to carry out the requirements of his faith. That is an illogical position to take, and it will bring out all the anti-Catholic terminology of the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights. Many Catholics can live comfortably with that terminology as part of our historical tradition, lost in the mists of time, but when it is brought firmly to our attention this week, it is a matter of the deepest concern. As other hon. Members have said, if a reform is to be made, it should be a thorough-going reform.
Chris Bryant
Is it not one of the ironies that clause 2 states that no one should be disqualified from succeeding to the throne through being married to a Catholic, yet clause 3 allows the monarch to exclude someone by refusing to consent to their marriage, potentially to a Roman Catholic?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is making a similar point to mine, which is that there has been a failure to consider the detail of the Bill. Trying to add two further clauses to the major provision that everyone was interested in has created confusion.
Sir Alan Beith
Is it not unreasonable, however, to ask a Roman Catholic to become the Supreme Governor of the Church of England—the hon. Gentleman obviously recognises that, given his suggestion of a regency—or to conform to the Presbyterian Church when in Scotland?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I agree with my right hon. Friend. It would be perfectly reasonable to leave the law of the land as it is, or to make provision for a regency, which would address the problem. Under the Regency Act 1937, the regent would be required to be a Protestant and would therefore be able to carry out the functions of Supreme Governor of the Church of England for a period when the Crown was being held by a Catholic.
Again, however, there are issues with the detail. I raised with the Minister the issue of Counsellors of State. Who is eligible to be a Counsellor of State is set out in the Regency Act 1937. It is usually the closest members of the sovereign’s family, including people who are not of the blood royal, so this includes the late Queen Elizabeth, the Queen mother and the Duke of Edinburgh: they both were or are eligible to be Counsellors of State. Once a Catholic is allowed to marry an heir to the throne, it is perfectly possible for the two Counsellors of State—they always act in pairs—to be Catholics. During a brief incapacity of the Crown or during the Crown’s absence abroad, appointments in the Church of England would have to be made by Roman Catholics, which is a felony under the Catholic Emancipation Act 1829. It seems to me that Her Majesty’s Government are simply not aware of the detail of our constitutional settlement, and have pushed this clause through without considering the detailed ramifications.
The bit of the Bill for which I have the most sympathy is the clause abolishing the Royal Marriages Act 1772. I intervened earlier to cite a quotation from it that makes it the most nonsensical Act on the statute book since the marriage of Princess Alexandra, as she then was, to the then Prince of Wales. Princess Alexandra and her descendants were exempt under the section I read out earlier to the effect that royal princesses who married foreigners and their heirs were exempted from the Act. The marriage of Princess Louisa, the daughter of George II, exempted her line, and through Princess Alexandra our current Queen and all the members of her family are exempted. This Act of Parliament has only affected people for whom it did not really matter who they married and it has not affected the people for whom it did matter who they married.
It seems slightly eccentric to update this Act in a more aggressive form than the one currently on the statute book. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) said, the ability to get an exclusion from Parliament at the age of 25 has been removed, so more onerous legislation has resulted, taking people out of the line of succession rather than simply invalidating the marriage. Provisions have been put in place that are harsher than those of an Act that was completely ineffective against those with whom it was supposed to deal.
I am not going to vote against Second Reading. I am not going to try to cause a Division against the serried ranks of the establishment. Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition and Her Majesty’s Government line up their forces to push through a Bill of political correctness—not gone mad, but simply not thought through. I wish that when we considered, debated and changed our constitution, we did it with plenty of time, thoughtfulness and detail.
Pretty much every speech we have heard today has raised an issue that should have been thought about, but has been ignored. Why has it been rushed through? Because it is convenient. Once the two Front-Bench teams are in agreement, the days of the week could be renamed if they felt like doing it. There is nothing so silly as cannot be done by them jointly. That, I am afraid, is what we find with this Bill. Let us hope that when we come to Report—or more likely, perhaps, in the other place—the technicalities and the detail can be gone through, so that we do not find that the Duke of Lancaster ends up being one person and the sovereign another; so that we do not find that the Church of England is accidentally being run for a week by a couple of Papists who happen to be Counsellors of State; so that we do not find that an onerous charge is put on royal marriages so that the royals cannot marry when they want—or, indeed, so that the more junior members of the royal family cannot marry at all because if they are not subject to the Royal Marriages Act 1772, they are excluded from ordinary marriage legislation, so how are they going to get married? I really think that it is time to have a look at the detail.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
Like several other Members, I had not planned to speak on Second Reading, but then I thought about some of the issues involving the Duchy of Cornwall. Others have referred to the Duchy of Lancaster and, indeed, to the Duchy of Normandy, which I had not considered but which I believe has a separate status, in that it was not created by a monarch but was held by previous monarchs prior to their accession to the throne of England. I was interested when the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) tempted the usual channels to consider creating a new calendar for the country, as Napoleon did during one of his tenures, but I shall not pursue that issue.
The hon. Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) were proud of the Celtic identity of at least two of the houses that have ruled over England and, in one case, Scotland. We have of course been a multicultural nation: Norman French, Welsh, Scots, and people of German descent have reigned over us successively. Perhaps at some time in the future there will be a dynastic war, following which an Anglo-Saxon will reclaim the throne on which Harold last sat.
I am interested in the religious dimension, which other Members have already explored. On Sunday, after attending mass as a Roman Catholic, I moved to the other side of Bodmin to attend the Anglican christening of my niece. A warm welcome was extended to all of us by the rector of the church of St Petroc, who was keen to inform us that the Norman font had been moved, that it was one of the oldest parts of the church, and that it had escaped the damage done by that great vandal King Henry VIII. I wondered which of the Churches I was delighting in at that point, as the rector seemed so eager to draw attention to something with which I might have been a little more in agreement.
In principle, I am very happy with the proposal in the Bill to update the rules of succession in line with changes in society so that an eldest female child can inherit the throne. The hon. Member for Caerphilly listed countries that had got there before us. If Hanover had got there before us in the 1830s, the history of western Europe might have been different. Had the kingdom of Hanover still been united with the United Kingdom, it might have had all kinds of influences when it came to the unification of Germany.
As one who represents a Cornish constituency, however, I am keen to explore issues relating to the Duchy of Cornwall. The hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), who spoke about the Duchy of Lancaster, said that it was his understanding that the Duchy of Cornwall was recreated whenever there was a male heir, but that is not my understanding. My understanding is that it does not disappear and revert to the Crown in its entirety, but is held by the Crown pending the arrival of a future male heir to the throne. The institution of the Duchy is a continuous organisation, which has been keen to assert its rights on a number of occasions throughout history: its right to the foreshore, for instance, and its right to bona vacantia in Cornwall.
The hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North spoke of the property that is owned. I am not as familiar with the Duchy of Lancaster as he is, but I think that there is a distinction between the rights to property that the Duchy of Cornwall, for example, owns elsewhere in the country as a private estate, and the rights that it has in terms of the territory of Cornwall, which are far deeper. Perhaps at some point I could discuss the issue with the Minister, or, indeed, with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
Those involved in the tin mining industry in Cornwall had their own Parliament, the Stannary Parliament. It was dissolved in 1753, which is not an incredibly long time ago in constitutional terms. The question of who becomes the Duke of Cornwall is not just financial; it is far more important than that, because it also involves a constitutional issue. The Bill makes it more likely that there will be periods without a Duke of Cornwall when the heir to the throne is female. I hope that the Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister will agree to meet me to discuss some of these issues and that prior to such a meeting they might allow me to have access to the translation of the charters that established the Duchy of Cornwall. They might have those to hand and that would allow us to have an interesting exploration into what might be done to deal with these issues as they pertain to the Duchy of Cornwall.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
This has been a fantastically interesting debate and I am sorry that there has not been a greater attendance in the House. Let me draw the House’s attention to the following, which the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution said in 2011:
“The fundamental nature of our constitution means that it should be changed only with due care and consideration”.
We have heard this afternoon, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), about how little the Government have taken into account the potential unforeseen consequences that could arise from this measure, which has been described by Andrew Roberts in The Daily Telegraph as “blithely fiddling” with the constitution.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) made an incredibly powerful speech on the importance of the constitution, the Crown and all the traditions, eccentricities and contradictions that are so much part and parcel of 1,000 years of this nation’s history and which we tinker with at our peril. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) rightly made the important point that once we start unpicking the thread, we never know where it is going to end. I am pleased to be able to agree with him on that, if not on everything else. The constitution is incredibly important, which is why we should have more time to debate this measure.
My second point is that the idea that the European Court of Human Rights should have any say in our deliberations on this matter is so fatuous and offensive that it should be struck out completely—how dare it ever seek to interfere with what we discuss on these matters in this House.
My third point relates to the question of female succession. I had the privilege of serving as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the greatest Prime Minister since the grandfather of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex. I refer to the noble Baroness Thatcher, to whom I am utterly and irredeemably devoted. She was the salvation of the nation, and so I cannot argue against the idea that female succession is in the interests of the nation—Margaret Thatcher clearly proved that it is. Our sovereign has also done this country astonishingly good service. I do not believe that any sovereign has so lived up to their coronation oath as Her Majesty the Queen, and this nation is beginning to understand the contribution that she has made to the stability of this nation. That confirms everything that my right hon. Friend said.
My real problem is with the risk to the established Church that arises from the Bill. I believe that the established Church and the Crown are indissolubly linked. We will be allowing the heir to the throne to marry a Catholic and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset has pointed out, under the rules of the Catholic Church the children have to be brought up in the Catholic faith. There would therefore arise a potential conflict of interest in the mind of that person as to which was going to command their loyalty—their loyalty to their faith or their loyalty to the Crown. The issue has not been properly examined, and I support amendment 16, tabled by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), which would spell it out and make things crystal clear—it is not anti-Catholic.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) that my mother wrote a book called “A Plain Man’s Guide to the Glorious Revolution, 1688”. It was on sale in this place and it sold many copies. The point my mother always made was about how Catholicism was seen in the 17th century. People were not prejudiced against it; they feared it, because it was seen as owing allegiance beyond these islands. That was why Catholicism represented a threat; it is rather like how some of us see the European Union today or how some of us saw communism in the latter part of the 20th century. To measure the Catholicism of those times against our views today is a mistake; we should put it in its historical context. I salute my hon. Friend and his ancestors for what they did.
There are serious issues that we need to consider. We need to address the question of what happens if the heir to the throne were to marry a Muslim or a Hindu. What would that do to the United Kingdom?
Sir Gerald Howarth
I will not give way because the Minister needs to wind up the debate.
All the points made in this House today by my hon. Friends and Members of all parties have illustrated that we should have had much more time to discuss this Bill on the Floor of the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for a most compelling debate that has highlighted the gravity of the changes we are making to the UK’s constitution by removing two pieces of discrimination that must not remain on our statute book. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said when opening the debate, the Bill is in many ways about equality. It turns a page on centuries of discrimination and prejudice on religious and gender grounds in one of our most important institutions—the monarchy.
It falls to me to respond to a number of the important issues raised. First, I welcome the support shown around the Chamber, including that of the loyal Opposition. I also welcome the range of experience that came through in the comments made, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is no longer in his place, and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). I welcome the passion that has been shown by Members such as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who is also not in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), even though they were on different sides of the debate. I also welcome the erudition shown by Members such as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and—need I mention him—my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg).
Let me begin on the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) finished: he asked what would happen if an heir to the throne were to marry a Muslim or somebody of any other faith. That is possible today and the Bill should not raise further fears. We should be able to accept, debate and deal with that question in the 21st century.
I want to start with the implications for the established Church of the changes we have discussed today. I reassure all hon. Members that the changes proposed in the Bill are limited to removing the bar on marriage to a Roman Catholic. I think all Members know that. The Bill does not allow a Roman Catholic to accede to the throne and in no way touches the basis of the established Church. Indeed, the Church of England has made that clear in its own words. I have already quoted the words in the other place of the Bishop of Blackburn, which are helpful to our debate.
Various points were made about the Church of Scotland that raised some interest across the Chamber. I understand that the Church of Scotland does not define itself as an established Church, but I shall not go further into that debate as I do not have time to do so. I reassure the House, however, that the Church of Scotland, among others, was consulted in the course of our work.
Various Members raised the possibility of an heir entering into a mixed Anglican and Catholic marriage and discussed what would happen under Roman Catholic canon law. Some feared that that could lead to a constitutional crisis, and I want to reassure them. There is an example of that in the royal family in Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella Windsor, the son and daughter of Prince Michael of Kent. He married a Catholic, but the children have been brought up in the Anglican communion. I suggest that that is a pragmatic example in the modern monarchy. I would not dream of taking on my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, but I note that various guidance has been published in the intervening years that might provide practical advice.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
My hon. Friend refers to Princess Michael of Kent. When Prince and Princess Michael married in 1978, they did not marry in a Catholic church. That was corrected five years later, after her children had been born.
Miss Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that point for the edification of our colleagues, but I do not see how that detracts from the main point that it has been possible to take a pragmatic view of how the modern monarchy must function. We have already spoken about the relevant guidance, which suggests that one should do one’s best to have the children raised as Catholics but that there could be just and reasonable cause for not doing so. The protection of the place of the established Church is a rather large cause and some colleagues mentioned that. The Church of England, as I have said, has made it clear that the requirement to join communion with the Church of England is not affected by the Bill. The Archbishop of Westminster has confirmed that he recognises the importance of the position of the established Church in protecting and fostering faith in our society.
Daniel Kawczynski
I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends, but it is important in this day and age to remove specific reference to Roman Catholics. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, we spend a great deal of time making sure that minority groups do not suffer discrimination, and as a Roman Catholic I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to pursue this matter as speedily as possible. It is rather insulting for Catholics to be in this position—not that I am going to marry a member of the royal family or anything.
Miss Smith
I wish my hon. Friend luck in that last endeavour. I thank him for his comments, which demonstrate the breadth of views that have been expressed this afternoon.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex asked whether the legislation would make it more likely that we will have a Catholic monarch. No, it does not. It makes it more likely that the heir to the throne may marry a Catholic—that is what the legislation does—but the bar remains on the sovereign being a Roman Catholic. There is no more need for a constitutional crisis now than there was before, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot.
I should like to deal with the point that has been raised a couple of times about, shall we say, the human misery of having to choose between one’s faith and the throne. Let us not forget that there is a particular piece of misery already available under the existing constitutional arrangements, which is not being able to marry the person you love. It is important to note that that is already available to anyone who wishes that particular form of difficulty. It is evident to everyone in the country that the huge public popularity of the wedding of certain members of the family in recent years shows that members of a modern monarchy do and can marry for love, and we ought to consider that as we discuss the tensions that that family may feel.
Miss Smith
I am terribly sorry. The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of chances to speak, and doubtless there will be more in Committee.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) wondered whether a female heir would be styled “the Princess of Wales”. The granting of royal titles is a matter for the sovereign, and it is not within the scope of the Bill. He made various points about the Duchy of Cornwall not passing to a female heir. Again, as a matter of title, that is a matter for the sovereign. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friends the Members for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) to discuss the points that they made.
I turn to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. He began by raising something that is touched on in amendments which have not been selected for debate: the issue of two daughters and the clarity of succession. We are confident that it is clear, having regard to the succession to the Crown in 1952, that when a monarch dies the eldest daughter, if there are two, would succeed. We believe that there is no need to make statutory provision to address that. I am grateful for the points that my hon. Friend made about the Counsellors of State, who are the spouse of the monarch and the next four individuals in the line of succession, except where they are disqualified by virtue of being Roman Catholic. I thank my hon. Friend for the breadth of ground covered by his other points; we may have a chance to return to that.
Turning to retrospective measures, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) suggested that clause 2 ought not to apply retrospectively. We are dealing with the need to respect realistic changes to the legitimate expectations of those closest to the throne, so there are differences in what clauses 1 and 2 do. We may come on to that in Committee. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) argued that in this day and age there was no need for anyone to seek the sovereign’s consent to marry. I remind him that it may well be in the public interest that consent should be given for the marriage of someone who may become our Head of State. Other European countries, such as Norway, Sweden, Spain and the Netherlands, require such consent.
Other points raised included whether the requirement of consent to the first six in line to the throne ought to apply to all descendants of Queen Elizabeth II. One factual answer is that the line of succession in recent history has rarely gone beyond six. A more amusing answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, if he will allow me, is that his ambition is not high enough if he does not aim to become Father of the House in 200 or 300 years’ time to be here to see that problem repeat itself should all the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II be allowed—
Miss Smith
I am afraid that I am about to run out of time. It remains for me to deal with the point from the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) about children who are adopted or born as a result of donor eggs. I can clarify that it is only the children of a husband and wife who are entitled to succeed, not adopted children or those born from artificial insemination.
I commend the Bill to the House—
Wayne David
I thank the Minister for her response. May I press her on the issue of the figure of six? Can she give a slightly more detailed explanation, rather than saying, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, that that was a pragmatic decision or that there was some historical precedent? Can she be more specific and—
Succession to the Crown Bill
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miss Smith
The purpose of the Bill has been well explained in the debate on the allocation of time motion and on Second Reading. Clause 1 simply removes male bias primogeniture in the succession to the throne.
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is not present to move the amendment that he tabled to clause 1. I think that is because when the Speaker announced the amendments that had been selected, he referred only to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) to the allocation of time motion.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
For clarification, rather than on a point of order, the amendment appears on the selection list.
Wayne David
I support the motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Removal of disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I beg to move amendment 4, page 1, line 9, after ‘person’, insert
‘who married a person of the Roman Catholic faith’.
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker—I am sorry, Mr Hoyle. I will get it right in the end. It is so difficult when people have so many titles, like Her Majesty. It causes confusion, even for those of us who try to specialise in such important aspects.
My amendment is a minor one that is intended to clarify which person clause 2(2) refers to, because we do not want to refer to the wrong person. The amendment refers to a person
“who married a person of the Roman Catholic faith”,
because I am concerned that the part of clause 2(2) that reads,
“where the person concerned is alive”,
could be taken to mean not the person who married the Catholic, but the person who was the subject of that marriage, or indeed the person who was its product.
Mr MacNeil
It occurs to me that, together with the need to style Queen Elizabeth as Queen Elizabeth II, the obsession with whether or not the monarch is Catholic only really applies in England—it does not seem to apply to Wales or Scotland, and it certainly does not apply to the other realms. It is so important at the moment because the monarchy resides within England, which colours or clouds the rest of the debate. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
That is an interesting point. I am sure that Her Majesty’s other realms will consider whether or not the whole of clause 2 is a matter of great concern to them, because Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other realms do not have established Churches and so need not worry whether or not the sovereign is married to a Catholic. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that it is essentially a matter of concern in so far as Her Majesty is the Queen of England, rather than Queen of the other territories.
My amendment is very narrow. Clause 2(2) reads as follows:
“Subsection (1) applies in relation to marriages occurring before the time of the coming into force of this section where the person concerned is alive at that time”.
Who does that mean? It could mean a person who was excluded from the succession many years ago as a result of marrying a Catholic and who happens to be alive at the time the Act comes into force. Therefore, we might find that we will need to rearrange the whole succession because the clause is not clear about who that person is. I think that the Government’s intention is that that is the person who contracted the marriage to a Catholic. To put a name to it, we are talking about someone such as His Royal Highness Prince Michael of Kent.
Mr MacNeil
Once it has been established who is first, second and third in line to the throne, the line of succession is in many ways academic. I am sure that whoever was 10th or 20th in line was not considered much in the time of Robert the Bruce, Edward I or whoever happened to be the monarch in these islands at the time. It is purely an academic matter to be discussed at many dinner tables across the land. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman’s opinion is.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
That is an interesting thought, but I think that it is important that the line of succession should be clear and in no doubt. I think that legislation relating to the succession to the Crown needs to be unambiguous and not allow potential risks to come in because of a mistake in the drafting. We want to know who our sovereign will be, to whom we owe loyalty and all such things, and that might not be possible if we do not know the line of succession.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the succession can leap about. We have been fortunate enough in recent generations to have had a very clear succession and large royal families, but we can sometimes get down to a very small number of heirs, and we see that ordinary hereditary titles can sometimes go to very remote cousins, so who is in line to the throne is very important.
Obviously, there are other amendments that I have tabled. I have concerns about the clause as a whole and whether it should stand part of the Bill—
The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone)
Order. I remind the Committee that we are dealing only with the narrow amendment that is being moved at the moment.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Thank you for that guidance, Mr Bone. That is the amendment I am moving. It is intended to be helpful and clarifying. Were it to be sent to the other realms in which Her Majesty is sovereign, I would have thought that they would not find it unduly objectionable. Therefore, I bring it to the Government’s attention and hope that they will consider it carefully.
Miss Smith
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who through the amendment seeks to make the intention behind clause 2 crystal clear. Clause 2(1) stops a person being disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or being the monarch because of marriage to a Roman Catholic. The amendment would add words to subsection (2) so that it read slightly differently.
My hon. Friend is trying to make crystal clear that the person referred to in subsection (2) is also the person referred to in subsection (1), who would not be disqualified as a result of having married a Roman Catholic. I sincerely thank him for his amendment.
The Government’s view is that the clarification is not required. We believe that the clause is clear as it stands. For the benefit of the record, I should say that the person referred to in subsection (2) is the person who should not be disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of their marriage to a Roman Catholic. I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary, although I am grateful for the intention behind it. I invite my hon. Friend to withdraw it.
Wayne David
I very much agree with the Minister’s interpretation; that is my understanding as well. It is important to stress that the intention is made clear not only in the words of subsections (1) and (2) but in the clause heading. I suggest that the amendment is otiose.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Having listened to the Minister, I would not wish to divide the House given the limited time available. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miss Chloe Smith
I am grateful to be able to spend a little more time on this stand part debate than on the first; it is clear that the majority of this afternoon’s debate has focused on clause 2.
Clause 2 provides for a major change to the laws of succession to the Crown agreed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Perth in 2011. It removes the bar on anyone who marries a Roman Catholic from becoming monarch; that is the purpose of subsection (1). Subsection (2) applies the change retrospectively to anyone who is currently in the line of succession. That means that people who have lost their place in the line of succession because of their marriage to a Roman Catholic will regain their place. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), I should say that that will not affect anybody who is particularly high up in the line of succession.
Some have suggested that the change could bring into question the position of the established Church of England. We have discussed that issue extensively on Second Reading and in Committee. I give again my full reassurance that the change has no implications for the position of the established Church or for the monarch as the head of the Church of England, because there are no changes to the part of the Act of Settlement that requires the monarch to be a Protestant. I note the interest of some in the Chamber in that point and I re-emphasise it here in Committee. All the clause will do is remove a specifically anti-Catholic provision that bars a person from succeeding to the Crown or possessing it if they are married to a Catholic. As I said, it is worth remembering that there is no bar on the heir to the throne marrying anybody else.
Chris Bryant
I want to clarify the point that I have asked about twice and that no Minister has replied to. Clause 2 says that someone who marries a Roman Catholic can succeed to the Crown, but clause 3 allows the monarch to remove somebody from the succession by refusing to consent to their marriage. As no reason has to be given why consent is not provided, it could be because the person is Roman Catholic, could it not?
Miss Smith
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question again because there was unfortunately little time to answer it in detail when winding up the Second Reading debate. It might be worth looking back at some precedents. The point about whether, under clause 3, the monarch would be advised by Ministers was also raised on Second Reading. I hope you will forgive me, Mr Bone, if I deal a little with clause 3 in this debate. In 1967, when there was a question about the marriage—in that case, marriage following a divorce—of a member of the royal family, the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, devised a formula that ran along these lines: “The Cabinet has advised the Queen to give her consent and Her Majesty has signified her intention to do so.” That provides an insight into how such advice to the monarch might operate. We have had many debates, connected to this topic and more widely in the media, about advice to and from the monarch and the publication of such correspondence, and I will not stray on to that territory now. However, it should be perfectly reasonable and practical to imagine that there would be such advice to the monarch.
The hon. Gentleman asks specifically whether that would include withholding consent to marriage because the person is a Catholic. I will not answer that today because, for a range of reasons, there should be space within such advice with regard to consent. As I explained at the end of Second Reading, it is not unreasonable to have the notion of consent to marriage. After all, we are dealing with those who may become Head of State in due course, so there is a matter of public interest. I hope that that begins to provide an answer to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr MacNeil
If I recall correctly, the Minister mentioned the monarch being Protestant. Does she mean Church of England, or could the monarch be a member of any other Protestant Church?
Miss Smith
I beg your pardon, Mr Bone, if I have been lax in my words. I do not recall saying that, but if I did, I should have said Church of England, because, as we have been discussing, the monarch is in communion with the Church of England. However, it is also the case that we have a Protestant succession in this country.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The Minister suggested that under clause 3(1) consent could be refused for a variety of reasons, but does not clause 2(1) limit the prerogative such that a refusal of consent as a result of marriage to a person of the Roman Catholic faith would be unlawful?
Miss Smith
Mr Bone, I hope you will forgive me if I stray too far into clause 3—
The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone)
Order. I am grateful to the Minister, because that is exactly my opinion. We will have a chance to debate clause 3, so perhaps we could stick to clause 2 for the moment.
Miss Smith
Clause 2 is extremely clear that the monarch may not be a Roman Catholic. I think that that is the simplest expression of the lawfulness entailed in the clause.
Sir Alan Beith
It will not be clear if confusion persists over the matter of Protestant or Church of England. For example, Prince Albert was a Lutheran when he married Queen Victoria; he was a Protestant, not a Catholic. The Hanoverians were Lutherans when they came to the throne. We have a Protestant succession but it also involves supreme governorship of the Church of England.
Miss Smith
Again, I am grateful for the chance to be extremely clear. There are no changes to the parts of the Act of Settlement that require the monarch to be a Protestant. I hope that that is sufficiently clear.
Chris Bryant
But in addition, the monarch has to be in communion with the Church of England. That is very clear in section 3 of the Act of Settlement.
Miss Smith
There are many, many sections of the Act of Settlement that we are not dealing with today, and I suspect that that is one of them.
Clause 2 removes a specifically anti-Catholic provision that bars a person from succeeding to the throne or possessing it if they are married to a Catholic.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I think that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) was trying to draw the Minister’s attention to the provisions in clause 2(1) and suggesting that that might answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). It states:
“A person is not disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of marrying a person of the Roman Catholic faith.”
That, of itself, would not preclude Her Majesty from refusing a marriage on the grounds of somebody being a Roman Catholic. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood seemed to suggest that that answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Rhondda. Does it?
Miss Smith
Again, I suspect that we will have to address that when we discuss clause 3 and are able to go into more detail as to what it does or does not permit. As I told the hon. Member for Rhondda, I am not willing to go through a list of the rules that might be applied to the monarch’s consent. I do not believe that that has been done in matters of tradition before when consent has been sought, but that is a matter for clause 3. Clause 2 is absolutely clear about lifting the bar on marrying a Roman Catholic but, as I have said, it does not change the parts of the Act of Settlement that require the monarch to be a Protestant and in communion with the Church of England.
Ian Paisley
The more I listen to the Minister today, the more I realise that she has been at pains to emphasise and explain the point that I have made in amendment 16. I have also received reassurances from her verbally and from the Library’s paperwork. That is why I believe my amendment makes eminent sense, because it says exactly what the Minister has said at the Dispatch Box—
The Temporary Chair
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but because his amendment has not been selected, we cannot debate it.
Ian Paisley
The point that I had hoped to make without making you cross with me, Mr Bone, is that the Minister could take the issue away—or perhaps get something from the House of Lords—and then bring back an amended Bill to the House next week. There is clarity in my amendment—
“provided that person remains in communion with the Church of England in accordance with section 3 of the Act of Settlement”—
and if the Minister were prepared to accept that, the matter would be resolved. It would clear up a lot of the confusion that has been voiced today, and the Bill would then have intent, thrust and clarity.
Sir Alan Beith
I am glad to be under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, as we discuss the details of this provision. Clause 2 is an important clause, but it raises complications and difficulties, to which hon. Members of all parties have been right to draw attention in order to check whether we are getting this right and achieving the objective.
We are in a different world from that in which the legislation that the Bill will change was created. As hon. Members have said, that was a time when Catholicism represented an actual political threat to the United Kingdom, because of the behaviour of some Catholic powers in Europe. We are long past that era now—indeed, we are in an era in which Catholics and Protestants are aware that they have more things in common—some very important things in common—than they have matters of difference, and an era in which there are many mixed marriages between Catholics and Protestants. We should recognise that people find ways of accommodating and even sharing in the benefits of both approaches to the Christian faith.
A further fact that we cannot simply cast aside is that we have a long national tradition associated with a Protestant monarchy and an established Protestant Church in England—the Church of England—which has its own long and complex history, including its own Catholic elements. We have a long-established situation in Scotland, dating from the Union of the Crowns, whereby the monarch is expected to uphold the position of a national Presbyterian Church in Scotland and to conform to it and attend its services when in Scotland. Protestantism is also a resonant feature of life in Wales and Northern Ireland, as, indeed, is Catholicism in both places. All that is part of our history and we cannot throw it lightly aside.
Mr MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman touches on the past. It strikes me that perhaps the great worry in the past was not theological as much as it was about the imperialist ambitions of neighbouring nations—France, probably, and Spain to an extent.
Sir Alan Beith
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is at the root of the bars and prohibitions that we are discussing now. There were of course strongly felt theological differences, and there was a time when to be a Member of this House, a person had to swear an oath against transubstantiation and the Pope’s ability to relieve them of any obligations resulting from falsely swearing such an oath. It was very stringent. Later, and rightly, it was changed.
The hon. Gentleman comes from an island with an extraordinary and honourable tradition of adherence to the Roman Catholic faith, without a break, since before the Reformation. It is an unusual part of the British Isles in that respect. Where he lives. there has always been diversity in these matters.
Mr MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the geography and history of my constituency, and he is correct that the island that I happen to be from has that Catholic tradition associated with it. The recent census showed that the southern part of the Hebrides had the most Catholic areas in Scotland, but also that the most Protestant areas in Scotland were in my constituency, in Lewis, Harris and North Uist in the northern isles. It is interesting to note that there has never been any religious tension between the two at all.
Sir Alan Beith
The two versions of Christianity live side by side remarkably happily in the Western Isles.
The purpose of the Bill is not to change the Protestant succession, as the Minister has made clear. If it were, we would have to spend a lot longer on it considering many more detailed and complicated clauses, and there would be many more concerns to deal with. Nor will it disestablish the Church of England—it retains the monarch’s position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England—or change the situation in Scotland, where the monarch will continue to be expected to be a loyal supporter of the Church of Scotland and its work, as the Queen notably is, while having good relations with the other religious communities in Scotland.
The problem that arises is the one that I refer to as the early age problem. A decision to bring up a child of such a marriage as a Roman Catholic, whether taken entirely voluntarily or under the provisions of some Roman Catholic law, would result in that child being debarred from taking up the Crown unless they renounced the faith in which they had been brought up. That is perfectly possible, as was mentioned earlier, but it is quite a limitation to place upon a child.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
The Act of Settlement mentions
“all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome”,
so if a child were baptised a Catholic, I do not think there would be any subsequent opportunity for them to abandon Catholicism. The decision would be that of their parents at the time of their birth.
Sir Alan Beith
That is an interesting argument but I am not persuaded by it in the first instance. It seems to me that it has always been possible for a person to renounce the religion in which they were brought up. It had not previously occurred to me that the way in which we currently define the position would invalidate such a renunciation as removing a barrier to taking up the Crown.
Dan Rogerson
My right hon. Friend has hit on the spirit in which the law would probably be interpreted now. At some point, long before the Acts to which Members have referred today were passed, no members of the Church of England would have been able to escape that position, as they would all originally have been baptised Roman Catholics.
Sir Alan Beith
That is a further interesting point. The problem is there and we should not ignore it, and I think any wise parents would have to consider it. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will have had to consider it when he married. I would expect a couple from the royal family to exercise a lot of care and wisdom in making such a decision. However, we have to recognise that we are placing a potentially serious limitation on the children of a marriage such as we are considering, and giving their parents quite a dilemma.
Chris Bryant
May I draw the right hon. Gentleman away from the point about baptism? There is no such thing as Roman Catholic baptism or Anglican baptism: there is Christian baptism. No Church has ever suggested that there should be a rebaptism when somebody changes their religious denomination. The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the bringing up of children, but it does not apply to baptism.
Sir Alan Beith
Absolutely, and had I decided to spend more time dealing with the argument put by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), I would have looked into other questions such the significance of first communion at the age of eight or nine, for example, and whether someone would subsequently be allowed to renounce it. Most parents would prefer that such a position was not reached, but I refer to it because it is a real problem. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised another intriguing issue that could be the subject of an amendment to the Bill, although one that I think the Government might resist on the grounds that it would limit the powers of the sovereign in a family matter—it is a rather unique family situation. Most of us would like to have some influence over the choice of our children’s spouses, and some may feel that they have less influence than they would like, at least in the initial choice of boyfriend or girlfriend or whatever, but the royal family is in a special situation and I think it would be reasonable of the Government to resist fettering the sovereign’s ability to exercise the six-person limitation provided for in the Bill. I understand why they might want to do so.
Paul Flynn
In imposing this archaic rule and virtually choosing partners for people, which we would denounce in every other field, and in putting the emphasis on religion, when we know that half the population has no religion—
The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I know that clauses 2 and 3 are closely linked, but we are shifting quickly into clause 3. The sooner we finish with the clause 2 stand part debate, the sooner we will get to clause 3.
Sir Alan Beith
I do not want to be drawn into clause 3. We are considering whether the effect of clause 2 might be undermined by clause 3, and that has much to do with clause 2, but I suspect—I do not intend to say this again when we debate clause 3, so I will say it now —that it is something we will have to live with in order to produce a sensible outcome. The Bill as it stands provides a reasonable outcome to the problems I have described, but there is no escaping the fact that some problems will remain.
Mark Durkan
I want to take up the Minister’s point that this clause removes a line of discrimination from law. That is clearly what it does—up to a point. It removes a blatant bit of sectarian discrimination that would prevent somebody from remaining in the line of succession if they married a Roman Catholic. However, as we have heard, it still requires us all to subscribe to the notion that the Crown must remain Protestant and that somebody can only be Head of State in the United Kingdom on the basis of one particular faith. That is a sectarian provision.
Mr MacNeil
For clarity, it is more than the Crown must remain Protestant; the Crown must remain Church of England. If we are talking about the personality of the monarch’s faith, surely when the monarch crosses a border or moves across the sea, his or her religion does not change.
Mark Durkan
Well in some respects, as I understand from the current debate, the sovereign’s religion does change when they cross a border. The Church with which they are deemed to be in communion changes when the sovereign crosses the border from the Church of England to the Church of Scotland, not the Episcopal Church in Scotland. That is just from listening to this debate. We are getting into areas that I know little about and do not particularly want to know a lot about. Some of this debate reminds me of the old advert for Baxters soup: “The difference is in the thickness.”
Yes, obviously there is an emphasis on communion with the Church of England because of the role of the Crown and the governorship of that Church, but there is also the Protestant line of succession, as the Minister has said.
Mr MacNeil
I will try not to be too thick about this. Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, would he be happier if the terms were “must be Church of England” rather than “cannot be a Catholic”? To put a political dimension on the matter, as a Scottish nationalist and a monarchist, I would be quite happy to share a monarchy with England if the monarch had to be Church of England. That would be no problem for me.
Mark Durkan
As a Scottish nationalist, the hon. Gentleman speaks for himself on that. As an Irish nationalist, I have a different view on a number of his points.
In the part of the world I represent, I clearly say to people, “There is no acceptable level of sectarianism in our streets,” but the message from the Committee is that there is an acceptable level of sectarianism in our statutes. We are removing the bar on someone who marries a Catholic from succeeding to the throne, but we are not removing the grossly arcane and offensive language that remains on the statute book. We are saying, “That’s okay.” We have statements from the different Churches that have been consulted that they are just about okay with the compromise, but I am not comfortable with such received sectarianism.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that, by amending the statutes, we are saying that all the provisions are modernised, and that the Act of Settlement and all its anti-Catholic provisions are acceptable in a modern world with a few words changed? Does he share my view that that is offensive to Her Majesty’s loyal Catholic subjects and possibly more offensive to republicans?
Mark Durkan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, which reinforces exactly the one I am making. The Committee will take a deliberate decision to amend only the legislation it needs to amend, and will not take the opportunity to do away with the offensive, discriminatory and provocative language. Such language will remain on the statute books—the language of the law of the land—which is offensive. Why would the Committee take a decision at this point in the 21st century not to make laws of our time and for the future?
To my mind, it is not acceptable for people to be satisfied by such received sectarianism, and it is a matter of sadness that it remains. That is my difficulty with clause 2. I welcome the fact that it makes a difference, but I have a fundamental problem with the fact that it says, “Everything else can stay the same. That’s okay. We’re happy with that sort of language.” We should be repulsed by the language that the Committee says should stay on the statute book.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am delighted to take part in Committee under your tutelage, Mr Bone, and to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and other hon. Members. There is a paradox in the situation in which we find ourselves. The Government are seeking to end part of a discriminatory law, and yet have resurrected rather a lot of hurt, as expressed by the hon. Member for Foyle and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). Perpetuating this debate could lead to further hurt.
As an Anglican on the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England, the last thing I seek to do is to offend those in the Catholic Church, but I should tell my hon. Friend that he might at least allow us to take communion when we attend his Church. When he attends ours, he is allowed to take communion with us. Perhaps that little bit of discrimination could be ended by the Catholic Church.
Sir Gerald Howarth
If my hon. Friend has been able to get a tweet from the Vatican to indicate a change in policy, I would be delighted to give way to him.
The Temporary Chair (Mr Peter Bone)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention will be very concise and to do with clause 2.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It is incredibly concise and relevant to clause 2. My simple point is that the matter to which my hon. Friend refers is one for the Papacy. I do not have the authority to do as he asks.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am sure the day will come when such authority is conferred by the Vatican upon my hon. Friend, such is the power of his language.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) made the point that the two Churches are coming together, and that Christian Churches generally are doing so. That is imperative, particularly given the rise of Islamic fundamentalism not just around the world, but in our country. The issue of succession and religion—which is what clause 2 is all about—is very significant. I welcome the fact that the Minister has put it on the record that section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1700 will remain firmly part of the law of this land. While an heir to the throne may be entitled to marry a Catholic, no one who is not in communion with the Church of England shall be sovereign of this country. It is important that that is stated, and I am grateful to the Minister. The reason I was prepared to support the additional confirmation of that by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was that one is so aware of the zeal with which the present Administration prosecute their enthusiasm for modernisation that one does not want this to be subject to any form of modernisation. It is imperative that that is clear, and it has been made clear.
I will repeat the point I made on Second Reading as I had to make it in a rather curtailed style. If the heir to the throne were to marry a Catholic, the Catholic ordinances had not changed and the children were to be brought up in the Catholic faith—the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—those children would face a decision on whether to be loyal to the Catholic faith or to renounce it, and subscribe to being in communion with the Church of England. Therefore, clause 2 does have consequences, and this is not a question of semantics between the Church of England and the Catholic Church.
It is important to all Christians that the sovereign remains, as every coin of the realm testifies, the defender of the faith. I wonder how many children in our schools are taught that. If we put our hands in our pockets and look at our coins, we see the two letters “FD”, which stand for fidei defensor: defender of the faith, the Christian faith. All of us, whether we are Catholic, Congregationalist, Church of England, Baptist or whatever, have a huge interest in ensuring that the Christian faith remains at the heart of this nation, for it is that faith that has formed this nation. It is that faith that has given birth to the enthusiasm for liberty that has attracted so many people of other faiths to come to this country. While the hon. Member for Foyle may find this difficult—I salute the spirit with which he promoted his case—I do not believe it right to be anything other than uncompromising. This House—this Parliament—is governed by the values of the Christian Church and faith. It is therefore imperative that we are crystal clear.
Paul Flynn
In the hon. Gentleman’s hyperbole about the religious nature of the country, does he recall that the majority of people describe themselves as atheists, and that the number of those who describe themselves as adherents to the Church of England is 19%? That figure is dropping and the number who describe themselves as atheist is increasing. Has he not got a rather romantic view of society, and are we not legislating for the past, not the future?
Sir Gerald Howarth
I think the latest figures show that 60% of the country are adherents to the Christian faith. I do not know if I have a romantic view or not, but what I do know is that this nation, which has become a magnet for people from all over the world, has been forged and fashioned by the Christian faith.
It is a matter of deep concern to me that the leadership of my Church is completely consumed by other matters—in particular, homosexuality and women bishops—at a time when this nation is crying out for spiritual leadership, so I make no apologies for stating what I have said. That is why there is more to this measure than there might appear to be on the face of it. It is also why it is important that Parliament should be able to consider clause 2 in detail—because I think it goes deep into the heart of this nation.
We are not faced with a decision today, next week or next year, because as yet there is no successor to the son of the heir to the throne. We are therefore talking about something that is a long way off. Nevertheless, it is right that Parliament should debate these matters and be absolutely clear in the laws we pass and not leave them to the courts. It is wrong for the Opposition spokesman to assert that the clause heading is clear, because I think I am right in saying that the courts do not take into account the headings of clauses. I am sorry to be a bit pedantic, but that the courts take into account solely what is in the text of the legislation.
Ian Paisley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he allows me to point out that the 2011 census found that there were only 29,000 atheists in England and Wales, compared with 33.2 million who said they were Christian. That is why, once again, this point should be emphasised in our legislation, and why we should make it boldly and unashamedly.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am happy to make common cause with the hon. Gentleman in that endeavour. I entirely agree with him and that is why I have sought to use this opportunity to express my views. To reiterate, I am an active member of the Church of England—I am a church warden of the Royal Garrison church in Aldershot and proud of being so—and I am hugely concerned. I fear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset expressed so eloquently, this legislation will lead to all sorts of intricacies that have not been foreseen, and I am afraid that this issue is one of them.
I will conclude on a positive note. I again thank the Minister for putting it profoundly on the record that section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1700 remains firmly and centrally part of the law of this land.
Chris Bryant
It is a great delight to follow the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth); it is only a shame that he is speaking from the Back Benches. It was rather nice when he was speaking from the Front Bench. They culled the wrong Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I thought. It is good to follow him also because he is a church warden and he will know that church warden was one of the first posts that women could be elected to in this country, long before they could be elected as MPs.
The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right on one point, which is that, in a sense, clause 2 opens a wound, but stitches up only part of it. The wound is actually much bigger. The provisions in the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights on Catholicism—only a tiny bit of which we are amending—are not only offensive, but meant to be offensive. They were deliberately intended as offensive legislation, to try to slap Catholicism on the face and send it flying. I know that the Minister wants to restrict things as much as possible and make this a tidy little Bill; none the less, the truth is that at some point we will have to get rid of all these provisions.
Wayne David
I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but does he accept that it is not valid to argue that because we cannot change everything we might not like, we can change nothing?
Chris Bryant
Yes, and that is why I allowed Second Reading to go through, and I will—[Interruption.] Sorry, I meant that I added my assent to everybody else’s. I want clause 2 to remain in the Bill, but it points to the issue—to which hon. Members have referred—of the bringing up of children. Baptism was referred to earlier. At what point does one decide that somebody has been in communion with or reconciled to the See or the Church of Rome? Somebody suggested the point of baptism, but I do not think that that is categorical. As I tried to suggest earlier, baptism is not Catholic or Anglican—it is Christian. However, many children growing up in a Catholic family or being brought up by Catholic parents will be expected to take their first communion when they are quite young. I would have thought that, at that point, they were in communion with Rome.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
When looking at the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, we must bear in mind the particular concern of the people passing that law at that time to exclude James II’s newly born son. The wording is therefore quite all-encompassing in its aim to exclude a child from the first moment of Catholicism infecting it, so to speak, rather than thinking that a child could be brought up as a Catholic and decide at 21 not to be one any more. The terminology is
“reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome”—
The Temporary Chairman (Mr Peter Bone)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be making an intervention. This sounds rather like a speech.
Chris Bryant
It was a very good intervention, though, Mr Bone. I think you are being a bit mean this afternoon.
The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is absolutely right. That is the problem with the clause. I want the clause to go through, but I think it will provide us with long-term problems because it will change the point at which we consider someone to have become reconciled to, or to be in communion with, the Catholic Church. A Catholic can be in communion with the Church of England, as the hon. Member for Aldershot said, because we accept anyone who is in good standing with their own Church into communion with the Church of England. The same does not apply the other way round, however. This is where the issue of bringing up children comes in.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Those of us who are brought up as Catholics are also often confirmed in the Catholic faith at quite a young age. What is my hon. Friend’s understanding of the point at which a child’s Catholicism would become a problem? Could that problem be overcome simply by taking the oath of accession?
Chris Bryant
That is really a question for the Minister. There is a real question about pulling at one thread in the jumper. Are we undermining other aspects of the present settlement, and will we therefore need a whole new settlement? That is what I think will need to happen in the next 10 to 15 years. Charles II changed his religion on his deathbed; he became a Catholic. If he had then lived, people might have wanted to exclude him from the throne, just as they went on to remove James II.
Chris Bryant
I can see the hon. Member for North East Somerset stirring his loins.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the mother of Charles II and James II was a Catholic? That was in many ways the start of the problem.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman might say that that was the start of the problem, but I think it is fine to have a Catholic mother. I did not have one myself, but some of my best friends are Catholic mothers. I do not see this in quite the same light. The point is that the bringing up of children leads to the nub of the problem.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am sorry that my earlier intervention seemed like a speech, Mr Bone, but these are technically complex issues and one sometimes gets a bit more long-winded than one had intended.
During the debate, a number of hon. Members have asked about the specific requirement. I know, because I tabled an amendment on the matter that was not selected, that the Act of Settlement states that
“whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established.”
So it does refer to the Church of England and not simply to the Protestant Church.
I also want to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about the age of the child being a Catholic. I think that the earliest age is relevant, because the Act of Settlement goes on to say that
“the said Person or Persons so reconciled holding Communion professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead.”
The succession would pass as though they had died. I know that Christianity is all about the resurrection, but I do not think that statute law is. If a child of a marriage were christened and brought up a Catholic, that child would be deemed “naturally dead” under the Act of Settlement in relation to succession to the Crown. That is why the clause is, I think, so complex, without any further amendment. My view is that it would be better to leave well alone. I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), who looks as if he wants to intervene.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I wonder whether there is any way in which the Catholic Church might compromise, as it were, accepting that although the child could be brought up in the Catholic faith, in the event of their being in line for the throne the child would not be expected to do other than renounce the Catholic faith and accept the Church of England.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Yes, of course that would possible. A papal indult could be granted, but when I suggested that earlier, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) thought that that would not do at all, and that having our succession subject to the Papacy would create difficulties of its own. I see the validity of that point. My concern is that by introducing clause 2, we will be passing into law something that brings our law into direct contradiction with the requirements of the Catholic faith. That is what brings us back to the whole offensiveness of the language of the Act of the Settlement.
As I say, I would be happy to see no change at all. The way a country builds up and the way its monarchy develops is lost in the mists of time. To whom that monarchy goes is another issue. We have had discussions about whether the monarchy goes through a strict genealogical line. It does not. By the time of the reign of George V, there were 1,000 people closer to Charles I in the succession than his late Imperial Majesty. It is not something that has been taken back, as we look at Asser’s “Life of Alfred”, to Adam and Eve. Asser’s “Life of Alfred” begins with his genealogy going back to Adam and Eve, but that is not true. Our monarchy is, in fact, established by statute—initially by ancient statute from which it has then developed. The difficulty is that when we start changing part of the statute and allow one thing to happen, there are consequences that will have an effect on other parts of the structure.
Dan Rogerson
I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument closely, and I see, as have other Members, that he is arguing that the provisions just move the injustice on a generation rather than deal with the issue. His solution would be “leave it alone”; another solution is “make a change”. My position would be “let us not make the best the enemy of the good.” We might be able to explore the issues raised by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on another occasion, but let us at least make some progress now.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I do not agree with that, because when we bring legislation before this House, we are not limited by three or four words. We have it within our power to rewrite the whole of the Act of Settlement. That is why I think that, if we are not going to leave the whole thing alone, we have to make the fundamental change: we have to get rid of the fundamental injustice.
I am not going to hold myself up as a great bastion of political correctness. That is not a creed to which I particularly hold or one for which I have any great concern, but I do think that, broadly speaking, there should be equality of tolerance among the religions people choose to follow in this country, and that statute law should not favour one religion against another within the context of an established Church that provides a backdrop of Christianity for historical reasons and that has been a strength of this nation.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is such a valued Member and knows so much, so does he think that we are about to produce bad law?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Yes, indeed I do. It is the point I have been making at great length all afternoon. In making that point, I would like to thank the Minister for her patient answers to my almost interminable questions. She has done that with great grace and thoughtfulness, for which I am deeply appreciative, but I am still in disagreement. I think this clause would be better left out of the Bill. If we are going to make a change, it needs to be thoroughgoing; otherwise, we simply reinforce the offence of the Act of Settlement and the wording of the Bill of Rights. We need to live, however, with our great and noble history, which is part of what we have grown up with, part of being a subject of the Queen, and part of being a person of the United Kingdom, to put it that way. My preference is for the clause to be removed, but if it is to be included, it should be part of a thoroughgoing reform that allows a Catholic to succeed, but protects the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
Miss Chloe Smith
With the leave of the Committee, Mr Bone, I shall be very brief.
Let me again acknowledge the breadth and, indeed, the quality of the arguments that have been advanced this afternoon. I shall not even begin to attempt to define key points in important religions, and for that reason I shall not accept the challenge issued to me by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I do not think that it is for a Minister to do that. However, I also acknowledge that clauses such as this lead to tensions in Government.
The existing legislation prevents a successor to the Crown from marrying a Catholic. I hear the arguments that the proposal in the Bill may create a situation requiring—as one Member put it—wisdom and good sense on the part of parents, and indeed the child himself or herself, and I accept that that constitutes a tension, but I believe that the clause strikes a balance that will be helpful to the 21st-century monarchy.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages
Miss Chloe Smith
I beg to move amendment 2, page 1, line 20, after ‘descendants’ insert ‘from the marriage’.
Clause 3 is, as one Member put it earlier, one of the more arcane provisions in the Bill. The Royal Marriages Act 1772 currently requires, subject to some very limited exceptions, the descendants of George II to seek the consent of the monarch before marrying. That probably affects hundreds of people, and we do not think that such a sweeping provision continues to serve a useful purpose today.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mark Durkan
I do not intend to detain the Committee for long. I merely wish to ask the Minister to address herself to questions that have been raised about the number six. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) suggested one explanation, and other Members made further suggestions. I should also like the Minister to consider how the Government envisage the discharging of the sovereign’s consent in practice, and whether the decision on granting that consent could depend on the religion of the person concerned.
Chris Bryant
Would it not be helpful if the Minister at least told us that the Government would consider amending the Bill in another place to ensure that the provision could not be used to prevent an heir to the throne from marrying a Roman Catholic?
Mark Durkan
Absolutely. Earlier, a Government Member referred to clause 2(1), in which we seem to think we are telling ourselves that we are removing the bar on the marriage of an heir to the throne to a Roman Catholic. However, it could well be that clause 3 allows the sovereign to continue to exercise such a bar, or a future monarch to exercise it, precisely to avoid some of the issues that other Members have already raised.
Mark Reckless
Does the hon. Gentleman think it would be helpful if the Minister were to clarify the position on what we think is implied by the Bill, which is that clause 2(1) is subject to clause 3(1)?
Mark Durkan
That would be very helpful, because the problem is that clause 3(1) reads as though it could be an ouster for clause 2(1); the joker still rests with a future monarch to refuse marriage on the grounds I have set out. Of course other issues might arise, and this provision would be the subject of all sorts of conjecture and speculation. The Government would therefore want to clarify it where they can, if not today, at least on a future occasion.
In this stand part debate, I would like the Minister to address one other area, which has not yet been raised. The Bill refers solely to marriage and does not mention civil partnership. I therefore take it that somebody would not be barred from having their place in the line of succession if they had a civil partnership, with or without the consent of the sovereign. The provision specifically refers exclusively to marriage, so will the Minister clarify that it would not present an issue in respect of a civil partnership? Such a partnership might raise its own issues for the Churches, particularly the Church of England. I wonder why the Government specifically refer to marriage, because most other bits of legislation that refer to marriage also refer to civil partnership.
Kevin Brennan
Would it not have been more sensible, in this constitutional monarchy of ours—no matter what one thinks of that as a system of government—for the person succeeding to the throne to be determined either by God, through the accident of birth, or through Parliament? It should not be determined by the caprice of the monarch.
Mark Durkan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for speaking up for God as well as for Parliament. His point again raises some of the issues that we have been dealing with today and the difficulties we find when we get into the constitutional fineries, particularly those of an unwritten constitution.
Let me return to the issue of civil partnerships and why the Bill contains no reference to them. I remind the Minister that equal marriage legislation will be coming before the House, and many hon. Members will be tabling and supporting amendments that would also seek to have opportunities in respect of civil partnerships. They may propose that civil partnerships would no longer be restricted as an option only for same-sex couples, but would be open for other people to register their loving relationship, so that couples of either type would have an equal choice between the rite of marriage and civil partnership. That equal marriage legislation might be amended so that civil partnerships could end up being available to people of different sexes, and therefore children would issue from those, too. So again the question arises: why do this Bill and this clause refer only to consent for marriage, and not consent for civil partnership?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the Minister for suggesting on Second Reading that in 200 or 300 years I may be Father of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) may have something to say about that, either now or in 200 or 300 years’ time.
May I press her on the clause a little more, because her earlier remarks cause me to do so, and refer her to clause 2 of the Royal Marriages Act 1772? It states:
“In case any descendant of Geo. 2.—
George II—
“being above 25 years old, shall persist to contract a marriage disapproved of by his Majesty, such descendant, after giving 12 months notice to the Privy Council, may contract such marriage; and the same may be duly solemnized, without the previous consent of his Majesty; and shall be good; except both Houses of Parliament shall declare their disapproval thereof.”
In other words, if someone is over 25 and has made their intentions clear to the Privy Council, they can get married unless Parliament says that they cannot.
The Bill states in clause 3:
“A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.”
In other words, no matter how old that person is they must actively gain the consent of the monarch before marrying and must wait for the Queen or King to say yes. Any reasonable person would infer that the Government appear to be trying to tighten the rules about whom members of the royal family can marry and to give the monarch some extra leverage. Will the Minister confirm that? If that is the case, can she explain much more clearly, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) asked, why six has been chosen for the number of those in the line of succession who are subject to this rule? If the idea is to tighten the rules and make it easier for the sovereign to control whom his or her descendants close to the line of succession may marry, surely the number should be greater than six or we should prescribe that it applies to the heirs and descendants of Elizabeth II. Surely grandchildren of a reigning monarch who are Royal Highnesses and active members of the royal family might not be subject to the provision.
I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could make the decision-making process in reaching that number clear and tell us what advice the Government were given about the number six, why they rejected other numbers and why they rejected the idea of having no numbers. That will allow us to be clear about the Government’s intentions.
Chris Bryant
I rather agree with the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher). I am wholeheartedly in favour of getting rid of the 1772 Act, which seems a ludicrous piece of legislation that has always been ineffectual. It has encouraged monarchs to be capricious in granting or not granting consent and it was introduced as a capricious piece of legislation. My problem is with clause 3, which is meant to replace it. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, there is no stipulation about whether such permission is necessary for a civil partnership. I presume that all six members could form a civil partnership and succeed to the throne without that being an issue, but if the Government’s same-sex marriage proposals were introduced, they would then have to make a request and have consent granted. I simply do not understand, and I am afraid the Minister has made it far worse for me this afternoon than it was before. Her suggestion that some convenience will be drawn up between Ministers who might or might not be advising means that there will be no clarity for Parliament.
For instance, a potential future heir to the throne might be denied consent to marry by the monarch deliberately because they wanted to exclude them from the succession, and for no other reason. The Bill makes no provision to state that that would be inappropriate. I say that that might happen in the future, because that is precisely what George III tried to do to George IV through the 1772 Act. If the clause is carried into legislation, the monarch will be able, entirely of their own volition and without any guidance from Parliament, to decide who should be excluded from the succession. The only thing that might militate against that would be if somebody got married before they became one of the six or before the monarch took offence or a dislike to them.
The Minister pointed out that other countries have similar provisions. It is true that, of the constitutional monarchies in Europe, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands have similar provisions. However, Norway has no such provision—it just has a simple law of succession, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said. It is provided for by the caprice of God, as it were, whereas in two of the three countries that have a similar provision it is a vote of Parliament that decides. For the Crown and the Crown’s Ministers to reserve to themselves the decision as to who should be barred from the succession flies in the face of the history of this country, as the succession is a matter that has always been decided by the whole of Parliament—both Houses of Parliament—through statute law. That is why I am deeply, deeply suspicious of the first three subsections, and my suspicions have been made far worse by what the Minister has said this afternoon.
Mark Reckless
The Minister owes the House and perhaps the wider nation and realms beyond these shores an explanation as to why the number six has been selected in subsection (1), and what considerations have been brought to bear on the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) suggested an alternative, and said that the measure should apply to all heirs and successors of Queen Elizabeth II. I am concerned that, if we moved in that direction, such a measure would contain the seeds of its own obsolescence, rather like the Royal Marriages Act 1772 excluding all the descendants of George II except for those with a particular exemption. The numbers would balloon over time, and many of the same issues would remain.
The key issue to which the Minister should respond, and which Parliament should debate before the measure becomes law, is whether subsection (1) is subject to clause 2(1). For me, that is an important point. Having listened to all the debate, I remain undecided as to whether the Bill is an improvement on the status quo because it removes the discrimination with respect to a Catholic being able to marry someone who may inherit the throne, or whether I ascribe to the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that it may kill a minor discrimination at the expense of reopening the whole issue, and we would then be looking at the Act of Settlement as amended by the Bill increasing the offensiveness of those words on the statute.
I can see the virtue of both arguments, but what weighs in the balance is the question of whether clause 2(1) is an absolute improvement or whether it may be overturned by a Crown decision under clause 3(1) acting under the prerogative on Ministers’ advice, which could still lead to someone being excluded as a result of marrying someone of the Roman Catholic faith, notwithstanding clause 2(1). I should appreciate it if the Minister provided clarity on that, preferably today, but if not, in subsequent proceedings.
Wayne David
As the Minister knows, we support the Bill, particularly clauses 2 and 3. However, a number of Members have raised the issue that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) just mentioned. He put it very well, and there appears to be a contradiction, or at least a potential contradiction, between clause 2(1) and clause 3(1). If there is, which provision has precedence? That is an important point, and if explicit clarification cannot be given now it would be advantageous, if it is provided when the Bill goes to the other place. That reinforces the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), which was well put.
Chris Bryant
The Minister referred to the 1967 provisions. As I understand it, that was because some members of the Cabinet were unhappy at the idea of somebody in the line of succession to the throne marrying a divorcee. Obviously, that does not apply today, where the other person’s partner is still alive. This cannot be left to the discretion of the monarch and of Ministers. It must come to Parliament.
Wayne David
That is almost an extrapolation of what I was saying. If the decision is in the public domain, it becomes, in a sense, the property of Parliament and it is open to us to discuss the issue, if not to make a determination. I would welcome the Minister’s response to those points.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I have only one question on the clause. It relates to the position of members of the royal family who are not among the first six and therefore not subject to the new royal marriages Act. As the Minister will know, members of the royal family are generally excluded from Marriage Acts, as they have been from Hardwicke’s Marriage Act onwards, and I would be concerned if members of the royal family who were not the six closest to the throne had any complications in being certain that their marriages were valid.
I wonder, therefore, what the Government’s view on this is and whether any future legislation is intended, or whether it is intended that members of the royal family outside the six will be brought under the normal Marriage Acts in future.
Miss Chloe Smith
Now might be the moment to make a few general comments on clause stand part, as well as to respond to hon. Members’ questions. As has been made particularly clear, clause 3 repeals the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and replaces it with provisions that we believe are more suitable for the modern context. The original 1772 provision probably affects hundreds of people. We do not think that such a sweeping provision is practical or serves a useful purpose today. Indeed, if we want to dwell on Cabinet history, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who thought that those provisions were obscure and unsatisfactory, might note that this was raised by the Cabinet as far back as 1960.
Clause 3 seeks to ensure that the sovereign’s consent is obtained before the first six people in the line of succession can marry. Various hon. Members have asked why the number is six. I want to answer that question with reference to the reasonable reach of changes, which I referred to earlier. There is a question about unreasonably changing the legitimate expectations of those closest to the throne, and I think that we ought to take a cautious approach in such an area. The Government believe that the consent of the monarch for the marriages of the first six people in the line of succession provides a measure of reasonable proximity. Indeed, since the 1772 Act was enacted, the throne has never passed to anybody who was more than six steps away in the line of succession. Therefore, subsection (1) limits the requirement to seek the monarch’s consent to the first six people.
Mark Reckless
If the Crown has not passed to anyone beyond No. 6, has it passed to anyone who was No. 6? If so, is that the rationale for choosing that number?
Miss Smith
Historians in the House might leap to correct me, but I understand that Queen Victoria was the most extreme example, at No. 5. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question.
Let me turn to the notion that the sovereign ought not to have a part in that decision. The role of the sovereign in giving consent to a royal marriage is part of our tradition and is entrenched in law. The Government also consider that there is a public interest in the marriages of those closest to the throne, so we believe that the requirement to seek the sovereign’s consent continues to serve a valuable purpose.
Christopher Pincher
If my hon. Friend accepts that the public have a legitimate interest in active members of the royal family, who might be styled “Royal Highness”, and that the monarch might therefore wish to have some control over who they marry, does she not agree that the monarch might wish to have some control over those who are seventh, eighth or ninth in line to the throne marry, as they, too, might be active members of the royal family who are styled “Royal Highness”?
Miss Smith
Two points need to be made in response to that question. We here in Parliament, taking due account of our responsibilities to legislate on such matters, do so cautiously. We have used a pragmatic number, and I have tried to explain from where we have derived that number. We think that it is cautious and pragmatic. However, I also referred to the notion of the people who come within the scope of the Bill also exercising wisdom, good sense, pragmatism and caution. I suggest that it would not be beyond the realms of possibility for a person who is No. 7 or No. 8 to be careful in such matters. That is perhaps as far as I ought to go on that, but I do not think that that is beyond the bounds of reasonableness. However, the fact is that we in Parliament have to fix a number. I have tried to explain why we think that number ought to be six.
Mr Andrew Turner
Will my hon. Friend help me, because I simply do not understand what she means by five, six or seven. For example, what was Queen Victoria’s number in relation to the previous King?
Miss Smith
Putting blood relationships to one side, as I understand it Queen Victoria was the fifth in line to the point at which those consents were sought. We want the current monarch to be able to look ahead six times. It is the case that the throne has never passed to anyone more than six steps away in the line of succession. I hope that those two points answer my hon. Friend’s question.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It might help my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) if I went through the list as it relates to Queen Victoria in relation to George III. George III’s heir, George IV, is No. 1; Princess Charlotte is No. 2; King William is No. 3; the Duke of Kent is No. 4; and Queen Victoria is No. 5. That is how we get to five on the basis that the Minister has been calculating.
Miss Smith
I am eternally grateful in so many ways to my hon. Friend. I suppose that an alternative way of expressing the point would be to say that the throne had changed hands five times. I hope that the combination of comments has made things clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner).
Let me turn to the common question, asked by several hon. Members, of whether clause 2 knocks out clause 3, as it were. I want to answer it with reference to what I said to the hon. Member for Rhondda. The monarch will act having taken advice from Ministers, who will wish to take account of the public interest. That is a clear expression of my earlier point.
If, as I hope, the Bill passes, clause 2 will stand and Ministers will need to have regard to it if they consider a situation under clause 3.
Chris Bryant
What happens if, for instance, the monarch disagrees with Ministers and Parliament disagrees with Ministers or the monarch—if it takes one side or the other? There is no means of determining a proper reason for coming to the decision, and now the Minister has added yet another category, which is that No. 7 and No. 8 in the line of succession have to be careful. This is just a mess.
Miss Smith
The legislation is clear. The sovereign’s consent is required. The 1772 Act, as the hon. Gentleman identified, had a role for Parliament. Clause 3 repeals that Act and replaces it with provisions under which the sovereign’s consent is required. Clause 3(2)(a), (b) and (c) explains how that occurs.
I will be happy to come back to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) with further details about how data are handled under those three categories; as he well knows, there is a greater debate to be had.
I want to reiterate and clarify my points about Nos. 7 and 8 in the line of succession. I simply note that the line of succession is such that, without being blunt about it, people pass away. Nos. 7 and 8 ought to be able to expect that such situations change; that is the only comment I make. It is therefore clear that a certain amount of pragmatism should go into that situation.
Chris Bryant
I am not sure what “being careful” means. Nowhere in the Bill is a valid reason given for not giving consent. For instance, would marrying a drug baron be a reason for not giving consent? I raise that because that was the case in the Netherlands, and it was one reason why consent was denied. But it was denied by Parliament, because that is the Dutch system, which is much more sensible. Would it be legitimate to refuse consent on the basis of there being a same-sex marriage?
Miss Smith
I shall be happy to come in a second to the provisions on civil partnership and same-sex marriage.
On the use of caution, I simply reiterate the point that I have made several times in the course of the debate—that we are talking about human beings and, on the whole, a limited family. It is not beyond the bounds of reason for members of that family to act with regard to the legislation that we are passing. I will leave it at that, as Mr Bone would of course stop me if I went further into matters that are outwith the scope of this Bill. There is a need for Parliament to select a number, and I have explained why six is appropriate. I have also attempted to deal with what happens to members in the line of succession who might be close to becoming No. 6.
Mark Durkan
The Minister said that six is a practical number, but she also said that Nos. 7 and 8 will need to be “careful”. Needing to be careful might be interpreted in their minds as, “Get married quick before anything happens that means that you become No. 6 and therefore have to get the monarch’s consent.” It might appear to mean, “Marry in haste.”
Miss Smith
I have nothing more to add to the comments I made a few moments ago. I think that in these situations a degree of pragmatism might prevail.
Christopher Pincher
The Minister talks about practicalities and pragmatism, and people showing good sense. May I remind her that Queen Victoria had nine children, all of whom contracted marriage? Under these proposals, six of them would have had to seek the Queen’s consent to marriage and three would not. Is that sensible? Would the Queen have been amused?
Miss Smith
My hon. Friend asks me to comment on a direct historical precedent. I do not think it is helpful to do that, because it is, after all, the past. Mr Evans, who is now in the Chair, would of course stop me if I sought to impute any opinion to any member of the royal family, past or present.
Let me move on to what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said about civil ceremonies and civil partnerships. There is no bar on the heir or other members of the royal family marrying in a civil ceremony. Moreover, I am unaware of any legal bar to somebody who is in a same-sex relationship acceding to the throne. I would envisage that the sovereign’s consent measures in clause 3 would continue to be the case for same-sex relationships. I will not comment on legislation that this House has not yet considered, which, as the hon. Gentleman might understand, would cover the notion of same-sex marriage.
Mark Reckless
Like the hon. Gentleman, I have been trying to clarify whether clause 3(1) will be subject to clause 2(1). The Minister has said that Ministers would have regard to clause 2(1) in advising the Crown on use of the prerogative. Is that an intentionally weaker formulation than being subject to clause 2(1)?
Miss Smith
My response was not in any way an attempt to fail to answer my hon. Friend’s question. As clause 2 will be a part of this legislation, it will be lawful for Ministers to refer to it. I would therefore say that clause 2 does apply to decisions made under clause 3.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly and my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) suggested alternative ways of replacing or updating the Royal Marriages Act 1772. My hon. Friend suggested that we simply substitute descendants of George II with those of Elizabeth II, our current monarch, and the hon. Gentleman suggested that we do the same with regard to the descendants of George IV. Either of those approaches could lead to an identical ballooning of the problem that we have seen under the Royal Marriages Act. It is obvious that the situation would only get worse with time as more and more descendants came into existence. A sensible approach is to replace the unworkable provisions of the Royal Marriages Act with a measure that is limited, pragmatic, and, as the Bill suggests, subject to procedures including the Great Seal and Order in Council.
Finally, clause 3(5) makes provision that marriages previously made void by the Royal Marriages Act are not to be regarded as invalid, which is important. Subsection (6) ensures that the validity of the descent of the Crown from King George II down to the present day will not be affected by the changes in subsection (5). We have already covered the other subsections. The measures provide a sensible update. We have already dealt with the Government amendment that ensures that the clear policy intention behind the Bill is correctly expressed by it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Commencement and short title
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I rise to speak briefly to clause 5 because earlier, when I put it to the Deputy Prime Minister that this Bill, if and when it is enacted by this Parliament, will not be effective until such time as it has been ratified by the legislatures of the other 15 realms, the Deputy Prime Minister was unfortunately not able to give me an answer as to when he thought that process might be complete. Although I understand that he confirmed that this Bill will not be enacted until the other 15 realms have enacted their provisions, will my hon. Friend the Minister expand on and enlighten the House about subsection (3), which states that the provisions will come into force at different days and times?
Miss Chloe Smith
I shall certainly do my best. I thank my hon. Friend for seeking to end our debate with an issue about which we spoke earlier.
All the realms need to bring these measures into force. We have a clear commitment from them that they are doing so, and we are working closely with them to ensure smooth application. It is difficult to give a date today, but I shall endeavour to keep not only my hon. Friend, but the House updated on it. As I think he knows, not all the realms need to legislate, so slightly different processes will take place in each. The agreement between the Commonwealth countries is that the measures will apply from the point in 2011 when agreement was secured.
Wayne David
Is my understanding correct that, under the Statute of Westminster 1931, although individual Parliaments in the respective states of the Commonwealth might give their assent in different ways, they do have to give their assent?
Miss Smith
I share that understanding. The hon. Gentleman reinforces my point that although other realms will make their provisions in slightly different procedural ways, we certainly expect that to happen and I look forward to them being brought into force.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I apologise for persisting in this, but much emphasis has been given throughout the day to the idea that, if we amend this Bill, that might prejudice the agreement that was reached at Perth. Presumably that stricture applies to all the other 15 realms. Does my hon. Friend have any intelligence to share with the House in how others see it? Also, if any of those 15 realms were to amend their legislation, would that affect us?
Miss Smith
As I said, I think it is best to acknowledge the challenges in that co-ordination process, and my hon. Friend makes clear some of the complexity involved. As I said, we are working with those realms to ensure smooth application of the legislation, and I look forward to keeping the House updated.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
Consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
Chris Bryant
I want to ask the Minister about the provisions relating to the Treason Act 1351. I presume that one reason why different legislatures around the world might come to slightly different legislative answers, yet still give the same assent, is that they have different provisions on the law of treason, whereas we still have the 1351 Act on the statute book. Why has the Minister insisted on including paragraph 1(b) in the schedule?
Miss Chloe Smith
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw me into matters that have been the subject of public controversy in relatively recent years. The important point, as he suggested, is that the realms to which the Bill will apply have other relevant legislation and customs. For example, one of the many reasons why we are not discussing hereditary peerages today is that they are not a uniform matter across all the realms. There are other reasons, but you will be pleased to know that I shall not reopen the debate, Mr Evans. I confirm that we are working with all the other realms to ensure that the relevant legislation is amended appropriately.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Is the Minister giving way?
Miss Smith
I would rather the Question be put.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule accordingly agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Bill to be considered tomorrow.
Business without Debate
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Trade and Investment
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on the performance of UK Trade & Investment. The last time we had a debate on UKTI on the Floor of the House was last March, when it was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys). I very much regret that there are not more opportunities for Members to scrutinise UKTI’s performance.
I very much welcome the work done by Lord Green and his colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but it is regrettable that so few Members of Parliament seek opportunities to scrutinise UKTI’s performance. We debate a great deal in this Chamber about how to slice up and apportion the cake, but exports are about making the cake bigger. I spent most of my working life before entering this House in exports, and I feel passionately about their importance in bringing wealth and prosperity to our nation.
As the European Union continues to diminish in importance vis-à-vis British exports, so I turn to the middle east and north Africa. I pay tribute to my American intern, Mr Justin King—it is entirely plausible that one day he will become a congressman, and I very much hope so. He is helping me greatly to interview hundreds of small British companies. They are coming from all over the United Kingdom to my office in the House of Commons to show me their evidence and experience of UKTI, and of trying to interact with it.
Before I continue with my speech I want to give three examples of why the MENA area—middle east and north Africa—is so important. I am chairman of two all-party two groups: the Saudi Arabia all-party group, and the all-party group on Libya. When we went to Saudi Arabia, the Saudi King himself admonished me saying that the lack of British exports to that country was regrettable. He said that all our European Union competitors were motoring ahead, and that it was regrettable that the United Kingdom is falling behind our main competitors in exports to Saudi Arabia.
Sixty British companies operate in Tunisia, compared with 1,800 French companies. I will repeat that—60 compared with 1,800. I was the first British Member of Parliament ever to go to Mauritania since its independence in 1960, and almost no British companies export there. We are good at exporting to countries that speak English, but the French-speaking part of the world is almost a vortex for British interests, particularly commercial interests. If this week has shown anything, given the problems in Algeria and Mali, it is that it is essential that we engage with those strategically important countries of north Africa, primarily by assisting our own companies to interact with those countries, and help them with exports, and—vitally—technology transfer.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he also agree that there is a role for promoting our higher education institutions in those countries? My hon. Friend does a great deal, and as Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Wales Office he does a lot for Wales. I am sure he will be aware of the significant and important businesses we could be exporting that originate in our universities in Wales.
Daniel Kawczynski
I concur with my hon. Friend and he reminds me of an important point. Whenever I go to the middle east I see that the British brand is so strong. Because we are British we tend to hide our light under a bushel, but overseas the British brand is incredibly strong—it is sterling, A-plus, gold standard—and people are desperate to buy British.
My hon. Friend is correct. Shrewsbury school, one of the best private schools in the world, is so popular that we cannot accommodate all the foreigners who wish to study there. They have had to build a Shrewsbury school in Bangkok, and there are current negotiations to build another in the middle east. I completely concur with my hon. Friend.
Let me say how important advertising is. I understand there are constraints on Government budgets, and that the Cabinet Office is obviously not keen to loosen the purse strings. There should, however, be a significant increase in the budget for UKTI. I want a nationwide campaign in this country, through the television, media, newspapers, and even product placements in soap operas, by which we constantly inform small and medium-sized companies throughout the country that UKTI exists and that there are opportunities to engage with it and for them to receive support to export.
I still remember the “Tell Sid” campaign in the 1980s to try to get us to buy British Gas. I want such a campaign now—a campaign that people talk about and get excited about.
The best campaign I have experienced in my seven years as a Member of Parliament was Joanna Lumley’s Gurkha campaign. She revolutionised the campaign when she took it over. The media suddenly became extraordinarily interested. I want a national figure—somebody of renowned business intellect and experience, whether Richard Branson or Alan Sugar—to have a programme on television. It could be called “Export Apprentice” rather than just “The Apprentice”. They should also be a guru and a champion and spearhead a nationwide campaign to ensure that our small and medium-sized companies are passionate about exporting.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I will not endorse my hon. Friend’s support for Joanna Lumley, who has inflicted 10,000 elderly Nepalese on my constituency—he will forgive me if I do not hold her up as a role model—but, the Defence and Security Organisation, which is part of UKTI, has magnificent champions in Richard Paniguian, the head of DSO, and his entire team. The UK defence industry owes a huge amount to the energy and enthusiasm of DSO. The Prime Minister, who has been the key champion of defence exports, particularly in the middle east and north Africa regions of which my hon. Friend speaks, has been hugely well supported by UKTI and our noble Friend Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint. DSO is doing a superb job and yielding results.
Daniel Kawczynski
Of course, parts of UKTI are extremely successful. If DSO’s success could be replicated in all other sectors, we will be firing on all cylinders.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the video games industry added £1.4 billion to exports in 2010? Would he support UKTI giving appropriate resource to the creative industries?
Daniel Kawczynski
I concur with my hon. Friend. We should support overseas all the industries that we are good at.
UK export finance is available, but many of the small and medium-sized companies I speak to in my constituency of Shrewsbury are not aware of the export finance support they can get from UKTI.
I asked a very good friend of mine who works in the private sector what he would do if he were promoting business in a country such as the United Arab Emirates, where 130,000 British citizens reside. He said he would put just four people in an office in the UAE and give them the sole task of constantly updating a database of all the public and private sector procurement opportunities in the country. The database would have to be updated daily and constantly reviewed to include not just the large, multi-million pound opportunities, but smaller ones.
The database could be relayed daily to the regional directors of UKTI in the UK. I recently met Paul Noon, the UKTI regional director for the west midlands. The regional directors should in turn create databases of all the companies in their regions, so they understand every company in, for example, the west midlands, and what they can do. Like a telephone switchboard operator, they could then marry up each company in the west midlands to each opportunity identified in the UAE. I know from the discussions I have had with Shrewsbury businesses that they are simply not being told of the opportunities that exist in the UAE. That is just one case in point.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The support I have received from UKTI in the south-west for businesses in my constituency has been fantastic. It put on an export fair with me this summer that attracted more than 90 small businesses in Cornwall. A tea-growing company in my constituency now exports lots of tea to China. Small businesses in Cornwall get a lot of help from UKTI.
Daniel Kawczynski
I am very pleased for my hon. Friend and wish the company every success in exporting tea to China.
UKTI should appreciate these debates. I am proud of its achievements, but of course we should always scrutinise it to see if it can do more. This country became one of the greatest countries in the world through its ability to trade. We are not exporting as much as I would like, which is why it is so important to have these debates, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend has had a positive experience.
I do not want salaries to be just mediocre or okay for UKTI staff—many do a very good job. I want them to be the best, because I want UKTI to recruit the best. I want them to have greater incentives and bonuses to push for trade. My understanding—the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—is that UKTI staff are monitored as a whole, rather than as individuals. It is extremely important that we start to monitor individual performance. When I was in exports, if I did not hit my one-month target there would be problems; if I did not hit the two-month target, there would be serious problems; if I did not hit the three-month target, I would be out of a job. We have that pressure in the private sector, and it focuses the mind on delivering what is expected. I hope we can bring that private sector focus to UKTI.
I mentioned co-ordination across the country. I am the chair of two all-party groups: for Saudi Arabia and for Libya. Not once have I ever been contacted, in seven years, by anybody in UKTI about all of my delegations to Saudi Arabia and Libya—not on a proactive basis anyway. We, as parliamentarians, do an important job when we go to such countries. We meet important officials and leaders, so it is important for UKTI to understand all-party groups. Some are very active and UKTI should be engaging with us to find out what we are doing and try to have a common approach.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman see that it is the export not just of UK products, but of skills that help to increase business in Libya and the other countries in the middle east to which he has referred?
Daniel Kawczynski
I spent the afternoon with His Excellency Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, the former Libyan Prime Minister, who, with his counterparts, bravely brought about the revolution. He said the very same thing to me: that they are desperate for British skills, not just exported goods. They desperately need our experts in the fields of banking, commerce, education and health care. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
The Prime Minister has started to appoint trade ambassadors and I have not heard from any of them so far, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who I think has been appointed to look after Indonesia. He is not in the Chamber at the moment, but I pay tribute to how he has been trying to engage with parliamentarians in a proactive way, and explaining what he is doing with companies from across the UK. He is helping them to enter Indonesia, and encouraging other hon. Members with companies that could benefit from participating. The Middle East Association and the Arab British Chamber of Commerce are also acutely involved in exports to the middle east. I hope that the Minister will give me an assurance that efforts will be redoubled to co-ordinate with all trade ambassadors, all-party parliamentary groups, the MEA and the ABCC to ensure that we have a co-ordinated approach as one country with one strategy, with all of us who are interested in exports consulted and utilised constantly to update our constituents on all the opportunities that exist.
I have come across instances where business has been lost in the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and other countries, when business men from those countries have wished to come to the United Kingdom to visit a particular project or institution—to see whether it is appropriate to build in their country or whether their company has the calibre to undertake such a project—and their visas have been rejected. As a result, the business has been lost, obviously to the great annoyance of the host country and the business people involved. There must be greater co-ordination between UKTI and the Home Office to ensure that visas are granted to the genuine business men from all over the middle east who are trying to come to the United Kingdom either for training courses or to look at projects and companies.
UKTI is good at high-value opportunities. As I have said, I recently had the privilege of meeting Paul Noon, the director of UKTI in the west midlands. I applaud the work that UKTI does and I am grateful to the Minister for all his efforts. In my view, there has been a radical shift over the last two and a half years. The Prime Minister has said that he wants our embassies to be shop windows for British businesses. To a degree, I can see a vast improvement in our embassies. A lot of that is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues who have ensured that all the people at our embassies, from the ambassadors downwards, are focused on supporting small and medium-sized companies to export overseas to the middle east and north Africa, but too many of these opportunities are the really big ones. We need a massively increased focus, drilling down in every MENA country to the smallest of opportunities, no matter how small. We also need the sharing of information between all British companies. We are very bad at exchanging information with one another in this country compared with our European Union counterparts.
This debate follows the last one, almost a year on. My colleague Mr Justin King and I are writing a report—it will go to every Member of Parliament, including the Prime Minister—about the real experiences of small and medium-sized companies and their feedback. I very much hope that the Minister will give me an assurance that he and his Department will take seriously that report and our passion for increasing British exports.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this important debate and putting on record his dedication not just to his constituency, but to driving the UK’s recovery by rebalancing the economy, based on export-driven recovery. He was absolutely right to highlight at the beginning of his speech the importance of the progress made since May 2010, with the refocusing of the Foreign Office on the prosperity agenda and the refocusing of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the strategy of pursuing an export-led recovery.
My hon. Friend was also right to highlight some of the progress made in exporting expertise, particularly in responding to our hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) about its importance in the education sector, and also in discussing other key areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham was right to point out that the UK is highly regarded elsewhere in the world, not just in traditional Anglophone countries, but in the French-speaking world, in which I travel quite extensively given my additional and other responsibilities in Africa. He was also right to imply that more needs to be done. We certainly should not rest on our laurels, but ensure that we are maximising the opportunities for UK businesses elsewhere in the world.
The support provided to businesses by UKTI has created significant economic benefits since May 2010. Indeed, some £45.6 billion-worth of total additional sales have resulted from UKTI assistance. In 2011-12, UKTI support helped firms to create 36,400 jobs and secure a further 68,500 jobs. The role of UKTI is not just to maximise exports, for both large companies and SMEs in the UK, but to persuade foreign companies to invest here in the UK too. In that regard, the UK has benefited from 1,406 inward investment projects in 2011-12 in which UKTI has been involved, which have helped to create or safeguard more than 112,000 jobs in the UK. It is therefore fair to say that UKTI is making a significant contribution to driving the UK’s economic recovery.
I want to say a little about the background—the architecture—against which UKTI operates. In early 2011, the Government published the White Paper “Trade and Investment for Growth”, which outlined our commitment to an open trading system and to removing barriers and supporting UK firms that wished to export. The Government’s “Plan for Growth”, which was published at the time of the 2011 Budget, linked the policy objectives for greater global trade to our economic aim of providing a climate that would help businesses to grow and prosper. The key objective was to encourage investment in exports as a route to a more balanced economy.
Some of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised are particularly pertinent. It might help his constituents and others who are unaware of the opportunities that UKTI offers to know that those opportunities are posted on the UKTI website, and that companies can sign up to alerts for any opportunities that might be relevant to them. I would certainly be happy to provide him with details of how to access that information, which he can pass on to the relevant businesses in his constituency.
My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of the Prime Minister’s appointment of trade ambassadors. I can give him an assurance that all the trade ambassadors—not just my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham)—are very significantly engaged in the countries for which they are responsible. Many of them have already made visits, and many are planning—with the missions on the ground as well as with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—to lead trade delegations to those countries.
It is also important to put on record that the Government are seeking a transformation of the UK’s export and inward investment performance—so much so that, in November 2011, the Prime Minister and the relevant Minister, the excellent Lord Green, launched the national export challenge, to encourage more SMEs to export. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, in some markets, the UK is below the EU average percentage of exporting SMEs. We want to see it achieve at least that level, if not higher. To that end, the Prime Minister has set the extremely ambitious target of getting another 100,000 companies exporting by 2020 and doubling UK exports to £1 trillion.
However, UKTI cannot deliver the Government’s ambition to transform the UK’s export and inward investment performance alone. It is working in close co-operation with the rest of Government and particularly with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Outreach with business intermediaries such as banks, lawyers and accountants is also playing a major role. We aim to access their client bases to help businesses to expand into key markets.
My hon. Friend also raised the important subject of marketing. He will understand the very challenging—to put it politely—macro-economic situation that we inherited, and it was absolutely right that when we came into office, we looked at every aspect of Government expenditure to ensure that UK taxpayers’ money was being spent properly and that we could make a significant inroad into the huge deficit that we inherited. That does not mean, however, that we have been unable to persuade the Cabinet Office, which is the responsible Department, to put in place marketing budgets when and where appropriate. Perhaps the best example is the “Great” campaign, which was linked to the Olympics and to our Olympic legacy. I can inform the House that that campaign has had a significant positive impact, persuading businesses based abroad to invest here and enabling our missions abroad to persuade UK companies to invest elsewhere in the world.
Indeed, the House has played its part, too, with Members of Parliament hosting seminars in their constituencies to highlight the opportunities that exporting can offer businesses, especially to small and medium-sized enterprises. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) who has played such a significant role in engaging and encouraging MPs across the House to hold such meetings in their constituencies. If Members either here this evening or reading the debate in Hansard tomorrow are interested, I would urge them to contact my hon. Friend who will provide them with the information necessary to enable them to hold such meetings in their constituencies.
That is not all. Last August, the Government announced additional support to help UK businesses. There will be more money available for SMEs to attend trade shows abroad, and I very much hope that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham will access this funding. There will also be increased support available for travel on overseas missions. Substantial discounts will be available and will be offered through the Overseas Market Introduction Service, which provides targeted research to help businesses find those first crucial contacts in the markets. In addition, the autumn statement provided a further resource allocation of £70 million a year for the next two years.
This package of support will play an important role in helping realise the Government’s ambitions, by building up the capacity and capability of the British Chambers of Commerce overseas, where we lag behind competitors such as the Germans. Lord Green has made this a personal crusade, and I am 100% supportive of the direction of travel. It is focused initially on 20 pilot chambers in key export markets. Once again, I very much hope that my hon. Friend’s constituents will engage with this excellent new initiative.
Increasing the number of international trade advisers in the English regions is a key part of how the money will be spent, offering additional funds to SMEs with high-growth potential, enabling more companies successfully to export. I can inform my hon. Friend that some of these advisers are private sector employees, who are performance-related rewarded—exactly the agenda he talked about—and I think that is exactly the right direction in which to go. We hope that this additional funding will double the number of companies given financial support towards the cost of exhibiting at their first overseas trade shows; and double the support for private sector-led project teams campaigning for UK success, by enhancing inward investment support in growth markets, such as the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Russia. I hope that some of that inward investment will end up in my hon. Friend’s constituency. This is also about positioning the UK as the leading location of choice for European headquarters and elite global enterprises, building on the success of Tech City and developing further inward investment campaigns as well as building on the Olympic legacy.
This has been an important debate. My hon. Friend is right to continue the work he is doing to raise the significance of the contribution that UK exports can make to our own UK economic recovery.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hospital Services (South London)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate today, Dr McCrea, and I am very pleased that other hon. Members are here in Westminster Hall to take part in it.
In the two and a half years that I have been the MP for Lewisham East, I have not known an issue to cause as much anger and concern as the proposals that are currently on the table to close the A and E department and the maternity department at Lewisham hospital. I know from my colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd), that in the 20 or so years that they have served the people of Lewisham, they too have not witnessed such outrage and disbelief over an issue.
Lewisham is not the only place in south London where emergency and maternity services are under threat. There has been a long-running dispute about the future of St Helier hospital, and of course changes at any hospital will always impact on neighbouring areas. Patients displaced by the closure of one unit have to go elsewhere. Children who are hurt and elderly people who have had a bad fall do not disappear into thin air; they still need treatment. Mums-to-be still need somewhere to give birth. It is not possible to close and A and E department that sees 115,000 people a year and axe a maternity department in which more than 4,000 babies are born each year and not to expect other hospitals to feel the impact.
This issue affects not only Lewisham but people across south London. The real problem is that there is no free capacity in the other hospitals close by to deal with the demand for hospital services that will be displaced.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and I congratulate her on securing this debate. She is making a very good point about the adverse effect that closing Lewisham hospital will have on neighbouring areas as well, especially, of course, with Queen Mary’s hospital also shutting both its A and E department and its maternity services.
Does the hon. Lady accept that the closure of Lewisham hospital will also have an impact on my constituency, including at Darent Valley hospital, with people seeking out A and E treatment or maternity services? In a hospital such as Darent Valley that already has its own capacity issues, there will be serious repercussions from closing Lewisham hospital—not only for the area that the hon. Lady represents but far beyond.
Heidi Alexander
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I think that there will be a ripple effect across the whole of south-east London and beyond if the A and E department and maternity services at Lewisham hospital close.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I join the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) in congratulating her on securing this debate.
On the impact on neighbouring hospitals, my hon. Friend will be aware of the importance—not only to local people but to London as a whole—of King’s College hospital. Is she also aware that the effective closing of maternity and A and E services at Lewisham hospital will hit like a tidal wave at King’s College hospital, because of the numbers of people involved. The health service estimate is that the number of people at King’s College A and E will increase by 45%. The staff at King’s College A and E do a very good job, but they will not be able to cope with a 45% increase in patients. The additional emergency admissions from that increased number of people at A and E will create such a strain on in-patient beds that the proposal is that in-patients—non-emergency admissions—will have to be shipped off to Farnborough hospital, which is an hour away on a bus and a train from Camberwell.
As for maternity services, the situation is even more pronounced, with a 54% increase envisaged in the number of women giving birth at King’s College hospital. The staff there simply cannot cope with that increase. At the moment, many women are turned away and told to go—guess where?—to Lewisham hospital.
Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)
The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) will know that interventions must be short. Certainly, however, the point she makes is well made.
Heidi Alexander
My right hon. and learned friend encapsulates the issues in relation to King’s College hospital perfectly.
The fact of the matter is that millions of pounds will have to be spent at neighbouring hospitals to enable them to do the job that doctors and nurses at Lewisham hospital are already doing very well. Roughly £200 million has to be spent on making those changes happen, and that is not to mention the £12 million that has just been spent on Lewisham hospital’s A and E department.
In my view, this process is sheer madness. I do not think that there is any guarantee that money will be spent in the right places. If the predictions about where people will go after the closure of the A and E department and maternity department at Lewisham hospital are not right, we will end up spending money on the wrong hospitals. That could result in complete chaos. I cannot see the sense in the proposal, and neither can thousands upon thousands of people in south-east London.
The proposed closure of Lewisham’s A and E department and maternity department would also mean that two thirds of the building and land at Lewisham hospital would be sold off. These plans were hidden in an appendix to the initial proposals document, which was first published at the end of October last year.
I cannot overstate the opposition to these plans. More than 40,000 people have signed a petition against the closures; not one Lewisham GP is in favour of the changes; and the chair of the local commissioning group is also opposed to them. Put simply, these changes are unwanted.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I will make a short intervention, Dr McCrea, so that I do not get a finger-wagging from you. Frankly, GPs should be in support of these changes; support from GPs is one of the conditions that is a requirement for such changes. If they are not in support of these changes in Lewisham, that is a big problem.
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, referring to the four tests for service reconfigurations that his own Government have said must be met if changes are to be made. GPs in Lewisham are opposed to these changes, and they have been very vocal in making their case.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I join others in congratulating her on securing this extremely timely debate. She said a few moments ago that she did not understand where this plan had come from. Has she considered that it is merely a rehash of the scheme that NHS London tried to get past the “Picture of Health” review four or five years ago but failed miserably, both in the review itself and in the subsequent re-examination by Professor Sir George Alberti, and that in its death throes—NHS London only has a few months before it is extinguished by this Government—it is trying to get through the scheme to reduce hospitals in south London from five to four, and for no other reason than that it thinks that that reduction should happen?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend has a long history of working and campaigning on health issues in south-east London, and I agree with his analysis that the scheme that he refers to may have been one of the places from which these proposals for Lewisham hospital emerged. I said earlier that these changes are unwanted. In addition, I want to say today that they are also unfair, unsafe and unjustified. I will now take a few minutes to tell Members why that is the case.
Why are these proposals unfair? The closure of Lewisham’s A and E department and its maternity department has been recommended to the Secretary of State for Health by the special administrator to the South London Healthcare NHS Trust. In July last year, the special administrator was appointed to the trust, which is made up of the three hospitals to the east and south of Lewisham—Woolwich, Sidcup and Farnborough hospitals. The administrator’s job was to find a way to balance the trust’s books. It was the first time that a special administrator had ever been appointed in the NHS, and the first time that the unsustainable providers regime—that is, the process for sorting out failing hospital trusts—has been used anywhere in the country.
The trust had, and still has, serious financial problems. I should be clear: Lewisham is not part of the trust; nor does it share the trust’s financial problems. Lewisham hospital is a solvent and successful hospital. Its management has worked hard during the past five to 10 years to improve standards of care and to make the hospital more efficient. Yet, because Lewisham hospital is next to the South London Healthcare NHS Trust, because it has only a modest private finance initiative, so there are not as many constraints on the site as on the two big PFI hospitals at Woolwich and Farnborough, and possibly because of its location in relation to surrounding hospitals, the special administrator decided to recommend the closure of its A and E and maternity departments.
As I said, the draft proposals were published at the end of October. There ensued six weeks of the worst public consultation that I have ever seen. There was no direct mailing to the people affected, and there were opaque and complicated questions in the consultation document. There was not even a direct question about the closure of Lewisham A and E. To add insult to injury, there was no question at all about the sale of the land at the hospital.
Not only are my constituents up in arms about the so-called consultation, but they are rightly asking how Lewisham got dragged into this. Why does it have to pay such a heavy price for financial failures elsewhere? How can it be right that a process set up to sort out financial problems in a failing trust has led to services being cut at a separate, well-performing, financially stable hospital? I cannot answer those questions; nor can I explain why such a significant reconfiguration of emergency and maternity services is being proposed.
The statutory guidance to trust special administrators and the written statement that the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), made to the House when he enacted the special administration regime last summer clearly state that the process should not be used as a back-door approach to service reconfiguration. I laughed out loud when I read those words in the statutory guidance, because that is exactly what is happening in south London. If closing A and E and maternity departments is not a service reconfiguration, I honestly do not know what is.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate on the hospital, which my constituents share with hers. When I brought the current Secretary of State for Health to the House to answer an urgent question, he seemed to imply that, in fact, reconfiguration is a major consideration. He said that giving details at that stage
“would prejudice my duty to consider the recommendations with care and reach a decision…I have made it clear that any solution would need to satisfy the four tests outlined by the Prime Minister…with respect to any major reconfigurations”.—[Official Report, 8 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 169.]
The Secretary of State clearly does believe that reconfiguration is a major consideration. The next day, I asked the Prime Minister about the four tests, and he said:
“I specifically promised…there should be no closures or reorganisations unless they had support from the GP commissioners, unless there was proper public and patient engagement and unless there was an evidence base.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 313-14.]
My hon. Friend will agree that none of those tests is met in the trust special administrator’s proposals.
Heidi Alexander
I do agree, and it would be incredibly helpful if the Minister confirmed when she responds to the debate that the four tests would apply to any changes made as a result of the TSA’s recommendations.
The thing that really sticks in my throat about the proposals to shut Lewisham’s A and E and maternity departments is that they are fundamentally driven by money. If we start by saying that a process is being set up to sort out the financial woes of part of the NHS, how can people ever have any confidence that the clinical input and so-called clinical evidence that come later have not just been moulded to suit the accountants’ bottom line, which was there from the off?
I appreciate that there are financial pressures in the NHS, and I accept that it cannot be preserved in aspic for ever. For example, I support the recent changes to the way in which emergency care in London is provided for major trauma, heart attacks and stroke. However, where is the evidence that the changes on the table will result in more lives being saved and better health care overall?
That brings me to my second main point: the changes are not only unwanted and unfair but unsafe. It is proposed to replace the A and E at Lewisham with an urgent care centre. Initially, the special administrator told us that the centre would see 77% of the people who currently go to the A and E. In his final report, that was revised down to 50%. Based on an analysis of their case load, doctors at Lewisham suggest that the figure would be closer to 30%, so who is right? GPs in Lewisham, including the chair of the clinical commissioning group, suggest that the number of people who would go to an urgent care centre at Lewisham has been overestimated. They suggest that they would be inclined to send people to hospitals where they knew specialist opinion was available.
If I was a mum and my five-year-old woke up in the middle of the night in dreadful pain, where would I go? Would I go to a place that I was not sure had the appropriate staff and equipment to deal with my son or daughter, or would I go to an all-singing, all-dancing unit in central London or at King’s? I am not a mum, but I know where I would go. If people do not use the urgent care centre, the extra demands placed on neighbouring A and Es will exceed the numbers forecast in the plans before the Health Secretary. Ultimately, there may not be enough capacity elsewhere for people to be seen and to be seen quickly.
I should add to that the heroic assumptions in the proposals about reducing the need for acute care in the first place. I am all for tackling the reasons why so many people turn up at hospitals, but I know how hard it is to change people’s behaviour and to organise adequate community-based care to reduce the need for acute admissions.
Dame Joan Ruddock
One hallmark of the work at Lewisham hospital is that extremely important steps have been taken to integrate with community care. That is relevant for the elderly, who may have to be admitted for a short time before going back into the community, and for the young people with mental health problems, who need there to be integration between those who see them when they have an episode and those who receive them back into the community. All that will be lost if the proposals go ahead.
Heidi Alexander
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight those issues. I would add that the close working between Lewisham hospital and Lewisham council on child protection has been recognised across the country, and I would not want that to be compromised in any way if the proposals go ahead.
I fear that other A and Es will end up hopelessly overstretched, resulting in worse care for my constituents and many other people in south London. I am also concerned that although clinical evidence exists for centralising some emergency care, such as that for those who are involved in bad traffic accidents or who have suffered a stroke, I have seen nothing showing that better outcomes can be achieved by centralising care for other medical emergencies.
When I was in my 20s, my brother got bacterial meningitis. When he arrived in hospital, after an initial incorrect diagnosis by a GP, the hospital doctors said he had got there just in time—a few more minutes and he might not have survived. He had to have a lumbar puncture taken, and it was only after getting the results that he could be treated. It was one of the worst days of my life seeing a grown man lying in a hospital bed. We were unable to do anything, and we did not know what the problem was. That is why I worry about how long it takes people to get to A and E.
Closing the A and E at Lewisham will mean longer journeys for people who need access to emergency care. It is said that, in a real emergency, people will be in an ambulance, and that may be so, but anyone who lives in south-east London and who has ever been stuck in a traffic jam on the south circular will know how hard it can be, even for ambulances, to get through.
I have spoken at length about the plans to shut the A and E at Lewisham, but may I also raise the impact of the proposed closure of the maternity department? The A and E and maternity departments at any hospital are intrinsically linked. Sometimes things go wrong in labour, even with supposedly low-risk births, and emergency support needs to be available there and then to sort out problems.
More than 4,000 babies are born each year at Lewisham. There has been an 11% increase in the number of births at the hospital over the past five years, and the birth rate is rising. Unlike other health services, maternity care cannot be rationed or restricted. Nationally, we are witnessing the highest birth rate for 40 years—it is particularly high in areas such as Lewisham—and the Government want to close a popular and much needed maternity department.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government do not want anything at all at this stage, and that the Secretary of State has not made, and will not make, a decision until 1 February?
Heidi Alexander
I acknowledge that a decision has yet to be taken, and I take this opportunity to press the Minister to confirm that the decision will be taken on 1 February. If it will be taken before then, it would be useful to know. We are here to present the case for refusing the recommendation.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has been making a powerful case. I want to pick up on the Minister’s interjection to the effect that no decision has yet been made and to reinforce my hon. Friend’s point that if changes as fundamental as those proposed in the trust special administrator’s report are introduced but are not safe and do not have clinicians’ true support, we run the risk of repeating the very mistakes of the last reconfiguration, which created South London Healthcare NHS Trust, and which proved not to be as financially sound as was expected when it was proposed. That is a real risk, and I hope that the Minister will pay attention to it.
Heidi Alexander
My right hon. Friend has consistently made that point in the House, and I totally agree.
It is a fact that maternity services in south London are under enormous pressure. In the 20 months between April 2011 and November 2012 providers of maternity services across south-east London suspended services on 37 occasions. Women in labour were therefore turned away from hospitals and told that they would have to go elsewhere. Of those 37 suspensions, 26 were necessary because of lack of beds. King’s College hospital also tried to suspend services on a further six occasions, but was unable to do so as no other unit had capacity to accept the women it was trying to transfer.
Bob Stewart
As the father of six children, I can tell the House from experience that nothing is more upsetting for a lady who is about to give birth than being shipped around when she tries to get into hospital. That is deeply upsetting to someone at such a fraught time in their life.
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Gentleman makes his point incredibly well.
Just a few weeks ago, both King’s and Woolwich were sending women to Lewisham to give birth. Women should be able to give birth at their local hospital and should not have to go to one hospital for the antenatal appointments only to have to go somewhere else to give birth. With high numbers of teenage pregnancies and a higher than average proportion of older mums in places such as Lewisham that is doubly important. The proposal for a midwife-led birthing unit at Lewisham is not a genuine option for any woman who wants to give birth safe in the knowledge that she would have back-up obstetric support if it were needed. I am told that that would not be an option for first-time mums. If I were to have a baby in two years’ time, I would not be able to go to Lewisham. The report tries to convince me that I would have greater choice, but that is just a joke.
One of my main concerns about the proposals for maternity services relates to where, and to what extent, capacity will be enhanced at other hospitals to deal with the mums who would otherwise have gone to Lewisham. The proposals before the Secretary of State assume a relatively even redistribution of women from Lewisham to King’s, the Queen Elizabeth hospital Woolwich and the Princess Royal university hospital in Farnborough. However, historically, when Lewisham women have not given birth at Lewisham, their main hospitals of choice have clearly been King’s and St Thomas’s. If more women go to those hospitals, projected births there could exceed 8,000 a year. Those would be really big maternity departments, potentially requiring a double rota of staff and consultants to deal with them. The cost of a double rota in maternity units at King’s and St Thomas’s is not accounted for in the plans before the Secretary of State.
Jim Dowd
On that very point, does my hon. Friend accept that the trust special administrator has deliberately manipulated the figures, in both the draft and final reports, to mask the fact that the proposal would push King’s at least and probably Queen Elizabeth hospital, Woolwich as well over the 8,000 births a year mark?
Heidi Alexander
I do not know whether the trust special administrator has deliberately manipulated figures, but the way that the figures have been presented looks quite suspicious.
The plans are completely unjustified. There has been much talk in recent weeks of the need for things to do what it says on the tin. The metaphorical tin with respect to the recommendations of the trust special administrator presumably says it will resolve the financial problems of the South London Healthcare NHS Trust and put the health economy in south-east London on a stable footing. I do not think the proposals before us do that. It will be necessary to spend £195 million on a one-off basis to make changes at hospitals in south London, to deal with the displaced demand for A and E and maternity care that will result from the closure of services at Lewisham. It is not clear to me where that money is coming from: which Department of Health budget is it to come from? Has the Treasury approved that non-recurrent expenditure? If it has not approved the required capital outlay, the plans fall apart. Perhaps the Minister can deal with that point.
The changes to the Lewisham site would involve demolition of the recently refurbished A and E, so that the land could be sold. Long after the A and E was knocked down, the hospital would still be paying £400,000 a year in loan repayments for the £12 million it borrowed to make the improvements. That is a bit like someone taking out a loan to do up their kitchen and knocking down that part of the house while still paying money back to the bank.
Another big question relates to the continuing year in, year out costs of the changes. The possibility of a double maternity shift at King’s and St Thomas’s, which I have mentioned, is just one example, and would surely add hugely to the bill. How much would it cost to implement a community-based care strategy to reduce the need for hospital services? Where is the money coming from?
If the proposed changes to A and E and maternity care in south-east London cannot be justified financially, do not result in better health outcomes and are unfair and unwanted, why on earth are we here to debate them today? The Government have consistently said that changes will not be made unless four specific tests are met, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) have mentioned. In the present case, the tests are not met. The chair of the local commissioning group is opposed to the changes, as are virtually all Lewisham GPs. The process should result in strengthened patient and public involvement, but the current process has resulted in strengthened disillusionment among the public, and little else. Proposals should be based on a sound clinical evidence base—but the evidence base in the present case is virtually non-existent. It is also stated that the Government will not make changes to such major services unless doing so will strengthen and improve patient choice; the special administrator’s own report recognises that the proposals will result in a weakening of patient choice.
As I said earlier, the proposals are unwanted, unfair, unsafe and unjustified. Last week the NHS Commissioning Board announced a review of emergency care, to be led by the NHS medical director, Sir Bruce Keogh. I welcome that review, but what is the point of it if the Government are just going to push ahead with their proposals in south London? The chaotic handling of the process in Lewisham cannot be right. It rides roughshod over the wishes of the community and local clinicians. For the life of me, I cannot see how it is in the best interests of my constituents or the people of south London. I urge the Minister to reject these rushed and ill-conceived plans and to do as her party’s manifesto says:
“stop the forced closure of A and E and maternity wards, so that people have better access to local services”.
I am not asking for better access; I am just asking for the access that currently exists for people in Lewisham to be maintained.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
This is an important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on her speech, on securing the debate and, with her colleagues in Lewisham, on co-ordinating an effective and well argued campaign.
Along with all other south London colleagues, I have long taken an interest in health service matters, including reconfiguration. I have the scars of the battle to keep Guy’s hospital open, which we managed to do, although we lost A and E. I have often joined my neighbours, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell), to ensure that King’s College hospital improved, which, thank goodness, it has. But I have a more direct interest: my constituents on the eastern edge of my constituency in the SE8 postal district and along the edge of the boundary with Lewisham often go to Lewisham hospital, rather than to King’s or to Guy’s and St Thomas’s. Of my remaining constituents who use hospital services, some go to the Royal London hospital across the river, but most go either to Guy’s and St Tommy’s or to King’s, and the report makes it clear that there would be a major impact, particularly on King’s, if the proposals go ahead.
Obviously, legislation initiated by the previous Government and passed by the previous Parliament anticipated problems in a part of the NHS. Although Labour understood that need, the legislation has not needed to be implemented until now. The legislation has been implemented—to be honest, those of us in other parts of south-east London knew this—because there was a history of bad financial management in the outer south-east London boroughs and in South London Healthcare NHS Trust. We know that to our cost because, twice to my certain knowledge, the health budgets further in—in our parts of south-east London—had to be top-sliced to fund other bits of London, even though they are more affluent and we are less affluent, because of poor management elsewhere. There was better management both in my borough and in Lewisham.
Dame Joan Ruddock
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who was Secretary of State when the Health Act 2009 was passed, has made it clear that there was never any intention to use the legislation to address major reconfigurations. The legislation was meant to address a financial problem in a specific trust and not to encompass other trusts. Does the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) agree that we need to consider the NHS London-wide? That is where we must find solutions to the financial problems of one trust, quite differently from this particular case. The trust special administrator clearly could not find a solution by considering just the South London Healthcare NHS Trust, but we cannot have the inappropriate procedure that has now been adopted.
Simon Hughes
The right hon. Lady, who is my neighbour, raises an important issue. With the help of the Library, I have carefully examined the whole debate on the passage of the legislation, and that issue was not addressed. If she looks back at the debates and the notes on the National Health Service Act 2006, they are silent on whether a trust special administrator could or could not make recommendations that go beyond a trust. That may not have been in the mind of her colleague, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who is a former Secretary of State, but he did not say that on the parliamentary record, although I stand to be corrected. It seems to be an open question.
The current Secretary of State told us that he has had legal advice and that he will take further legal advice, but whether or not the legal advice is that the trust special administrator can go beyond the boundaries of the area affected, there is a stronger argument for the Secretary of State not following the trust special administrator’s recommendation—and that argument starts from the legacy of the last general election in terms of the parties in government and the coalition agreement on how to deal with closures of A and E, and not doing so from the top downwards.
Secondly, the Government have set up the four tests, to which the hon. Member for Lewisham East referred and which have not been met. The Secretary of State has been handed this matter on a plate; it is not of his doing and I am sure it is the last thing he would have wished for. The announcement that the trust was going into special administration was made by his predecessor, and the current Secretary of State has been given a report by someone he did not appoint but with whom he now has to work. He has no choice. He has to deal with it, but he made it clear in his answer to the urgent question from the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford that the four tests, which both he and the Prime Minister have cited, must be met.
The first test—that the proposals must be supported by GP commissioners—fails before we even get to the other three. I have no reason to believe that a single GP commissioner in Lewisham is supportive—GPs elsewhere in London might be found but they implicitly do not comment—the whole idea of the proposal seems to be that if we are handing NHS decisions from the top to the doctors, we must do things that the doctors agree are the right decisions. So the proposal falls at that first hurdle.
Jim Dowd
Should I catch your eye later, Dr McCrea, I will address the four principles in more detail.
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) says that the Secretary of State’s predecessor set up the four tests, but does he not accept that one of the previous Secretary of State’s first acts just after the 2010 general election was to suspend the implementation of the “A Picture of Health” process that the South London Healthcare NHS Trust was undertaking? I am not saying that the process would necessarily have led to success, but its suspension undeniably made the trust’s task unbelievably more difficult.
Simon Hughes
I do not dispute that. I am not as close to the process as the hon. Gentleman. I did not follow those issues as closely, because the process did not directly affect my borough, although it directly affected his. I have taken advice from someone who has been involved over the years at Lewisham hospital and in NHS management, and the history of financial poor management in the South London Healthcare NHS Trust stretches back over 10 years. The advice I have received is that poor management should have been gripped seven or eight years ago, but the problems escalated. We are in our present position because of a legacy of poor decisions made over effectively a decade. Things might have been rescued by the Government at the beginning of this Parliament, but they clearly were not and we are left in our present position.
I have a few comments, and I do not want to take time from other colleagues who have a direct interest. I responded to the consultation to make clear the interests of my constituents. The Secretary of State invited those of us with an interest to see him, and we are grateful for that invitation, which we used, I hope, to put our case effectively. The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham and I, and those MPs whose constituents use King’s, have written to the Secretary of State further to that meeting to make clear our concerns about the impact on King’s of any closure of Lewisham A and E, irrespective of the change in maternity services.
There is an alternative approach, which I commend to the Secretary of State. I hope he understands the benefit of going down the alternative route, rather than following the trust special administrator’s recommendations. The alternative, which we explored at our meeting and which I do not believe was adequately answered by the trust special administrator or his colleagues, is that five of the six recommendations—excluding recommendation 5 on the site configuration—leave open the option of amalgamating NHS management between Lewisham and Greenwich. NHS management could then be allowed to work out the best configuration of services across the two boroughs in consultation with, and with the confidence of, the local authorities in question, which now have direct responsibility through health and wellbeing boards under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and in conjunction with GPs to seek GP commissioning endorsement and support. I hope there would be much more public support than for the present proposal, as is understandable.
I hope that the Secretary of State will find that to be an appropriate solution. It may have a small financial disadvantage over the present proposals but, as the hon. Member for Lewisham East said in her speech and as she and her colleagues from Lewisham have made clear in their letters to the Secretary of State, the TSA’s figures show a financial gap of only £1.7 million from a break-even position if recommendation 5 were not to be followed, compared with a financial gap of £75.6 million if the recommendations were followed. There are knock-on effects, but we seem to be talking about a sufficiently small amount of money, with little risk of any other financially adverse impact, and if people are motivated to reach a conclusion quickly, that must be a much more satisfactory way of proceeding and much more in line with the four tests set out.
Dame Joan Ruddock
I wanted to give the right hon. Gentleman those figures, so I am glad he has put them on the record, because they are significant. Furthermore, there is real willingness in Lewisham, from the hospital, the GPs, the consultants and all the staff, to work for some kind of merger or co-operation with Woolwich that would reduce costs. Everyone is willing and happy to explore that, but in the right circumstances, in the right time frame and with appropriate consultation, which is what has been missing from the process.
Simon Hughes
I have no reason to disbelieve what the right hon. Lady says, but even more important is returning the decision to the people in the health service who are now meant to be leading it—the GP commissioners and others. That is what all of us, in different ways, believe needs to be done. She made an argument for the issue being London-wide, and that of course is the context, but the practicalities of travel and transport, whether buses, cabs, cars and trains, are such that south-east London works as a segment for health service use in a way that does not really cross over into other parts of London, other than to King’s. The only knock-on bits are the small amount of crossover to the London hospitals for specialist reasons, and some to King’s because it is so near—technically, it is south-east London, but it is in Lambeth.
Secondly, the precedent would be a bad one to set for those parts of the NHS that have been financially well managed, compared with parts that have been badly managed. Lewisham has been relatively well managed, being very nearly in balance. We rely on trusts to do their job locally and on people to manage local trusts, so we have to support those who do that job well and responsibly.
My last point is probably the most important. I have been to Lewisham A and E and visited patients there privately. It and the maternity services have developed a reputation for good clinical care of all who attend it. That was not the case some years ago, but it has been worked on, and not only physically. It has become a university teaching hospital, as well as being a local general hospital, and it has good community links—the point made by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford in her intervention. It has also built up a good reputation for integrating acute care, hospital-centred care, with community provision.
The Secretary of State could take the clinically easy decision to follow the trust administrator’s recommendation, saying, “This is what has been recommended, therefore I am following what I have been told”, but I hope that he realises the greater benefits to the local community and to the wider health economy and service of south-east London, as well as to the Government if they are seen to be listening to the people and to the GPs more than to the trust special administrator. I understand why the trust special administrator takes a hard line, because he is a health economist and his interest is finance. The Health Secretary, however, has a different job, which is to be responsible for the NHS in England, and that means making responsible decisions to secure a good NHS in all parts of south London and elsewhere.
Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)
I will be commencing the winding-up speeches at 10.40 am at the latest. Three Members are seeking to catch my eye, so I ask them please to be conscious of that in their contributions, because I would like to get as many Members in as possible.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I will attempt to be brief, Dr McCrea, given your exhortation and out of consideration for my colleagues.
I do not think that the Secretary of State for Health will proceed with the proposed plan, because it is so far off the rails. It is such a ludicrous proposition, so ridiculous in its scope and even its intent and such a shoddy piece of work, frankly, that the Secretary of State will not be so foolish as to proceed with it, even if he can blame his predecessor for lumbering him with it. We have to recognise the threat, however, and to do what we can to make the case against it. That is why, after 10,000 people turned up on the 24 November to march past the hospital to protest against the plan to downgrade—to eviscerate—Lewisham hospital, rather more will be out again this Saturday, marching past the hospital to Mansfield park in Catford, to express what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) described as anger, although I go beyond that.
My hon. Friend was kind enough to mention that I have been in this place 20—now almost 21—years, but I was also involved with Lewisham council for 20 years before I came here, and, without doubt, the hospital proposal has raised more fury than anger—more so than any other local issue in all the 40-plus years that I have been involved in public life in Lewisham, even more than the madcap scheme of the Department for Transport under the now Lord Parkinson to further the south circular assessment study. That scheme had recommended widening the south circular to six lanes throughout, with eight lanes in some parts, right the way through the middle of Lewisham. People thought that was mad enough, but that pales into insignificance compared with the public response to the proposals that we are discussing.
What fuels the fury is not the incoherence of the plans, or even the gross financial assumptions—I have heard people call them heroic, but some of the claims are lunatic, and in pursuit of so little—but the sense of injustice, the unfairness of the scheme. Lewisham hospital, as in the recent past, has a strong commitment to safety, quality and patient experience. It has been rated in the top 40 hospitals nationally by CHKS—for clinical effectiveness, patient safety and so on—and has a strong record in achieving national and local performance targets. It is operationally lean, the reference costs index making it the most efficient trust in south-east London, delivering financial surpluses in each of the past six years—Guy’s and St Thomas’s trust, King’s College trust and, obviously, the South London Healthcare NHS Trust have not done that.
Our hospital has achieved the successful integration of acute and community services, fostering strong links with social care, and the people of Lewisham are already reaping the benefits. It has the reputation for strong and successful partnerships, so much so that many of the people at the Queen Elizabeth look forward to Lewisham management taking over to build links with commissioners, local GPs, the local authority, patients and staff.
Lewisham hospital, or University Hospital Lewisham, now part of the Lewisham Healthcare NHS Trust, with NHS London’s encouragement, was actively pursuing a foundation trust application when the process we are discussing interrupted and completely derailing that application. People are furious at the injustice precisely because Lewisham hospital has done everything in the services that it provides that could reasonably be expected of it by the Department and particularly by the people of Lewisham.
I want Lewisham hospital to survive as an institution, but I am not desperately keen on institutions for their own sake, important as they are. I am more interested in the services that they provide for the people they serve, and the hospital’s record is exemplary. To see that destroyed and devastated by the vandalism of the trust special administrator process is more than most reasonable people can stand or accept.
I have been inundated, as I am sure have my colleagues, with information from various quarters, and all has been hostile. One note from a constituent—I will not be too specific as I do not want to identify her, but she is a clinician at Queen Elizabeth hospital—who did not support the closure but does not want Lewisham hospital to be destroyed, said that the position at Queen Elizabeth hospital is dire, and needs strong leadership and a clear sense of direction and purpose, so that it too can provide the services that the people of Bexley, Greenwich and Bromley deserve. If the closure of A and E at Lewisham hospital goes ahead, 750,000 people in Bexley, Greenwich and Lewisham will have a single A and E department available. That would not be safe by any stretch of the imagination.
I can do no better than to quote an e-mail that I received just yesterday from the GP team in neighbourhood 4 of the Lewisham general practitioners clinical commissioning group that makes the case well. The group covers practices in Bellingham Green, Sydenham Green, Sydenham road, the Vale, Wells Park in Woolstone road, and the Jenner, which is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and just the other side of the south circular road on the boundary between our constituencies. It says that closing
“the A and E will hit the elderly, disabled…and children of single parents disproportionately”
and that
“although an urgent care centre…will persist, its use its use will decline significantly as neither patients nor clinicians will have confidence to use an UCC unsupported by acute medical and surgical care”.
My right hon. Friend made that point elegantly. The e-mail continues:
“Loss of obstetric service will result in women in labour having to attend a different provider from their antenatal care, few women will choose this option, as both patients and clinicians are aware of the increased risk of disjointed maternity care and find it emotionally unsettling.”
It also says:
“The projected flows of patients are inaccurate and therefore so are the costings, our Primary Care survey across Lewisham showed 80%+ of patients would attend Kings, 10% St Thomas, 6%”
Princess Royal university hospital, Farnborough, and that only 4% of those currently attending Lewisham A and E would go to Queen Elizabeth hospital at Woolwich.
Bob Stewart
The point about going to Farnborough is that it is a heck of a long way from Lewisham, which makes it difficult. Public transport to Farnborough is not acceptable for people who are weak, disabled or poor.
Jim Dowd
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that many of his constituents attend Lewisham hospital, so the effect will be not just on people who are resident in Lewisham.
In view of the time, I will not go through the rest of my points, but suffice it to say that they are compelling, overwhelming and make sense. The problem with the trust special administrator is that he regards antagonism and opposition from local people, particularly clinicians, as a sign of his rectitude. One of our local football teams is Millwall, which is based in Lewisham, although the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) prefers to disguise that fact. It has an unofficial slogan, which is also a song to the tune of “Sailing” by the Sutherland brothers and was made famous by Rod Stewart. The words are:
“We are Millwall, super Millwall”
and
“No one likes us, no one likes us
No one likes us, we don’t care!”
I suspect that Mr Kershaw has taken that local aphorism as his inspiration because he could not have gone further out of his way to antagonise all the people of south-east London. The problem is that most Millwall football fans sing it as a joke, but Mr Kershaw clearly believes it. He has succeeded in antagonising and alienating not just the medical community, but everyone in south-east London, because the whole scheme is a shambles. He said that no one came forward with a viable alternative to his plan, which is why the final report is as it is. I can tell him that if they had £5.2 million and rising and the services of McKinsey, Deloitte, Ipsos MORI and other consultants, year 6 at Dalmain road primary school could have come up with a better scheme than his. I suspect that the Secretary of State has enough sense to reject it. Action needs to be taken to secure health services across south-east London, but this is not the way.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Dr McCrea, to speak under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on securing this important debate. I want to start by defending South London Healthcare NHS Trust. Its financial difficulties are enormous and there is no disguising that, so people have tended to roll up its performance into something that is failing on all fronts, but that is clearly not the case.
When the hospitals—Bromley hospital, Princess Royal University hospital, Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich and Queen Mary’s hospital at Sidcup—were merged approximately four years ago into one healthcare trust, there were serious difficulties with clinical performance, but very quickly the trust improved its performance significantly, and so much so that it was one of the best performing on many indicators. That is why it was so sad that when the trust was put into administration, unattributable sources in the Department of Health put out rumours that that was about not just financial mismanagement, but the fact that standards of care were failing. That was completely and utterly untrue.
I go back several years, and I am on my fifth chief executive at my local hospital. All have gone through the same scenario as Mr Kershaw, and all have given me assurances about the areas—I will not go into them because I do not have enough time—where financial performance needed to improve and efficiencies needed to be made. Always, they made the point about the need to treat people close to where they live in the community and reduce pressure on acute services.
All have made that point, and all have needed to improve clinical performance. Just over a year ago, the South London Healthcare NHS Trust had only one case of blood-borne MRSA, which was the best performance in the country. The improvement in the quality of care under the new trust was significant indeed. Waiting times in A and E improved, and Dr Foster reported on a significant and consistent improvement in the standardised mortality ratios over a couple of years. On those performance indicators, it outperformed Lewisham hospital.
When the decision was made to put the trust into administration, its performance on quality of care for local patients was improving. Anyone who was concerned about care for local patients would have worked through the financial difficulties with the trust. It was a big ask in that short period to improve clinical performance as it did, to merge the hospitals as it did, and to improve financial performance as it was required to do. It was always a big ask, and I think it was impossible. That should have been recognised, and the Government should have worked with that hospital trust to work through those difficulties.
We all know that PFI has not caused this problem, but it has added to it. PFI accounts for roughly a third of the deficit, which is not to be ignored, but one issue that has come to light recently, in relation to PFI in general—not just in relation to South London Healthcare NHS Trust—is the effect that the manipulation of LIBOR has had on the rates that hospital trusts have had to pay, in terms of interest, as a consequence. I do not expect the Minister to have an answer to this question, but will she go away and consider what the cost implications of LIBOR manipulation have been for every PFI in the NHS? Are the Government considering taking legal action to retrieve any of that money, as is being considered in the USA?
I am conscious of time and I want to let the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) speak, so I shall move on. As has been said, the recommendations fail several tests, and they clearly fail the test of satisfying local GPs and receiving local GP support. The chair of the local GP commissioning body, Helen Tattersfield, wrote an article in The Guardian under the headline: “GPs are already wise to the scam of new commissioning groups”. She absolutely lampooned what is being proposed by the Government.
Jim Dowd
Does my hon. Friend realise that the Government have shifted ground on that? In the response that the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East, he said that the first test was
“the support of local GPs.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2012; Vol. 552, c. 230.]
However, the Secretary of State’s written statement, following the publication of the final report said that the first test was “support from GP commissioners”. The word “local” has disappeared, and what the TSA is trying to do is claim the support of commissioners from outside Lewisham to meet that test.
Clive Efford
The point made by my hon. Friend is self-evident, but if I may, I will not be drawn down the road, because I want to get the next point on record.
Lamenting the fact that local commissioners have not been listened to, Helen Tattersfield says in her article:
“No argument has any weight, however, against the needs of a failing trust, foundation trusts and potential private companies eager to expand their areas of influence, and NHS managers convinced of the merits of their model of fewer larger hospitals. Those of us who have spent hours acquiring the skills supposedly to lead commissioning have been shown that, in fact, decision-making and influence remains where it always was: with central managers, computer-derived models and reasoning that takes no account whatsoever of human behaviour in real life. We are little more than window-dressing for central planning geared to the needs of large foundation trusts, and open to the interests of the private sector.”
That comment alone just about sums up where we are.
I will finish soon to allow the hon. Member for Beckenham to speak, but I just want to ask the Minister whether she will consider a review of proposed A and E closures across London. We are seeing a piecemeal, salami-slicing of A and E services, which is putting the safety of Londoners at risk. As we know, we have seen a 50% increase in people waiting in ambulances for 30 minutes or more outside A and Es to gain access, and we have seen a 26% increase in those waiting for 45 minutes. We know that they are under pressure, so before we see any closures, that review must take place.
We can pray in aid what the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice said. The headline on the relevant article read: “Hunt faces Cabinet split over A and E closure after Justice Secretary blasts plans as ‘sticking two fingers up’ to patients”. We also have the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow)—the former Minister of State, Department of Health—who lamented, when he was still a Minister, the proposed closure of St Helier:
“This is a flawed conclusion from a flawed process. There is still a lot of water to flow under the bridge before final decisions are made. The panel have ignored the pressure on all the A and Es and maternity units in south west London.”
We can pray those people in aid to defend our A and Es, and the Government should go back and look again.
To make one last point, we have seen the closure of an A and E, despite the promises of local Conservatives. The Leader of the House of Commons, when he was shadow Secretary of State, was going to save the A and E at Queen Mary’s, Sidcup, but it never came about. Under “A Picture of Health”, there was a proposal to have overnight stay, elective surgery at that hospital. It was promised to my constituents, who welcomed it and wanted to see it. I ask the Minister to reconsider removing that planned service from that hospital, because it was beginning to work and people welcomed it. It will be a serious cut to the quality of health care.
Clive Efford
No, I will not, because I want to allow the hon. Member for Beckenham to speak. It will be a serious cut to local services, and we should not allow that cut to go ahead.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank the previous speakers for allowing me to speak. I was not going to speak, but I felt induced to do so by the excellence of the debate. My constituency is bracketed: on one hand, we have Lewisham hospital, and on the other, the Princess Royal university hospital in Farnborough, so I feel very much like the piggy in the middle. However, we have the Beckenham Beacon, and if I have time, I will mention that at the end.
Lewisham hospital is excellent. Working within its budget, it has a good reputation and serves the local community, which includes people from my constituency. I really am against the idea of its role being changed. The idea that it becomes an urgent care centre is fine. When I asked the special administrator about that, he suggested to me that it was not much of a change, and the only real change was that people would not be admitted into the general hospital. That is not quite as I understood it. Now we do not have the specialist back-up, and there will be a big reduction in people being seen locally. Lewisham requires a hospital, and it should keep its hospital.
Travelling around south London is notoriously difficult, as we have heard. All the routes go in to the epicentre. The eye of the octopus is round about here, and so trying to cross London to go to various hospitals—particularly for those who do not have an easy transport option—is extremely difficult. I am thinking of the elderly, as it is very difficult for them to achieve what they want and get to a hospital—say, if they are sent somewhere other than Lewisham, when they live in Lewisham. I am very concerned about the idea that we can do away with maternity services in Lewisham. Some 4,000 babies is a heck of a lot of babies to cart off somewhere else, as I mentioned in an earlier intervention.
I finish by reminding Members that we have the Beckenham Beacon, which is only 70% used at the moment. It is an outstanding facility, and from what I have heard, I understand that the clinical commissioning group for Bromley intends to take up the services that are there now. However, I also commend the people looking at this problem to think about increasing the services of the Beckenham Beacon, to help not only my constituents but the people of Lewisham. I know that I have to stop now, Dr McCrea, so as I am a very good boy, I will sit down.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr McCrea. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on securing this incredibly important debate. The future of accident and emergency and maternity services across south London is of genuine concern to a great many of her constituents and, indeed, for the wider area, as this is definitely an issue of real significance across the capital. I know from a meeting that I chaired with Labour colleagues before Christmas that it goes to the heart of their communities. I applaud the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East, our right hon. and hon. Friends and others from across the party divide have put together a campaign that highlights their constituents’ concerns in such a high-profile and persuasive manner.
It has long been accepted that difficult decisions might well be needed to secure the sustainability of health services in south-east London, as the challenges facing South London Healthcare NHS Trust are complex and of long standing. As we have heard, the proposals to close the A and E and downgrade the maternity unit at Lewisham hospital are intended to assist a neighbouring hospital trust to find its way out of significant debt problems. It is a highly controversial procedure, to say the least, because Lewisham hospital, as we have heard, is well respected and well managed and recently underwent a £12 million refurbishment.
The proposals also introduce wider considerations that could affect the whole of south London’s health care. At the same time as the trust special administrator has been reviewing services at South London Healthcare NHS Trust, plans for changes to management structures and the merger of services have been progressing, led by King’s Health Partners and three foundation trusts—King’s College hospital, Guy’s and St Thomas’s and the South London and Maudsley—in conjunction with King’s college London.
Any plans for the whole area need to take full account of all the potential knock-on effects on the quality of care that people receive, and they need to consider how the merger plans will affect the health economy right across south-east London and potentially limit other long-term options for changes in south-east London. The figures provided by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) illustrate the real problems associated with some of the changes being presented today: a 45% increase in emergency admissions and a 54% increase in births at King’s if Lewisham closes. Those huge capacity issues would need to be resolved. The Minister needs to look carefully at those figures.
As we have heard today, there are real concerns among the local Members of Parliament about the future of services at Lewisham hospital, so much so that recently a delegation of local doctors and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) and for Lewisham East presented a petition against the closure of Lewisham’s A and E and maternity departments to 10 Downing street. In only five weeks, the petition against the changes has been signed by more than 32,000 people, and the numbers are still growing.
We have also heard that, as part of the campaign, there have been a number of protest marches against the closures. I believe that there will be one this weekend. I am sure that that will attract equally heavy support as the earlier ones, which I believe from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford took place in rather grotty weather. Notwithstanding the snow that there may be this weekend, I am sure that the good folk of Lewisham will still be out in force.
Bob Stewart
I am intervening quickly to support what my friend—I call him that despite his being on the Opposition Benches—the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) has said. This is a matter of fairness. It seems extraordinary that failing hospitals are being supported and allowed to continue essentially as they are, but Lewisham—a wonderful hospital that is within budget and is gaining an increasing reputation— is being kicked, slashed and destroyed. I just do not see that as right. It is a matter of fairness.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is also telling that a very substantial number of GPs, including the chair of the new clinical commissioning group and the head of every single clinical area in the hospital, have written to the Prime Minister to express their concerns about the proposals. That clearly shows that the proposals do not have the support of local clinicians. I urge the Minister to read the very passionate article in Saturday’s Guardian online by Lucy Mangan as well. That helps to address some of those points.
As we have heard, more than 120,000 people visit the A and E at Lewisham hospital each year and more than 4,000 babies are born in the maternity department. With the prospect of the A and E being closed and the maternity unit being downgraded, a number of worries have quite rightly been expressed, not least because, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East in the debate, Lewisham’s population is estimated to rise significantly in the next few years as a result of the huge increase in the birth rate.
As I have said previously, there is no doubt whatever about the unanimity among the professionals and the population about the importance of maintaining services at Lewisham hospital—something that Ministers have always stressed they would fully take on board. As we have heard in the debate today, the right hon. and hon. Members who represent the areas affected believe that the plans are based on inaccurate data and flawed assumptions and that the whole issue has been misunderstood and largely mishandled.
We have the final report from the trust special administrator, urging this closure at Lewisham, and the Secretary of State is to make the final decision by 1 February. However, it is difficult to understand how the Government can consider that that report constitutes a full strategic review of the sustainability of services across south-east London. Labour Members believe that the trust special administrator has overstepped its remit under the Health Act 2009 by including service changes to Lewisham hospital. In addition, the parallel work by King’s Health Partners on reconfiguration under three other south-east London trusts has yet to be completed.
It is quite concerning when the rules on making changes to hospitals seem to have been changed to allow back-door reconfigurations in the way that I have described, without the proper scrutiny and consultation that would ordinarily take place. Indeed, the trust special administrator used powers passed by the Labour Government in a way that was never intended. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). Nevertheless, what has happened sets a worrying precedent whereby the normal processes of public consultation are short-circuited and back-door reconfigurations of hospital services could be pushed through. This is a worrying situation, as it takes the NHS over a very dangerous line and is potentially the first back-door reconfiguration in that manner. If it is allowed to go ahead in that way, it could mean that any hospital services could be changed for purely financial reasons, which has never been the case in the past. We need to ask where the clinical case for change is in these proposals.
The 2009 Act clearly says that administrators must make recommendations relating to the trust that is failing. That has not happened in this case. Reconfigurations need to be based on solid clinical evidence that they will save lives. Where there is a clear clinical case, I think that that is right, and we should look carefully at changes before deciding whether we should oppose them. However, the TSA’s actions are leaving a very confusing and worrying situation surrounding hospital reconfigurations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge got it right. We are starting to see a situation in which primary care trusts are moving quickly to try to secure service changes before the clinical commissioning groups take over, and it is becoming all too clear that it is financial pressures that are starting to lead to closures and health service changes. That is clearly wrong.
On the four tests for reconfigurations, does the Minister really think that they have been fully met and does she believe that this change has the support of local commissioners?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)
As ever, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on securing this debate. I have about 10 minutes to respond to all the points. In the normal terms of any debate, there is an airing of conflicting views, different ideas and different points of views, but today there has been no such disagreement; we have had an outbreak of complete agreement among all the speakers and all those who have intervened. Everyone who has spoken this morning has done so with great passion and sometimes with ferocity in defence of the maternity unit and the A and E department at Lewisham hospital.
Let me make it absolutely clear that we are not in this position because of a Government decision or proposal, or as a result of some set of Government cuts. I made that same point a couple of weeks ago in an Adjournment debate that was called by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd). I hope that those in the public domain who report these matters make that point very clearly, too. Anyone who seeks to make political capital out of this exercise does so at their peril, because, in many ways, this transcends party political divide and should not be used for party political advantage.
The trust’s special administrator published his report on 8 January, and a decision will be made by the Secretary of State for Health on 1 February.
Anna Soubry
Will the hon. Gentleman wait one moment, because it is extremely important that I put this on record? The Secretary of State will consider whether to accept the recommendations of that report and will reach a decision by 1 February. As a result of that, bizarre as it may seem to those who do not know the House, I am in some sort of peculiar purdah where I am not allowed to give any opinion of my own. It might be that that is a good idea, I know not, but those are the rules and I stick by them. I am not in a place, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) well knows, to be able to say whether or not the four tests have been satisfied or, as I have said, to give my opinion. Sometimes, it is extremely difficult for an MP such as myself not to give an opinion.
Anna Soubry
I will give way, but please be brief, because I do not have much time.
Dame Joan Ruddock
Will the Minister confirm that the four tests are relevant? Will she also note that the Secretary of State has said, “on or before” 1 February? It would be good to have clarity.
Anna Soubry
I agree. In such cases, it is imperative that a decision is made sooner rather than later. What is most important—
Anna Soubry
I have not finished my sentence; do forgive me. What is most important is that the right decision is made after careful consideration. I am pleased that the Secretary of State was true to his word and had a meeting with Members who are rightly concerned about the future of Lewisham hospital on 14 January. I know that it was effectively a listening exercise, because he could not express an opinion. That meeting was held with Matthew Kershaw, who is the TSA, and his officials.
Jim Dowd
The Minister mentioned that a decision is to be made on 1 February, which is a sitting Friday. Statements can be made on a Friday, as we saw with the urgent matter last week. Sometimes, statements about issues relating to London can be made, but will the Minister accept that this is an issue of national import? Will she prevail on the Secretary of State to ensure that, whenever the statement is made, it is not on Friday 1 February? Will she give us that assurance now, or seek one from the Secretary of State?
Anna Soubry
That is a good point well made. I will ensure that the Secretary of State is fully aware of the hon. Gentleman’s views.
Why are we in this position? That was a question posed by the hon. Member for Lewisham East. Let us be absolutely clear about it. South London Healthcare NHS Trust has six PFI schemes. It is not as simple as putting all the blame on the PFI schemes, as some Members have suggested. The two largest schemes are at the Princess Royal university hospital in Bromley with a £30 million PFI scheme, and at Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich with a PFI scheme of £29.1 million. The PFIs were signed off in 1998, but they certainly do not help the situation.
The trust is losing £1 million of public money a week. That £1 million could be better spent on improving and providing services to all whom these trusts seek to serve. This is a trust that has a £65 million deficit, the largest in the country, so doing nothing is not an option. No Government of whatever political colour would stand by and see the haemorrhaging of £1 million a week. When hon. Members gather again on Saturday for their protest, I hope that they make it absolutely clear to all the good people who attend to support their local hospital that that is the real financial situation. Often, when faced with such realities, difficult and tough decisions have to be made. The simple truth is—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewisham East will agree with me—that we cannot continue to have that haemorrhaging and a deficit of £65 million.
Heidi Alexander
No one disputes the existence of financial problems, but the closure of A and E and maternity departments affects people’s lives and health. Will the Minister confirm that, were the Secretary of State minded to agree to the proposals put before him, the four tests set by her own Government will be applied?
Anna Soubry
I am happy to remind us all of those four tests and principles; they remain as firm as ever. First, any reconfiguration should have the support of GP commissioners. Secondly, there should be full public and patient engagement and proper consultation. Thirdly, there should be a clear clinical evidence base. Fourthly, any reconfiguration should be in support of patient choice.
The hon. Lady comes to the House to represent her constituents and to put forward their views, which she undoubtedly shares, and their anger and concern about their hospital. In her speech, she understandably uses the words outrage and disbelief to say that those four tests, in all or in part, have not been made. She speaks with passion and with detail about the lack of support from GP commissioners and consultants at Lewisham and beyond. She says that this is a hospital that has had many successes and a long-standing investment. She makes the point that, given all the arguments that have been advanced by her and other hon. Members, the decision clearly has no merit.
Let me mention here the interventions by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), who speaks in accord with others in support of the hospital, and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). There were speeches by the hon. Members for Lewisham West and Penge and for Eltham (Clive Efford) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart).
This is a very serious subject and I do not want to be flippant. The views of all are certainly taken on board. In due course, the Secretary of State will announce his decision. Therefore, as I said at the outset, I cannot be of great assistance in addressing the various comments that have been made, because I am not allowed to give my opinion. I should, however, mention the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)—I think that I missed him off my list. He gave a thoughtful and frank speech in which he talked about his concerns about the legislation that brought about the appointment of the administrator. He has looked at an alternative and he advanced that.
Finally, the hon. Member for Eltham calls for a review of A and E, but he should do so with great caution. There might be merit in that, but when one embarks on such a review, we have to make it clear that, in those circumstances, some tough decisions might be made, and everyone involved in that would have to sign up to it on that basis.
Personal Independence Payments
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I am very pleased to introduce this short debate about personal independence payments and blind and visually impaired people, because although the Government have made some very welcome improvements to the descriptors in relation to people with sight disabilities, many questions remain, and I am afraid that my speech mainly consists of questions.
The principle of disability living allowance and—one hopes—of PIP is that it goes a little way towards levelling the playing field, enabling disabled people to do the things that non-disabled people take for granted. As my constituent, Alison, told me:
“Many blind and partially sighted people rely on DLA to meet the extra costs they face every day as a result of their sight loss. The help they get from DLA is not a luxury; it means that they can live independently. Without it, they would be unable to do everyday things that people with sight take for granted, like being able to get out to do food shopping, getting to doctor or hospital appointments, being involved in local groups, looking for work; in short, living a life that enables them to do more than just stay at home.”
So my first question to the Minister—it is one that has been raised with me by a number of people—is this: do the Government have any intention of means-testing PIP now or in the future?
The Government state that the receipt of PIP will be based on an assessment of individual need, and the support required as a result of the particular health condition. The new assessment will focus on an individual’s ability to carry out a range of key activities that are necessary to everyday life. But will the assessment be truly based on the needs of an individual or on the “condition” that they have?
We all know that disabilities can affect people in different ways. The first constituent who contacted me about this issue—she did so well over a year ago—is Margaret. Margaret progressively lost her sight over a period of time. Initially, she continued to work and even went to college. She used to take the local bus service, but she found that impossible as she was reliant on drivers seeing her white stick, and slowing down to tell her what number bus they were driving and whether it was the bus she was waiting for. Such experiences became too much for Margaret and she developed agoraphobia, making her unable to work.
Margaret is reliant on the DLA she receives to interact with the outside world and to communicate with her extended family, many of whom live outside her area. She has enhanced audio-visual equipment on her TV and computer, which allows her to send e-mails and enjoy TV programmes. That makes life just a little bit more bearable for her.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing a debate on this important subject. Does she agree that PIP assessments must assess adequately the needs of blind and visually impaired people, and that there is a need on the part of Government to recognise properly the extra costs of mobility for people with severe sight impairment?
Julie Hilling
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I will go on to talk in much more detail about some of the issues that she has raised.
Going back to my constituent, Margaret, she says that without her current rate of DLA she would not be able to afford the TV and internet package that she has, which would make her even more isolated from family, friends and the rest of the world. Her partner and carer, Jim, suffers from serious mobility problems; effectively, they care for one another. They are very worried about the potential effect of PIP, and they are also worried that some bright spark at Atos or the Department for Work and Pensions will actually declare Margaret fit for work.
Let us compare Margaret with John, who has been blind from birth and depends on his DLA to live independently and get to work, or with Michelle, who lost her central vision in 2005 and took a while to get back into employment. Michelle told me that she is registered blind, but apparently she is not blind enough to qualify for higher rate mobility, although she uses a long cane and frequently falls over. There is also Barbara, who had to leave nursing in her early fifties because of deteriorating vision but who then worked part time as a support worker to blind and visually impaired students.
We know that eye conditions can be very different: some rob people of central vision; some block out other parts or make looking at life like looking through lace curtains; and some cause a loss of depth of vision. There are many different ways that vision can be affected. So my question for the Minister is whether PIP will be flexible enough to focus on individual needs.
Peter also contacted me to raise concerns that blind and partially sighted people who cope with their condition may be penalised and lose benefits because they have made the effort to cope and have been able to do so. He is worried that people who have coped in the past will now refuse to cope, so that they can retain benefits. What is the Minister’s view on that?
Let us focus on mobility for a moment. The criteria refers to familiar and unfamiliar routes, stating that an individual who qualifies cannot follow the route of an unfamiliar journey without another person, assistance dog or orientation aid, or cannot follow the route of a familiar journey. John and others have talked to me about the reality that, for people with severe sight loss, there is no such thing as a “familiar” journey. Let me quote him:
“What is a familiar route? For me there is no such thing as a familiar route. For me, “familiar” is based totally on sound and feel. These constantly change. No route is the same two days running - disruptions are caused by wind, rain, people and traffic and I cannot use sight to check that it is safe or to update my knowledge of the changing environment en-route. Feel, via a long cane, is disrupted by ice, snow, leaves and standing water which disguise important orientation points like kerbs and tactile paving. “Bin day” turns pavements into dangerous, practically impenetrable obstacle courses with heavy randomly placed bins. Despite Highway Code regulations, cars are often parked with impunity well onto the pavement, vans leave ramps down and rear doors flung wide open. These obstacles are silent, invisible to me. With no sight, no auditory warnings, I regularly walk straight into these and have the scars to prove it. There is a limit to the amount of adapting one can do! I am vulnerable when asking strangers for direction. They may be ignorant or undesirable. I have never successfully, independently accessed a supermarket because the act of moving around brings me into contact with all manner of objects and people which are in close proximity. I’m not aware until I have actually hit them. This is neither appropriate nor socially acceptable behaviour and causes me great anxiety. Trying to travel on a bus or a train throws up the challenge of accessing transport information and bus stops, finding the right bus, recognising stops, finding a space to sit or a person to ask. A talking mobile phone is indispensible but very costly.”
John very kindly took me on the “familiar” route from his house to the main road, which was an absolute education for me. Because he needed to access different surfaces to understand where he was on the route, he was unable to take the shortest route and in fact some of the places that he ended up walking were, for me, far more dangerous than the straightforward route; however, he needed to access different surfaces. In order to cross a piece of land diagonally, he had to ensure a piece of wall was in the middle of his back at just the right angle so that he would end up at the right position for the next stage of the journey. A walk that would take an able, sighted person 10 minutes took him about half an hour.
I appreciate that, with the change in descriptors, John will be entitled to the higher rate of mobility, but what about Michelle? She only has peripheral vision and cannot see at night. As for the daytime, she said to me:
“If I see a puddle, I don't know if it’s a hole or a puddle.”
I have mentioned Barbara, who is a long-cane user and who has talked to me about hazardous journeys where, for example, there are shared pavements or traffic lights that do not have audio or tactile light-changing indicators. Of course, there are also cyclists who do not adhere to lights or—it seems to me—any other elements of the Highway Code, and of course they are another danger. Does the Minister expect partially sighted people who always use a long cane for familiar and unfamiliar journeys to qualify for the higher rate of mobility?
Concern has also been raised that the criteria of being able to do something reliably—safely, to a necessary and appropriate standard, and repeatedly, in a timely manner—will not be in the regulations. They are welcome descriptors, but how can the Minister assure us that those criteria will not change if they are not explicit in the regulations?
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate her on securing this important debate. As she knows, guidance notes for the PIP assessors play a key role in ensuring that we get a fair deal for those who are blind or partially sighted. Will she press the Minister to publish those guidance notes as soon as possible?
Julie Hilling
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it is really important that those guidance notes are printed. However, I also question whether we actually need to put those criteria in the regulations themselves.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and, like other Members, I congratulate her on bringing this matter to the House. The Royal National Institute for Blind People and Action for Blind People have both indicated that they will be able to help people to fill in forms. Does she feel that the Government should consider assisting those organisations to help people to fill in forms and to get the forms right, so that the assessment can be right?
Julie Hilling
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important issue. All of this—particularly with the computerisation of the forms—will be far more difficult. These things are hard enough for people with visual impairment, but they will become even more difficult. Organisations that support people with disabilities are themselves facing tremendous cuts.
As Michelle told me—this is demonstrated by John’s journey time—everything, including cooking, ironing and inspecting food, takes a person with visual impairment longer. What weighting will be given to the time element?
I turn now to the daily living component. Many people have spoken to me about the extra costs of being blind or partially sighted, but some of those costs do not appear in the assessment criteria. A number of people talked about the damage caused to clothing by catching it on railings or overhanging trees, and by falls and such like. There seems to be no recognition of such additional costs.
The assessment criteria appear to award a relatively low score for aids and appliances. The Government state:
“This recognises that the majority of aids are relatively low cost”.
Blind and partially sighted people would hotly dispute that the majority of their aids are low cost. I have mentioned the talking mobile phone and enhanced audiovisual equipment on TVs and computers. Specialist IT software and hardware are expensive. What about talking scales, magnifiers, Braille machines, accessible telephones and all the other devices that people need to lead their lives? Even a white cane costs more than £20. Has the Minister considered other funding sources that could assist blind and visually impaired people if such costs are not met through PIP?
As regards cooking and preparing a simple meal, I am not clear which category blind and visually impaired people could expect to find themselves in. If they can only put a meal prepared by someone else in the microwave, what would they score?
Probably the most significant element in this section for blind and visually impaired people is the cost. By the nature of their disability, many will be unable to find the bargains that sighted people will. They will also have difficulty with use-by dates, and they will often not be able to see whether food is fit to eat. John told me he has to purchase ready-chopped, ready-grated cheese and ready-prepared meat. He has to buy in single-use portions, otherwise he will subsequently not be able to tell whether the food is fit to eat. Of course, all that makes food far more expensive. Is that taken account of anywhere?
What about the washing and bathing section? Focusing only on washing and bathing takes away the elements of grooming. What happens to those who need help with shaving, doing their hair or putting on make-up?
In the dressing and undressing section, will the criteria relating to needing assistance to select appropriate clothing apply to blind and partially sighted people who need someone to prepare their clothing in advance, even if they can dress themselves on the day because their clothes are already sorted by colour and type?
On reading and understanding symbols or words, will the Minister confirm that someone who can read at home with a magnifier, but who cannot read labels in shops or see signs in the street, will be deemed not to be able to read at all?
As regards engaging with other people face to face, what happens with blind and partially sighted people who need someone there to describe the environment? Would they be covered by the words
“Needs prompting to engage with other people”
or
“Needs social support to engage with other people”?
Of course, other, additional costs are involved in keeping a safe, clean home environment. Will allowance be made for the additional costs of paying people for cleaning, laundry and ironing?
Although the debate is about PIP, I ask for the Minister’s indulgence because I also want to raise concerns about people such as Alison losing incapacity benefit and being told they are fit for work. There is no denying that many blind and visually impaired people work, but some are unable to. Are blind and visually impaired people being put into the work-related activity group or taken off employment and support allowance altogether? I have received reports that they are losing DLA. If benefits are supposed to be about what people can do, and not their condition, how can such decisions be made?
Finally, Atos does not have a good reputation for evaluating the needs and capabilities of ill and disabled people. Following the Atos debate, one person wrote about his experience, saying:
“I suffer from RSD/CRPS”—
reflex sympathetic dystrophy/complex regional pain syndrome—
“(an incurable chronic pain syndrome in both feet) which leaves me in constant pain every day and has reduced my mobility. I scored 0 points at the WCA”—
the work capability assessment. He continued:
“You have probably heard of the artistic license the Atos”
health care professionals
“take in documenting the Work Capability Assessment. Mine was no different. The HCP missed out relevant information I divulged in relation to pain, mobilising and standing and sitting. None of the timing in the report was accurate and he even went on to add information about me that I never stated. Mercifully I covertly recorded it all so have an accurate record”.
That is the sort of experience that many people are reporting currently about their Atos assessment, so blind and visually impaired people are rightly worried. How will Atos be monitored? Will the destination of blind and disabled people migrating to PIP be logged, assessed and reported?
As the Government have stated, the likely outcome of the assessment of DLA recipients under PIP is that 510,000 people will have awards increased, 270,000 will have awards unchanged, 510,000 will have awards decreased, and 450,000 people will have no award. How many blind and partially sighted people does the Minister expect will gain, lose or get no award?
I apologise for presenting so many questions to the Minister, but I hope that she will be able to answer the concerns of my constituents and the thousands of other people who will be affected by the changes to benefits.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) on securing the debate on such an important issue and welcome all the contributions that have been made. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr McCrea.
The UK remains a world leader in rights for disabled people, and we currently spend almost £50 billion a year on services and benefits for them. Those valuable support mechanisms enable disabled people to make their own choices and live as independently as possible. However, for those valuable services to continue to be available, they must be provided in a sustainable way that reflects the needs of disabled people in today’s society.
It is generally recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions that disability living allowance needs reform, to reflect today’s understanding of disability better. DLA has not been fundamentally reformed since its introduction more than 20 years ago, and it is a complex, poorly targeted and inflexible benefit, for some. There is confusion as to purpose and sometimes unfairness in the awards that are given, which has damaged public confidence in the benefit. The changes in the treatment of blind and severely visually impaired people, from DLA to PIP, should be welcomed, for we are giving the clarity that the hon. Lady seeks.
If there had not been a need to deal with the faulty structure of DLA in the first place, it might have taken slightly less effort to bring about the changes that we need in PIP. There has been a rigorous consultation over nearly two years, taking into view representations from charities and organisations that have all had a say.
Anas Sarwar
Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which has campaigned extensively on the issue and has managed to get some concessions, although there is still work to do?
Esther McVey
I will indeed congratulate the RNIB and other charities and organisations that have represented the needs of blind and partially sighted people. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
The approach taken in the DLA to recognise the mobility difficulties of blind and severely visually impaired people does not look at people as individuals; it looks at their conditions. What we are doing—and, I believe, what the hon. Lady seeks—is requiring that everyone needs to be looked at as an individual: how has their condition affected them? That really is what PIP is intended to do. It is personalised. It is about the individual: what help that person needs.
At the moment, for DLA, 50% of claimants do not have medical support for their condition. More than 70% have an award for life. We seek to serve the public, including the hon. Lady’s constituents, as well as we can by making an award that is personalised.
The hon. Lady’s first question was about means-testing: no, the award of DLA and PIP is non-means-tested and that is how it will remain. It is intended to help those people with the most barriers to overcome them and live independent lives. As I said, it is very much about the individual, about what is fair to that individual and about the needs arising from the condition. To that extent, it is very much personalised. It will be flexible enough to reflect individual needs—that is what PIP is specifically designed to do. It is about having clarity, so that people will be certain of what they will get, but also about flexibility.
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing her constituents’ concerns before the House, because that is what we are here to do, to put a face and a person behind the needs, so that we can explain things clearly.
Jim Shannon
Can the Minister answer my intervention on the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling)? What can the Government do for RNIB and Action for Blind People to help people to fill in forms? Those organisations will be inundated with people needing help, so whatever assistance the Government can give will be money and time well spent.
Esther McVey
The hon. Gentleman may not know that the people seeking the award can say how they would like the form delivered to them and in what context. If people so wish, they can be accompanied by someone from a charity or organisation or by a friend to help them with the assessment. The process is about finding out as much as we can about the individual to help with the assessment and the decision so that we can give the correct award. Again,
“reliably, repeatedly, safely and in a timely manner”
is key to the decisions—that phrase is in the guidance and in the contract with the providers. The hon. Member for Bolton West asked whether that could be put in regulation, and I announced before the Select Committee on Work and Pensions yesterday that we are examining whether that would be of benefit. The matter is with lawyers at the moment, because we do not want to introduce something that could go against what we are seeking to do, to ensure
“reliably, repeatedly, safely and in a timely manner”,
which is key to the assessment. We are therefore looking at whether it can be put in regulation or whether it is better staying in the guidance notes. The hon. Lady also asked about those notes, which will be published as soon as they can be, possibly by the end of the month.
This is a principled reform, which we have developed in consultation and collaboration with disabled people. We have listened to their concerns, and those of their representatives and organisations, and we have made a significant number of changes as a result of the feedback from groups that represent visually impaired people. Indeed, that was recognised by RNIB, which stated in its report to the secondary legislation scrutiny Committee that
“the final criteria include a number of significant improvements for blind and partially sighted people.”
We were told that our draft communication activity did not take appropriate account of the barriers faced by people who cannot access written information. As a result, we introduced an additional activity to assess ability to read and understand signs, symbols and words. Therefore, someone who is completely unable to read because of their disability—for example, because of blindness—will get eight points towards their daily living component score. The score from that activity alone will mean that they get the standard rate of the daily living component. That is only one of the criteria; there will be a further nine in that section.
We also acted on the feedback that the effect of visual impairment for people who use long canes was not appropriately reflected in the mobility activities and that the barriers such people face are similar to those faced by people who have a support dog.
Julie Hilling
I appreciate what the Minister says about people who are totally blind, but what about those who can read at home only with the use of a magnifier? A magnifier clearly cannot be taken to the supermarket or into the street. Will such people be deemed unable to read?
Esther McVey
That will be recognised, because what an individual can do inside the house with a magnifying glass might be significantly different from what they can do outside the house, such as following a journey, reading signs or reading labels in a shop, all of which have now been taken into consideration and will lead to points being accrued during an assessment.
The final draft of the assessment criteria includes specialist orientation aids, such as long canes, in the “planning and following journeys” activity. Therefore, someone who is blind and needs to use a long cane to follow journeys, even in familiar places, will receive 12 points, which will qualify them for the enhanced rate of the mobility component.
We have acted on concerns about the speed of reassessment by extending the reassessment timetable, so that we can learn from the early introduction of PIP by fully testing our process. We will be able to consider the outcomes of our first independent review in 2014 and act on its findings before reassessing the majority of current DLA claimants. The extended strategy means that the main bulk of reassessment will not start until autumn 2015.
Julie Hilling
I thank the Minister for her generosity. On mobility, what about people who are severely visually impaired but who have some vision and who need to use a cane for familiar and unfamiliar journeys? Will they be entitled to the highest number of points?
Esther McVey
Again, the benefit is based on the individual, so I cannot give an all-encompassing answer. We have taken on board all the factors that have been raised today, and they have been reflected in the assessment. We have made that very clear, and each person will be viewed on how they are affected by their condition. The likelihood is that the answer is yes, but we have to view people as individuals. There have been strong representations from all the blind charities and partially sighted organisations, and those representations are reflected. The news of how we have changed the assessment has been welcomed by the groups themselves.
We are also seeking to learn from the experience of delivering the work capability assessment—and, yes, from the failings that we have had to address—to ensure that we get PIP right from the start. As part of that, we are looking closely at the findings of both the independent reviews of the work capability assessment by Professor Harrington to see where we can improve the design of the PIP claim and assessment processes to make them better, more effective and a more positive experience for claimants.
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that we have listened and acted on the concerns of visually impaired people and that PIP will take appropriate account of the barriers that they face on a daily basis. As material on the RNIB acknowledges, the changes now mean that the
“blind and partially sighted should see their needs recognised when PIP is introduced.”
Taxation (Living Wage)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
Tax cutting is as much about politics as about economics. Of course, the economics have to work too, but here is a statistic that should worry us: the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have shown that almost all the growth in household income since 2001 was wiped out by the financial crisis. At kitchen tables up and down Britain, it feels as though the last decade of growth simply did not happen.
It is hard for any Government to tackle that situation. Why? Partly because we—I am talking about the Conservative-led coalition—have allowed our political opponents to caricature tax cuts as measures that are only for our rich friends in the City, rather than a means of creating and sharing the wealth in society. Now, more than ever, we have to show that tax cutting is a moral creed that is about lifting workers on low incomes out of poverty and creating jobs for the unemployed. Hence my campaign to restore the starter rate of income tax at 10p, which was scrapped in 2008 by the last Government.
I believe that restoring the 10p rate would help the coalition to counter the war cry of its political opponents that it is only interested in cutting taxes for millionaires. It would prove to the public that “lower taxes for lower earners” is not just a soundbite but that it can be a reality, first by raising the threshold to £10,000 and then by bringing back the 10p rate for the lower-paid.
The Treasury has confirmed to me in a written answer that the move would cost around £7 billion a year, if it benefited everyone. Interestingly, the Chancellor told the House last year that the same amount of money was lost when Labour brought in the 50p rate of tax, and that has been confirmed by the IFS. I am arguing that when the top rate of tax falls to 45p the extra revenue that the Government say will be raised ought to be put towards restoring the 10p rate of income tax.
Not everyone agrees with my view. The campaign for a 10p tax rate has been opposed from the left, from the right and by our colleagues, the Liberal Democrats. Let me deal with each one in turn.
When Labour was in power, its main response to low wages was tax credits. The aim was a noble one—to help the poor—but the policy was flawed. For example, Dr Jamie Gough from Sheffield university recently told The Guardian:
“Tax credits enable employers to pay below a living wage, and thus subsidise their profits.”
Tax credits have also left the Department for Work and Pensions with a hugely complex system of overlapping handouts that taxes workers on low pay only to recycle the money back as benefits. Reporting on tax credits, the ombudsman has said:
“Many are unaware of them and DWP staff often fail to invite claims.”
The idea is fine in theory, but many people lose out in practice.
Other people take a gentler approach. The Living Wage Foundation has been asking employers to voluntarily pay £8.55 an hour in London. Again, that is a worthy aim, and perhaps larger corporates can afford it, but what about smaller firms and micro-businesses that cannot? I am a supporter of the minimum wage, but recently the Low Pay Commission warned against forcing it higher, because
“Firms may be reluctant to create jobs by recruiting inexperienced or young staff, because they are put off by the increased wage bill.”
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate on an important subject. Does he agree that linking the personal allowance with the minimum wage would be an excellent way to take everyone who is on the minimum wage out of income tax?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend has an interesting idea, which I would like to explore further, but I believe that the focus of all the resources that the Treasury has, which of course are not much, should be on restoring the 10p rate, for the reasons that I will go on to describe. I have argued that we need a solution for everyone, not just for the lucky few. That is why I was pleased to see Kevin Maguire in The Daily Mirror today supporting the 10p campaign.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on an important subject. I want to take him back to the point that he was making about tax credits supposedly allowing employers to pay lower wages. Presumably the basis for that argument is that tax credits raise the take-home pay for the worker at no cost to the employer. However, why does he not employ the same argument to the tax reduction that he is advocating, which again will raise the take-home pay of workers? In a properly competitive labour market, would that not allow employers to pay less?
Robert Halfon
That is where the philosophical difference between the right hon. Gentleman and me lies; I believe that we need to move away from a handout society, in which people’s taxes are recycled to hand out to various groups, to a hand-back society, in which people are handed back their own money through the tax system.
Some people on the right, especially in the think-tank world, oppose the 10p tax rate on the grounds that it is not radical enough. They say that it might undermine the case for a flat tax in some future Parliament. The problem with that—again, as the IFS has set out—is that a flat tax would be deeply regressive and it would be hard to defend as fair. While that remains true, a flat tax is unlikely to happen.
For example, the IFS has shown that merging income tax and national insurance contributions to a flat rate would literally take from the poor and give to the rich, unless the state was shrunk to a size that is politically impossible. Where I agree with people on the right, and with thoughtful commentators such as Ryan Bourne from the Centre for Policy Studies, is that the Government must do much more to generate support for broader tax cuts. My point, however, is that surely the best way to achieve that is to show that tax cuts are moral—to use a Blairite phrase, “for the many and not the few”—and that they will help millions of hard-working people, not just millionaires.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I do not have any difficulty with the hon. Gentleman’s proposal that there should be a 10p tax rate; in fact, it was a Labour Government who actually introduced that rate. Regarding a living wage, which the hon. Gentleman alluded to, I understand that there are no proposals—certainly, they would not be put forward by Labour—to legislate for a living wage. It is a voluntary thing, and it is down to employers, in fact, to decide whether to pay it.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the minimum wage. I can certainly remember in my constituency many years ago that under the previous Conservative Government there was—what was it called? I think that it was called a “family supplement”, or something, for people on low wages. On one occasion, which really led Labour to legislate for a minimum wage—
John Robertson (in the Chair)
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman finish his intervention?
Mr Cunningham
I will do in a minute. The fact was that in my constituency we had people on £1 an hour. As I say, I have no difficulties with the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, but whatever Government are in power, at the end of the day, the big threat is from the Exchequer. It is the Exchequer that will probably try to torpedo his proposal.
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I said before, I agree fundamentally with the minimum wage; it is a moral right that people are paid a certain wage, and I am glad that my party now supports that, but I have questions about the living wage. First, how do we set it? I believe that it puts enormous burdens on smaller businesses; the big multinationals will be able to deal with it. I do not want it to act as a disincentive to employment, and I believe that the burden of responsibility for the living wage should not be on businesses but on the Government: the Government should reduce taxation.
John Robertson (in the Chair)
I hope that the intervention will be shorter this time.
Mr Cunningham
Frankly, if it is voluntary, then it is not forced on small employers. It is the big employers who can pay it.
Robert Halfon
Of course, if businesses want to pay their employees a living wage, that is all well and good; I would be delighted at that and would have no problem with it whatever.
My hope is that once the threshold reaches £10,000, we will consider bringing back the 10p rate for the lower-paid. Some Liberal Democrats disagree; they have suggested that the best way to help families is to raise the personal allowance even further, to something like £12,500 a year. I absolutely agree the coalition should fulfil its £10,000 commitment, but it would be unwise to raise the personal allowance even further. Everyone should feel that they have a stake in the state, and they should have some stake in the tax system even if they pay only a small amount, because they need to realise that public services are not free and that there is no magic money tree. My fear is that the Liberal Democrats want to pay for their policy, which will cost £14 billion if applied to everyone, by dragging even more workers into the 40p band. That is what has happened historically. The problem is that we will soon have families with not very high wages paying a marginal rate of 40p, and that will include police officers, shop owners, managers and senior nurses in the national health service.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
That point goes right to the heart of my hon. Friend’s argument. The aim of this policy should be to encourage people on low incomes to take higher-paid work, to work longer hours and to start the transition up the income scale. That is why he is right that we need to introduce a 10p tax rate in the interim; otherwise, people will go straight from their tax-free allowance to being taxed on any income above that. Does he agree that, in an era where there is downward pressure on many benefits, some of which affects the working poor, the 10p tax rate could be a good counterbalance, so that people keep their income in the first place?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is exactly right. What he is saying is that we will create a hand-back society, where we give people back their own money, rather than just a handout society, which recycles benefits through the tax system.
Taxing the people I describe at the 40p rate is a brake on aspiration, and it has hit single-worker families the hardest. We started this Parliament with about 3 million workers paying the 40p rate, and the number will be closer to 5 million by 2015. We should not add further to that figure, as my hon. Friend says. Restoring the 10p band is more affordable than raising the personal allowance to £12,500. Most low-income workers would still have a stake in the tax system, and it would avoid dragging more families into the 40p band. That is why I support it over the Liberal Democrat proposals.
The fundamental point is, as the Government say, that we lost £7 billion when the high tax rate went up to 50p. If we get more revenue from having a 45p tax rate, the moral thing to do will be to put those extra billions towards funding the 10p tax rate.
Of all the things the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) did, the one that genuinely amazed me was that he scrapped the 10p band, given what the Labour party stood for. I accept that he introduced it in the first place, but when I watched him scrap it, I genuinely could not understand why he was doing it. Overnight, the change crushed working people with a £232 tax rise. Why should the Government not set themselves the goal of reversing that unpopular decision? There is a strong case for doing so. As I said, tax credits are flawed; small firms cannot afford the living wage; a flat tax is not going to happen and is unfair; we do not want to drag any more families into the 40p band; and everyone should have some stake in the tax system.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the policy would be popular, that it would be a symbol of the Government’s economic mission and that it would help to tackle the desperate stagnation in incomes that Britain has suffered in the past 10 years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on bringing this matter to the House for consideration. I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective and to discuss the importance of small and medium-sized businesses, particularly for my constituency, but also for constituencies across the rest of the United Kingdom.
Times are tough for many families throughout the UK. They face stagnating wages, coupled with rising costs. Many small businesses are struggling and cannot afford annual pay rises. The question in many families is, is it better to be in or out of work? The cold reality of the market out there has pressed many of them to make a decision about that.
The Government have shown that they are attempting to address the situation through the uplift of the personal allowance threshold. That should mean that approximately 250,000 workers on low pay no longer have to pay income tax, which has to be good news. The same uplift will also mean that most basic and higher-rate taxpayers will pay £47 less tax from April, after the Chancellor increased their tax-free limit to £9,440 a year.
The Chancellor has indicated that the steps the coalition has taken have increased the number of low earners lifted out of tax to 2.2 million. Again, that is good news, and things are going the right way. The amount of tax paid by people on the minimum wage will have been cut in half by next year. From next April, the personal allowance will rise by a further £235, so the total increase next year will be £1,335—the highest cash increase ever. Over the past two years, the Government have announced total increases to the personal allowance of £2,965, with the aim of reaching a £10,000 allowance in this Parliament.
I read the report of the debate about paying a living wage, which would help many people. Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of people earning below the living wage in the UK, at 24%, and is followed by Wales, at 23%. The lowest proportion of sub-living-wage earners is in London and the south-east; in both cases, it is 16%. However, the number of people affected in London is 570,000. In the north-west, it is also 570,000, while in the south-east, it is 530,000. In terms of the numbers, therefore, those are the most affected areas, but they do not compare with Northern Ireland in percentage terms.
A study showed that workers in the hospitality industry are the worst affected, with 90% of bar staff, and more than four out of five waiters and waitresses, or 85%, paid less than the living wage. The study also showed that 75% of kitchen and catering assistants, as well as launderers and dry cleaners, were paid less than the living wage. Similarly, 70% of cleaners and florists received less than the living wage. Clearly, those figures are of some concern.
Mr Jim Cunningham
There has been a whole range of price increases on things such as travel, as well as benefit cuts. In tax terms, would the reintroduction of the 10p tax rate offset that and take people to the level of the living wage?
Jim Shannon
I wish I knew how that would work. I cannot answer that question; the person who can is perhaps the Minister. I hope that that would happen, but I cannot say that it definitely would. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that when he responds.
Small and medium-sized businesses make up more than half the UK’s business population. As such, they are not a minority, and they should not be overlooked or ignored. That is what I want to focus on. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that Northern Ireland has the highest concentration of SMEs—companies with fewer than 250 employees—in the UK. There is not one business in my constituency that employs more than 250 people, so SMEs are very important for the people I represent. Those SMEs account for 81% of all private sector employment and 79% of all private sector turnover. In contrast, less than 1% of the private sector consists of large firms, which account for less than 20% of total employment and 21% of turnover.
Small businesses employ 65% of the private sector work force in Northern Ireland, compared with 62% in Wales, 48% in Scotland and 46% in England. Small businesses account for a greater proportion of turnover, contributing 60% of all private sector turnover, which is, again, higher than in Wales, at 46%, in Scotland, at 40%, and in England, at 36%. Some 54.5% of gross value added was produced by small businesses, which are those with nought to 49 employees, while a further 27% was produced by medium-sized enterprises, which are those employing between 50 and 249 people. In total, SMEs accounted for 81.6% of GVA.
Those figures indicate the importance of SMEs, which are critical for the future, particularly in my constituency. The Prime Minister has indicated that he wants to build up the private sector, but we need to do that before we try to downsize the pubic sector. The statistics show how essential those businesses are to the economy. I wonder how many of them could afford, in these difficult days, to up their wages bill when they are already struggling to stay afloat.
This year will be critical for a great many industries, in my opinion and the opinion of many others more expert than I am. I know of more than one business in my town that has downgraded from two shops to one, but which has kept the same staffing levels in the hope of reducing overheads and not having to make staff redundant. For the owner, the most important thing is not to make staff redundant—not to send people to the unemployment queue. He cares about his staff and does not want them to be out of work. However, he has children to feed, as they do, and if we asked him to pay his eight staff more wages, he could not. He would either have to lay some off, or close altogether. I know that that story is being replicated throughout the UK, as even businesses that were thought to be established call in the administrators and close their doors. Can we honestly expect the small retailer to take up the slack? We hope that he or she can do it, but we are not sure.
Can we force the onus of economic recovery on to shop owners, or does it lie in this place? I believe it lies in Parliament and with the Assemblies. We must encourage small businesses to pay their staff what they can; but there is also a need for decisions for growth and the encouragement of business investment in local economies, and for the creation of employment and spending power. A living wage is a great target to aim for, but that will be brought about not through legislation but through good governance from the House and the devolved Assemblies; the Northern Ireland Assembly has a particular role to play. We need to focus on those issues, and when economic conditions are right—which we hope will be soon—we can expect employers to play their part in making things better for their employees.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this important debate. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) who always speaks so passionately on behalf of his constituents in Northern Ireland. I noticed time and again from the statistics he offered that Northern Ireland and Wales are often classified as the poorest parts of the United Kingdom. That makes the 10p tax rate an incredibly important issue for my constituents in north Wales.
We must congratulate the coalition Government on the significant increase in the personal allowance. It has meant a huge cost to the Government, but it is the correct decision and it highlights the coalition’s strong belief that the best way to help people is to allow them to keep more of the money they earn. That is the big difference between the coalition and the Labour Opposition, who believe that the best way to help the poorest in society is to take money from them and give some of it back, depending on their circumstances. I strongly believe that we should try to ensure that people keep as much of the money they earn as possible. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow made another important point: I support the aspiration of a £10,000 personal allowance, but we must ensure at some point that people understand that they must contribute to society.
I welcome the movement in the personal allowance, which means, for example, that the husband and wife who run a small business as owners of a small guest house in my constituency can earn £20,000 from it without paying tax. That is an incentive for them to work and make a success of the business; but it is important that people understand that there is a point where they must contribute towards what the state provides. It is all very well to ask and demand more from the Government, but there is an understanding, which includes everyone, of a need to contribute. That is why it is important to focus our attention, once the £10,000 personal allowance is secured, on continuing to support the lowest paid, but in a possibly more cost-effective manner. Let us be honest: a 10p tax rate would cost half the amount of an increase in the personal allowance. There would be an impact on more people. We should support the aim of securing a new 10p tax rate, because it would help the poorest paid but also emphasise the need for everyone who works to contribute to society at some stage. I strongly support that aspiration.
I have nothing but sympathy with the Minister on the issues that the Treasury faces. The previous Government left them with a terrible situation—and I am not talking just about the financial deficit. The complication beyond recognition of the tax system is frankly shameful. In a recent article Philip Booth included a table that highlighted the fact that the marginal tax and benefit withdrawal rates are now out of tune. That results in a situation where someone earning between £8,000 and £38,000 is paying, between benefit withdrawal, tax payments and national insurance payments—if that person has a family of three children—a 73% marginal tax rate. That then falls to 42%; then it goes up again if people earn more than £100,000, because of the personal allowance withdrawal. Then it goes down again. The progressive tax system, which everyone in this country believed in, has been completely distorted by a process in which benefits, personal allowances and so forth have been withdrawn in response to a financial crisis. That has left a distorted tax system that goes against something the coalition is strongly in favour of—the aspiration to support people who want to support themselves. It is difficult to see how a tax system that now has so many distortions is doing the job it is meant to do, of supporting such people.
The Treasury faces a huge job in dealing with the deficit, but in due course it will need to think carefully about how to make the tax system fairer, with a progressive element rather than the present slightly distorting effect. There are opportunities to change it. Universal credit will deal with many anomalies at the lower end of the income spectrum, but we must recognise our responsibility to see the tax system for what it is—a failing system whose distortions run counter to the work ethic. The counter-productive element of the tax system is reflected in the fall in the 40% tax rate threshold. The fact that it will hit people on an income of £34,000 from April is counterbalanced by an increase in the personal allowance, but we must be aware that people in fairly modest positions in society are now being expected to pay a higher rate of tax, something that previous generations would not have anticipated. We have a responsibility to deal with that issue. The important thing for the Government is to try to provide circumstances that will support people in work.
The Northern Ireland situation has been discussed, and it is similar to that in Wales. We need to congratulate the Government on the fact that the tax payments of a person on the minimum wage, for example, have been halved as a result of changes to the personal allowance. There is a question whether it is justifiable to call something a minimum wage while still expecting someone to pay tax on it. However, I want to sound a note of caution about the living wage. I support the aspiration, but I question the affordability of it. I specifically question the fact that local authorities in Wales are saying they will pay all their staff a living wage. Is that a reasonable way to deal with the issue? In effect, it is using money raised in taxes from people who are often not particularly well paid to provide a benefit for people in the public sector, who may have better benefits than other workers. I question that: by bringing in a living wage for some workers, the public sector in some local authorities reinforces the view that people who work for the public sector somehow deserve better pay than those who work in the private sector. I am hugely concerned about it.
There is a saying in Welsh, which I hope that you will allow me use, Mr Robertson: “Hael yw Hywel ar bwrs y wlad,” which means it is very easy to be generous with other people’s money. When I hear of local authorities in Wales that are thinking about taking that course, I ask them to reflect on where the money comes from in the first instance; because 75% to 80% of local government expenditure in Wales is from general taxation, so lower paid workers in other parts of the economy will be contributing to enabling councillors to feel good about themselves. The aspiration should be for people on comparatively low pay not to have to pay significant amounts of tax. Therefore the increase in the personal allowance, coupled with the 10p tax rate, would make a huge difference.
I support the aspirations behind the debate today, but we must consider the issues in the context of the complexity of the tax system, and the challenges to the Government in dealing with the deficit. However, a challenge that is equally crucial is to set out plans to introduce a 10p tax rate and deal with a tax system that is no longer progressive in the way it collects taxes from families. That may be something for a second term, but I am confident that there will be one. I am sure that after 2015 a Conservative Government will be able to deal with the anomalies and ensure that the tax system is fair to all—whether those at the lower end of the tax spectrum or a family earning perhaps £40,000 or £50,000 per annum.
John Robertson (in the Chair)
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is ready to help the Hansard people with his speech.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I hope not to be as challenging for the Hansard reporters as my Welsh colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing the debate. He is a worthy champion of such issues and I hope to give him my support.
Although my Cleethorpes constituency is best known as the premier resort of the east coast, it is a highly industrial area that takes in a large section of the Humber bank. Although there are highly skilled and well-paid jobs in some of the factories, my constituency, and indeed the region, is an area in which pay is considerably below the national average.
Seaside resorts are heavily reliant on part-time, often seasonal work. In some cases, that is not necessarily what people would like, but it is what is available. For other people, the work fits perfectly with their family responsibilities and is a useful supplement to the family income. The Conservative party has traditionally been the low-tax party, and so it should and must remain, but it must be low tax for all, with the emphasis on the low-paid. The coalition Government have done an awful lot in that respect, most notably through the massive increase in personal allowances. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow pointed out, we risk jeopardising much of the political benefit if we allow our opponents to paint us wrongly as the party of the rich and privileged.
Mr Andrew Smith
The hon. Gentleman refers—rightly, I am sure—to the importance of part-time, often low-paid workers in his constituency, but does he accept that the coalition’s withdrawal of working tax credit from part-time workers has hit those workers very hard and represented a disincentive to work, which is contrary to his argument?
Martin Vickers
I acknowledge that that has not been welcomed by many of my constituents, but what is important is the balance the Government have achieved to support and supplement the incomes of the lower-paid.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow is to be congratulated on keeping this issue high on the political agenda. Indeed, it has been a theme of Conservative thinking for decades and, in recent years, it was taken up by my noble Friend Lord Forsyth, who argued strongly in favour of simplification in the tax reform commission’s report. Paragraph 6.1 of that report states:
“The personal tax system should be characterised by low tax rates and simplicity. Allowances, reliefs and loopholes should be cut where possible and compliance costs reduced. The least well-off in society should be taken out of tax altogether. Many of the lowest paid pay tax while receiving benefits and tax credits. This recycling of money is a waste of resources. It is a waste of time for the individuals and the government. It should be reduced and eliminated where possible. Personal tax rates are also too high.”
The abolition of the 10p tax rate by the previous Government in 2008 represented a tax rise of £232 for working people. For someone earning today’s minimum wage, the reintroduction of that rate would be the equivalent of a tax cut of some £250 a year.
Reducing the rate of tax is the most effective way in which the Government could contribute to achieving the living wage without forcing employers to pay more or creating further barriers to employment. It would also ensure that working people would keep more of their money in their pockets. When considered alongside the universal credit, a 10p tax rate would enable more people to escape their reliance on benefits. Of course, I recognise that achieving the 10p tax rate would have a significant cost—£6 billion, I understand—and I appreciate that Treasury Ministers must balance that cost against the potential boost to the economy derived from any tax cut, but a commitment to movement in that direction would be most welcome.
Today, in an excellent article on the “ConservativeHome” website—I am sure that Opposition Members have read it—my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who, like many Government Members, has impeccable working-class credentials, says:
“We must be the party of ordinary working people. The party of people who want a decent job to support themselves and their families; the security of a home of their own where they can be stable and settled; reliable back-up from well-run, caring public services; and enough money left in their pay packets to afford a car, a holiday, savings for a rainy day and a reasonable pension in retirement.
These are not the demands of those who think the world owes them a living. It is an attitude to life distinguished by quiet responsibility, mutual reliance and family loyalties. That which is asked of government is…to provide a shield from risk and turbulence—instead of adding to life’s uncertainties.”
I would say that they are very Tory views, and I echo them 100%.
My parents were proud to describe themselves as working-class Tories. They came from the generation that had seen the war and the post-war years of austerity. It was a generation of self-reliance, and my parents took great pride in the fact that they were self-reliant. Whatever label we use—working-class Tories, blue-collar Conservatives or whatever—the policy advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow is a rallying cry that we can all welcome.
A commitment to a 10p tax rate would send the clear message that we are indeed all in it together. It would further cement in the minds of voters that Conservatives now, as always, represent all members of our communities, and it would also emphasise the damage done—if I may misquote Harold Wilson—by 13 years of Labour misrule. Such a commitment would send a clear message to my constituents in Cleethorpes and people elsewhere that in the future, as in the past, it is the Conservatives who can best help working people.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
I commend the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this debate on what is undoubtedly a crucial issue, not just for families on low incomes, but for our society and economy as a whole. We both share a great passion for promoting the importance of apprenticeships, and I believe we were among the first Members to employ an apprentice in our offices. Given today’s debate, it also seems that we share a passion for ensuring a fair distribution of wealth, for eliminating poverty and for creating incentives to work. That is why I am delighted that he secured the opportunity to debate this important subject, and particularly the benefits of a living wage, although I fear that our views diverge on the solutions that we would pursue to achieve those aims.
I commend hon. Members who contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a powerful speech about the plight of low-paid workers and the striving private sector in his constituency. The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) also made a comprehensive and powerful speech, although I dispute some of the issues that he raised, and particularly something that many hon. Members have talked about today—the idea of taking money away and giving it back.
No one, however, mentioned the impact of some of the Government’s changes. The strivers’ tax that was voted through by Government Members last night will have a devastating impact on many women across the country. Huge support is given to help women to cope with their child caring responsibilities and to support them to stay in work by making work pay, despite the significant costs of child care and taking maternity leave. That seemed to have been completely overlooked in the debate, so I wanted to draw attention to it.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady let us know whether the Labour party is in favour of a 10p tax band or against it?
Catherine McKinnell
At the moment, the key issue is the impact of the Government changes, particularly on low-paid workers. The Government present the rise in the personal allowance as a benefit for some of the lowest-paid workers, but the reality is that several of the measures announced in the Budget and the recent autumn statement are impacting on those very workers whom Government Members profess to want to support. After one does the maths, there is huge concern regarding making work pay for those people.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) talked about the withdrawal of tax credits and keeping more money in people’s pockets, but Government Members have overlooked the major issue of the increase in VAT, which has had a massive effect on many people’s pockets. There is talk about how people should be required to make a contribution, yet low-paid workers throughout the country are making a contribution every day because of the additional VAT that is levied on them.
Catherine McKinnell
I want to make a bit more progress on setting out our position.
I challenge the hon. Member for Harlow on his approach, given that he, along with Government Members, yesterday voted through a measure that is effectively a real-terms cut for millions of striving families throughout the country. He voted for £6.7 million in working-age benefits and tax credits to be taken away over the next four years, thus cutting such support in real terms. I will be interested to hear the Government’s response to his contention that the reintroduction of the 10p tax rate would be the solution to the devastating impact on many families of such changes.
We are all too aware that the economic situation in which we and the Government find ourselves is challenging, to say the least. As a result of the Government’s failure to generate jobs and growth, they are set to borrow £212 billion more than planned, and the Chancellor has had to admit that he is set to miss his target of getting the national debt falling by 2015. The Office for Budget Responsibility has revised social security spending up by £13.6 billion by 2015-16, which is the price tag of higher unemployment. Although it is welcome that the unemployment figures have fallen recently, if we look behind the headline numbers, we see that long-term unemployment is not coming down, and that unemployment rose in a third of England over the past month.
People are struggling to make ends meet due to a combination of under-employment, stagnating wages, rising food, fuel and child care costs, and the hike in VAT. The situation is leading many people to a point at which they are increasingly using food banks and are often forced to work two or even three jobs just to keep their heads above water. Only yesterday, an alliance of 100 energy companies, charities and businesses joined forces to warn the Prime Minister that Britain is heading towards a fuel poverty crisis as a result of the Government’s failure to tackle that problem properly, with perhaps up to 9 million homes affected by 2016.
We heard several interesting contributions about the living wage, especially from the hon. Member for Harlow. To some extent, they built on the debate earlier this month that was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) which, like the hon. Member for Strangford, I read with great interest. The living wage campaign has been around for just more than a decade, but events of recent years have meant that the policy has come of age and is now right at the top of the political agenda. There is no doubt that Labour’s national minimum wage transformed the lives of millions. The policy not only affected people’s personal finances, but meant that the Government had made a clear statement that there was a line under which pay for an hour’s work would be unacceptable.
Mr Rob Wilson
The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way and I hope that she will not mind me restating my question, but I have not yet heard the answer. I am not asking for a policy, only whether, in principle, she and the Labour party are in favour of a 10p tax band or against.
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman is well aware that Labour introduced the 10p tax rate. In the context of levelling out income tax and the personal allowance, the tax rate went from 22% to 20% and the 10p rate was abolished. There were various debates about winners and losers at the time, and there is no particular move at the moment to reintroduce the 10p rate. We are more concerned about the impact of the Government’s economic measures on low-paid workers, which the hon. Member for Harlow was discussing.
The Labour party’s approach has been clear—to tackle issues of low pay and to ensure that work always pays. We therefore want support for those who need extra help to make work pay, to keep them off benefits and to ensure that they can afford necessities such as child care so that they can stay in work. We have made our policy clear and we are therefore proud of what we achieved through the tax credit system.
George Eustice
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way on this obviously difficult point. Having been in opposition, I fully understand her difficulties with people trying to bounce her into writing a manifesto commitment for the next election, but can she say whether the Labour Government made the right decision to abolish the 10p rate or, with hindsight, was that a mistake?
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but I am trying to discuss the premise proposed for debate today by the hon. Member for Harlow, which is people on low pay and the living wage campaign, so I will return to my point on the national minimum wage, which transformed the lives of millions. The policy is now taken for granted, but it was implemented in the face of often strident opposition, in particular by members of the Conservative party. Despite significant opposition at the time, however, it now seems to be universally accepted as an important aspect of our economy in ensuring fairness across the board.
The squeeze on people’s incomes and the ever-increasing cost of living, of which we are all aware and which we have all seen among our constituents, mean that for many the national minimum wage is simply not enough to make ends meet. Thus, a higher rate of £7.45 per hour outside London and £8.55 per hour inside the capital has been calculated by the Centre for Research in Social Policy as the level required to enable people to provide for themselves and their families.
Guto Bebb
On the minimum wage, although I was not in this place for the debates, my recollection is that the issue was about the scale and level of the minimum wage. My real concern was that the state was imposing a minimum wage on small businesses but also helping itself to tax from that minimum wage. Surely it is a good thing that the coalition is ensuring that people on the minimum wage are now paying significantly less tax.
Catherine McKinnell
Could the hon. Gentleman repeat his premise about how the Government are helping people on the minimum wage to pay less tax?
Guto Bebb
The point is simple. The Labour Government brought in a minimum wage, and yet the Government of the day helped themselves to significant amounts of tax from that minimum wage. In other words, small businesses in constituencies such as mine felt that they were being forced to pay higher levels of wages in order for the Government to be able to help themselves to tax. Surely this Government, by increasing the personal allowance so significantly, have reduced the tax take from those on the minimum wage.
Catherine McKinnell
I accept that the Government have increased the personal allowance, but their other policy changes have impacted on those very people whom they purport to be helping, with a real-terms effect on families up and down the country. In fact, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes admitted that his constituents are certainly not happy about some of the changes and their impact. I know for certain that my constituents would agree, but the shocking fact is that almost 5 million people across the UK are currently paid less than the living wage, and 3 million of them are women. The Government may believe that the way to motivate people on low incomes is to pay them less, and the way to motivate those on the highest incomes is to pay them more, but the Labour party believes that this is an issue of dignity at work and social justice.
Mr Andrew Smith
My hon. Friend is doing a very good job of batting off the attacks from Conservative Members. Does she agree that the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) must not be allowed to rewrite history? The Conservative party argued vigorously against not just the level of the minimum wage, but its very introduction. It said that it would destroy jobs, but after it was introduced, 1 million extra jobs were generated in the economy. I think the Government now accept the point, but the hon. Gentleman must not be allowed to get away with rewriting history.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that important point. I said that there was fierce opposition, particularly from Conservative Members, when the national minimum wage was introduced, and he has given some colour to the debate that took place at that time. We are moving on to the next stage, and the Labour party is backing the living wage campaign, which is a perfect example of how we can deliver a one-nation economy in which everyone has a stake, and prosperity is fairly shared. That is why Labour councils are delivering a living wage throughout the country, despite straitened economic circumstances for many and in the face of swingeing Government cuts. We believe in doing the right thing for low-paid employees. Those local authorities include Islington, Lambeth, Wigan, Camden, Oxford, Preston, Southwark, Hackney and, from November last year, my city council, Newcastle, which is meeting the cost of paying the living wage entirely from a reduction in management costs.
Labour councils are paying a living wage because it is a powerful symbol of the change that the Labour party wants to see in our economy. We do not want the race-to-the-bottom approach backed by the Government, who seek to erode workers’ rights and make it easier to sack staff. We want to aim for a higher skilled, higher waged and more productive economy that can genuinely compete on the global stage so that workers are not forced into several jobs with no chance of spending proper time with their families.
It is vital that the Government, both central and local, take a lead, but it is not enough, as hon. Members have said, for just the public sector to implement the living wage. It is great news that around 140 private sector employers have taken that step, including notable firms such as KPMG, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, PWC, Lush, Westfield shopping centres and InterContinental Hotels Group. Many of those firms have been clear about the positive impact that paying a living wage has had on their companies. KPMG has reported higher employee morale, motivation and productivity alongside a reduction in staff turnover and absenteeism since the policy was implemented.
Mr Andrew Smith
Does my hon. Friend agree that the really important commitment is not just that large organisations commit to the living wage, but that they require their contractors and subcontractors to do so? Otherwise there is a risk that they will simply outsource their low-paid jobs while taking credit for paying the living wage to their direct employees. We want everyone to have it.
Catherine McKinnell
My right hon. Friend raises an important point, and I will come to the Government’s approach to procurement in the private sector as the ripple of understanding of the benefits that the living wage can bring spreads to employers throughout the supply chain.
Robert Halfon
The hon. Lady mentioned some companies that have supported the living wage. That is all well and good, but they are big corporate companies that can afford to pay it. The issue for me is that smaller companies will find it much harder to afford to implement it. Surely the best way to help the lower paid is what the coalition is doing—cutting tax for low earners and taking 2 million lower income people out of tax all together. Is that not a much more effective way of helping the lower paid?
Catherine McKinnell
As I have said, the impact of the Government’s changes and the raising of the personal tax allowance have provided some help for those on the lowest wages, but the real impact has been detrimental. The figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show clearly that a family with one working earner will be worse off, on average, by £534 by 2016 because of all the tax and benefit changes that have been pushed through. I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the Government’s policies are hitting lower paid workers, not helping them.
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous. She is right if she takes the benefits changes by themselves, but if she then looks at the lower tax for lower earners, the council tax freeze and other measures the Government have introduced, lower income workers will not be worse off in the way she describes.
Catherine McKinnell
That is certainly not the case in the studies that I have read on the overall impact of the tax changes that the Government have pushed through. The hon. Gentleman raised the important point about the best approach. I am sure that he is aware that the analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Resolution Foundation suggested that introducing a living wage could lead to a net gain to the Treasury of more than £2 billion a year when the costs of paying it throughout the public sector are set against reduced benefit and tax credit payments, and higher income tax and national insurance receipts.
As the living wage campaign takes hold, wins the arguments and wins over more and more companies, including those throughout the supply chain and smaller companies, it will improve the economy as a whole, and help to put more money in people’s pockets to spend in the local economy. That is vital when so many high streets and local companies are struggling. We have seen many worrying examples of high street shops closing. That compares with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Harlow to reintroduce the 10p tax band, which the Library estimates would cost around £6 billion a year. The cost of the hon. Gentleman’s approach is indeed high, particularly when set against the gains made to the Treasury from its ill-thought-through cut in support for low-paid families that was voted through last night.
The hon. Gentleman has set out his suggested approach for supporting low-paid workers. The Government’s approach needs a little more inspection at this stage. Last night, the striver’s tax was voted through, and according to the IFS, 7 million working households will lose an average of £165 per year. Indeed, its calculations show that the impact of the changes announced in the autumn statement between now and April 2015 will be to reduce the real-terms income of a one-earner working family by £534 on average by 2015-16. We know that a further 200.000 children will be pushed into poverty as a result of the uprating measures that were voted through last night.
Despite what the Chancellor may like to believe and some of the rhetoric from hon. Members on the Government Benches, it will not be so-called shirkers who suffer the impact of the changes. The Children’s Society has calculated that up to 40,000 soldiers, 300,000 nurses and 150,000 primary and nursery school teachers will lose out as a result of the 1% uprating decision. I have mentioned the impact of the mummy tax on women. The Government are not content that two thirds of those affected by the 1% uprating of benefits and tax credits will be women; they want to impose an effective tax cut of £180 on working women through their real-terms cut in statutory maternity pay.
Those are just a few examples of the Government’s warped priorities for workers on lower incomes, and there are many more. People are angry that they are being asked to pay the price of the Government’s economic failure when they are already struggling to get by, and when—all credit to the hon. Gentleman for raising this—the Government have decided to give a tax cut to millionaires. They need to neutralise the perception that they are giving tax cuts to the rich.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
That point is well worn and made continually, and I am sure that all Members are aware of the top rate of tax being cut, but there is an element of financial amnesia here. As even people who only have a rudimentary understanding of economics will appreciate, the main way that wealthy people accumulate wealth is through wealth creation, rather than income, which is always variable. If we look at capital gains tax, the current rate is 28%, which is in stark contrast to the previous Labour Government, where venture capitalists were paying capital gains tax at a rate of 10%—often much lower than the cleaners who were cleaning their offices.
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point. We always have to support business growth and creation. Unfortunately, many of the Government’s policies are impacting on individuals and on consumers who will buy the goods that such companies make. In reality, that is resulting in stagnation and no growth in the economy, which is taking the country backwards, not forwards, but I take his point on board.
I suggest that a simple and effective way of pulling off an image neutralisation attempt would be by not going ahead with that tax cut for the rich, and by not pushing through real-term cuts for people in work, but on low pay. The hon. Member for Harlow has put forward his alternative argument—the restoration of the 10p rate of income tax on income between £9,205 and £12,000. However, as he notes in his early-day motions, restoring the 10p rate of income tax would move workers on the minimum wage only
“about halfway towards earning the Living Wage”,
and that would be at a cost to the Exchequer of around £6 billion a year, according to the Library. I can see alarm bells potentially ringing in the Minister’s head at that prospect, particularly when the Government are forecast to borrow £212 billion more than they planned to borrow two years ago and are failing one of the key economic tests that they set themselves.
In conclusion, the Government have repeatedly stated that they support the living wage and encourage businesses to take it up where possible. That is laudable, and the Opposition agree that the living wage should not be mandatory, but we encourage as many companies as possible to implement it. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide us today with examples of measures that the Government have taken to encourage the uptake of the living wage, as well as specific examples of what firms are now doing as a consequence of the Government’s actions.
I know from my work on apprenticeships that the use of the public procurement system in encouraging take-up has been a particular area of interest for the hon. Member for Harlow. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that we can learn from local government procurement to see whether central Government can use their buying power to insist that large firms winning major public contracts commit to being a living wage employer. I suspect that the Minister may cite EU procurement rules as preventing that from becoming a reality, but the European Commission has stated:
“Living-wage conditions may be included in the contract performance clauses of a public procurement contract ‘provided they are not directly or indirectly discriminatory and are indicated in the contract notice or in the contract documents’.”
Will the Minister clarify whether the Government have any intentions of taking that idea forward?
Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister outlined which Departments are now living wage employers and which are not. It is absolutely vital that the Government show leadership on that issue. Will he clarify whether the Treasury pays the living wage to all its staff?
Once again, I applaud the hon. Member for Harlow for securing the debate, and for highlighting the plight of low-paid workers and the squeeze on families in these straitened times. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to the suggested approach; how that can be reconciled with the squeeze on low-paid workers that his Government forced through Parliament last night; and what his Government will do to encourage more businesses to pay their workers the living wage.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and to respond to this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing it. He has such a reputation for being a strong representative of his constituents that it is not surprising that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) might even believe that his constituency was named after him—I know that Harlow is a new town, but a change of name might not be appropriate. However, he does a splendid job on behalf of his constituents as a whole and he does a particularly good job of representing hard-working, low-paid people up and down the country. If I may, I shall describe them as strivers, and my hon. Friend represents them very well. He sets out the case for a 10p rate clearly, with great eloquence and understanding, and I hope to respond to his points.
I thank other hon. Members who have participated in the debate, particularly those who have made speeches: my hon. Friends the Members for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I also thank other hon. Members who have participated through their interventions.
During my remarks, I hope to set out what the Government are doing to help the very people that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow identified as being in need of support: those hard-working, low-paid individuals who are taxed in circumstances where they do not have a lot of money. None the less, they have income tax deducted from their salary, and I will set out what we are doing to help such people.
I would like to take us back to the abolition of the 10p rate, which has obviously featured heavily during our debate this afternoon, and set out a little more information about the arguments that were made at the time and perhaps discuss some of the difficulties that those of us who were in the House had in getting to the truth of the impact of the 10p rate’s abolition—perhaps I should say the doubling of the 10p rate of tax, because that, in truth, is what happened.
In 1997, the Labour party’s manifesto stated that it was Labour’s long-term objective to have
“a lower starting rate of income tax of 10 pence in the pound.”
In the 1998 Budget, the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), confirmed his intention to bring in such a starting rate
“When it is right for the economy”.—[Official Report, 17 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1104.]
The measure was implemented from April 1999, with taxpayers paying only 10p in the pound on their first £1,500 of taxable income. The rationale was to put work first and to ease the poverty trap, whereby people on low pay were discouraged from climbing the earnings ladder due to high marginal deduction rates. The 10p rate remained in place until the announcement in the 2007 Budget, which was the last to be delivered by the right hon. Gentleman. Those of us who were there will remember that the intention behind the abolition was pretty clear. It was a theatrical coup to conclude the last Budget by that Chancellor with a reduction in the main rate of income tax from 22% to 20%. Other measures were taken with regard to the indexation of personal allowances for those aged 65 and above and the retention of the 10% rate for savings income, but what was clear was that great, theatrical moment just before the then Leader of the Opposition stood up, not able to see all the details, and there was this surprise tax cut. Of course, questions then started to be asked about how that was to be funded in what was a fiscally neutral set of tax measures.
At the time, it became clear, once we saw the Red Book, that the Government estimated that the removal of the starting rate of income tax would yield the Exchequer an additional £7.3 billion in 2008-09, so where would the extra cash come from? It was a little difficult to get all the answers at the time. The Budget book at the time set out a list of all the people who would be winning from the changes, and the Budget statement said that four out of five households would either gain or remain in the same position as a result of the Budget measures, but we did not get much detail on the one out of five households that would lose.
The IFS confirmed that 5.3 million households would lose. A senior Treasury official, giving evidence to the Treasury Committee—I should inform hon. Members that I was a member of that Committee at the time—confirmed that that number was in the right ball park. The very next day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came along to answer questions on the Budget. He was asked five times by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) about the 5.3 million households that were going to lose out, and five times he refused to confirm that number. There is a lesson to be learned from that whole episode. We should be more transparent about the impact of policy decisions, and the present Government have taken significant steps to do that.
Mr Andrew Smith
In the light of that commitment to transparency, will the Minister give us his estimate of how many people lost out through the vote last night?
Mr Gauke
The reality is that one has to look at all the measures that we are undertaking, which is what I would seek to do. It is worth pointing out that working households will gain an average of £125 in 2013-14 as a consequence of all the measures that we are undertaking. The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point—I shall return to the 10p rate in a moment—but let us remember the context in which we are having this debate now about the steps that we can take.
I will set out a case about the way in which the Government have taken substantial steps with regard to the personal allowance to help low-paid workers. We have done that at a time when we inherited an enormous deficit, and we have had to make difficult decisions about how we reduce that deficit. We have been clear in the distributional analysis of where the contributions are coming from. The facts are very clear. The top 20% of earners are making the biggest contributions, not just in cash terms but in relative terms, to reducing the deficit.
Let me return to the people who lost out from the abolition of the 10p rate of income tax. People under the age of 65 with non-savings income between £5,435 and £19,355 would have paid more, because they lost more from the abolition of the 10% rate than they gained from the cut in the basic rate. It is worth reminding ourselves that a Labour Government took that measure and that those low-paid workers would have paid more tax. The loss was greatest, at £232 a year, for someone earning £7,755—the top of where the 10% band would have been. Those most affected by the abolition of the 10p rate appear to have been those below the age of 65 with an income under £18,500 who were in childless households. The effect was greatest on those households where no individual was above the age of 60, because the household would not then benefit from the higher winter fuel allowance. That is the legacy of the last Budget of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
Let us now consider what we have done in this difficult financial situation. We should remember that 2007 was still the age of apparent plenty; we have been in a much more difficult situation. Rather than reintroducing the 10% rate of tax, we have taken steps by increasing the personal allowance; we have taken real steps towards making the first £10,000 of income free from tax. I am grateful to a number of hon. Members for supporting that policy this afternoon. Since 2011, we have announced successive increases in the personal allowance, totalling £2,965. That includes a £1,100 increase announced in the 2012 Budget and a further £235 announced in the autumn statement last month. Following those announcements, the personal allowance rises by £1,335—the largest cash increase in history—to £9,440 from April 2013. Taken together, those changes will benefit 25 million individuals and provide a real-terms gain of £443 to most basic rate taxpayers in 2013-14. More than 2.2 million individuals with low incomes will have been taken out of income tax altogether.
I shall give some more examples of how the changes work. Let us take the context of the national minimum wage. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) referred to the personal allowance matching the national minimum wage for full-time employees, but let us examine what has happened to a person on the national minimum wage in full-time employment. In 2010-11, someone earning the national minimum wage would have had earnings of £10,979 and paid income tax of £901. In 2013-14, someone earning the national minimum wage will have estimated earnings of £11,691 and pay estimated income tax of £450. In other words, their bill will be halved. Another way to look at it is that, in 2010-11, such a person would have been able to work only 22 hours a week tax free; they can now work 29 hours a week before starting to pay income tax.
Another way to look at the situation is by comparing the approach that we have taken in increasing the personal allowance with the approach that the previous Government took in doubling the 10p rate of income tax. I talked about those who earn £7,755 a year and lost the most—£232 a year—as a consequence of the doubling of the 10p rate in 2008-09. In that year, an individual would have paid £344 in income tax. Under the present Government, in 2012-13, such an individual, with income adjusted for inflation to £8,299 a year, will pay about £39 in income tax—not £344 but £39 in tax, which is a saving of £305. In 2013-14, again with income adjusted for inflation, such an individual will pay no income tax at all. That is a contrast that I am very happy to highlight.
Catherine McKinnell
The Minister is setting out an interesting argument. Is he therefore making the case or suggesting that the Government will support the hon. Member for Harlow in his call for the reintroduction of the 10p tax rate?
Mr Gauke
The argument that I am making is about the contrast that can be drawn with the approach taken by the present Government, who have focused on reducing the tax bill for low-paid workers. That could be done in different ways, but we have undoubtedly, as a Government, reduced the income tax bill for low-paid workers. That compares favourably with the approach taken in the last Budget of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, in which he introduced a measure that increased pretty substantially the amount of income tax that low-paid workers had to pay. It is worth highlighting the point that we as a Government have done more, in very difficult circumstances, for those low-paid workers than the previous Government did.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow agrees that we should meet the £10,000 target. The debate is then about where we go next. I will not be drawn into going beyond the firm commitment that we have in the coalition agreement and that has been evidenced by the steps that we have taken at every Budget and in the last autumn statement to make progress towards meeting that £10,000 target for the personal allowance.
My hon. Friend has set out very clearly the case for focusing on reintroducing a new lower rate. There are pros and cons of such an approach, and the debate on that will continue. As he would expect, I will not make any commitments on the matter. Clearly, there is a substantial fiscal cost in reintroducing a 10p rate of income tax. However, the Government’s values are clear. The overall cost of the personal allowance by the end of this Parliament will be around £9.5 billion a year as a consequence of the measures that we have taken. Clearly, where we can, we have been prepared to take substantial steps, at quite significant cost, to reduce the income tax bill for those on low earnings. That is something of which we should be proud, and as a number of my hon. Friends have said, we should be communicating that out there, because it demonstrates our values.
George Eustice
I give credit to the Government for everything that they have done to help those on low incomes get out of the tax bracket altogether by increasing the thresholds. I entirely understand that the Minister will not want to predict what might happen in the future, but, looking to the recent past, will he explain what the Government believe the advantages are of lifting thresholds as an alternative to a 10p tax rate? In other words, why did the Government decide to lift the thresholds rather than reintroduce a 10p rate?
Mr Gauke
There is a case for simplicity in focusing on the increase in the personal allowance. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes quoted the Forsyth Commission, which looked into this matter, and there is a question why we should ask people who are on quite low wages to be contributing income tax. I appreciate the arguments that everyone should make a contribution, and I do not in any way dismiss them, but when we are asking people earning such relatively low amounts to pay income tax, there are the significant questions of work incentives and simplification. The Government must bear those in mind when considering whether to reintroduce the 10p rate. There is a debate to be had on both sides. There are pros and cons both to personal allowance increases and to a new lower rate. In our coalition agreement, we rightly set out our determination to get to £10,000. Fiscal drag had brought more people into income tax than was right, and we have rightly made it our priority to address that.
Robert Halfon
Does the Minister accept that raising the tax threshold to £12,500—the minimum wage—would cost around £14 billion, whereas reintroducing the 10p tax would cost between £6 billion and £7 billion?
Mr Gauke
I should perhaps check the numbers, but I believe that my hon. Friend is in the right area. Those are, I think, the realistic costs. I am not here to make any further commitments beyond what we have said in the coalition agreement, but it is right that we have this debate. It is also right that we acknowledge that we are all trying to do the same thing, which is to reduce the tax burden on those hard-working, low-paid workers who have to pay more tax, partly as a consequence of a specific decision taken by the previous Chancellor in 2007 to double the 10p rate.
Catherine McKinnell
We are nearly at the end of the debate, and I am conscious that the Minister has not really addressed any of the issues that relate to the living wage and what the Government might do to promote that policy as well.
Mr Gauke
The Government are supportive of the living wage, which the hon. Lady has described as commendable or laudatory. However, unlike the Opposition, the Government do not believe that it should be mandatory. She appears to be in search of a dividing line on that issue. [Interruption.] I am pleased to see her shaking her head. There is cross-party consensus that the living wage has a useful role to play. We support it; we welcome it when organisations adopt it; but we do not believe that it should be mandatory. There are risks involved. In some circumstances, it might increase the cost to the taxpayer in higher salaries, and in others, it might result in higher unemployment. That is why we do not think it should be mandatory and why, I assume, she feels the same way, unless she has a different rationale.
Catherine McKinnell
I was seeking clarity on the questions that I raised and whether the Government are taking positive steps to promote the living wage.
Mr Gauke
It is very much for organisations and institutions to determine their own remuneration policy. We support such a wage in principle, but we will not make it mandatory, and there is cross-party consensus on that.
I turn now to the other steps that we are taking to support the low-paid workers whom my hon. Friend highlighted so well in his remarks. We have helped local authorities to freeze council tax for three years in a row, and we are proposing to set the council tax referendums thresholds at 2% for 2013-14.
I cannot, of course, go through a debate with my hon. Friend without referring to fuel duty. He is a keen campaigner on that point and he will be well aware of the steps that we have taken to ensure that average pump prices are currently 10 pence per litre lower than if we had implemented the fuel duty escalator. They will remain at least 10 pence per litre lower over the remainder of the Parliament than they would have been had we stuck to the plans that we inherited. In practical terms, it will cost £5 less for a typical motorist to fill their tank today and £8 less by the end of the Parliament.
We are taking numerous other steps to ease the load on those on low and middle incomes. We have capped average regulated rail and Transport for London fare increases at RPI plus 1% for the third year in a row. We have increased the basic state pension by £5.30 last year, which is the biggest cash increase ever, and we have introduced a triple guarantee, to ensure that it will increase each year using the increase in earnings, prices or 2.5%, whichever is highest.
I am conscious of the time, so let me say that I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and all the other attendees on their excellent contributions. As I have said, I think that my hon. Friend and I agree that the Government should reduce the tax burden on people on the lowest incomes. Our focus has been on increasing the personal allowance. I am confident that our policies, both on the minimum wage and the personal allowance, are exactly the right ones to achieve that.
Dementia Services (Gloucestershire)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
In the dementia debate in the House a fortnight ago, sadly I was tail-end Charlie and time prevented me from contributing a Gloucestershire perspective, so I am very grateful for this opportunity to put that right. I am also very grateful to the Minister for coming to Westminster Hall this afternoon.
Dementia can be an emotional topic. In that earlier debate, many Members—mostly female Members—from all parties in the House talked about the very human side to the disease. It was a reminder that we are no more and no less than a reflection of those we serve; a mirror of the human sadness and strength that are part of the disease of dementia. Perhaps it is not given to men to be as open or as eloquent as women in discussing our experience of family suffering. However, I will embarrass my father briefly, for he looked after my mother at home through many years of dementia. And after my mother’s death, when I said that I could not have done what he had done, my father replied quietly, “You never know what you can do until you have to.” It falls to our generation to “have to” do something about dementia, before we too—one in four of us, including one in four of us in Westminster Hall today—are overtaken by this disease.
In Gloucestershire—an ageing shire—the need is even more pressing. So there are three areas that I would be grateful to hear my hon. Friend the Minister’s views about in this brief debate, and two on which I would like to share our practice in Gloucestershire. Then I will finish by issuing an invitation.
The first area is research. It is good that Government research expenditure has doubled, and that the Aricept brand of new drug can delay the speed at which the disease spreads. However, although that is valuable—not least for giving families a chance to plan—Aricept may not work for much more than a year. Furthermore, although the Government have recently invested £22 million in research into 21 new products, can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that it may be years before we know if any of them are successful? Since the goal of a cure is such a precious one—way beyond even the estimated heavy financial cost of treating sufferers, which is about £19 billion a year—can he also say if any drug development is close to the stage where the NHS could really financially back its development? On this issue, surely everyone would love to see science and Government working together to back a winner.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I will intervene, if for no other reason than to give the hon. Gentleman a chance to catch his breath.
In Northern Ireland, dementia diagnosis is at 63%, which is well above other parts of the UK. The support services are not as high; in other parts of the UK, support services are much higher than they are in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time there should be a UK strategy that takes all the diagnosis and support services together, and that develops a strategy not only for Gloucestershire but for Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK?
Richard Graham
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I know his constituency well, and I am sure that there are points on which we could exchange information. My hon. Friend the Minister will have heard and noted his comment: it is probably a subject for a separate debate, and we may come back to that issue another day.
Secondly, I want to talk about diagnosis. Currently, less than half of people with dementia in England are formally diagnosed with the disease, even as dementia affects more of us. Gloucestershire is the county with the highest number of people with dementia in the south-west, and it has one of the highest diagnosis rates in the region. However, although the number of people diagnosed with dementia in Gloucestershire rose by 12% last year, to 4,037, another 4,800 people in the county are thought to have the condition but have not yet been diagnosed. Consequently, although the diagnosis rate of our primary care trust is good regionally, at 46%, one can see that we have a long way to go in absolute terms, especially if the county council is right that our population of people over the age of 75 will increase by 30% by 2022.
Where is the best practice currently in the country? Could my hon. Friend the Minister tell us from whom we can learn best how to drive up diagnosis rates within tight budgets? As the Alzheimer’s Society says, low-ish diagnosis rates prevent sufferers from accessing support and medical treatments that can help them to live better with the condition.
The third area is care. In the main debate in the House a fortnight ago, other Members spoke about the link between dementia and care, and about the growing need for a “fair” solution to the problem of caring for an ageing population. Again, it falls to our generation to resolve this situation. Across the country, the number of people over the age of 65 is set to double during the next 20 years, and in counties such as mine the rate of growth will be worse, and faster.
I know that, in the wake of the Dilnot commission’s proposals, the Government will make formal proposals shortly about how they believe this issue can be settled. I wonder if my hon. Friend the Minister can say anything today about whether dementia will have a part in that process, and whether it will perhaps encourage the speed of implementation of the plans that the Government are considering.
At the same time, will my hon. Friend the Minister join me in congratulating Gloucestershire county council for entirely ring-fencing its budget on adult social care during these difficult years of local government spending freezes? In the last debate in the House on dementia, we heard from several Members whose authorities were not doing that, and it would be interesting to know how many other authorities are doing the right thing for the most vulnerable—a group that definitely includes dementia sufferers—as Gloucestershire has been doing.
I have promised to mention two local initiatives on dementia, as I believe they show that Gloucestershire may be leading the way. First, I pay tribute to the development in Gloucestershire of the community dementia nurse, or CDN, service, which was launched in December 2011 by the 2gether NHS Foundation Trust. The CDN service provides specialist and direct dementia support to GPs, with each surgery in the county being allocated such a nurse.
Secondly, we are fortunate to have a local charitable foundation, the Barnwood Trust, and it is working closely with the Gloucestershire clinical commissioning group, which has won £500,000 from the NHS dementia challenge to create dementia-friendly communities. That means having community workers who are trained as dementia link workers—people who are connecting to local communities.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite often the local voluntary community groups such as the Mickey Payne Memorial Foundation, which was set up by my constituent Caroline Dearson, that are leading the way in spreading best practice, support networks and awareness within their communities?
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Community groups, such as the one in her constituency that she has mentioned and championed, are exactly the groups of people that are driving forward best practice at the local level. Of course, if they are able to win funds from the NHS dementia challenge then so much the better, because those funds would enable them to spread their good deeds further.
In Gloucestershire, we also benefit from local charities. The Guideposts Trust’s dementia web for Gloucestershire is a web-based support site that provides information for people with Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia. We also have two very good-value day centres, one run by Age UK Gloucestershire and the other by Gloucester Charities Trust. They enable people to stay in their own homes for longer, while at the same time enabling them to meet friends and access general facilities, and enabling their carers or loved ones to leave them safely for a couple of hours while they go shopping.
Lastly, there is a very helpful purple butterfly recognition scheme for dementia sufferers that the Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has introduced in both its hospitals, Gloucestershire royal hospital and Cheltenham general hospital. Therefore my constituents are benefiting all round from an increasing range of services and ways of managing and dealing with dementia better.
However, that is not to say—as my hon. Friend the Minister will understand—that all is perfect, or that we are necessarily doing all the best things that can be done. The important thing is that the barriers are down. All of us can talk openly, in my county and across the country, about dementia. There is no stigma and no shame, just shared sadness and sometimes that surprising strength that I alluded to earlier.
I am sure there are other things being done elsewhere that I would like to know more about and that my constituents would benefit from. So I would be grateful today if my hon. Friend the Minister could do a favour to us all—I mean all parliamentarians—by giving some ideas of the best practice that he has noticed in different ways of handling the disease and managing the suffering that goes with it. Even if he cannot do so comprehensively today, perhaps he can do so later by letter.
Sometimes, too, our own cities and towns need to widen our eyes, stretch out beyond us and allow us to see ideas from further afield that we can bring back, and the Minister can help to steer us. What role, for example, is there for faith groups? Who is doing the best work across different ethnic minorities? Are there particular extra sensitivities, such as elderly immigrants reverting to the languages of their youth, of which we need to be more aware? What more can be done to support GP surgeries in diagnosing dementia? How can people be enabled to stay in their own homes for longer without that feeling of helplessness if something goes wrong?
Finally, like all good pitches must, this speech ends with an invitation for the Minister to visit Gloucestershire to see what is happening; to meet the Barnwood Trust and hear its ambitions and vision for what it might be able to do; and to share with us what he likes, what he has seen across the country and what we can perhaps do more of. I would be delighted if the Minister can accept my invitation, because dementia matters very much to all of us in Gloucestershire, as it does to him, and we want to continue being adventurous by pushing the boat out and actively considering new ways to help people living with this ghastly disease and their families, who are so intimately affected by all elements of it. As I said at the start, we never know what we can do until we have to do it, and we must do it.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing the debate and on speaking about his family’s experience—about his mother’s experience of having dementia, and about the role his father played caring for her and the strength that he gained when the moment arose to cope and get through it. My hon. Friend’s speech was moving, if somewhat breathless at the start—it was excellent to see him arriving in the Chamber just in time.
My hon. Friend is committed to ensuring that his constituents have access to high-quality care whenever and wherever they need it. He has demonstrated his commitment through his work as a member of the all-party group on dementia, which does really good work to raise awareness of the condition in Parliament and beyond.
We know that some 800,000 people in the UK have dementia, and that number is expected to double over the next 30 years. The consequences of that growth will be substantial, so we must recognise the scale of the challenge that we face. The Government are committed to meeting that significant challenge by providing high-quality care for people with dementia combined, crucially, with strong support for carers.
My hon. Friend talked about the role of carers, and we often have to stop and remember the impact on a loved one of someone getting dementia and then having that loss of recognition. We must understand how distressing it can be for someone to cope with that, and sometimes with changing and challenging behaviour, when they may have been married for a long time. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the army of carers who continue to give their care, love and support, sometimes under difficult circumstances. We will transform dementia services, achieve better awareness of the condition, and offer high-quality treatment at every stage and in every setting.
I will not go over much of the ground that I covered in last week’s debate because I know that my hon. Friend is well versed in many of the things we have achieved nationally. I should recognise the fact that some good work started under the previous Government, who produced one of the first dementia strategies in the world. The work that we are doing means that we are one of the leading countries on this but, as my hon. Friend said, we must recognise that there is much more to do.
My hon. Friend will be conscious of the dementia challenge that the Prime Minister announced last March, but an awful lot has happened since then. For example, we have set aside £54 million for the NHS to support dementia diagnosis in hospitals. We have asked local areas, through the NHS mandate, to set ambitious targets for improved dementia diagnosis over the next two years. Each area must understand its position on undiagnosed cases and set about dealing with the gap.
We have set aside a further £50 million to make health and care environments more dementia-friendly. We have launched a national advertising campaign to raise awareness, to reduce the stigma attached to dementia and to encourage people to contact their GP if they experience symptoms of dementia. Such contact often involves having that first, difficult conversation with a loved one about the need to see their GP to explore whether there might be dementia.
Jim Shannon
Does the Minister feel that lessons could be learned from the other regions of the United Kingdom, such as Northern Ireland, where a clear dementia care plan and strategy are in place? If the lessons learned there are beneficial for Gloucestershire and other parts of the United Kingdom, why should we not exchange information?
Norman Lamb
I think that the hon. Gentleman said in his earlier intervention that the diagnosis rate is quite good in Northern Ireland. I applaud the work that is done there, but the support services might not be as good as in some parts of England, Wales and Scotland. We are learning about these things together, and there must be close collaboration between England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Scotland has done good work to achieve high diagnosis rates. It has also introduced the concept of dementia advisers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester talked about in relation to his county. We need to be willing to learn from anywhere and, critically, not to reinvent the wheel, so I am absolutely up for collaboration with colleagues in Northern Ireland. Just a week ago, the Secretary of State announced a year of dementia awareness to improve understanding of the condition and diagnosis rates nationally.
Let me deal with research. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said that the Government are doubling the amount we spend on research, although it must be said that that is coming from quite a low base, compared with other conditions. One of the difficulties is that we cannot just make a massive increase to the amount that we spend, because building the research community’s capacity to do the work has to happen hand in hand with any increase.
There were several things I was unable to cover in detail during the recent debate granted by Backbench Business Committee because we ran out of time—my hon. Friend was a victim of that. One of them was research, on which we have genuine cause for optimism. A lot of the media narrative has been about high-profile failures of research, but there is positive and encouraging news out there.
Before I give some examples of that, however, I should mention one thing. My hon. Friend talked about the importance of the scientific community and the Government collaborating closely to meet the challenge we face. Last autumn, I spoke at a conference that brought scientists from not just the UK, but around the world, together with the Government and interest groups, such as charities that campaign on this issue. Such a useful gathering is a way of bringing the best brains to bear on this subject, so that collaborative work must continue.
On 21 December, the Government made £22 million available to 21 pioneering research projects to boost dementia diagnosis rates and to trial groundbreaking treatments. The funding was designed to cover all areas of scientific activity that are relevant to dementia across the fields of care, cause and cure, including prevention. For example, we can do a lot to prevent the condition of vascular dementia from ever starting, so if prevention is possible, we must be much smarter. We have also provided £36 million for a new National Institute for Health Research dementia research collaboration to work on better treatments and care for, and understanding of, the condition, as well as £9.6 million to expand the UK Biobank. Last year there were potentially interesting developments in treating early-stage dementia, particularly in Alzheimer’s disease.
As drug companies continue to invest in research, there is now a real prospect of a treatment within the next decade—that seems to be the time frame we are dealing with—that could have an impact on helping to slow or prevent the disorder, if it is caught early enough. For instance, there have been key recent developments from Eli Lilly, which is conducting an additional phase 3 study of a new drug for patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease. I have also heard about promising plans to expand the testing of a drug for patients with pre-dementia.
My hon. Friend rightly emphasised the importance of sharing best practice, of avoiding reinventing the wheel and of encouraging innovation, which is vital for improving dementia care. I am delighted that Gloucestershire benefited from the additional funding of £10 million from NHS South West. It is by learning from the innovative projects that he describes that we will find out what works and how we can improve services.
My hon. Friend asked me to highlight examples of best practice of people taking the lead on dementia. One involves the fire and rescue service, which has made a pledge to take action to increase the safety of people with dementia. That is a critical area, because someone living with dementia can be at risk, and the fire and rescue service can do a lot to help them to remain safe. The service has made a commitment to raising awareness among staff. Already 28 services have signed up, and I applaud them for that work. In addition, Tesco has made a commitment to increase dementia awareness and understanding among its staff and worked with the Alzheimer’s Society to produce a DVD to achieve that. The moment when a customer gets confused about change or forgets their PIN is the one when a caring and understanding approach from the checkout operator who is coping with them is particularly important. It is encouraging that companies such as Tesco are prepared to do such work.
When my hon. Friend mentioned the demographics in his constituency, that rang true for me, because my constituency, similarly, is rural with an elderly population. I am pleased that the diagnosis rate in Gloucester has risen from 40% to more than 45% in the past year but, as in many places, there is still massive room for improvement to match the best performing areas, such as Islington, where the diagnosis rate is 75%. There is an enormous gap between the best and the worst, and a long way to go. We have developed an analytical tool to support the NHS to achieve an increase in local diagnosis rates, and we are working with the Royal College of Psychiatrists to assure and improve the quality of memory services when the actual diagnosis takes place.
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to some of the excellent work in his area, which is in many ways mirrored by that of the Norfolk and Suffolk Dementia Alliance, which is led by an inspiring guy called Willie Cruickshank. He demonstrates the difference that can be made by bringing all parts of the system together. In his area, there is now a comprehensive, multidisciplinary memory assessment service that provides support to primary care and outreach to communities. We must ensure that we bring down waiting times, which are far too long in some areas.
Community dementia nurses and advisers are working closely with GPs throughout the country. Last week, I met a group called Uniting Carers, which is part of Dementia UK, which talked about the fantastic work of Admiral nurses in many parts of the country.
Rebecca Harris
Sometimes the problem for carers arises when they reach the point at which they admit that they can no longer look after their loved one who has dementia, because it can be difficult to choose the right kind of care home or environment. The gap at such a point might need to be filled by the voluntary sector or Admiral nurses, as the Minister was describing, to help people to ensure that they are putting their loved one into a suitable and dementia-friendly environment.
Norman Lamb
I absolutely agree, and that is a role for an Admiral nurse or equivalent, or for dementia advisers, who are now in place in Gloucestershire, my own county of Norfolk, Suffolk and other parts of the country. It is of real value if someone is able to go into the home to provide practical advice to the carer and the person with dementia.
Fantastic work is ongoing to bring district councils, volunteers and community groups together to establish a network of memory cafés. The care home support team supports staff with training, development and management guidance. There is county-wide education for carers and a carer emergency respite scheme, which provides an agreed plan of personal support to the cared-for person.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester raised the important issue of ethnic minorities and faith groups. At last week’s meeting, I met an Indian woman who spoke movingly about how she and her father were cast aside by their local community once he had received a diagnosis of dementia. It is critical that stigma is challenged in all communities. She also explained how her father had reverted to his mother tongue, which further complicated his care arrangements and made a difficult situation more difficult.
I want to consider how we can give specific help to people such as that woman. There is a role for everyone in society to improve the lives of people with dementia, which includes faith, community, and black and minority ethnic groups and charities. My hon. Friend is aware of the plan to sign up 1 million dementia friends by 2015, which will have dramatic effect on spreading awareness throughout the community. All such groups have a role to play in creating the dementia-friendly communities we want to see. Only through all of society—not just government—coming together will we improve the lives of people with dementia and their carers.
Regarding my hon. Friend’s kind invitation to visit, he may be interested to know that the Secretary of State and I are between us embarking on a road show to every region in the country, involving conferences and visits, to bring people together to drive change at a local level. I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend’s suggestions to the team that is planning the visits and the south-west regional event, and I will ensure that he is kept updated.
I am encouraged by the commitment shown in Gloucestershire, as in other parts of the country, to tackle the problems that we face. I was pleased to hear that Gloucestershire county council had ring-fenced funding for social care so that money is prioritised in that most critical of areas. We are expecting an announcement soon on funding for and reform of social care, and that will start to help people to cope with dementia and the costs incurred as a result of it. Although the challenge remains great, the collaborative effort demonstrated by the NHS and its partners in Gloucestershire, including businesses, community groups and volunteers throughout the county, is showing how concrete steps can be taken to improve dementia services and to enhance the day-to-day lives of people with dementia and, crucially, their carers.
Under-occupancy Penalty (Wales)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Robertson, for the opportunity to have the debate.
Before Christmas, social tenants in my constituency were sent a letter telling them that under Government changes in April they will have to pay more rent or move on, because the Government have deemed that they are under-occupying their home. They are victims of what is now called the bedroom tax. As all hon. Members know, such letters have gone out throughout Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, and they have caused huge fear in my constituency.
I asked for this debate because I am horrified by some of the stories that constituents are telling me about what this policy will mean to them, their family, their future and their home. For decades, many people in communities in my constituency have cared for and cherished their homes, where they have brought up their children and cared for their grandchildren. Their homes are full of memories of lost loved ones. The fear is palpable, as the reality of what these changes will mean sinks in. One woman said when I knocked her door during the week that she received the letter from Newport City Homes, “Why did I get this? I thought it was about the scroungers, not about me.”
In April, those tenants face the stark choice of paying £40 to £80 a month more for having one or more spare bedrooms, or moving to a smaller property. There is evidence that many cannot pay as the cost of living and benefits cuts hit them. In a Welsh study, one tenant said that they are already “not living, but surviving”. What is more, there is a chronic shortage of smaller houses, particularly in Wales.
Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend pay tribute, as I do, to Duncan Forbes of Bron Afon who has highlighted some of the nonsense of this tax, particularly people going into one-bedroom houses? In Blaenavon in my constituency, 85 tenants will have to go into one-bedroom houses to avoid the tax. It will take 17 years to rehouse them.
Jessica Morden
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right. Will the Minister look carefully at the report from Bron Afon in Torfaen, because it highlights specific examples of why the policy will hit Wales particularly hard?
There will be two levels of reduction. Those who are under-occupying by one bedroom will lose 14% of their housing benefit, which is equivalent to a loss of £12 a week. For those under-occupying by two or more bedrooms, there will be a 25% reduction, equivalent to a loss of £22 per week. In Wales, 46% of all housing benefit claimants of working age in the social rented sector will be hit, compared with a UK average of 31%.
The Department for Work and Pensions says in its own impact assessment that 40,000 tenants in Wales will be affected by the bedroom tax with an average loss of income of £12 per week. Like many of the Government’s benefit changes, this is hitting Wales disproportionately hard. With tax and benefit changes to be implemented by 2014-15, households in Wales can expect to lose 4.1% of their income on average or about £1,110 per year on top of rising food and heating costs.
Some 1,794 Newport City Homes tenants have received letters telling them that they will be affected, and a further 421 who rent from Monmouthshire Housing Association have received letters in communities like Caldicot, which is in my constituency. With 4,220 on the Newport common housing register and 2,536 on the Monmouthshire common housing register, it is not rocket science to realise that there is not enough social housing for people to move to. Of the Newport City Homes tenants who are affected, 359 have two bedrooms too many and 1,435 have one bedroom too many, 916 of them will be looking for one-bedroom houses or flats and 823 will be looking for two-bedroom properties.
Newport City Homes has only 1,264 one-bedroom properties in total and 2,680 two-bedroom properties. This week, just 36 properties are advertised on the Newport housing options website, so people have very few choices. Whole estates in Wales have very few one or two-bedroom houses.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making the case clearly for the urban context, but does she agree that in rural areas such as mine, which have faced a housing crisis for years, people face even less choice? I am sure that she will mention the fears that people living in houses with adaptations for disability have raised. Although more money is coming from the Government, it is less than clear how it will reach our constituents.
Jessica Morden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come on to mention that later in my speech. Other hon. Members have raised the issues of people with disabled children and of rural housing. As he says, there is very little housing stock available for people to rent anyway.
Let me talk about the Underwood estate, on the outskirts of Newport. It has 138 three-bedroom properties, 45 two-bedroom properties and no one-bedroom flats, apart from 12 that are reserved for pensioners and disabled people. In the past, we needed larger properties, so that is what councils built. Wales will be hit hard because of a relative shortage of smaller housing. Newport is clearly not alone, as many housing associations across Wales face the same issue. Scarcity of larger properties is a problem in big cities in England, but in Wales, there is a scarcity of smaller properties.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing what is undoubtedly an important debate in a Welsh context. The point that she makes about the shortage of smaller properties in Wales is one that I fully accept. Does she share my surprise therefore that the Wales and West Housing Association has decided that the coalition Government’s policy will be imposed on all tenants regardless of whether or not they are on housing benefit? Surely, that is a restriction on people who might be willing to pay the going rate for a three-bedroom house.
Jessica Morden
I am here to talk about under-occupancy and housing benefit. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I want to continue to press my point.
Even if someone is able to move from a community such as Underwood, they will often leave behind family who are able to care for their children while they work. I cannot be alone in often meeting people in my surgery who seek houses near their parents precisely so that they can have help in looking after their children. Those with two children of the same sex under 16 could have to move to a two-bedroom property. In somewhere such as Underwood, the likelihood is that the children would have to move schools, with all the disruption that that would cause.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, and I congratulate her on securing this debate. Does she agree that there is an inflexibility in the system? Children of the same sex but far apart in ages might have to share a bedroom. Single parents are also penalised, because they often do not have rooms for their children to stay in.
Jessica Morden
I agree with my hon. Friend and I will come on to make those points. Again, the study by Bron Afon in Torfaen highlights such cases.
Faced with no social housing and the need to stay in a community, it is hardly surprising, but none the less shocking, that one of the findings of a survey of social housing tenants by Bron Afon was that some tenants had concluded that the only possible solution for them was to eat two meals fewer a week to make up the shortfall. They felt that that was the only area on which they could economise.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend not think that realistically many families are going to fall behind with their rent, with the result that they will find themselves moved into smaller properties or, at the end of the day, homeless? What does she think that our local authorities can possibly do with their limited resources to deal with a sea of people who will have nowhere to go?
Jessica Morden
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. It is true that housing associations, local authorities and the Welsh Assembly will be under stress because they will not be able to mitigate the effects of this policy.
With a chronic shortage of available housing, many tenants appear to feel that there is no alternative but to be forced into arrears or to resort to desperate measures such as payday loans or loan sharks. Families will be forced into financial difficulty and rent arrears. Steve Clarke, chief executive of the Welsh Tenants Federation, estimates that 10% of tenants who will be affected are already indebted to their landlords who are seeking repossession orders. The double whammy of rent arrears and the increases could mean that 4,000 present themselves as homeless. This is against a backdrop of food banks in Newport giving out hundreds more parcels a month and food crime up 26% over the past two years. We are talking about people stealing washing powder.
The Government appear to think that people will find it easy to get extra hours of work or to find an elusive job. They think that lone parents with small children should go out and seek lodgers. In fact, the findings of the hotline of Community Housing Cymru— “Your benefits are changing”—found that 13% of people who rang would consider downsizing and 8% might consider a lodger. However, 79% said that taking on a lodger or moving were not suitable options and that they would apply for discretionary housing payments.
I believe that £7 million has been allocated to Wales, which faces a potential loss of £25 million. That is the Government’s answer to those who cannot move. There is a limited amount of money from the Government towards those payments, but once it has been used, no other payments can be made. I take the point that was made earlier about the fact that there has been no clarification of how the money will be spent. The deserving might miss out if they happen to be in need when the fund has been exhausted. There has been no compelling analysis of the impact that the changes will have on individuals, and the Government’s response of setting a finite budget without knowing whether it will be sufficient is as callous as the bedroom tax itself.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most telling aspects of the legislation is the fact that there are no exemptions for severely disabled people? The fund that is available will be quickly used up by, for example, adults with severe learning disabilities who, in all genuineness, cannot take lodgers, because their needs and circumstances are not conducive to sharing accommodation.
Jessica Morden
I agree with my hon. Friend’s important point, which we have to bear in mind. Those who have had disabled adaptations to their property would, if forced to move, need another set of disabled adaptations, and it is not clear what will happen with discretionary payments in such circumstances.
Paul Murphy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way for a second time. She has referred to the report by Bron Afon, which states that the total budget for discretionary housing payments in Torfaen is just under £53,000, or £6.62 per housing benefit claimant.
Jessica Morden
My right hon. Friend makes a telling point. When that money has gone, it has gone, and it is a small amount of money; it is a drop in the ocean compared with what is needed.
With no money to spare and no chance of social housing, tenants might look to the private rented sector. If the stated aim is to save money, the policy has no logic. In many areas of Wales, the policy encourages tenants to move to more expensive accommodation in the private rented sector, which will increase expenditure, even with a reduced local housing allowance. In Torfaen, for instance, every private rented property is more expensive than the Bron Afon rented properties. The situation is clearly ridiculous, and a cursory look on the websites for private rented accommodation in my constituency tells that tale.
Those arguments are well rehearsed, but they are becoming more pressing as the policy becomes more real for many people in Wales. I visited a constituent before Christmas who lives in a small two-bedroom house in the community in which he grew up and his family still lives. He was made redundant last April from his manufacturing job of 20 years, and he now finds himself on housing benefit. He is a proud man who has lost his job and now faces losing his immaculate home of many years. He currently pays £321 a month, and there is only one one-bedroom property in Newport on the housing options list for which he could possibly be eligible to rent this week, and that would cost him £350 a calendar month. If he is still unemployed, that increased rent would still be covered by housing benefit at a cost to the public purse of an extra £341 a year.
One Bron Afon tenant is a former serviceman with post-traumatic stress disorder, and his benefit has been cut because he is deemed fit to work, even though he has serious depression. His daughter hopes to go to university, but her decision will be heavily influenced by what happens to her father’s benefit. The spare rooms of those in our services are not out of the policy’s scope, which will have a huge impact in south Wales.
I have met a divorced father who has his kids to stay at the weekend. One of the hardest-hit groups will be parents who live in two-bedroom houses and who have access to their children. If they are under 35, they will be expected to share accommodation, which may be the only housing left to them, with all the child protection issues that raises. That is a whole other subject.
In Wales, registered social landlords expect a large loss of revenue, and those running large arrears will be under pressure to make people homeless. That in turn will put pressure on local authorities to house people presenting themselves as homeless. The Welsh Assembly has made money available under the homelessness grant programme to assist financial inclusion work and projects with Shelter, but that will not be able to mitigate the very real impact of the reforms in Wales.
There are so many unintended consequences for individuals such as foster carers, people with disabled adaptations and parents of disabled children. I am sorry that there is not time to do them justice.
A constituent from Alway specifically asked me to say that he considers the Prime Minister to be Dick Turpin without the mask. Many in the Government think that paying an extra £20 a week towards rent will be the difference between going out for dinner and staying at home, but for many on low incomes, it will be a case of heating or eating. People will have to pay up when they cannot afford it and then get into debt or move out and away from their community. This is a policy that in the long run cannot cost less in Wales and will do nothing to help local housing pressures, as the pressure is on the smaller properties already.
Regardless of the rhetoric, the fact is that the people worst affected are parents who share access to their children; grandparents who provide essential child care for their grandchildren, allowing parents to go to work; and even the brave men and women serving in our armed forces. The Government simply do not understand how this policy will affect people, and what is worse, they do not seem to care. We used to talk about the poverty trap; we are now talking about the property trap.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on securing the debate. It is good to see the number of hon. Members who have taken part. I will try to respond to the points that she has raised. In general, I will take interventions from her but not from other hon. Members, until we get near the end of the time.
Let me set the context. Obviously, we want to focus on the impact of the policy on Wales, and I want to respond to some of the particular points made by the hon. Member for Newport East, but for the record, the Government are seeking to take £18 billion a year of what we spend on social security and tax credits because of the vast amount of borrowing that we had to deal with. It is not that the Government woke up one morning and thought, “Wouldn’t it be nice to cut people’s housing benefit?” We have to stop a situation in which for every £3 the Government were raising in tax, they were spending £4. That is unsustainable. It is not fair to the children whom we are expecting to pay our debts. That is why the Government are looking to save money on social security.
Housing benefit is a vast and rapidly rising bill and inevitably had to be looked at, so within the housing benefit budget, what can be looked at? We have looked at private sector rent. We have looked at shared accommodation for younger people. Within the social sector, there are two reasons why spare bedrooms—where they are spare bedrooms—need to be looked at. The first is the unfairness between social tenants and private tenants. At present, a private tenant cannot have housing benefit for a property with spare bedrooms. They can have housing benefit only for a property of the size that they need. However, a social tenant living next door can have housing benefit for a bigger house. That is an unfairness. At a time when we are trying to take costs out of the system to deal with the deficit, being fairer to private tenants and not giving social tenants an advantage over and above the advantage that they already have through a subsidised rent is an issue of fairness.
There is also an issue of fairness in the system in relation to people who are overcrowded. There was absolutely no mention in the hon. Lady’s speech of people who are living in overcrowded accommodation. If we have a limited social housing stock—frankly, successive Governments have failed to build enough social houses; it is a finite stock and a social house, with a subsidised rent, is a very valuable thing—we owe it to those who are overcrowded to make maximum use of the housing stock.
Getting from here to there is a painful and difficult process. I accept that, but many housing associations and social landlords around Britain have been creative and imaginative—I accept that the position will be different from area to area—about moving people who were in overcrowded accommodation into family homes and finding places for people in under-occupied accommodation to move to. It is not a static case—on the register this week, there are only so many empty properties. Social landlords have to start getting to know their tenants much better than they have in the past. All too often, they have not done that. That process—I accept that it will be a difficult transition—should lead to better use of the social housing stock.
Jessica Morden
Will the Minister accept that it is possible to be creative without being cruel? It would be possible to work far more closely with housing associations in relation to asking them to do more about under-occupancy, but the broad-brush approach that will be taken in April will hurt many people.
Steve Webb
The right hon. Gentleman says that it is about saving money. I do not apologise for the fact that we have had to save money, because otherwise we would just pile up debts for our children, and that is not progressive, wherever someone is on the political spectrum.
On the hon. Lady’s specific point, yes of course, in theory, successive Governments have tried to work with housing associations and social landlords, and it has not worked, because we have the best part of 1 million empty bedrooms paid for by housing benefit at the same time as we have thousands of people in overcrowded accommodation. The challenge is therefore to use the need to save money to create fairness between private and social tenants and to create fairness between people who are living in overcrowded accommodation and those who have spare bedrooms.
Steve Webb
No, I want to respond to the hon. Lady. She said that these are the lifetime homes of some people, and I entirely accept that. That is why we have exempted pensioners as a group. A set of pensioners have spare rooms, living in the home that they have occupied all their lives, and we are not touching them for the reasons she gave.
Those who are below pension age can clearly respond in a range of ways. It will be different for every person. For example, we are often told that some people in social housing or on housing benefit are in work, and the average £12 shortfall in Wales is the equivalent of two hours at the minimum wage, so for some people, as the hon. Lady said, it will be a matter of working a few extra hours. I accept that that is not an option for everyone, but it is for some. Others might have the opportunity to do a part-time job, if they are not currently. She said that some would not be able to take in a lodger or tenant, but some can. I had a constituent ring me up to say, “I am in a three-bedroom house, I live on my own and I have just had one of these letters. What shall I do?” We started talking and she said, “To be honest, my brother and sister-in-law would quite like to move in. Can we do that?” Yes, they can, and that would be using the house to much better effect. That will not be right for everyone, but there will be a range of responses. The system is geared so that if people have a boarder or sub-tenant—most social landlords should allow a sub-tenant, in an organised way—they get to keep at least the first £20 a week of the income. Those are all options, which will not work for everyone, but there is a range of them.
The hon. Lady mentioned Bron Afon and Duncan Forbes. I have looked at some of the case studies. One of them is just wrong. In the case she mentioned of the ex-serviceman with a teenager who might go off to university, provided she is not away for more than 13 weeks at a time, she can have the bedroom. That means that social landlords have to be good at communicating with their tenants. I have seen good examples, although I have also seen some bad ones. The other examples may well be true but I saw that case and it jumped out at me, and I thought, “That is not right”, although there is a description of how distressed the man was. Someone has a duty to know the rules—we have to communicate them effectively, but so do the social landlords. I have seen letters sent out by social landlords that are excellent, that explain the rules and what discretionary housing payments are, but I have seen others that do not even mention discretionary housing payments. We have to ensure that social landlords up their game.
I must respond to several points on discretionary housing payments, which are crucial. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) cited a figure of £50,000, £54,000 or something. The figure for that local authority for the year we are talking about, when the policy comes in, is not £50,000 but £193,000. That is when the policy comes in. Clearly, the point of discretionary housing payments is not to make up everyone’s shortfall, or we would not make any money out of the policy—we would not be saving any money—but it is for the hardest cases.
There is an issue to do with whether we try to prescribe in primary or secondary legislation the exact categories of people whom we want to help, of which one is people with major disabled adaptations. We could have done that, but the second that is done and we try to define a substantial adaptation, we get someone whom we did not think of just the wrong side of the line and someone whom we did not need to include on the right side of the line. For example, if someone has had stairlifts, extra rooms, widened doors and all the rest, it is pretty obvious, or if someone has had a handgrip, it is pretty obvious, but what about all those in the middle? Rather than us in Whitehall trying to define for every local authority, for every sort of adaptation, that this is in or this is out, we have trusted local authorities.
We have given the money specifically for people who have had disabled adaptations or, to give another example, for foster carers; for some of the other housing benefit changes as well, we have given the councils a pot of money and said, “You know your local people. You can meet people case by case.” Thus, a lone or separated parent who has the kids regularly and needs that room, and nothing else can be done, could go to the local authority for DHP. We were not going to try to prescribe for DHP, however; we were not going to legislate for such things as whether so many nights qualify or whether there are certain arrangements for the kids. The idea is that the local authority treats people as individual human beings and meets their individual needs. The pot is not unlimited—
Steve Webb
I really want to respond to the hon. Member for Newport East, because I have other things to say about the points she made.
We tried not to prescribe in a rigid, central, one-size-fits-all way, but to make substantial extra money available so that people could respond individually.
Jessica Morden
Does the Minister accept that the pot of money is very small compared with the number of people we are talking about? If the aim of the policy is to use the housing stock better and to save money, it will fail on both counts. As we have mentioned—it would be helpful if he could address this point—the pressures in Wales are because we have larger properties and few smaller properties, and because people will pay more in private rents.
Steve Webb
On whether people pay more in private rents, a lot depends on where the people who occupy the houses that have just been vacated come from. For example, if someone is in overcrowded private rented accommodation, on which they are claiming housing benefit, and they move in to reduced rent social housing property, that saves us money, so a lot depends on the dynamics. It is not a static situation. The hon. Lady said that this is not much money, but take her local authority of Newport: last year, in 2011-12, Newport got £47,000 towards DHPs, and next year, it will get more than a third of £1 million.
Steve Webb
Of course, it is not enough for everybody who will lose, because the policy is part of trying to reduce the deficit.
The hon. Lady made other points about the lack of suitable housing stock, and that is a long-term issue that needs to be addressed. Housing associations and local authorities, when looking at the future housing stock, need to consider unmet need. Of course, there is a lead time on that, but if we just sit and wait, it will never happen. Yes, this is a trigger to tackle the deficit, but it is also a trigger for a much more rational allocation of the houses we already have, and for a much more rational building policy, so that we build homes that meet the needs of the people we have. All too often in the past, that has not happened, and it is time that it did.
The hon. Lady asked about the impact on Wales, and she is right that we are talking about roughly 40,000 households. The average loss in Great Britain as a whole is about £14 a week. In Wales, because rents tend to be lower, it is about £12 a week.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) mentioned rural communities. We will evaluate the impact of the policy over a two-year period, but with interim reports that we will publish across England, Scotland and Wales, and across rural, urban and suburban constituencies. As a consequence of debates in the House of Lords on the Bill as it went through, we agreed—we were well on the way to doing this anyway—proper evaluation, so if there are particular issues in Wales or in rural areas, we will have the chance to respond, for example, by adjusting the allocation of discretionary housing payments. That allocation has been set for 2013-14 but not beyond, so if we learn things during the year, we can look at whether we need to change the allocation. We could change the rules of the scheme. Obviously, that is a more fundamental change, but we have a fairly flexible lever if we get early signs that there are problems in particular areas.
We are trying to support social landlords, so we have worked with the Chartered Institute of Housing to produce a toolkit for landlords called “Making it Fit”, which provides an overview of how different social landlords are responding. The last thing I want to convey is that the change will be easy for people, that there will not be people who find it difficult, and that it will not be disruptive. However, there is a difference when social landlords engage, get in there early and get to know their tenants—for example, those who sit with their tenants and say, “Are you claiming all the benefits you are entitled to? Could you be getting disability living allowance, for example, which would top up the household income?” There is chance to have a constructive engagement with tenants to find out their needs and what is happening. Many social landlords do not know whether their tenants are even there, or whether they are sub-letting. A lot of beneficial things that need to happen could happen as a result.
Jessica Morden
Does the Minister accept that with the report, that is precisely what Bron Afon has done? It has spoken individually to every single person who is affected, and in the report, there are the harrowing personal stories that people have told.
Steve Webb
I accept that Bron Afon has been out and talked to its tenants, and if that has triggered the process, it is a good thing. As I said, I have some doubts about at least one of the case studies, and in terms of some of the other case studies, I hope that the housing association has explained what discretionary housing payments are, because I think, from memory, another one had a disabled adaptation, or something like that, and that is what DHPs are for. It certainly was not a criticism of Bron Afon, but there are social landlords who are upping their game, engaging, and trying to generate extra revenue through benefit take-up. They are being creative, looking at the private market, and they are moving people around. They accept that the change is coming and are not simply saying, “Oh, this is terrible”, but doing something constructive. I welcome any housing association or social landlord that does that, and they deserve credit.
I have mentioned the discretionary housing payment money. The particular people we had in mind are those with disabled adaptations and foster carers, but the local authority has discretion to use it in individual cases. I do not belittle the impact that this significant change will have. We need to save money, but we have the potential to make better use of our social housing stock to deal with not only under-occupation, but overcrowding, and to be fair between social and private tenants. At a time when we are trying to take very large sums of money out of the housing benefit bill to deal with the vast, yawning deficit that was not dealt with, we need to look at this area but manage the process, and that is what our research and use of DHPs is designed to achieve.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Regional Growth Fund
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
In my written ministerial statement of 6 September 2012, Official Report, columns 27-28WS, I announced that the round 3 contracting process would be quicker and lessons learned from the previous rounds would be applied. In round 3 I implemented a defined contracting process with fixed timings. Under this new timetable, once bidders were informed they have been selected, a conditional offer had to be agreed within three months of that date, and bidders then have a further three months to complete due diligence. This means that selected round 3 bidders are expected to sign a final offer within six months of Ministers deciding to support the bid.
I am pleased to report that these new deadlines have galvanised bidders and that round 3 contracting has progressed faster than previous rounds. Following the shortlisting process, 130 selected bids were announced on 19 October 2012, which meant the three-month deadline expired on 19 January 2013. Seven bidders have withdrawn. I can inform both Houses that at 19 January all the remaining 123 bidders have now been issued with conditional offer letters, some of which require multiple contracts, setting out detailed terms and conditions.
The fund is designed to operate during the life of this Parliament and if the regional growth fund secretariat is not confident that a particular bid will deliver within the agreed six-month time frame, it will take immediate steps to ensure that funding can be re-allocated in good time. The means that, subject to considering exceptional circumstances, those bids that do not meet the next deadline for final offer letters will be required to withdraw.
I will continue to keep Parliament informed about progress.
Withdrawals
In addition to the seven withdrawals from round 3 mentioned above, 18 round 1 and 2 projects have been withdrawn since my statement of 6 September. A list of all withdrawals to date will be published in due course.
ECOFIN
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Brussels on 22 January 2013. We expect the following items to be on the agenda and discussed:
Current legislative proposals
The presidency will give an update on: the fourth capital requirements directive (CRDIV); banking supervision proposals; and the economic governance “two pack” relating to the euro area.
Presentation of the presidency work programme
The presidency will present its six-month work programme for ECOFIN.
Follow-up to the European Council meeting on 13-14 December 2012
Ministers will hold an exchange of views. On economic and financial affairs, the European Council discussed further economic and monetary integration for the euro area, and endorsed new safeguards that will protect the interests of member states outside the euro area.
Annual Growth Survey
Ministers will hold an initial exchange of views on this, ahead of looking to agree Council conclusions at a future ECOFIN.
Communication: an Action Plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion
There will be a presentation by the Commission. The Government are fully committed to clamping down on those who evade paying tax and welcome Commission consideration of what EU-level actions may be appropriate. While the action plan is not binding, the Government will consider the proposals in further detail and will look to the EU to play a role in helping to take forward the important agenda on combating tax fraud and evasion, supporting work at national and international level.
Financial Transaction Tax (FTT)
The Council is likely to adopt a proposal for a Council decision authorising enhanced co-operation. The UK fully supports those member states who have raised concerns that the European Commission has not provided any analysis of the impacts an enhanced co-operation FTT would have on individual member states, both participants and non-participants.
Armed Forces Redundancy Programme (Tranche 3)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)
The Government announced in the outcome of the strategic defence and security review in October 2010 that, as part of moving to Future Force 2020, we would reduce the size of the Regular Army by 7,000 personnel, and both the naval service and Royal Air Force by 5,000 personnel. In addition, in order to balance the British Army’s regular and reserve forces, further reductions were subsequently identified to deliver a Regular Army of around 82,000 by 2020. We also made it clear that, in order to maintain balanced force structures for the future, an element of these reductions would need to be made through a redundancy programme.
Our statement of 1 March 2011, Official Report, column 21-22WS, set out the process and timetable for the armed forces redundancy programme. Consequently, in September 2011, 2,860 service personnel were notified of their redundancy in the first tranche (1,020 service personnel from the naval service, 920 from the Army and 920 from the Royal Air Force), 62% of whom had applied for selection. On 12 June 2012, 3,760 service personnel were notified of their selection for redundancy in the second tranche (160 service personnel from the naval service, 2,880 from the Army and 720 from the Royal Air Force), 72% of whom had applied for selection.
Today the Army is announcing the fields from which they will select personnel to be made redundant in the third tranche of the programme; this will comprise up to 5,300 Army personnel. There is likely to be a need for a further tranche for Army personnel and medical and dental personnel from the Royal Navy and RAF in due course.
The same selection principles as used in the last two tranches will be applied. The Army will seek to maximise the number of applicants from all personnel that meet the published criteria. The redundancy programme will not impact adversely on current operations in Afghanistan, and no one who is serving on specified operations on the day the redundancy notices are issued on 18 June 2013 will be made redundant unless they are applicants. Similarly, those preparing for, or recovering from such operations on the day the redundancy notices are issued will not be made redundant unless they have applied. Those personnel who are liable to deploy with their units to Afghanistan in autumn 2013 on the day the redundancy notices are issued will be exempt from tranche 3 unless they are an applicant; as a result of the drawdown plans already announced, those units liable to deployment will not be confirmed until April 2013. Any applicant who is selected for redundancy and whose unit is subsequently deployed will be able to choose whether to deploy with the unit, or not. Personnel who are assessed as being permanently below the level of fitness required to remain in the forces will not be considered for redundancy, and will instead leave through the medical discharge route at the appropriate stage in their recovery.
Throughout the redundancy process, we will ensure that we retain the capabilities that our armed forces require in order to meet the challenges of the future.
Common Agricultural Policy
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
From 2014, ready for scheme year 2015, DEFRA will start to introduce a single computer system for all CAP funding in England, irrespective of the delivery body, meaning it will be quicker and easier to apply for CAP schemes when they go live after this date. This will affect four DEFRA delivery bodies: Rural Payments Agency (RPA), Natural England (NE), Forestry Commission (FC) and the rural development programme for England (RDPE) delivery team. As part of the drive to cut red tape in farming, it will mean that recipients will only have to enter their details once to a single point of contact rather than for each CAP scheme they apply for.
The new system will also improve the speed and accuracy of payments, improve targeting of farm inspections, reduce running costs, and allow the bodies to adapt easily to future policy or regulatory changes.
DEFRA will be working closely with the Government Digital Service, part of the Cabinet Office, in procuring the new delivery solution.
Afghanistan (Monthly Progress Report)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the 23rd progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.
On 5 December, I hosted a meeting in London with the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan Hina Rabbani Khar and the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Dr Zalmai Rassoul. We discussed the Afghan-led peace and reconciliation process and how to strengthen joint efforts to address extremism and advance regional peace and stability. We were joined by Masoom Stanekzai, Head of the Joint Secretariat to the High Peace Council. This meeting was the third in a series of trilateral discussions that took place last year.
On 19 December the Prime Minister announced that the UK would reduce force levels in Afghanistan to around 5,200 by the end of 2013. This reduction is in response to improving conditions on the ground and the growing capability of Afghan security forces. The Prime Minister had previously said that the UK will not have any troops in a combat role in Afghanistan after 2014. However, the UK will maintain a long-term partnership with Afghanistan post-2014 through trade, diplomacy and development, as well as training mentoring and funding of Afghan security forces. The Helmand provincial reconstruction team (PRT) will close as troops draw down (alongside other PRTs as requested by the Afghan Government) but we are working to ensure that the substantial progress made since 2007 on security, development, justice and governance is sustainable and continues long after our departure.
The Prime Minister visited Afghanistan from 20 to 21 December. He met British forces and civilian staff to thank them for their efforts and to receive an update on the progress of transition.
The Secretary of State for International Development visited Kabul and launched the latest phase of UK assistance to the Afghanistan Revenue Department (ARD). With just £35 million of UK aid since 2004-05, the ARD has increased Government revenue from $250 million to more than $2 billion in 2011-12. The Secretary of State for International Development also met President Karzai to underline the UK’s long-term commitment to Afghanistan. She made clear the importance of the role of women in securing a prosperous and stable future for Afghanistan.
On 11 December, the Secretary of State for International Development and FCO Minister, Baroness Warsi discussed with UK parliamentarians how best to help improve the position of women and girls in Afghanistan. At this meeting they reiterated the UK Government’s long-term support to support women and girls in Afghanistan.
On 17 December the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2082 (2012), making further steps to ensure the sanctions regime is well equipped to support the Afghan peace and reconciliation process. The new resolution includes a more flexible travel ban exemption for individuals proposed by the Afghans to participate in peace talks. This permits these individuals to undertake unlimited travel between specified locations for a maximum nine-month period. The resolution also encourages greater co-operation between the UN Sanctions Committee and the Afghan Government.
Tranche four of transition was announced by the Afghan Government on 31 December. The 12 provinces added in this tranche are mostly in the north and interior of the country. One district in Helmand (Now Zad) is included in this transition. This is a further sign of progress in Afghanistan and a reflection of the rapidly improving capabilities of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). As a result the ANSF will take the lead in providing security for nearly 90% of the Afghan population.
On 10 January 2013 the International Development Committee (IDC) published DFID’s response to their report on Afghanistan: development progress and prospects after 2014. Both the IDC report and DFID’s response can be found here:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/international-development-committee/Publications/.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk).
Extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council on Mali
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I attended the extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 17 January. The Foreign Affairs Council was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. The Malian Foreign Minister Tieman Hubert Coulibaly attended a plenary discussion. Commissioner Piebalgs (Development) was also in attendance for some of the discussions.
A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/134770.pdf
Mali
Ministers agreed Council conclusions condemning the military offensive against Malian forces by terrorist groups. Ministers expressed solidarity with Mali, and supported France’s intervention and leadership. The importance of African contribution was emphasised, and the role of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) was welcomed. Ministers supported the rapid deployment of the African-led International Support Mission in Mali (AFISMA) in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2085, and expressed the EU’s willingness to support AFISMA financially.
I stressed that alongside the military campaign there needed to be concrete progress on the political track, both in Bamako and in relation to non-extremist groups in the north.
EU Training Mission
Ministers also adopted a Council decision formally establishing an EU military mission to contribute to the training of the Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali). General François Lecointre was appointed as the mission commander. The planning process for the mission will now be accelerated: the EU’s intention is to launch the EUTM Mali in mid-February, following a further Council decision. This decision will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual manner. The mission commander was invited to send the first technical team to Bamako within the next few days. The EUTM will not have a combat role. Its purpose is to train Malian soldiers.
I will continue to update Parliament on future Foreign Affairs Councils.
Powers of Entry
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
My hon. Friend the Minister for Criminal Information, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has today made the following written ministerial statement:
The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 requires Ministers across Government to undertake a review of powers of entry over a two-year period due to conclude in early 2014. The Act requires Ministers with responsibility for powers of entry to examine their powers and to consider whether they are still necessary, proportionate and contain sufficient safeguards.
Ministers are required to report on outcomes of the review to Parliament by May 2014.
During the passage of the Act, Ministers agreed to provide an update of progress of the review and I am pleased to place copies of the first six-month progress report in the Library of the House.
We are also commencing consultation on the code of practice for powers on entry required by the 2012 Act. Copies of the draft code have today been placed in the Library of the House and are available on the Home Office website.
Transforming Services in the Office of the Public Guardian
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
The Government are today publishing their response to the consultation “Transforming the Services of the Office of the Public Guardian”, which ended on 19 October 2012. The consultation paper invited comments on a range of proposals to digitalise the services provided by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG).
Over a hundred responses to the consultation were received, with many proposals receiving broad support. It is our intention to implement those proposals which were received positively, and which can be carried out within the current legislative framework, as soon as possible. By April 2013, therefore, we intend to: introduce an online tool for making a lasting power of attorney (LPA) to make the process simpler, clearer and faster and reduce errors in the LPAs that reach the OPG requiring correction; reduce the statutory waiting period for registering an LPA from six to four weeks in order to make the process quicker, while still retaining adequate safeguards; and introduce a regulation allowing court appointed deputies to change security bond provider without the need to make an application to court.
Other changes require further development or are dependent on the new OPG replacement IT system being in place. I will make a further statement when these changes are due to come into effect.
Today, I have deposited copies of the response to the consultation paper in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. Copies are available on the internet at: www.justice.gov.uk.
Parliamentary Oral Question (Correction)
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in the answer I gave to a supplementary question pursuant to an oral parliamentary question [UIN 137500] on 17 January 2013, Official Report, column 1012, about schemes announced in the autumn statement 2011 which are now under construction.
The correct answer is that work is under way on over 90% of the projects and that construction has already begun on 13 of them.
There was also an inaccuracy in the answer I gave to a supplementary question pursuant to oral parliamentary question [UIN 137497] on 17 January 2013, Official Report, column 1009. I would like to clarify that £600 million, not £650 million, has been invested in the local sustainable transport fund programme.
It is worth pointing out that, in addition to this figure, we have announced a further £107 million of investment specifically for cycling schemes, of which £42 million was announced at last year’s autumn statement.
Night Flying Restrictions
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
On 26 March 2012 the Government announced that they would extend the existing restrictions on night flights at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports for a period of two years until October 2014. This extension will ensure a new night flying regime can take account of the aviation policy framework, which the Government have committed to have in place by the spring.
Today I have published the first of two consultations which will inform the development of the next night noise regime. This first consultation seeks views and evidence on a range of issues including the effectiveness of the current regime, the costs and benefits of future options and airlines’ fleet replacement plans. Additionally this consultation includes a review of current evidence on the costs of night flights, particularly noise, and the benefits of these flights. It sets out our thinking on how we would expect to appraise the policy options for the next night flights regime and seeks views on our approach.
We will publish the second consultation later this year and this will include specific proposals for the new regime, such as the number of permitted night flights. These proposals, which will be informed by the evidence we receive from this first stage consultation, will need to strike a fair balance between the interests of those affected by the noise disturbance and those of the airports, passengers and the UK economy.
House of Lords
Sudan
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further representations they have made to the Government of Sudan regarding bombardment of civilians and denial of access to humanitarian aid.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we regularly raise the Government of Sudan’s conduct of military operations and make it clear that the targeting of civilians is wholly unacceptable. We have pressed the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North to negotiate a cessation of hostilities and unfettered humanitarian access in South Kordofan and Blue Nile states. We will continue to work with our partners in the UN Security Council and with the African Union to achieve this.
Baroness Cox
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that I have just returned from Blue Nile and South Kordofan, where I witnessed daily aerial bombardments by the Khartoum Government that directly targeted civilians with 500-kilogram and incendiary bombs, destroying villages, markets and schools, inflicting death and injury on women and children, forcing thousands to hide in caves with deadly snakes and to die from hunger and disease with no health care; and causing nearly 200,000 refugees to flee to camps in South Sudan? Will Her Majesty’s Government assist with the provision of life-saving aid to these regions? Our NGO, HART, has used reliable ways of sending food and medical supplies to people dying of hunger, injury and disease. In response to the reluctance of other donors to send life-saving aid, one local doctor emphasised that:
“Deliberately to refrain from sending life-saving aid can be construed as a crime against humanity”.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am well aware of the noble Baroness’s recent visit to the region. It is a constant experience for those of us on the government Front Bench to answer Questions from noble Lords who have much more detailed knowledge of what they are asking about than those of us who answer. I thank the noble Baroness also for sending me a report of her findings, which are a stark reminder of the appalling conditions that the people of these regions now face. Somewhere between 750,000 and 1 million people have been displaced. Some of them have crossed the frontier and some are living in caves and elsewhere. The impact on the civilian population of indiscriminate military tactics, food shortages and lack of access to basic services is of course completely unacceptable. The Minister for Africa will attend the AU summit this week. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary at DfID is currently in Sudan. We are making our concerns very clear to the Government of Sudan, as well as urging the AU to lead the way in resolving the issue over the next few months with our full engagement.
Lord Elton
My Lords, the noble Lord said that we were exerting ourselves on the United Nations Security Council. Surely this is a clear case of genocide and should be treated by the Security Council as such. Will the noble Lord undertake to get the Government to urge the Security Council to treat it as such and to set up a committee of inquiry to establish what is going on and to secure free access of humanitarian aid?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we have to be very careful before we use the genocide label. There are some very nasty conflicts going on across the new and still not entirely settled border between South Sudan and Sudan. Some aid is going into the region from South Sudan but it is a dangerous area to cross. NGOs that have done so have found themselves in considerable difficulty. We need, therefore, also to work with the Government of Sudan to achieve, as far as we can, an end to the conflict.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
Does the Minister agree that, while Darfur no longer commands the headlines, no one should assume that there is peace and security in that region of Sudan, where the peace is being regularly violated and civilians are attacked on the ground and from the air? Is the Minister aware that the International Criminal Court prosecutor has told the UN Security Council that it has failed to take decisive and tangible action on Darfur and that she is considering further investigations and additional arrest warrants? Will the UK Government support this approach?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are well aware that the situation in Darfur is also unresolved. There are, of course, outbreaks of conflict in Jonglei in South Sudan. Part of the problem is that neither of the Governments in Sudan or in South Sudan entirely control their own territories or necessarily entirely control their own Governments and armed forces. There have been two agreements between the heads of Governments and state of Sudan and South Sudan in the past four months: whether or not they will be accepted and implemented by those who are asked to do so is not entirely clear.
Lord Chidgey
Is my noble friend aware that both Sudan and South Sudan and the AU High-Level Implementation Panel are less than convinced that they made any progress in their negotiations last week in Addis? With the UN now describing the humanitarian status in Abyei as truly appalling, with thousands dying from hunger and disease, will the Government make it clear that without progress the UN will be called on to reconsider Security Council Resolution 2046 for more robust and effective action when it meets on 25 January—this Friday?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, as I have already said, the two presidents meet and say that they have agreed and that matters will now be implemented—and then too little has happened. We are fully engaged with the Government of Sudan and with the Government of South Sudan and are working with others to bring as much pressure to bear as we can.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Although the Minister is anxious about using words such as genocide, does he recall that it is exactly year ago when Dr Mukesh Kapila, who is one of our senior officials in Sudan—indeed, he was an official at the United Nations—used precisely that word to describe what is happening in South Kordofan and Abyei? Having listened to my noble friend a few moments ago describing what is happening now, a year later, in a regime headed by Omar al-Bashir, who is a war criminal indicted by the International Criminal Court, surely we should be stepping up the pressure for at least the ICC investigations, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred earlier, to be extended to cover Abyei, South Kordofan and Blue Nile?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we have already stepped up the pressure and are very much engaged. We are working with the African Union and the high-level group, with Mr Mbeki as the co-ordinator, to see what pressure we can bring to bear on all concerned. We are all conscious that this conflict is taking place across the great dividing line between the Arab world and the black African world—a situation that we see also in Mali—and this is an area where we have to engage actively but carefully.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I would say with respect that I do not think that the Minister is going far enough. The warrant has been around for some time and I can say from first-hand experience that the one thing that President al-Bashir was consistently concerned about was that someone might act on that warrant on any occasion when he was outside Sudan—and he is outside Sudan reasonably frequently. What pressure will we exert at the United Nations to ensure that he is arrested when he is outside Sudan?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, our first priority at this point has to be to find a way of resolving the interconnected conflicts between Sudan and South Sudan. We also have to be concerned not to drive the current regime in Khartoum further into the arms of Iran. As the noble Lord will know, an Iranian ship has visited Port Sudan and there are various reports of Iranian financial support for the current Sudanese regime. That is our priority at the present moment.
Children: Suicide and Self-harm
Baroness Benjamin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking in the light of the ChildLine report, Saying the Unsayable: What’s Affecting Children in 2012, which highlighted a significant increase in the number of children contacting ChildLine about suicide and self-harm.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, helplines provide a vital source of support and advice for children who are suffering abuse, worried about something or concerned about someone they know. For the period 2011-15 the Government have invested £54 million in the Children and Young People’s Improving Access to Psychological Therapies project to transform mental health services for children. For 2011-15 we have awarded the NSPCC a grant worth £11.2 million for investment in ChildLine and the NSPCC helpline.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Over the past 25 years, ChildLine has saved the lives of many children and young people. However, there are serious concerns that, last year, 92% more counselling was given to girls on self-harm than in the previous year, mainly because of depression, bullying and sexual abuse, especially for those who do not comprehend the nature of grooming and blame themselves. Will the Government put greater emphasis on tackling suicide and self-harm, focusing on prevention and the implications for schools, support agencies and professionals working with children who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation, to give these young people hope, confidence and self-esteem?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My noble friend has raised important issues and I assure her that the Government take them very seriously indeed, including the alarming stories about the grooming of young girls. However, each case of self-harm is the result of a complex mix of problems and there is no quick fix. Departments and services are looking actively at joining up information in order to provide integrated care and personalised services so that an individual’s problems can be tackled together and they are supported in finding a way out of self-destructive patterns of behaviour.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, what percentage of schools have access to either a school counsellor or a school nurse? Can the Minister also say whether that percentage has gone up or gone down? I realise that this is a fairly technical question, so if she does not have the figures now, perhaps she will write to me.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I thank the noble Baroness. In fact, I do not have the statistics in front of me, so I will write to her. However, we do of course recognise the incredibly valuable work of school nurses and others in performing a pastoral role within schools.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, from successive reports, has the Minister noted the role of alcohol in the phalanx of causes of self-harm among children? What is being done to reduce the availability of alcohol to teenagers?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate will be aware that the question of how one can reduce the incidence of alcohol consumption has been under discussion for some time in other departments. In almost any town or city centre these days one can see young people, particularly young girls, under the influence of alcohol. I would say that broadly it comes under the same scope of giving young people self-respect and trying to encourage a sense of their own worth through improved behaviours delivered by proper education and guidance.
Baroness Walmsley
Is my noble friend aware that the cluster of young suicides in Bridgend, south Wales, was no coincidence? It was preceded by the dissemination of very worrying images of suicide not just on internet sites but also in films and plays? What can the Government do to make theatre and film companies aware of the potential for damage to young, vulnerable and immature minds when these dark subjects are explored, so that it is done responsibly, if at all?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My noble friend raises wider issues in this debate, which are of course entirely relevant but must always be balanced with freedom of speech and of information. That is a delicate balance to strike. Ministers from three departments—the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education—are working with the media and with the internet industry, particularly through the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, to try to find ways of keeping children safe online. The Department of Health is also involved in that. The broader debate about further media is one that could be very profitably taken up within that.
Lord Laming
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the Government will do all they can to ensure that attempted suicide, or suspected self-harm, is taken seriously by all the services and ensure that the proper range of counselling is provided for these young people at a critical stage in their lives?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
The noble Lord raises a very important point. It is increasingly vital that the different departments and services that work with children join up the information so that a holistic picture of a vulnerable child can be built up, and to avoid information slipping through the net, as has happened in one or two high-profile cases.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, we know that speedy access to psychological and therapeutic services for distressed children is extremely difficult in some areas, and likely to get worse when responsibility for commissioning children’s health services is broken up between different organisations, as will happen under the Government’s health service reorganisation. Can the Minister tell the House which organisation, in future, will be responsible for commissioning and improving psychological and therapeutic services for children?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Again, I am afraid that I cannot directly answer the noble Baroness. However, I know that there is an increasing amount of joined-up discussion between departments to try to ensure that such issues are covered, and I will of course write to her if I can get a direct answer. I know that the Chief Medical Officer has put a high priority on well-being, particularly among children and young people. It will be a cross-departmental responsibility to ensure that happens.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I have watched the work of ChildLine with great interest and admiration over the years. It has been quite remarkable in changing the attitudes and sensitivities that children face when they are abused. I am also delighted that the founder of ChildLine, Esther Rantzen, has now started another line, called the Silver Line, for abused or damaged older people. Can the Minister assure us that this will be taken seriously and the same level of encouragement and support given to it in the future as has been given, quite rightly, to ChildLine?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I can reassure the noble Baroness that abuse of any vulnerable person, whether a child or an adult, is taken very seriously by the Government and any measures that are proposed to counteract it will be supported. As she says, ChildLine has developed its services to meet the needs of children today. One of the reasons why the number of children approaching it has increased is that there is now an online facility, and many children find it easier or more acceptable to express their troubles online than over a telephone. That is providing a very helpful and vital service to vulnerable children.
Bank of England
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Barnett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they agree with Mark Carney, the new Governor of the Bank of England, that the Bank’s target should be changed from inflation to nominal gross domestic product.
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Chancellor set the remit for the Monetary Policy Committee at Budget 2012 to target inflation at 2%, as measured by the 12-month increase in the consumer prices index. The Government have no plans to change the inflation-targeting framework.
Lord Barnett
That was not really an Answer to my Question. I understand what is in the current Monetary Policy Committee target and that it has not changed. However, is the Minister aware that the ONS has recently found that GDP—real GDP, that is—was 3% less than it was before the recession and that growth, as most forecasters are saying, is not likely to be very good? So at least it would be helpful—if anybody can do anything about it—if the man whom the Prime Minister described as the best in the world was given these additional powers. Does this mean that if the Governor took those powers to himself, the Chancellor would override them with the current powers that he has?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Question that has been raised, about whether to change the inflation target, is an important one. Before any change is made, however, the question that we have to answer conclusively is: what could the MPC do under that target that it cannot do now? A debate is currently going on that is academic in part and in which all the commentators are involved. For the time being, however, we see no reason to change the current framework.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, the Government should be congratulated on appointing Mark Carney and for the first time bringing in somebody from outside the United Kingdom to serve as Governor of the Bank of England. It shows not only what an open country and economy we are but that we can get a fresh input of ideas—such as the suggestion that we should look at GDP as a target as well as interest rates. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, probably meant to ask whether the Bank of England should look at inflation targeting as well as targeting GDP—as the Fed in America always has—to help growth in the economy.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. The House will be aware that under the Bank of England Act the MPC has to meet, or aim to meet, an inflation target. Subject to that, it has to aim to promote the Government’s broader economic objectives. It is worth pointing out that in the past 20 years, the vast bulk of which have been conducted under the current regime, we have had an inflation target of 2%, inflation having been one of the main economic problems facing this country over recent decades. Against a target of 2%, the outturn has been 2.1%, so it has been a pretty effective target.
Lord Peston
My Lords, would the Minister care to reflect on the irony of what he and government spokesmen are generally saying? The Europhobes on the government Benches are terribly upset with the idea that Brussels wants to get, and is getting, too involved in the determination of our economic policy, but is not our economic policy being driven by a quite different group—namely the credit rating agencies, which have no democratic legitimacy whatever and whose operations would not bear the slightest scrutiny if ever we were able to examine them properly? Is it not about time that the Government put the needs of our economy first and not the needs of the credit rating agencies?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Government do not put the needs of the credit rating agencies first. The Government are seeking to promote growth within a stable framework while reducing the deficit. We do not know what the credit rating agencies are going to do, but I can assure the noble Lord that people in the Treasury are not spending every night awake worrying about them. They are expending their efforts on promoting growth on the basis of a reducing budget deficit and a credible long-term macroeconomic policy.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, is it not obvious to everyone that inflation targeting has failed? The Bank of England has consistently failed to meet its inflation targets and we have zero growth in the economy. Would it not be sensible for the Government to listen to Mr Carney’s suggestions?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Government will listen to Mr Carney’s suggestions. Mr Carney has said that he will not comment on the position in the UK until he arrives. His key speech on this issue was made in February last year before he was appointed. In that speech, he said among other things that,
“if nominal GDP targeting is not fully understood or credible, it can, in fact, be destabilizing”.
There is no quick and easy answer—
Lord Newby
There is no quick and easy answer to dealing with these issues, but the Government will listen very carefully to what Mr Carney says when he arrives.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, is it not abundantly clear that monetary policy can only do so much and that the whole question of the rate of inflation is marginal to our position in terms of the need for growth in the economy, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, indicated? When will the Government realise that, as we tremble not on our fiscal cliff but on the brink of the possibility of a third recession, it is necessary to address the real economy and abolish plan A?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I do not think that people struggling to make ends meet think that inflation is irrelevant. Keeping inflation down is a central aim of government policy. In terms of what is happening in the broader economy, I remind the noble Lord that the CBI industrial trends survey published today echoes the views of the British Chambers of Commerce quarterly economic survey published a couple of weeks ago: namely, that there is an improvement in confidence; that orders are increasing; and that employment expectations are improving. The noble Lord should not overdo the doom and gloom.
Helicopter Flights: Central London
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the extent of helicopter flights over central London.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, helicopter operations in central London are strictly controlled, and last week’s accident was the first fatal helicopter accident in London since civil aviation records began in 1976. We are waiting for the Air Accidents Investigation Branch to complete its investigation to ensure that the reasons for the accident are understood before we consider whether any further measures are necessary. There is no reason to believe that helicopter operations over London are unsafe.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, the safety record of helicopter flying in London has indeed been very good, as the Minister said, but does he not agree that the number of new high-rise buildings around Vauxhall Cross has made the approach to Battersea heliport increasingly hazardous? Can he give an assurance that the inquiry into last week’s accident, which could have been so much worse, will include consideration of whether that heliport should continue to operate?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it is not for me to prejudge the result of the investigation or to tell the Air Accidents Investigation Branch how it should conduct its operation, as I am sure the noble Lord understands. The Civil Aviation Authority is closely involved in the planning process, and it is unlikely that planning permission would be granted for a high building in the face of opposition from the Civil Aviation Authority.
Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the British Helicopter Association, which is the trade association for the helicopter industry. Does my noble friend agree that there should be no knee-jerk reaction to this tragic accident? We need to understand the facts. These are always complex, and the Air Accidents Investigation Branch will be able to deduce what all the reasons were. Does my noble friend also accept that helicopter flying into and over London provides health support through the work of the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service, security through police helicopters and some of the military, and also contributes to the wealth of the capital through general helicopter traffic in support of business?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I agree with everything that my noble friend has said. In addition, I point out that the Civil Aviation Authority considered the operation of helicopters over London in 2005, and we are currently operating under the regime it recommended.
Lord Berkeley
Are not these helicopters known to everyone as being incredibly noisy? Surely, apart from the police and health helicopters, there is no argument for having a commercial heliport in central London. There is a perfectly good public transport service within London. Cannot these very important people use airports instead?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, we are not aware of any horrendous problem with helicopter noise, although I have answered an Oral Question in your Lordships’ House about it. The number of helicopter flights over London has almost halved over the past few years, and the level of noise disturbance has reduced accordingly—although, of course, the economic situation may be impacting on that. It is also clear that helicopters benefit the city both by supporting the economy and by providing essential support to the emergency services.
Lord Broers
My Lords, can the Minister tell us how often the charts are updated and whether pilots are tested for their knowledge of the charts? That building has been there only a few months. I declare an interest in that I live right next to it. I have just been waiting for this to happen.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, first, I am confident that the charts are up to date. Secondly, when any new structure —or a very tall crane—is put in place, if it is necessary aviators are warned about it through a well understood mechanism.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the planning application for the very tall tower into whose crane the helicopter may have crashed was turned down by Lambeth Council following massive objection from local residents? It was then passed by the Planning Inspectorate. I declare an interest as a local resident. Do the Government think that the criteria used by the Planning Inspectorate should take more account of local objections before overturning local authorities’ planning decisions, and does not this disaster demonstrate that local people usually know what they are talking about?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, when we have a disaster such as this we need to look at the technical aspects and listen to the advice from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch and the Civil Aviation Authority. As to the planning system, that is a rather different question; we have debated planning quite a lot recently in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, one feature of the response to the crash was the speed and efficiency with which the emergency services dealt with the accident. Is the Minister aware that the fire appliance that arrived there early came from Clapham fire station, which, under the mayor’s proposals, is due for closure? Will the inquiry examine that point? Does not this crash indicate how dangerous it is to cut back on our essential emergency services?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it is for the Air Accidents Investigation Branch to choose whether or not to comment on this matter. Provision of fire cover in London is a matter for the mayor under the legislation introduced by the party opposite.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Does my noble friend accept that many of the helicopter flights over London are carried out by the police when they carry out surveillance? It is an astronomically expensive way of doing it. Have the Government considered using drones for this activity?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am not aware of whether the police have considered using drones; that is a matter for them. I did ask whether balloons could be used rather than helicopters. The difficulties are, first, that balloons are more vulnerable to wind conditions and, secondly, that the helicopter needs to be able to manoeuvre over a street to get a good view of it. The advice I received is that a helicopter is the ideal way to undertake surveillance operations.
Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill
Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Bill [HL]
The Chairman of Committees
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to the Special Public Bill Committee on the Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Bill [HL]:
E Attlee, L Bates, L Browne of Ladyton, L Cullen of Whitekirk (Chairman), V Hanworth, B Liddell of Coatdyke, E Lindsay, L McAvoy, D Montrose, L Stephen, L Wallace of Tankerness.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the evidence taken by the Committee shall, if the Committee so wishes, be published.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Astor is shortly to repeat a UQ from another place under our new procedure, which was approved by the House. It is only the second day on which it has occurred; it is an experiment until the springtime. I am told by those who participated last time that it worked very well. That may have something to do with the fact that a great number of the Opposition managed to get their questions in.
The procedure is as follows: my noble friend Lord Astor will repeat the Statement made by a Minister in another place and it is only after he has sat down that a 10-minute period is started by the clerks. In that period, we operate as if it is an Oral Question so questions are put to the Minister. When this was agreed by the House, the expectation, the House said, was that the first question may normally be asked by a member of the opposition Front Bench. That was observed very well last time round.
Of course, on occasions such as today, when a Minister for Defence will be carrying out this procedure, sadly, it may be that we must mark the death of those who fight on behalf of their country. I am sure that if that is indeed the case today, as I suspect, colleagues will do as we always wish to do: to remain seated until my noble friend has read out the names of the fallen.
Armed Forces: Redundancies
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, first, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Kingsman David Robert Shaw of 1st Battalion The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, who died in the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham on Wednesday 16 January 2013 from wounds received in Afghanistan on Monday 14 January, and Sapper Richard Reginald Walker of 28 Engineer Regiment, attached to 21 Engineer Regiment, who was killed in Afghanistan on Monday 7 January. My thoughts are also with the wounded and I pay tribute to the courage and fortitude with which they face their rehabilitation.
In reply to the Unstarred Question asked in the other place today, my honourable friend Mark Francois said:
“As the House will be aware, the Government announced the process and outline timetable for the Armed Forces redundancy programme on 1 March last year, the need for the programme being born out of the Strategic Security and Defence Review and subsequent activity to balance defence books. While in an ideal world we would not need to run a redundancy programme, defence, like all areas of government, must live within its means.
Today’s announcement represents the start of the third tranche of that programme and affects only Army personnel. Announcements about who has been selected will be made on 18 June this year. Applicants will then be given six months’ notice and non-applicants 12 months’ notice before they leave the service. While we need to make up to 5,300 Army personnel redundant, the programme will not adversely affect operations in Afghanistan. As with previous tranches, there are a number of important exclusions from the programme. Critically, those preparing for, deployed on or recovering from operations on 18 June will be exempt from the tranche. Similarly, those personnel who are below the necessary medical standard for continued service will be ineligible for redundancy and, if necessary, will be discharged through the standard medical process.
The House will wish to note that because of the drawdown in Afghanistan that we have already announced, a final decision on those who will be deploying there in autumn this year will not be made until April. As a result, the final decision on personnel who are excluded as a result of preparing for operations will not be made until then.
We expect, at this stage, there to be a further tranche of redundancy in 2014. This would likely affect Army personnel and a small number of medical and dental officers from the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.
Throughout the process, the Army will seek to maximise the number of applicants. At the same time, we have cut back on recruiting as far as it is safe to do so but, as the House will recognise, the services are recruited from the bottom up, and therefore a steady inflow of Army recruits will continue to be required.
It is worth highlighting at this stage that the majority of those leaving the services as a result of tranches one and two have enjoyed significant success in moving to civilian jobs. All those who have been made redundant, whether applicants or non-applicants, will enjoy the benefits of the career transition programme. This includes career transition workshops; up to 35 days of paid resettlement training; and financial support, education and training up to 10 years after leaving. This programme has proved very successful in assisting service leavers to find work outside the Armed Forces. Historically, 93% of those who look for work are in full-time employment within six months of leaving, rising to 97% after 12 months. To that end, 91% of tranche one applicants—that is over 1,500 people—have already found employment, this being testament to, and a reflection of, the training and quality that we as a nation continue to find in our service personnel”.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I express our sincere condolences to the families and friends of the two brave members of our Armed Forces who have lost their lives as a result of action in Afghanistan in the service of our country.
I thank the Minister for repeating as a Statement the Answer given in response to the Urgent Question asked in the other place on Armed Forces redundancies. With these further redundancies, how will the Government ensure that the specialist skills that will be required more than ever in future in, for example, North Africa, in intelligence capability and foreign languages, as well as in our Special Forces, are retained, not lost in the continuing reduction in the size of our Armed Forces?
Secondly, the reduction in the size of our Regular Army also assumes an increase in the size of our Reserve Forces. That will require incentives for employers to employ and retain reservists and cast-iron guarantees for reservists that they will not be discriminated against in their employment. What assurances can the Minister give on these two points, without which achieving the required strength of our Reserve Forces is likely to prove very difficult?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments at the beginning of his speech. He asked how we ensure that we retain the skills that we need. There are certain pinch-point skills that will be excluded from the redundancies. Off the top of my head, they are the intelligence corps, a certain number of Royal Engineers, particularly IEDs, language skills, which the noble Lord mentioned, and, of course, the Special Forces, which we do not talk about. They will be excluded.
Turning to reservists, as the noble Lord knows—we had a debate on this subject the other day—we expect to have a White Paper on this issue in the spring. We spent a lot of time debating this issue. This is a subject in which I personally take a great deal of interest. I have been involved with the reserves for a number of years, and I am confident that we can do everything possible to get up to the number we want, which is 20,000 by 2018.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, from these Benches, I join the commiserations expressed by my noble friend. In the short time available, perhaps I may say that the Government are rightly proud of getting the inherited defence budget in balance, but unfortunately events take place and nothing has more events than defence. Does the Minister not think that the Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday about the willingness to use force in Mali and other places shows that you cannot use a budgeting system on defence in quite the same way that you can in other departments because events take place that need action or no action? With a force depleted to 82,000 personnel, the headlines today of what we are probably going to do in Mali might not be possible in two years’ time.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. We prepare for events, and we are confident that we can handle most things that are thrown at us. Certainly, the National Security Council is meeting as we speak and considering the situation in Mali. I am confident that we can prepare for any eventuality.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, did the National Security Council review the strategic defence and security review 2010 in the light of the Arab awakening, the Libya crisis et cetera? If it did, did it then agree that there should be a further £1.3 billion cut in the defence budget, which is, in fact, what has happened?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, it is my understanding that the National Security Council meets on a very regular basis and considers every eventuality, but it is not for it to decide the cuts. They are a matter for the Treasury.
Lord Dannatt
My Lords, I know that Members on the Cross Benches would like to be associated with the message of condolence to the families who have lost loved ones in recent operations. With regard to the matter in hand, does the Minister accept that everything practical and affordable is being done to ease the transition of those who are going to be made redundant, either voluntarily or compulsorily, under this round?
Does he also accept that there is a need, to which other noble Lords have already alluded, to keep current world events under close review in the forthcoming comprehensive spending reviews and the work towards the next defence review? If the world does not looks as safe in the next five, 10 or 15 years as one might perhaps hope, is there not a need for the numbers in our Armed Forces, particularly in our land forces, to be kept under review? Must not the possibility of increased spending in defence, maybe from somewhere else across government, be a possibility and not always the downward effect that we seem to see?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, as I said earlier, the National Security Council is meeting at this moment. It will obviously be considering world events as they evolve. We are confident that we have the members of Armed Forces to deal with any situation. As the noble Lord knows, we are reducing the numbers next year, coming back from Afghanistan. We have plenty of members of the Armed Forces to deal with these eventualities.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, the Government’s record in this area is not a good one. Within a few months of getting rid of our carrier strike capability, we found ourselves regretting the absence of a carrier in the Libyan operation and were forced to spend even more money hiring an Italian naval base and providing in-flight refuelling which we would not otherwise have needed. In the present state of affairs, is there not all too great a chance that we might soon regret this hasty decision to reduce our Army, which was taken in rather different circumstances a couple of years ago?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am sorry to hear that from the noble Lord. These redundancies are not new, and were part of the difficult decisions that had to be made to tackle the multi-million pound defence deficit which we inherited from the previous Government.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the challenge faced by the Ministry of Defence and the Army now is whether they can produce the number of reservists who are to take the place of those made redundant from the regular Army? That will need to be kept under review.
Is not the lesson of current events—not least in Mali and perhaps leaking over into Algeria—and of events in Afghanistan that there is definitely a time limit for the use of foreign troops in other people’s countries? The real challenge here is to make sure that we can train local military competence, whether in west Africa or elsewhere. Increasingly, they are the people who want a more ordered and stable world. The local people will increasingly have to be responsible for their own defence.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, on the first part of my noble friend’s question about reservists, we are confident that we can get up to the number of 30,000, which is our ambition. When my noble friend was Secretary of State, the numbers were about 72,000, of which 30,000 is less than half.
My noble friend makes a good point on training. Much more of the emphasis of our Armed Forces in future will be on training and mentoring our allies throughout the world.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, in the light of previous questions about the funding of unanticipated deployments—action is potentially necessary in Mali— can my noble friend confirm to the House that such eventualities are dealt with through funding from Treasury reserves and not from the MoD’s assessed budget? If he does not have the answer here, can he please write to me to explain?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I will certainly write to my noble friend on this issue. It is my understanding that most of these events are covered by the Treasury reserves.
Lord Stirrup
My Lords, the Minister has said that the Armed Forces should have sufficient numbers to deal with most eventualities in future. Those numbers were set out as part of Future Force 2020 in the defence review. Will the Minister reconfirm to the House that, as the Prime Minister stated when he announced the outcome of the review, it would only be viable if we had real-terms increases in defence expenditure from 2015 onwards? Without those real-terms increases, Future Force 2020 will not be achievable.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I can confirm to the noble and gallant Lord that that is indeed what the Prime Minister said. I cannot envisage the outcome of the next SDSR, which will be after the next election, but I very much hope that that is what will happen.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Lord Adonis
My Lords, on the Motion to go into Committee, perhaps I may raise a concern of which I have given the Minister notice. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness undertook to send noble Lords important material relating to the proposed shares-for-rights scheme in Clause 27. In particular, she said that we would be sent the draft guidance for decision-makers in DWP in respect of benefits claimants who decline to accept jobs with no rights and who stand to lose their benefits in consequence.
On 8 January, at col. 109 of the Official Report, I took the noble Baroness to say that we would be able to discuss the guidance in Committee because we cannot properly discuss Clause 27 without it. We are now in Committee and noble Lords have heard nothing from the noble Baroness either about the DWP guidance or in reply to my letter of 9 January, in which I set out a number of other essential factual matters in respect of Clause 27 on which we need information for our examination in Committee. The noble Baroness has not even acknowledged my letter, still less replied to it. She is the last person to be disrespectful to the House, so perhaps she could tell us what is going on.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving me notice that he was going to raise this point. I also apologise that he has not received a reply to his letter of 9 January. Unfortunately, it was forwarded from my office to BIS, which is responsible for this clause, and I understand that my noble friend Lord Younger is in the process of replying now. I admit that the discourtesy is mine for not having told the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that, and I apologise.
Of course, we will not be discussing Clause 27 very soon. I suspect that it will be towards the end of Committee. Therefore, I probably just about fulfilled my obligation when I said that I thought we would be able to discuss it in Committee. Clearly, we will not be able to do so today. The noble Lord has not had that information. However, also clearly, Clause 27 will not be debated today. Perhaps I may stick to the assurance that I gave him at Second Reading when I said that by the time,
“we reach Committee stage, we will be able to deal with some of the more detailed points”.—[Official Report, 8/1/13; col. 109.]
I stand by that.
Lord Adonis
Clarity is very important on this matter. Will the noble Baroness undertake that the DWP guidance for decision-makers in respect of those who stand to lose their benefit will be available to us by the time we get to our discussions on Clause 27?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am not going to make a firm promise. As I have said, I will do my best to ensure that it is. It is not entirely in my hands, but I understand the point and I will make sure that we should be in a position to be able to do it.
Lord Adonis
I am sorry to take the time of the House again but it is only right that I give the noble Baroness notice that there will be very significant concern on the part of noble Lords across all parts of the House if this absolutely vital information is not available to the House by the time we come to discuss the clause to which it refers.
“(za) the local planning authority has been given 18 months prior notice by the Secretary of State ahead of their designation for the purposes of this section;”
Lord Tope
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 32 in the name of my noble friend Lord Greaves and to which I have added my name. Clause 1 gives the power to the Secretary of State to designate a local planning authority as deemed to be failing, thus enabling applicants for major projects to apply direct to the Planning Inspectorate should they so desire. I said at Second Reading, and I will say again, that I am very grateful to Ministers in the other place for the assurances that they have given for the criteria that have been proposed and for the reassurance that the clause is not quite as bad as it seems. But I still say that it is directly contrary to the spirit of localism, which we have spent many happy hours discussing in this House.
I understand that the Government are determined to keep the clause in the Bill and, of course, I respect that. The Local Government Association has described it as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I am bound to say that I am inclined to agree with that description. However, if we are to have the clause, it is the role and duty of this House to make it as workable as it can be—some might say, to make it as harmless as it can be. The Government have said that they wish to keep the clause as a deterrent. I would feel happier if we could approach this on the basis of keeping it as an incentive. The latter approach calls for a different state of mind. The Government are adopting a sort of target-led approach whereby an authority that does not meet certain criteria will be designated. I think we all accept that there have been, are, and sadly probably always will be some local planning authorities that do not perform as well as they should. There is a different debate to be had about exactly what we mean by performance and how we measure it, but let us start from that basis.
I believe that the best way to improve a poorly performing authority with regard to planning as to most other things is first and foremost through what is normally called sector-led improvement to enable it to improve itself, not to punish it in some way by taking away its authority. The purpose of Amendment 1 is to require the Secretary of State to give 18 months’ notice of designation. That 18 months would allow the local authority to look at how it can improve its performance and then to be judged on the way in which it improves, not on the way in which it has performed in the past.
I am aware that Amendment 32, to which I have given my support, suggests a period of 12 months rather than 18 months. At this stage I do not want to get too hung up on the difference between 18 months and 12 months. The important principle with this amendment is that the Secretary of State should give a lengthy period of notice to enable a local authority to improve itself, helped and assisted by other local authorities and, indeed, by the Local Government Association. The Local Government Association thinks that 18 months is probably a more appropriate period, primarily because it enables better and more realistic data collection so that we can see the direction of travel that that authority is taking. Is it gradually improving? If it is improving over that period, designating it would be a considerable disincentive, not an incentive. If it is making no improvement, or indeed even getting worse, that is more justification for the designation.
A poorly performing local planning authority may well need to recruit better planning officers and better staff to enable it to improve its performance. However, it takes considerable time to recruit and embed those staff and for the improvements that we hope they can bring about to work and be seen. It takes time, of course, to engage effectively with other helpful authorities or outside sources in order to improve. For all those reasons, the Local Government Association thinks that an 18-month period is more appropriate. However, the important point is that we have a lengthy enough period—be it a year or 18 months—to enable a local planning authority to improve itself before the imposition of the final, and frankly draconian, measure of designating and taking away its right, and therefore the right of the local people, effectively to decide their own major planning applications. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have Amendments 36 and 37 in this group, which I shall come to in a moment. If I may respond directly to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, he said that the Bill is not as bad as it seems. We may part company on that proposition but I think that we share company in wanting to mitigate its worst effects, if we cannot get rid of it in its entirety.
As regards Amendment 1 and the 18 months’ prior notice, certainly the thrust of this amendment is one which we can support, although it begs the question of the criteria for designation. However, I know that we are going to come to that point in due course.
As proposed in the consultation document, a designation would follow automatically from the criteria. The first is planned for October 2013, based on performance data for 2011-12 and 2012-13. On this basis, an 18-month lead time would mean designation in January or April 2015—not necessarily a bad thing if the authority has to wait that long. Obviously, the 18-month notice would give it time to improve its performance, but there would be only one more year of performance data. Some process of representation on improvements is needed, and we have amendments to cover this.
Amendment 36 requires the Secretary of State to,
“serve a notice of intention to designate”—
a parallel proposition—and for the local authority in question to have the chance to make representations as to,
“why designation would be inappropriate”.
We should be clear that our preference would be for the clause not to proceed at all but, if it does, it has to have a range of necessary safeguards built in.
It is the Government’s expressed intention that designation will be automatic following publication of the statistics relating to speed of determination and levels of successful appeals, although there will be an opportunity in year one to correct gaps or errors in the existing data. It is accepted that this would have the merit—if one could call it that—of providing information to authorities on how close they were to being designated, but this approach would not impact all authorities equally, which is why we consider that the opportunity to make representations should be allowed. This might be particularly important for smaller districts where the numbers of applications for major developments might be quite small. Indeed, we received some data a short while before Committee today. I do not know if all noble Lords received it, but some authorities in the year to March 2012 received as few as two major applications to deal with. Others received more than 160. Therefore, this process will not impact on all authorities equally. One or two applications might have a significant impact on an individual authority’s metrics and the circumstances may be outside its control. The delay may be down to the applicant or consultees; indeed, if problematic applications are in the pipeline, someone might try to game the system to push an authority towards designation. The delay might also be down to community issues. Applications relating to Gypsy and Traveller sites seldom go through on the nod.
Amendment 37 requires the Secretary of State to bring forward an improvement programme before designation can take place. This is an alternative formulation to that in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The programme could be a sector-led improvement or a combination of processes to ensure that local authorities have the opportunity to improve. However, what we must be clear about is that the clause cannot stand in its current formulation, and we need, one way or another, a range of the sort of protections that are dealt with in these amendments.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this is the first day of Committee and a new stage; according to the rules, I therefore need to repeat the declarations of interests that I made at Second Reading. I remind the House of my membership of a local planning authority and of two development management committees. I am also a vice-president of the LGA.
I have tabled Amendment 32, to which my noble friend Lord Tope was good enough to put his name, whereby if the Government wish to designate an authority they should set out a notice of intention to do so. There is agreement across the amendments in the group that this is a good idea. I have tried to flesh out the broad principle set out in the lead amendment and some others. My amendment states:
“Before designating an authority under this section, the Secretary of State must serve a notice of intention to designate … The notice must … specify the reasons for serving the notice, all of which must have regard to the criteria that the Secretary of State has published”.
It should,
“specify those actions by the authority which the Secretary of State believes are necessary to satisfy the reasons for serving the notice; and … give the authority a period of twelve months in which to take the specified actions”.
Whether the period should be 12 months is debatable but I took the view that the Government would not want it to be too long. The amendment continues:
“At the end of the twelve month period, the Secretary of State must publish a report which sets out the extent to which the reasons for serving the notice still apply or no longer apply”.
At that stage, the Secretary of State may confirm the designation and take over relevant planning applications or withdraw the designation because, in his opinion, the authority has pulled its socks up, or he may give the authority another six months in which to do so.
It seems to me that this whole process, for the first time, takes away planning powers from local planning authorities and vests them in the person of the Secretary of State on the basis of alleged or perceived poor performance by a local planning authority. This is quite new and the process needs to be absolutely transparent. People need to understand why the decision is being made and how the situation can be remedied.
Like other noble Lords, I would much prefer this provision to be taken out of the Bill. However, if it is going to be there, there needs to be a clear choice between a degree of perhaps heavy-handed, detailed intervention in the running of an authority to sort out the problem and the draconian and complex process of an almost immediate central takeover of some of the development management functions of that authority. Surely the first of those must be the way forward. However few of these authorities there may be, the Government are proposing to nationalise some of their planning functions. It is interesting that a Government with a majority of Conservatives are sometimes so interested in nationalising things which up until now have taken place at a local level.
The amendment puts forward a gentle nutcracker, not a sledgehammer, if there is a nut to be cracked, and I hope that something along these lines will find favour with the Government. In particular, even if they do not want to put something on the face of the Bill, I hope that they will give very clear commitments along the lines of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, so as at least to give authorities the right to defend themselves and to explain what they can do, and also to give them a period of time in which to improve their performance so that we do not have to go through this rather draconian and undesirable rigmarole of the Planning Inspectorate—bless them—taking over detailed local planning functions.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I also declare interests as an honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Newcastle City Council. During my service on that local authority, I was leader of the council for some 17 years and was heavily involved in major development decisions. Subsequently, I was chair of the development committee and, after that, I served as a member of the development control sub-committee. Therefore, I have some working knowledge of the role of the local authority in planning.
I join my noble friend Lord McKenzie in broadly supporting this group of amendments as a way of ameliorating what seems to me a very badly drafted Bill. It would be preferable if the Government would abandon this whole proposal. I say that because there are many questions around the reasoning behind the Bill.
In the impact assessment there is reference to the financing costs to the development industry of the present planning system, which one Professor Ball estimates at £1 billion a year in respect of delays in planning permission and another £1 billion for, as he puts it, holding assets for which at the moment development does not seem to be possible. That seems to ignore completely the outstanding permissions—as I recall, some 400,000—which have not been activated by that industry. Therefore, it seems that the professor has a somewhat skewed view. Even if he were right, would the Minister be able to indicate what the impact of these proposals would be on the figures that the professor has produced, on which the Government seek to rely in the impact assessment? What would be the reduction from the £1 billion figure, or indeed the £2 billion figure, if one takes into account land which developers do not seem able to bring forward?
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I am grateful to my successor as Secretary of State for the Environment a good many years ago for giving way.
I was unable to speak at Second Reading because I could not be here, but I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a joint president of London Councils. I have considered whether to make these remarks, which will have a somewhat different tone from what we have heard so far, now or leave them until the Clause 1 stand part debate. In the light of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, it seems to me that it would be appropriate to say what I want to say now.
Of course, I have read all the briefing and have had meetings with the Local Government Association, which has expressed clearly its view that it would very much prefer this whole clause not to be in the Bill. It has suggested a number of amendments that we shall come to later. I put it to the association that I do not think that it has paid sufficient attention to the significant volume of evidence that is set out in the impact assessment, published last month. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to bits of it, and I shall do so as well, but perhaps drawing a somewhat different conclusion.
He referred in somewhat disparaging terms to the work of Professor Ball at Reading University, who has produced a report that seems to support the view that there is a very substantial body of opinion that regards the planning system as one of the barriers to growth. Professor Ball stated on page 12 of the impact assessment that the transaction costs of development control for major residential developments may be as much as £3 billion a year. He gave evidence recently to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee and advised that the actual costs were likely to be much higher than this. He went on to talk about the value of development that has been delayed by the planning system and stated that, taking into account both direct and indirect costs to the economy, the total cost of development control could be expected to run to several billion pounds. This is the view of a very respected academic who was consulted by the department and who gave evidence to a Select Committee in the other place.
I recognise the point made by the Local Government Association that planning is by no means the only barrier. Certainly the availability of finance, particularly for housebuilding and some forms of industrial and commercial development, has been a considerable problem. Of course, that is being addressed by the Government through a number of other measures that are not necessarily in the Bill. However, we all have evidence from bodies such as the Chambers of Commerce, the Home Builders Federation and the Confederation of British Industry. They are the investors who are affected by planning controls. Everybody seems to agree that what we need now is more investment in our infrastructure. They are the people who will do it and they have provided strong evidence, from surveys of their members, of the barriers posed by the planning system. On the measures taken in the planning Bill, in particular the National Planning Policy Framework document, I have nothing but the highest praise for my right honourable friend Greg Clark, who took it through. I notice my noble friend on the Front Bench nodding. Mr Clark did a splendid job. Despite that, these complaints are still being made. In these circumstances, the Government are right to take account of them.
Nobody is arguing for a moment that this is a magic wand that will remove all difficulties. The Minister said that the Bill was not likely to achieve that by itself. However, it contains a number of measures that will improve growth in the economy and remove barriers to investment. In these circumstances, one has to look very carefully at amendments that are designed to make the process outlined in Clause 1 more difficult. I do not say for a moment that it is all right. I will listen to the debates on amendments. I have put my name to some of them and, when the Marshalled List is reprinted, it will be seen that I have added my name to others. At the same time, I do not want the Committee to feel that I share the views of those who would rather see Clause 1 removed.
Lord Greaves
My noble friend is eloquent and has a very established knowledge of these matters. However, if it is true, as Professor Ball suggested and my noble friend seems to accept, that there is a major problem of delay in the planning system in all sorts of places, how will that be solved by a clause in the Bill which, according to the Government’s consultations and the criteria that they are known to be thinking of setting out, will affect only a very small number of very small planning authorities?
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that point. I am sure that, like me, he has studied the impact assessment and the consultation document, which was also published last month. The consultation period is now closed and I agree with the Constitution Committee’s recommendation that we must have the Government’s response to that consultation paper by the time we get to Report. I am sure that my noble friend has taken that very much on board.
I have mentioned only one or two parts of the impact statement, which further states on page 10:
“In 2011/12 councils determined 435,000 applications. The majority of these are determined in a timely manner and most are approved. In 2011/12 the proportion of minor and other applications determined within the statutory 8-week timetable was 85% and 93% respectively. However, performance against the statutory time frame for determining major applications”—
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving the most recent figures of the number of major applications that have been handled by local authorities—
“has been in decline. In 2011/12 only 58% of major applications were determined within the 13-week timetable compared to 71% in 2008/09”.
It goes on to say:
“There are very significant variations in the performance of different councils”.
A number of noble Lords have made the point, and it has been firmly stated by the Government, that the clause is aimed at those who fall significantly short of the standards required. I accept that. I also accept the Constitution Committee’s view that we ought to see more details about that in the Bill, but we may have to wait for the Government’s response to the consultation paper. However, that does not mean that there is not some value in putting additional pressure on local planning authorities to make sure that they recognise the problems created for investors by delays—long delays, in many cases—in applications for planning permission.
Lord Adonis
The noble Lord referred to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report on Clause 1 and said that it raised issues. Those issues are fundamental. The report states:
“The Bill specifies no criteria for designation … though each local planning authority might be designated individually, the power may be used by this or a future Government to designate a significant proportion of local planning authorities, based on criteria which have no relevance to poor performance”.
I assume that the noble Lord is not happy with that state of affairs.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I have already referred to two recommendations in the Select Committee’s report which I support. My noble friend Lady Hanham made it very clear at Second Reading that the expectation is that, in the event, there will be relatively few—indeed, very few—local authorities for which a designation will be made. Surely the existence of the power will itself impress on local authorities the need to improve their performance. What is wrong with that?
Lord Adonis
My Lords, if that is the case, why does the Bill not say that designation is dependent upon poor performance? It does not say that at the moment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
This is what consultation is about. I am sure the noble Lord has read the consultation paper. The consultation closed on 17 January and I have already made the point that I hope, and ask my noble friend to confirm, that the Government’s response to the consultation will be available by the time we come to deal with the clause on Report. They have spelled out quite clearly their thinking on the criteria for designation and that it is unlikely to apply to more than a very few local authorities. Indeed, Ministers have said that they hope there will not be any. But if there is a wide variation in the planning performance of different local authorities are the Government simply to sit back and to do nothing?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The noble Lord raises an important question in asking whether the Government should sit back and do nothing. The answer is clearly no, but is not the right approach to try to put some resources into understanding what is happening to differential performance and why the metrics have declined in recent times? Those issues should be addressed rather than make the assumption that authorities that fail the test—it is all to do with the speed of dealing with applications and nothing much to do with the quality of decisions being taken—are somehow failing.
Does the noble Lord not think that the upheaval in the planning system in recent months may have had an impact? We have had the Localism Act, the NPPF, the demise of regional spatial strategies and all that goes with that. Those are very considerable changes, and of course local authorities are facing the horrendous cuts to their budgets, the worst that have been experienced for generations. Perhaps these factors are having an impact on what is happening. Is it not better to address them rather than make a spurious judgment that it is all to do with the speed of application? Is it not also right that, when there is non-determination within six months of an application, the Secretary of State has the power to call it in and deal with it anyway?
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I understand the points being made by the noble Lord. The question of the pressures on local authority finances and therefore on local authority staffing is important, but of course authorities do charge. My noble friend Lord Tope made the point that some local authorities could improve by hiring better quality staff. These are the kind of things where, if there is some form of longstop provision of the sort that is in Clause 1, minds will be concentrated. I am not saying that the clause needs no amendment and I have already made the point that I have put my name to several amendments that we will come to, but I would not be happy to join forces with those who would prefer to see it removed altogether. I thought it right to make my views pretty clear at this stage of the Bill.
The Bill is a miscellaneous set of measures rather than a large and comprehensive Act like the Localism Act that we have passed. It contains a number of disparate and separate measures that are aimed at meeting the increasingly vocal call for the Government to do something to improve the growth of the economy. None of the provisions is a golden one, likely by itself to make a huge difference, but taken together they are a brave attempt to try to find out what the obstacles are. Many noble Lords will have seen that there is plenty of evidence about the barriers, and I want to make it clear that in the interests of growth and of improving the planning system, the broad thrust of this Bill is right, as indeed is Clause 1. If it is put to a vote, I shall certainly support the Government.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I declare my interests as the chairman of a company that tries to help in terms of sustainable development, as an officeholder in the Town and Country Planning Association and as an honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects. Above all, I was my noble friend’s successor as Secretary of State. I fear that I have to say to him that I disagree deeply with his assessment of the Bill.
I am sorry that we cannot have an automatic discussion about its Title because I am always suspicious of Titles which are difficult to vote against. It seems that more time has been spent on getting the Title of this Bill right than on any of the clauses because the difficulty we have here is that of a half-baked Bill. At no point do we have the information needed to make any of the clauses meaningful. I do not think that it is easy even to table amendments to this clause without understanding what the criteria will be. If it is possible to put criteria into the consultation, it seems to me that there ought to be a mechanism for then translating such criteria as survive the consultation into the Bill, so that we know where we are. I fear that we really do not know where we are.
I want to challenge that fundamental argument—a historic argument that has come from the Treasury since time immemorial—that the planning system is the only thing that you have to deal with if you want to get growth. I remind the House that the planning system is there precisely to make places better for the people who live there. There is a price to pay for that. If you have a planning system it will cost money in the sense that if you did not have one, developers would not have to pay the costs of putting forward a planning application. It seems to me that those figures are pretty much nonsense, because all they are is an adding up of what it costs to have a system in which the public have some say in the conditions and the places where they live. That is a fundamental part of the life of any community. My concern is that it is difficult enough now for communities to plan their future, and that this is going to make that significantly worse.
This comes at a time when we have just discussed and debated the Localism Act. I feel like putting down an amendment that asks for the repeal of the Localism Act, because that seems to be what this first clause actually says. It does not seem to sit with all the rest of what the Government have been putting forward—which is something that I have been going up and down the country defending and believing in. I know that it is difficult to be local and that people at the top know best, or think they know best, but in the end I want the people of Suffolk to have some say in the Suffolk of tomorrow, and not to be told by somebody outside that they have to have this because it is good for them or good, in a curious general way, for growth.
I remind the House that two things are important. First, there is no discernible distinction between good and bad planning authorities on party political grounds. I go round the country and I know that you cannot say that Labour authorities are better or worse than Conservative authorities. There are very good Conservative authorities and very much less good ones, and very good Labour authorities and very much less good ones. The Liberal Democrats of course find themselves, as usual, in every possible place. I cannot resist a lifetime of teasing.
The words of my noble—and real—friend seem to give away the reality of the matter, which is that it is always about people’s vocal belief that this is so. People are vocal and always have been. All the time I was Secretary of State—and I am the longest-serving Secretary of State—they were vocal about it. Everybody always is, in particular if they do not win. I am afraid that we have to put up with that vocality, if there is such a word. There are many things wrong with the planning system. I believe that large infrastructure projects should always be done centrally and that it is nonsense to have another debate about the safety of nuclear power every time you go round the country. That is barmy. It is barmy to accept that if you want to build a railway or something of a serious nature, you have to deal with every single bit, because it is not the bits that count, it is the whole. There are very obvious examples of that, which I support and am enthusiastic about.
My problem—which is why I support these amendments—is that this particular clause seems to be inapplicable, in the proper sense of that word. First, if we are not going to deal with more than a handful of authorities and a handful of applications, then it does not meet the vocality. It does not meet what people are complaining about, so they will go on complaining. No doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said at Second Reading, we will have another Bill—because we always do—and there will be another way of not achieving what those who are vocal want. The reason is that it is not achievable. What they really want is something that distinguishes between planning applications not on the grounds of merit but on the grounds of speed. That does not seem a very sensible basis on which to do it. Of course, bigger planning applications take longer. Anyone can decide about a car port in a short period. A complex decision on mixed development in an area of outstanding natural beauty, with difficulties of infrastructure, takes time. If it happens to be in a small district council, it takes longer, because the district council is unlikely to have spare capacity to deal with it.
Lord Burnett
My Lords, I start by declaring my interests. I have considerable sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. From the tenor of the debate, I would say that it is a stand part debate. I believe that the clause, as possibly amended to ameliorate the time limits, could very well be a spur to improving the planning system.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked whether anyone can suggest some draconian questions that should be asked of local authorities. I can suggest one or two. Some adopted local plans are lamentably out of date. That is a criterion of performance and one that developers find incredibly frustrating if it is not met. I understand the position of local councillors, although I have never been one. Some matters are incredibly difficult for them to decide. Sometimes cases go to appeal and the planning inspector will decide them. When you are trying to propose housing, commercial or shopping development, and so forth, you cannot really be expected, as a developer or a builder, to rely on a local plan that is seven, eight, nine or 10 years old. That is just impossible.
That could be one measure. Another that I referred to in my Second Reading contribution is that greater attention must be given to measures of housing need. With the demise of regional spatial strategies, each local authority will face the task of assessing housing need in its own authority. There should be a clear, intelligible and compelling basis for assessing need. The underlying basis and calculation should be publicly available—and should be available to challenge by the customers of local authorities. It is not good always going for the lowest number when in fact that is not appropriate.
In many parts of this country, the south-east and south-west in particular, a great many people do not want to see development for one reason or another. Perhaps that development is not appropriate, but just to deny need without proper evidence is not fair. It is not fair on the thousands and millions of people who are looking to get on the housing ladder and to buy houses.
I hope these two measures are two draconian questions that this clause will ask of local authorities and that they will ensure that adopted local plans are up to date and that there is a clear measure of housing need. All of us in this House want to see houses become more affordable. We all know that there is a severe housing crisis in this country. Can my noble friend the Minister give me some response on those two matters when she replies to this debate?
Lord Greaves
Would my noble friend be surprised to learn that his remarks about local plans and the delays to them are ones that I agree with completely? Does he agree, and would the Minister perhaps agree later on, that the main delays in the planning system are to do with the local plan system and the production and development of local plans, rather than in dealing with applications for planning permission?
Lord Burnett
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. I feel supported and vindicated in the thrust of the points that I was endeavouring to make to the House.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I support the amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lord McKenzie this afternoon. Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State powers to take over planning application decisions, as I see it. Why? I thought that the Government were in favour of localism—a point that has been made by a number of speakers already. Planning applications are surely best handled locally. They should normally involve a consultation process involving the local community. That is certainly the situation in our area.
There is a housing crisis in London. Everything has become incredibly expensive, and developers have become very greedy indeed. They take over large houses when they become available and attempt to extend and develop them, often to the disadvantage of adjoining property. They are not developing affordable housing—quite the contrary. When local residents object, the local planning authority has to pay attention to what the local community has to say.
As a matter of fact, I have recently been involved in such a situation in an area where there are quite old houses, and where the developers are attempting to build basements in places that were never intended to have basements. This destabilises the houses next door, and of course the residents have all been objecting. If the Government really respected localism, they would not attempt to undermine the procedures that are provided by Clause 1. The residents in the case I refer to are certainly not against social housing. They are simply against a large fortune being made by developers trying to profit from scarcity, which is the situation in London.
In the circumstances that have been explained by a number of speakers this afternoon, the amendments submitted by my noble friend Lord McKenzie would substantially modify the provisions of Clause 1, and that would be to everyone’s advantage. It would give the local authority the right of representation before the powers were assumed by the Secretary of State, and there is provision in Amendment 32 for a proper consultative process. I therefore hope that the Government will look with some favour on these amendments, because they modify the thrust of Clause 1, I think to the advantage of everyone.
Lord Best
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Local Government Association. We are not actually discussing the stand part debate at this moment. We have a bunch of amendments on which I detect that everyone, including both the previous Secretaries of State who have talked on this, actually agrees—namely, that if the Secretary of State is to have the power to take away powers currently in the hands of local authorities for planning, then we may need to put in place some constraints on the use by the Secretary of State of that new power. These amendments are all about putting some constraints on the Secretary of State, and they seem to be entirely reasonable and proper. Nick Boles, the Minister may get his way; he says quite clearly, and I am sure that he is right to do so, that Clause 1 is intended as a deterrent and that,
“it would, in fact, apply to very few authorities. Indeed, I hope it would apply to no authorities, should they improve their performance”.—[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Bill Committee, Commons, 27/11/12; col. 242.]
Fair enough; there may be a requirement on some local authorities to do better than they do at the moment. But if they can show that improvement, then I think we would all be clear that the Secretary of State would not be able to use a new power.
The consultation paper suggests that there are really two criteria here on which local authorities would be judged. The local plan does not feature very prominently but they are about the performance at appeal; quality, which is measured by the approval rate by local authorities; and speed—how fast they do it within the timetables that have been set. On the first of those measures, the performance at appeal, it is fair to say that no local authority at the moment would fail this test at all. If you take account of the fact that a local authority is quite entitled to come up with a negative view, even if the inspectorate goes against it later, it is only really where costs are awarded against a local authority that one could say that that local authority had not been behaving in a proper and sensible manner.
There are so very few cases of costs being awarded that I do not think anyone would fall on performance at appeal. It is speed—timeliness—on which local authorities are likely to be judged to be failing. Here it is possible for local authorities to change their ways in order to speed up. At the moment there is no intimation that those that are already demonstrating in their direction of travel that they are improving their performance will be acknowledged or taken into account. Northumberland County Council’s performance under the speed/timeliness measure has improved in the following way over the past 12 months, for example: it had 30% of its major applications determined within 13 weeks in the third quarter of 2011 and that was improved to 48% the following quarter, 52% the quarter after that and 57% the quarter after that. Improvements can happen. Clearly, local authorities need to be given the time, the space, the opportunity and the support to make those improvements before a very heavy-handed removal of powers ever takes place.
I offer here, as I think that I am mandated to do so, the helping hand of the Local Government Association in trying to secure those improvements. It has furnished me with a whole list of recommendations from local authorities that, in various respects, have been able to dramatically improve performance using the techniques, the peer-group opportunities, that the LGA brings. I think there is agreement in this House—and I hope the Minister will be able to go with this tide of approval—wherever we come from on the bigger point of principle, that there must be constraints and opportunities for local authorities to demonstrate improvement, given plenty of time and opportunity to do that, before the Secretary of State even contemplates doing what we are told he does not really want to do in the first place: use this new power.
Lord True
My Lords, I must also declare an interest as leader of a London local council that is a planning authority and as a member of the leaders committee of London Councils, but I should make it clear that I in no way speak on behalf of London Councils.
I shall not follow the Second Reading or clause stand part tone of the debate because I think the noble Lord, Lord Best, has summed up rather well the mood of the Committee on this. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding made a very wide-ranging speech which cited a series of people with great acronyms and of great importance, including a professor, saying that the planning system is a great economic drag on the country and we must do something. One could say such things of employment law, health and safety, transport regulations or any number of things. It is not in itself an argument to remove elements of a system. The question that we must ask in this Committee is whether the remedies are proportionate, whether their administration is going to be objective and whether, overall, they will be conducive to the public good. I actually think that some of the things in the Bill answer that test positively and a number, as I said at Second Reading, resoundingly negatively. We must find the balance in Committee.
I must apologise to your Lordships in advance that I will be limited in the time that I can be present in the Committee, which may come as welcome news to some. I have a council meeting this evening. Doubtless I shall pass the scoutmaster’s hut on the way to the council meeting—that was something for the chairman of my party to note. I will also be unable to participate in Committee sittings next week. I apologise to your Lordships and to the Minister for that. I know the Minister will be listening courteously, as she always does, to everything said.
I want to make a relatively narrow point on important amendments that my noble friend Lord Tope and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, have tabled. We will come on to discuss the criteria in the next group. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made about the criteria is accurate. I made the same point at Second Reading. It is not enough for a current Minister to say, “I will only use these criteria”—which we have not yet seen—“for a limited number of purposes”. A future Minister given extraordinarily wide powers by your Lordships could use them in a very different way. I am sure that is something that we will examine later as we proceed. As Committees of your Lordships’ House have said, greater defences need to be built into the system.
I also think that a period of notice is a useful and important defence to build into the system, not only for the reasons that have been cited. I am not going into the question of whether it should be 18 months or 12 months or of what it should be, but what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has put before us is a very important point, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said. That period is a safety margin in which a local authority can improve, but it is also a brake on precipitate action by the Secretary of State. It may be that I can be disabused by the Minister either now or on Report, but it looks as though the Secretary of State can just pop up, presumably on the basis of the criteria that we will have seen by Report, and say, “Toytown Borough Council, you are hereby designated”, and the next day a developer can whack in an application to the Secretary of State and, heigh-ho, off we go, everybody is happy, particularly the developer. It may be that in existing law and in the Bill there are things that prevent that, but if that can happen, there is a great moral hazard in any Executive having this sort of power. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, used a phrase: he said that people might “game the system”. I do not know whether that is true, but I dare day that there are ways in which you could game a system to make it look as though a local authority was not performing well.
I am slightly more worried that somebody might play the system and say, “We are having terrible trouble with these people”. Perhaps they would go along to the Treasury or some other place and say, “Well, Toytown Borough Council is not performing. It needs to be designated”. Somewhere—I would prefer via Parliament by law, in either primary or secondary legislation—there should be some brake on the moral hazard of the Executive saying, “We are designating these people, and we are going to do it tomorrow”.
That is another potentially useful aspect of time. When we have a planning application before us, we have to put online all the representations that are made. Where will be the representations that are privately being made to Ministers about bad authorities? Will they be placed online by the department as they are submitted, prior to the Secretary of State making his decision? I do not know, but I think that this aspect of potential designation should be considered. A pause, a warning, or a period in which the Secretary of State can be challenged to justify the action he proposes to take, beforehand as well as afterwards, would be useful.
There is a case for Clause 1. I do not agree with those who would like to see no long-stop power. However, the line of argument which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has opened up is very fruitful. It would be good for local authorities and the planning system, and it might be good for future Governments as well.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord True and support the four amendments in this group.
The report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, published on 18 January, refers to Clause 1 being,
“a novel provision in the context of town and country planning”.
“Novel” might mean “new”, but it might also mean, “very different and therefore very important”; I think that it is meant to be the latter. It is novel and, as a consequence, it must be properly understood. A centralised form of front-line decision making is being introduced at the expense of localism, as the Select Committee has made clear. I do not find that good. In particular, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that there would be no appeals system other than judicial review to a decision taken by the Planning Inspectorate. In the context of democratic control of decision making, simply to pass a decision without the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate is not right.
I was then particularly concerned by paragraph 10 of the Select Committee report, which is important and says:
“We have consistently expressed the view that executive assurances about how statutory powers will be exercised are no firm basis on which to legislate. Constitutionally speaking, they are no proper substitute for clarity in the statutory provision”.
The Select Committee concludes:
“In our view, the Government’s own policy intention of designation under clause 1 only in exceptional cases”—
as Ministers have been making clear—
“should be made clear on the face of the bill. The House may also wish to consider whether the criteria and procedures for making or revoking a designation should be set out in secondary legislation”.
I think I have concluded that in both cases they should and I very much hope that shortly we will hear confirmation that the Minister at least will look at this question again. The Government’s aim should be never to use their powers.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I do not know whether to start replying to a Second Reading debate or to a clause stand part debate. We effectively have had a round-up of all the aspects that appear in Clause 1. I am in some difficulty because some of what has already been said will be said all over again as we go through the full Committee stage. I am very tempted to do as the noble Lord, Lord Best, invited me to do; namely, to stick purely to the amendment which seeks to delay any designation for 18 months. Taking a short breath, I have decided that I will do a bit of both because some areas have come up that are relevant to the designation. I am sure noble Lords would agree that it probably is not appropriate for me to answer every single aspect at this stage, otherwise we might as well move on to Report now.
I should like to draw the attention of noble Lords to what Clause 1 states:
“A relevant application that would otherwise have to be made to the local planning authority may (if the applicant so chooses) be made instead to the Secretary of State if the following conditions are met at the time it is made … the local planning authority concerned is designated … the development to which the application relates … or the development for which outline planning permission has been granted … is of a description prescribed by the Secretary of State”.
That does not mean, as many noble Lords have tried to indicate, that all the powers of planning are being taken away from local authorities. I tried to make that extremely clear at Second Reading. This is a very constrained part of planning changes. It is a contribution —if I can put it like that—to ensure that planning and development takes place. No one is saying that this is the one thing that will absolutely shift and move planning on and will make it easier for developers to achieve what they want. That is not the situation.
Lord Adonis
Will the Minister tell us where in Clause 1 it says that the power is very constrained. It simply says under subsection (1)(a) of new Clause 62A to be inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that,
“the local planning authority … is designated by the Secretary of State”.
It does not say that it is constrained.
Baroness Hanham
Being designated is a constraint because when we eventually get to it, the noble Lord will know that the consultation lays out the criteria for designation, and we will discuss that. The designation by itself is the control and the constraint.
I was trying to say that this was not the only area and aspect that would help planning, development or growth. We have had suggestions at other stages that things such as mortgages and lack of finance are holding up and constraining planning, and I accept that that is the situation. However, concerns have been highlighted about the amount of time it takes for a limited number of authorities to get a planning application through or the quality of the application decision resulting in more appeals being allowed through the system than is acceptable. The purpose of the measure is to deal with a very limited number of authorities which are not measuring up to appropriate standards.
When the designation is made under the criteria which we will discuss at a later stage, it will be done against the background of the two preceding years. The figures will be taken from 2011-12 and 2012-13, so by the time we get to Royal Assent, the 2013 figures will be in. Those will be the two preceding years. The figures will be based on the criteria so we will be able to see what is coming up and local authorities will be able to judge whether or not they are likely to be designated. In terms of delaying the decision—
Lord Greaves
I am very grateful to my noble friend. I know that she is always very diligent in listening to the House and this Committee. If the relevant years are the two previous years to the end of March 2013, which is only just over two months away, and a local planning authority cannot do anything about the figures in the time that is left, is it not unreasonable to tackle this issue in the way that is proposed, which is what these amendments are all about? One could say to a local authority, “Yes, the figures in these two years are those which apply but you now have a period of time”—12 months, 18 months or whatever—“to put things right”. Is that not the reasonable way to approach this issue?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, you can also approach this matter from the standpoint that the planning authority has not performed correctly over the previous two years and has been on notice of that. If you delay the designation for 18 months, you further delay the possibility of improvement taking place. I hesitate to suggest that we should agree to the delay proposed in the amendment as I think that designated local authorities will begin to improve their performance.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, and other noble Lords asked about peer help. We have already made it clear that we accept very much that the Local Government Association has a role to play in helping designated local authorities to improve, and to do so even within the period of designation. As we will discuss later, that period will be reviewed annually, so local authorities can get out of this situation in a very short time. This clause—
Lord McKenzie of Luton
If the Government are very happy to see local planning authorities supported through the LGA or whatever, why do that only once designation has taken place? Would it not be better to make sure that that support is available to help them to improve before they are designated so that they avoid this process, which, on anyone’s score, will be costly, convoluted and administratively complex?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, this is a matter of view between us. Our view is that things will become clearer over the coming months and local authorities will know whether they are bordering on designation. They will know that help will be available if they are designated and that they will be encouraged to improve. That will be the tension. The designation can cease following an annual review. I do not think that that will be too much of a tension if we decide not to accept the amendment and the promoters agree with that.
I have an enormous number of points here in front of me on questions that have been quite general. I could make a Second Reading response if the Committee would like that, but we are trying to deal with the performance of local authorities and planning authorities. We also note that some local authorities will receive only a small number of applications, and that is one reason for looking at the figures over two years. We accept that there are differences between one local authority and another.
My noble friend Lord Deben, who is my real friend, also suggested that this power was anti-localism. It is not. It does not take away a local planning authority’s ability to continue to deal with planning applications, but it provides that if an authority is designated, a developer has the right to decide whether it wants the local authority to carry on dealing with the application or take it to the Secretary of State. Developers already have the right to go to the Secretary of State if an application is not completed within 13 weeks. That will of course be one means whereby local authorities can be designated if they are not performing within a statutory area.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I have sat through the whole debate and I keep asking myself a simple question: how can we be sure that there will be no political consideration when a Secretary of State decides who is to be designated? How would one authority know that it had been treated as fairly or unfairly as another, given that the information is to be held within the department regarding the extent to which an authority breached the criteria that are the subject of the consultation?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that relates to the consultation, which we are moving on to in Amendment 2. Perhaps we might follow the amendments in order, because people have gone to a lot of trouble on that.
Lord Greaves
My noble friend rightly said that in a normal case, if a major application is not dealt with by the local planning authority within 13 weeks, the applicant has a right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. What happens if the inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, fails to determine an application within 13 weeks? What recourse does an applicant have? Can the application be sent back to the local authority to sort out? What will happen?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the expectation is that the Planning Inspectorate will perform against the statutory criteria.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asked whether there would be democratic involvement as applications go forward. Local residents will have their normal ability to comment and all the normal planning processes can take place. All that will happen is that the decision will not be made by the local authority at that stage but by the Planning Inspectorate, which may very well have had to pick up the application if the local authority was not performing within the 13 weeks. There is nothing to be gained by delaying the designation. Our intention is to ensure that if a local authority is designated, it is in and out of that designation as soon as possible, given the help, support and encouragement that will be available from the Local Government Association and other planning means.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Perhaps I may focus on one other point. Clearly, the criteria are going to be driven by the speed at which applications are dealt with. That is very clear from the consultation document. If, in the Government’s eyes, there is a delay in dealing with an application, why do they attribute blame only to the local planning authority? The cause could be due to the developer or other consultees in the community engagement. Why is blame attributed solely to the local planning authority? That is basically the conclusion to be drawn from what the Government are proposing.
Baroness Hanham
That will not be entirely the case. There are usually reasons why planning applications are delayed, and one may be that an application will take longer than the normal consultation period. Before an authority is designated, it will be allowed to put that view forward and say that it has not been able to deal with certain applications because it has agreed that the process will take longer, or there may be some other reason. A portcullis will not just come down; discussions and explanations will be possible.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
There is a very important point—it may be a new point. I understand that, where performance agreements are entered into, they will be taken into account. However, is the Minister saying that there will be an additional process whereby a local authority can make representations about the prospect of it being designated because of circumstances that have occurred locally?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, before they are designated, local authorities will have the opportunity to explain, first, their figures and, secondly, if necessary, the length of time that an application has taken due to specific reasons. That will be the case with either a formal or an informal planning application, but they will have to note that that is what it is so that they can use that as an explanation.
Lord Deben
Would it not be better if that were set out in the Bill? If the Bill said, first, that the issue is largely one of timing—that would make me much happier, because I am worried about other criteria—and, secondly, that the local authority would have a period of time, whatever it might be, to have a discussion about it, I think that many of us would not be so unhappy about not agreeing to these amendments. The amendments are designed to put in place exactly what my noble friend has put forward, so would it be possible to have that in the Bill? It seems to me that we would all be very much happier if it were.
Baroness Hanham
My noble friend has greater experience than I have of putting forward legislation, and he will know that not all measures are put into a Bill. Some are in secondary legislation and some are in planning guidance. I have no doubt at all that it will be made clear to local authorities how that designation is going to come about and what they will be able to do to ameliorate it. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
A number of noble Lords asked whether we were going to have the Government’s response to the consultation with the details of the criteria before Report, which seems likely to be in about the middle of February. That does not give the Government a great deal of time because, as has been said, the consultation finished only last week. However, I think it would be much more helpful to the House if we could see the criteria. The Minister has laid great stress on the fact that local authorities will know what the criteria are, but will noble Lords know?
Baroness Hanham
My noble friend would know what they are if he had read the consultation document, which, knowing his experience, he will have done. The criteria put out to consultation are that local authorities will be designated if they should not have achieved the statutory requirement in 30% of applications and if they have had 20% of appeals overturned. I think that those are the figures in the consultation, and the consultation is where the criteria stand at the moment.
As regards the other information, the consultation has just closed. It will probably be quite difficult to get a full response by the time we get to Report, but we can certainly give noble Lords an indication of the responses to the consultation, which may be helpful. I am not going to guarantee that we can give the Government’s response by Report, because I think that it may require more consideration than the time available allows.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I am very grateful to all who have taken part in this debate over the past hour and a half or so. I think it is customary, if undesirable, that the first debate on the first amendment in Committee tends to range just a little wider than the precise nature of the amendment. That has certainly been the case today and it has been none the worse for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, has introduced me to a new word: “vocality”. Like him, I do not know if such a word exists, but I remember looking up “localism” in the dictionary and finding that it was not there at all, so I now look forward to the “Vocality Bill” in the next Session.
I will try to deal simply with the amendments, particularly Amendment 1 in my name. It struck me that when the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, got up to speak, she referred to it as the amendment which sought to delay designation. I thought that was quite telling; I have to accept that that is certainly the effect, but it is not actually the intention. The intention is to find a better way of dealing with the problem that the Government perceive. Its intention is to try to help the Minister achieve the aspiration of never having to use this provision. The designation is not about seeking to delay—although that is the inevitable effect—it is about seeking a much better and more effective way to bring about the improvement that, in fairness, everybody wants, not just the Minister.
The Minister will have heard—and I am sure that she will take this away from this debate—considerable concern on all sides of the House about the clause as it presently stands and the support from all sides of the House for these amendments in order to bring about the objective to which I referred: namely, to find a better and more effective way of bringing about the improvements that we all seek. Obviously we are going to return to this clause on Report; I do not know what will happen then or what noble Lords will say. However, if it is to be supported by many sides of this House, we need to have some reassurances in the Bill from the Government along the lines of those that we are talking about today.
We have proposed criteria which I am told would currently catch only six local authorities; I would be very interested to know which six local authorities they are. I wonder whether those authorities themselves know that they are, in effect, on a danger list. I would like to know what size of authority they are, and to what extent and in what way they are apparently failing to meet the criteria. Is the failure on the quality, if that is the right expression, of their losing appeals—I think not, from what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said—or is it simply on the time measure? All these things are of interest and relevance.
The criteria are not going to be in the Bill, and it is certain that at some stage during the lifetime of the Act, when this Bill is enacted, those criteria will change; they are bound to change. It is equally certain that the Planning Minister will change in the lifetime of the Act; it is even possible that the Government may change in the lifetime of the Act, and we may find a time when we have a less benevolent Planning Minister, a less benevolent Secretary of State and even possibly a less benevolent Government. Therefore, when we legislate here, we need the assurances that these amendments seek to achieve. They may or may not be the right way or the best way to achieve them, but I discern from this debate that noble Lords on all sides of the House are seeking those assurances before we pass this clause. I hope the Minister will take that concern back to her ministerial colleagues and see what the Government can bring forward to meet the concern that has been expressed. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 27, 28, 29 and 35 in the group. Amendments 2 and 35 have to an extent been the subject of some discussion on the prior amendments. The 11th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee draws the provisions of Clause 1 to the attention of the House. Specifically, it emphasises the point that, whatever the declared intent, the Bill does not specify the criteria for designation or provide for them to be set down in an instrument subject to parliamentary procedure. That is what the amendment seeks to rectify. Amendment 35 requires that there is an affirmative procedure. To emphasise that point, Clause 1(8) states:
“The Secretary of State must publish (in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit) … the criteria”.
It is good that they must be published and not kept secret but there is no parliamentary process attached. Whatever the Secretary of State wishes to publish in accordance with the Bill, he can do so.
While the clause has been represented as having very limited application, it enables a profound shift in process and, indeed, in principle by removing from democratically elected councils the first engagement with a planning application, undermining the role of local accountability. We will debate elsewhere whether such a designation process should apply and what the appropriate criteria should be, and we will pursue the point that planning should be not just about process but quality outcomes. The Delegated Powers Committee said that they must merely be published. Accordingly, although each local planning authority might be designated individually, the power may be used by this or a future Government to designate a significant proportion of local planning authorities based on criteria that have no relevance to poor performance. My noble friend Lord Adonis made that point. Essentially the door would be open for a fundamental undermining of the planning system as we have known it since 1947. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was absolutely right to express its concerns.
In its consultation document, Planning Performance and the Planning Guarantee—the consultation has ended, as we have heard, although we may not get the full response by Report—the Government set out their view on the threshold for very poor performance, when,
“30% or fewer major applications have been determined within the statutory period or more than 20% of major decisions have been overturned at appeal”.
However, paragraph 45 of the document very clearly states:
“We also propose raising the bar for the speed of decisions after the first year”,
so who knows where this will end up if it is just up to the Secretary of State to publish what is in his mind at any one point? Whatever the current Secretary of State’s intentions we must not have such a wide and unfettered power unchecked in primary legislation.
Amendment 29 requires the length of the designation to be identified and, more importantly, what must be achieved for the designation to be removed. It should mean that a qualitative assessment must be made on a case-by-case basis of where a local authority is failing. LPAs that fail on the designation criteria in the Government’s terms will not necessarily all do so for the same reason. The government consultation suggests that designation will last at least for a year but will be subject to review before the end of the year. This is all very well, but if there is no initial assessment of the problems a local authority faces, how will improvement be judged? Speed of dealing with minor applications may be irrelevant; indeed, this aspect of activity may already be more than satisfactory on the Government’s criteria. Once designation is made, whether the local planning authority can show any improvement in handling major applications is entirely outside its control. The noble Baroness made the point in response to the previous debate that it will depend on whether any applicants choose to submit locally, and how many to the Secretary of State. Improvement should be about focusing resources, skills and culture, and performance, and it is also about the training of counsellors. If central government is to remove planning powers for a local authority it must be incumbent on the Secretary of State to make a proper case-by-case assessment of why and how the authority is failing, and how it can be supported.
Amendment 28 is very much by way of a fallback position. If the Secretary of State is to proceed by just publishing criteria, as the Bill currently allows, at the very least for that to happen, there must be a proper consultation. The Secretary of State may argue that one has just closed, but, sadly, it looks as though we will not see the full government response to it before we complete our deliberations. Amendment 27 rightly subjects these provisions to the need for a parliamentary process, which is provided for in Amendment 35.
There are three other amendments in this group, but I will not deal with them in detail until the noble Lords who tabled them have had a chance to speak to them. We support the thrust of Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and of Amendments 33 and 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which spell out issues in a very helpful and focused way. I beg to move.
Lord Tope
My Lords, Amendment 8, standing in my name, is in this group. It largely speaks for itself. It requires the Secretary of State to take into account improvements—or otherwise—that the planning authority has made in the five years prior to his considering it for designation. The purpose is that the Secretary of State should not just take a snapshot, or even just take into account the two-year period that has been referred to, but should look at the direction of travel of the planning authority. Has it remained poorly performing over a significant period? Has it got worse over that period? In that case, the Secretary of State must truly be looking at designation. However, if an authority is making significant improvements over that period—in our previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to Northumberland making significant improvements over time—it would be heavy-handed, and I would say quite wrong, to consider that it should be designated. If it shows evidence over a significant period that it is putting its house in order and improving its performance, surely the Secretary of State must take that into account.
Amendment 34 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord True. As he explained in the previous debate, unfortunately he had to leave just now to attend a meeting of his local council, of which he is leader. As my name is on the amendment and I support it, I will refer to it and say that the concern is that time taken over legal proceedings under judicial review should not be counted in this regard. He would like the Minister to take account of this and will welcome her comments, which he will be able to read in Hansard, before we consider what action we may wish to take on Report.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, I will say something about Amendment 28. When I was Health Secretary, I had to suspend the Lambeth, Southwark & Lewisham Health Authority because it was refusing to live within its cash limits. That suspension was overturned by the High Court on the grounds that I had put no limit on the time of suspension. The embarrassing consequence was that I had to bring legislation before Parliament to validate what the commissioner whom I had appointed had done in the intervening period. Has my noble friend taken into account what the courts might say about what would appear to be an indefinite period of designation, or does she envisage that a designation will always include a time limit during which it could be considered, reconsidered and if necessary renewed? I was stung once, and one can use one’s experience to ask what I hope is a not wholly frivolous question.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, my Amendment 33 is in this group. I certainly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Tope. Before I speak to Amendment 33, I will say that I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, which sets out that the criteria for making decisions should be in regulations that are subject to parliamentary approval. We can argue about whether approval should be by affirmative or negative resolution, which is the argument we normally have, but here we are arguing about whether the criteria should be in parliamentary regulations and statutory instruments or whether the Secretary of State should have the power to issue an order stating what the criteria will be, or simply to publish the criteria. This is unsatisfactory.
Many development orders made in the planning system are not subject to parliamentary approval. This is part and parcel of the planning system and relates sometimes to planning policy and often to the way in which the system works. This legislation is different because it would take away the statutory powers of authorities to carry out their planning functions and transfer them to the Secretary of State. It is on a different level from normal development orders and it is right and proper that the criteria should be subject to parliamentary approval—not the decisions as to which authorities should be designated but the criteria that the Secretary of State has to follow to carry out a designation. Unless they are, the opportunities for judicial review might be substantial simply on the basis of something that has been published. However, in principle, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is right.
My amendments seek to probe in detail some aspects of the criteria that the Secretary of State will look to when deciding whether or not to designate an authority, and particularly some of the criteria that will count against designation because they might be unreasonable. The Minister touched on some of these in her reply to the previous group of amendments but I hope that she will look at the amendments one by one and give the Committee an understanding of the Government’s thinking on them.
In the discussion on the previous group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred to the wide variation in performance of local planning authorities. I have no doubt that, as in many other aspects of their work, there is a substantial variation in the performance of different local authorities. That is inevitable where you have hundreds of local authorities around the country carrying out their functions in different ways with different degrees of efficiency and effectiveness. It is part and parcel of local democracy.
However, in this area there are two issues involved. One is the genuine underlying difference in performance, which no doubt will and does exist. The other is what the statistics show and whether those that we have at the moment on delays in determining planning applications have any underlying meaning. In many cases, they are based not only on different levels of efficiency in dealing with planning applications but on the different practices of local authorities. For example, on major applications, the level and depth of the pre-application discussions that take place vary from one local planning authority to another. Some local planning authorities will wish to extend the pre-application discussions until they have got to a point where they think they can put an application through the system and probably get a decision in favour. That will mean that the submission and registration of the application will take place later than in other authorities which take the view, “Let’s get the application in and, once it is in, we can have a great deal of discussion and debate about it”. Of course, it will be more difficult to keep that within the 13 weeks.
Therefore, not all authorities that take longer than 13 weeks over many major applications are necessarily making the decision later than authorities that appear to make the decision within the 13 weeks. It is a question of when the application is submitted and registered. There will be authorities that register an application almost as soon as they get it, while others will accept the application when it is submitted, look at it, and then say, “You have not provided this and that, so we are not going to register the application until you have provided it all”. All this is done with the agreement of the applicant. The second group of authorities will fit within the 13 weeks more easily than the former group because they will spend time gathering information after the application has been registered.
Where an application is generally all right with only a few details to be sorted out, some authorities will give the developer a nod and a wink and come to an agreement that the application is rejected. Instead of lodging an appeal, the developer spends a little time sorting out the application and then resubmits it. I think that developers have a right to resubmit within 12 months without paying an extra fee. Different practices mean that authorities generate different statistics in terms of whether they deal with applications within eight or 13 weeks. The statistics are not based on differences in the underlying efficiency of authorities, but if the period of 13 weeks becomes more important because authorities do not want to be designated, they will use these processes to reduce to a minimum the work that actually has to take place within the 13 weeks and do as much of it as possible in advance. That does not mean that the final determination will be made any later or any sooner. All this is the practical stuff of how things happen. However, if people are given targets, they will find ways of achieving them. Some will do so by becoming more efficient and others will do so simply by changing their working practices and doing what other councils do.
Amendment 33 sets out some of the criteria referred to by the Minister in responding to the last amendment. They are the criteria that the Secretary of State will have to look at when deciding whether to designate a council. Subsection (9)(a), which will appear in new Section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 proposed in Clause 1, refers to,
“planning performance agreements … entered into … before the submission of an application”.
The Minister has suggested that such agreements will be an acceptable reason for taking longer than 13 weeks, but it would be helpful if she would confirm that. Proposed new subsection (9)(b) refers to any,
“agreements that have been entered into following the submission of an application”.
Will this be an excuse not to be designated or will the local authority be told that once it has registered the application, the clock starts ticking remorselessly? Proposed new subsection (9)(c) is important in many cases, and refers to,
“informal agreements that have been entered into between applicants and the local planning authority to delay the issue of a decision”.
It is often in the interests of both the applicant and the local planning authority, along with everyone else, to sort things out before a decision is made. If things are not sorted out, there is a greater risk of a refusal which causes further delay through an appeal or a resubmission. Particularly on major applications, negotiations always take place between the applicant and the local planning authority to cover the detail and conditions of the application, such as those which may arise from a Section 106 agreement. If those discussions are artificially brought to a close before they are properly agreed, we will see worse decisions being made. Proposed new subsection (9)(d) refers to,
“any delays that have been caused by the failure of statutory consultees to respond within the specified time”.
The local planning authority is perfectly entitled to determine an application if it has not had a response from, for example, the Highways Authority, but it would be very foolish for it to do so if the application will have an important impact on the local highways network or even if it is just a matter of connections to the local network. If the Environment Agency is late in responding, what do you do? Do you pass the application anyway or, when you get a late response from the Environment Agency saying that it does not like the drainage system which is being proposed and that, as it stands, it would recommend refusal, do you refuse it on that ground? Alternatively, do you say, “No, we need more time for the applicants to work together with the planning authority and the Environment Agency to sort it out”? These are the kind of decisions and practices which take place time and time again on major applications.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I hope that the Minister will take all these amendments into account but will not go down the detailed route that the noble Lord who spoke last has suggested to her. However, I hope she will realise that the reason that these amendments have been put forward is because of the lack of precision in the Bill and that she will take away from this debate the very strong feeling, on all sides of the House, including among those who have been largely supportive of her, that we really need a greater degree of knowledge. These amendments have been put down to make sure that we understand the criteria, that they are fairly and objectively used, and that local authorities understand how they can recover their position when they have been used.
We make no criticism, I think, on either side of the House, of the credibility or competence of present Ministers. However, there have been times in the past, in all political parties, when Ministers have perhaps been less than perfect and there may be such times in the future. I think the House would be very happy if the Minister said that she would seek to ensure that there was at least a reasonable degree of certainty—if not on the face of the Bill, in the secondary legislation that is indicated in it—so that we are not breaking what the Constitution Committee quite rightly suggested was the fundamental rule that you cannot rely on the generalities and assurances of Ministers to bind their successors. That is just a fact. If she were able to help us in that way, a great deal of the criticism on the first clause, at least from those who are not as fundamentally unhappy about it as I am, would in fact be removed.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken on this Bill and I have a number of interests to declare. Unfortunately I was not able to be present at Second Reading, having been laid low by one of those 24-hour bugs which one hears so much about. I am here not to make good my Second Reading speech but to pick up on the specifics of this group of amendments. In so doing, I declare my interest as a practising chartered surveyor with an involvement with the planning system. I am also the president of the National Association of Local Councils, which is the national parent body of parish, town and neighbourhood councils.
I have been following the issue of planning and how it has unfolded from the times when we had county structure plans, and the planning system under that regime, through the local development frameworks and regional spatial strategies, and now into this new era of local plans and the National Planning Policy Framework. As with all these situations, we are now in a transition. I fully recognise that and can understand some of the reasons why the Bill is framed in quite general terms. Picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I think that there is a lacuna here, but it is slightly different from the one that he referred to.
There are lots of duties in the planning context but I see two particular ones in local plans. First, there is the duty to deliver on the national strategic needs, to which a local plan must have regard. We know what some of those needs are—housing, for instance, because of the statistics on household formation. The second thing, of course, is making local decisions for local people. Having not been able to deliver my Second Reading speech in person, I gave it to the Minister in writing. I have just had her reply, for which I thank her. I asked a question about what I saw as a lacuna between the National Planning Policy Framework, and what the Secretary of State is putting in place in that respect, and what has to be decided at local level in the local plan.
Picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I would say that there is a high degree of variation between different planning authorities, be it geophysical, social or economic, and we cannot necessarily second-guess how those will bite. By virtue of localism and there being a greater say at community and neighbourhood level, the chances are that the way in which those are cast into the local plan will be different from what we have experienced hitherto.
However, the larger strategic and supra-local issues and imperatives cannot so easily be dealt with by localism in terms of the local plan if you are looking for a local voice and a local view. You require for that purpose the local view to be better informed and to look outside its own local existence in a way which I suspect is not the received wisdom of the fruits of localism being passed to communities and neighbourhoods. Some of these supra-local issues are going to be the least palatable to communities, particularly where they exceed the criteria for local organic need.
In putting in place the National Planning Policy Framework—here I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said earlier—it was necessary to try to render down a lot of the guidance and everything else into a matter of simple arithmetic. My fear is that it has gone slightly too far in that respect and that some of the more specific guidance about growth and targets—those things that local plans needed to build into their criteria that sat above the strictly local level—is not so well informed under the National Planning Policy Framework. There is insufficient definition of those issues in the framework, as opposed to the laudable aspirations that it contains, for a local planning authority to be able to resolve them.
Housing need as an organic local construct, as against the national imperative of household formation, was a matter that I raised with the Minister. She did not answer that question. I referred to a local authority of my acquaintance. I shall not name it and I would not be the judge of designation in such circumstances, but I have seen the numbers go up from one figure to another figure and back down again. This oscillation has taken no account of what has happened during the many years that have passed in the period starting with country structure plan targets and going on to regional spatial strategies. We are now back to a figure for that particular authority that is below the figure considered by the country structure plan and the SERPLAN decision-making process, yet we know that the numbers likely to be required, particularly in growth areas and key areas of economic growth, which is the circumstance of the authority that I had in mind, are mounting all the time—and there are aspirations. What has happened with the National Planning Policy Framework is simplicity—yes—but I am less sure that there is guidance that is of real use in informing local plans.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this amendment. Some of the ground was covered previously, but not substantially, so I am grateful for all the views that have been put forward. What is being underscored here is that a local authority should not be penalised for something which is well outside its own control. As I said in response to the previous amendment, it would be our intention that where a local planning authority was on the bar for designation it would at least be able to discuss some of the reasons for why it thought that it was slow, particularly over one or two applications. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right: there are a number of areas where local authorities simply cannot do anything about that.
They can under the new planning agreement, however, as they will be able to say to a developer that there are areas which are outside their control and may take longer to consider. That can be a formal agreement, or there can an informal agreement saying the same thing, and it can take place at any stage in the planning process. If you get to a certain stage and discover that you have not got the response that you need, the planning agreement could be that you think that a few weeks might be needed to bring that in and it could be delayed. This is not about planning applications where we know that things go wrong; it is where the normal process of considering an application is deliberately slow.
I hear very clearly what is being said about this, and I hope that we will be able to make clear either in guidance or in some other way what would be excluded, because that is important. We have noted, too, what your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had to say about this. We need to take note of that, consider it and come back at Report if there is anything that we can do to respond to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has set out a substantial list. I do not think that he really believes that it would be sensible to have that in the Bill. We need to understand where the exceptions and difficulties are. I am sure that we will think about that after the sitting.
Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord True, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke, concerns the question of judicial review and proposes that any judicial review should be excluded from any assessment of speed. An absolutely minute number of planning applications are subject to judicial review and, in the vast majority of those cases, the proceedings are instigated once the application has been determined. They do not take place during the course of the review, which might take up time. I do not think that judicial review will impede councils’ performance on the consideration of the application. It is therefore unnecessary to make special provision for applications subject to judicial review in any way. I suspect that if it happened in the middle of a process it would be as relevant to have that as a planning agreement to be sorted out as any other. I need to check that, but that seems a pretty logical conclusion.
We have dealt a little with an authority’s past improvement in performance, and the proposal that any designation should be based on five years. That would be far too long. We are looking at the figures for two years because we are concerned about the performance occurring now, not about whether the authority has improved over five years, because if it is still not at the criteria level now, it will make no difference whether it started from nought or not or whether it has gone up or down. It is better to set a bar of two years and not much more so that we get a really clear impression of what is happening at present.
Where local authorities are deemed to be failing under the criteria, we do not want to hang about. We do not want them to be under pressure about it; if they are to be designated, we want them to be designated, the help to be put in place and the opportunity to be de-designated at the year review to be put in hand immediately. I keep saying this, but we do not want local authorities to be designated; we would much prefer that they were not. We need to ensure that if they are not performing well, they start to perform well or better very quickly.
We have made clear that we will take a picture of each authority’s performance over the most recent two-year period to even out any fluctuations in the data and account for the fact that some authorities deal with more applications than others. I said that in debate on a previous amendment. We recognise that that there are authorities, such as the national parks authority, which deal with a limited number of major applications during the course of a year. Of course we must take that into account compared with a local planning authority which is dealing with any number of major applications.
We have just completed a consultation. As I said, we will try to ensure that noble Lords at least know before the next stage what were the responses to it. If we can get any further than that, we will. We will consult again in future if the approach to the criteria should change. That was a point picked up by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie: what is to stop future Secretaries of State suddenly deciding that they want to raise all the criteria? What is to stop them is that they would have to go out to consultation; they could not just do it. That does not need to be in the Bill either.
I think that I have answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. If elements within the 13 weeks justify delay, we will certainly ensure that that is taken up. We shall consider very carefully the responses to the consultation. I hope that that covers the points made by noble Lords.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, on Amendment 29, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, I raised a point about the length of time of the designation and drew attention to the fact that I was subject to judicial review because I had not included length of time for the suspension of the health authority. There is a parallel.
Baroness Hanham
In the consultation, it is suggested that the length of designation should be reviewed after a year. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is asking whether you could keep on renewing it so that there would be no end to the time. I do not know the answer to that, and I will drop the noble Lord a note, if I may.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, very briefly, I welcome what I think is a positive response from the Minister about local authorities not being put in a perilous position for reasons which are not their fault. I accept that my amendment was a typical Committee amendment to set out some of the issues in black and white; I did not expect it all to appear in the Bill. However, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, was that at the moment there is nothing in the Bill. If something can be included in the Bill to give me some reassurance and guarantee that the thinking—I am always in favour of thinking; it is what makes humans progress—that the Minister promised will take place on these matters, that would be extremely helpful. That could be by introducing regulations.
The only other pebble that I want to drop into the pond at the moment is to ask whether there is a danger that by emphasising formal planning performance agreements for major applications, the mere negotiation of those agreements in a much larger number of cases might cause more delays.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I take a small degree of comfort from the Minister’s response to considering reports on parliamentary process. That is the most important point to flow from this group of amendments. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be well aware that if the Government do not signal that they can meet our aspirations, we will return to that matter on Report in any event.
It seemed to me that pretty much every other noble Lord who spoke broadly supported this group of amendments. To be clear, we are happy to support each of Amendments 8, 34 and 33—I think that I attributed Amendment 34 to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, but it was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord True—as well as our amendments in the group.
I am disappointed that the Government do not feel that they should look at the direction of travel of an authority, because it seems to me that that is at least an indication of its capacity to improve, which is what this should all be about. The noble Baroness referred to Secretaries of State and asked what is to stop them changing the criteria in future. As I understand it, the point about the consultation is that there is a positive plan to change it after the first year—to raise the bar. That is what the consultation document states. It asks questions about what the enhanced criteria should be.
On the need for more guidance and clarity, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, gave us an historic sweep from county structure plans through to the NPPF and, in particular, the NPPF’s need for guidance to bolster it, especially given its newness.
I thought that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was particularly helpful. Not only does it demonstrate his now acknowledged expertise and practical understanding of what happens in authorities; it sets down a range of things which could impact on how the metrics come out for any local planning authority. It must surely be right that, one way or another, those are taken into account. It would be difficult to carry them all in a clear way within the Bill. However, either there has to be some process of representation so that local authorities in danger of being designated, armed with what has actually happened on their patch, could come and say “Don’t do it”, or we need to have some real clarity in guidance about this range of issues being taken properly into account.
This debate has, I hope, moved matters on. I hope that the Government will reflect seriously on this because if this clause is to go ahead—we hope that it does not but suspect that it might—we need to make these improvements and have some clear indications of how that might be accomplished. Having said that, I—
Baroness Hanham
Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I hope I made it clear that if a local authority is going to be designated, it will be able to put forward the sort of points that he and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, have suggested as a reason for why their applications have been slower than others. I hope that is clear.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
That is very helpful, but can we just be clear on the consequence? Notwithstanding that it might be close to the end of the year and that 30% of the applications will not be received within the designated time, can an authority come and say, “Because of these applications, these circumstances, these issues with a developer or these issues with the community”, so that designation may not then take place, even if the criteria have been breached? I am not sure whether the criteria are met or breached in these circumstances. However, that would be a way to avoid designation, and of doing so notwithstanding there being no formal and informal agreements. Obviously, those cannot now be dealt with in retrospect. Is that what the Minister is saying? That is actually very helpful; for me, it is a new point.
Baroness Hanham
I am saying that an authority could put that forward and have it taken into account. Whether it would actually stop the designation would depend on a whole number of other factors, but it is a fact that it would be able to make those representations.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 5 and 25 in this group. These amendments would preclude the Secretary of State from including in the types of application that can be made to the Secretary of State, rather than a designated authority, certain types of developments. We have a parallel amendment grouped with this that would preclude any planning authority with responsibility for all or part of any of these areas from being designated. These include developments affecting flood risk areas, world heritage sites, national parks, areas of outstanding national beauty and sites of special scientific interest. Our natural environment and our heritage are precious assets that require special consideration in this context. Indeed, issues around conserving and enhancing the natural and historic environment, and meeting the challenges of climate change, flooding and coastal change, rightly feature robustly in the NPPF.
Our major concern, not allayed by discussion at the other end on this matter, is that the focus on process and timing under Clause 1 will drive the behaviours of local planning authorities and the speed of decision-making to run contrary to a wider, quality-led approach, which the NPPF demands. What it demands entails significant engagement, and not just from the applicant. It is clear from the Government’s consultation document that they see the speed of decision-making as paramount and are intent on increasing the threshold for designation in subsequent years, so excluding these situations from designation entirely is a necessary protection.
The Government have made great play of having clarity over designation, indicating that it will follow automatically after some transitional issues. However, we may have a qualification on that as a result of our last exchange. There seems no scope for local planning authorities charged with these responsibilities to explain their position on a case-by-case basis. From what the noble Baroness said a moment ago, perhaps she will say that that is now not the case.
I will comment in due course on Amendments 6, 7 and 26 when they have been spoken to, but it looks as though Amendments 7 and 26 have a substantial overlap with our Amendments 5 and 25. Clearly, we expect to be able to support them on that basis. I beg to move.
Lord Tope
My Lords, Amendment 6 stands in my name and has been suggested by both the Local Government Association and the Campaign to Protect Rural England. It would of course mean that only local authorities which do not already have a local plan in place could be designated as poorly performing. In other words, it would immediately remove from the possibility of designation all those authorities that have a local plan in place. As we all know, the preparation and adoption of a local plan is a lengthy process. It is sometimes too lengthy a process but it is fully democratic and shows that the planning authority concerned is performing to proper democratic accords. On that basis, it is believed that they should be excluded from this threat.
Good, sensible local plans are forward-looking. They are intended and designed to encourage and stimulate growth. It is felt that they are in themselves probably a better measure of how well an authority is performing than individual planning applications—I think that this point has been made in earlier debates today—however major the project for which they are submitted. As I said, the intention of this amendment is to exclude those authorities that have adopted a local plan over the previous 20 years, as it suggests.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, is 20 years a reasonable period? The point has already been made in debate that there is an issue with the effectiveness of local plans. If we are going back as long as that, it could be argued that that is not really a sufficient incentive to authorities to bring their plans up to date. They cannot be done annually but two decades is an extremely long time.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I apologise that I missed the speech by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. He was moving an amendment that is very similar to my Amendments 7 and 26, which are in this group. I am sure that I agree with everything that he said about Amendment 3, since in effect it says almost the same thing as my Amendment 7, so I will say no more about that.
I want to say something briefly about national parks. There are two issues here. One concerns planning applications that may not become relevant applications and are therefore referred to the Secretary of State, as in the noble Lord’s amendment and my Amendment 7. My Amendment 26 says that authorities that may not be designated should include,
“a national park authority or the Broads Authority”.
The helpful information that we got about the number of major applications in the past year shows clearly that there are not very many in national parks. I think that the Minister referred to this; in some cases, the figure is as low as two. The statistics there could very easily be distorted.
However, there is more than that. National parks are very special places that have been designated for very special reasons. The national park planning authorities are already different from ordinary local planning authorities. They are not the ordinary district councils; they are the national park authority, which is a planning authority in its own right. A substantial proportion of the members of national park authorities are already nominated and appointed by the Secretary of State; I think it is the Defra Secretary of State, but is definitely a Secretary of State.
To take functions such as major planning applications away from the national park authority, in these very special places with their very special landscapes, and put them in the hands of a different Secretary of State —the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government—with a quite different agenda risks the balance of decision-making on these applications in national parks, shifting away from the importance of nature and landscape and towards development. Clearly, there always has to be a balance in every sort of area and national parks have to have development, but the criteria on which planning applications in national parks are assessed and decided are materially different from the criteria in much of the rest of the country. That is why they have been designated as national parks. The national park authorities have the responsibility for looking after those parks and for ensuring that those criteria are applied, in the interests not just of the landscape but of the people who live there. To take that away from them on technical operational grounds, based on the proportion of planning applications that were dealt with and determined within a two-year period or on other similar criteria, would be quite wrong.
This proposal is causing great alarm among the people who care for and about national parks, and I hope that the Minister will make it clear that they are not to be designated under any circumstances—and, preferably, will do so in the Bill.
Lord Deben
My Lords, on this occasion I hope that the Minister will not accept any of these amendments because they do not stand up at all. As she knows, I am not happy about this clause, but the national park authorities have one of the worst reputations when it comes to dealing with applications—we cannot avoid that; when I was Secretary of State I had a constant stream of particular authorities that were quite unable to do these things properly—and the idea that somehow or other they should be put aside seems to be unacceptable. If, as we are beginning to understand, the criteria are largely those of speed, it would do the national parks quite a lot of good to get their answers in rather more quickly than they do at the moment. The idea that they have to be slower than anyone else is not an acceptable position as far as national parks are concerned. If we accepted the quantum of these amendments, there would hardly be any application anywhere in the country that would not find itself in one way or another touched by one of the designations that we are talking about.
We ought to concentrate on the issue that really matters, which is how we make the clause work in a sensible and transparent way. That is what we have been pressing for, and to try to avoid its implication by putting a series of designations outwith it does two things that are dangerous: first, it would remove any value that the clause might have, and, secondly, it would detract from the things that we are trying to say elsewhere. I want a regime that can work properly wherever in the country it is applied. I hope therefore that the Minister will not accept these amendments but that she will recognise that the reason for them fundamentally is this unhappiness with the uncertainty of the basis upon which this clause is going to be imposed.
If everyone were happy about the objectivity, correctness and clarity of the basis on which a planning authority will be designated, there would be much less of a problem. It is the unhappiness with that which lies behind most of our concern. If the Minister could put that right, I think most of us would accept that within those contexts it is perfectly reasonable to ask the planning authority of a national park to do its job within a reasonable amount of time. If it has only two planning applications a year, then obviously no Minister is going to say, “We’re going to apply the 30% rule”—I am not sure how you would apply that—and I am not too upset about that; it does not worry me too much as long as it is in the context in which all these things are dealt with in an objective and manifestly properly constituted way.
Lord Tope
My Lords, before the Minister responds, may I respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham? He questioned whether the 20 years suggested in my amendment might be too long. He may well be right and it may well be so. At this stage, my consideration is more to get the principle accepted rather than a specific time period. Part of the reason for that is that I think we would all want to incentivise the surprisingly large number of local authorities that still do not have a local plan in place. The positive intent, if you like, of the amendment is to provide that incentive. I suggest that whether the period is 20 years, 15 years or any other period is less material at Committee stage than the principle that the amendment is trying to achieve.
Having said that, perhaps I could comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has just said. Again, I think that most of us who propose amendments in Committee do not expect that they will eventually appear in the Act, but they cover the particular issues that we wish to raise in order to air our concerns, to hear the Minister’s response and, most importantly, for the Minister to be able to take it back to her ministerial colleagues so that the Government can come back on Report in exactly the way that the noble Lord is suggesting.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I wonder if I can respond very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Surely it is the case that because the criteria for granting planning permission in national parks are much more rigorous and strict than in many areas, many developments will actually need more time for negotiation and discussions with the applicants to make them acceptable within a national park context. In national parks particularly, it may well be that some of the authorities are not as efficient as they might be—I can quite believe that—but in general I would expect that similar applications in national parks will take longer than in what I might call ordinary areas, for those reasons.
The statistics are interesting and worth putting on the record. In the past year the Lake District had 19 major planning applications—far more than most others, which is interesting—and the Broads Authority had 13. Of the rest, Dartmoor had two, Exmoor had two, the New Forest had seven, the North York Moors had seven, Northumberland had two, the Peak National Park had five and the Yorkshire Dales had three. With that level of application, it would clearly be ludicrous to apply anything like a strict 30% rule or any other simple cut-off.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
The fact of the matter is that this table is about decisions, not applications. The decisions may well have been refusals. Indeed, in many of the national parks, that is what happens. These are major applications, over so many hectares and so on. The national parks are planning authorities in their own right, as are bodies such as the London Docklands Development Corporation. They should be subject to the same sort of discipline as anybody else.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, when Amendment 6 —which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope— was debated in the other place, my colleagues tabled a similar amendment and it was pointed out by the Minister that only one authority in the land had not had a local plan for 20 years. I am not sure how it got away with it for that long.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Indeed. My point was going to be that if this is a way of wrecking the clause, I am all in favour of that, but let us do it at clause stand part and do it properly. If it is structured as a means of incentivising people to get on with their local plan, I would have more sympathy.
I side with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on the national parks. The number of applications seems relevant because you might have two applications to deal with in a year, which several of these authorities did. If you determine each within 14 weeks of application, you would be designated. I think that would be the consequence of the fairly strict rule.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that it is important that we are happy about this because it is objective. We say yes to an objective approach, but that does not mean a blanket approach where exactly the same criteria apply to all because if that 30% criterion applies, when you have authorities with a very small number of applications, it could work in a perverse way.
Baroness Hanham
On this amendment I shall satisfy my noble friend Lord Deben and practically nobody else because I cannot accept it. I do not suppose many noble Lords will be surprised at that because, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, said quite properly and rightly, if this amendment were agreed to, that would be the end of Clause 1 because there would be virtually nobody left to be designated. If that is the purpose, I understand that, but if it is not, that is what the effect would be.
Amendment 6 would prevent the submission of applications directly to the Secretary of State in any area where the planning authority had not adopted a local plan within the past 20 years. I can advise noble Lords that the city of York is the only one that falls into that category. I am not sure that we want to allow that.
Quite apart from preventing the effective operation of Clause 1, these amendments are not entirely logical. Where applications are submitted directly to the Secretary of State, the planning inspectors dealing with them will have to have regard to flood risk and any designations that affect the site, and to the national policy that enshrines those important protections where local plans are not up to date. They are required to do so by law, just as the local planning authority is. Similarly, there is no logic in saying that local authorities should be exempted from designation just because they have responsibility for protected areas. Applicants for planning permission and local communities should be served by an effective planning service in these areas, just as much as anywhere else.
I note the arguments that noble Lords made about the specific circumstances of national parks. I heard very clearly what my noble friend Lord Deben said about this. We want the process of assessing performance to be fair, which is why the consultation proposes looking at this over a two-year period to ensure that judgments are based on sufficient data. We will, of course, be looking carefully at what the consultation responses say about this, but I do not think a case could be made to exclude national parks from possible designation just because they are national parks and because they may not deal with an enormous number of applications. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, read out the list that I have had passed to me, and it is clear that some have more than others. The same argument can be made for all the other areas that noble Lords want to exclude. I guess most, or a great part, of London is in conservation areas, and I am not sure that we necessarily think that it would be a good idea to exclude them all.
I do not believe that these amendments are necessary. Their effect would be such that I would not be able to accept them because they would make Clause 1 redundant.
Lord Greaves
The table I have is headed “total major decisions” not “total major approvals”. This needs clarifying perhaps, but I would not want to clash with my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding over a technical, statistical thing when neither of us knows whether it is right.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I entirely recognise that they were both approved and not approved. They were decisions.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I think we have debated this group sufficiently. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“(1A) The Secretary of State shall consult representatives of local government and others who he considers appropriate before laying such regulations which shall be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, under new Section 62A, an applicant can bypass the local planning authority and make an application directly to the Secretary of State. As a practical matter, it is expected that this means it will be dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate, although it does not have to be the Planning Inspectorate, as I understand it, to which the Secretary of State delegates this task. To be able to do this, the local planning authority in question must have been designated and the development in question must be of a description prescribed by the Secretary of State. The prescription is by way of an order subject to the negative procedure. This amendment seeks to clarify in the Bill that the application must relate to a major development. I think the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has a parallel amendment requiring that before prescribing any types of application there should be consultation with local government and that the regulations should be affirmative.
The power for the Secretary of State to decide which applications he wishes to determine is very wide. The Government state that it will be limited to applications relating to major developments, but the Bill places no such limitation on the power to prescribe, just as the Bill places no limitation on the type of planning authority that might be designated. This is frankly not good enough. This is in line with the other discussions we have had. Indeed, as matters stand, there seems to be nothing to prevent a local planning authority being designated because of perceived poor performance on the timing of decisions on major applications but all its applications being open to be determined by the Secretary of State.
We are encouraged to believe that there will not be many applications that, as a result of these proposals, find themselves being determined by the Secretary of State or the Planning Inspectorate, but the impact assessment states that there is no evidence to support the Government’s assumed diversion to the Planning Inspectorate.
Limiting the rights of prescription to applications for major developments would still potentially encompass a wide range of circumstances. The definition of a major development is interesting and worth reflecting on. It includes,
“the winning and working of minerals or the use of land for mineral-working deposits … waste development … the provision of dwellinghouses where … the number of dwellinghouses to be provided is 10 or more; or … the development is to be carried out on a site having an area of 0.5 hectares or more and it is not known whether the development falls within sub-paragraph (c)(i)”—
that sub-paragraph relates to the number of dwellings—-
“or … development carried out on a site having an area of 1 hectare or more”.
Therefore “major developments” are not necessarily mega-developments. Developments as small as 10 or more dwellings would be included.
It is appropriate that we make clear that it is major developments that can be designated for this process by the Secretary of State, and that there should be a proper parliamentary process to deal with that. I think that accords with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which we expect to be able to support. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, as the noble Lord said, I have tabled an amendment with exactly the same effect as his; I will therefore not repeat what he said. “Major development” means to me those applications which automatically come to committee in our authority. I can confirm that some of them are not all that major, but they are nevertheless important in the community and the area. We need to be absolutely clear about this.
While I am on my feet, we have been talking about 13 weeks on major developments. Can an authority be designated because it is failing to meet the 30% on non-major developments in relation to the eight-week timescale for dealing with applications? It would be rather odd if it was designated because minor applications were not being dealt with within eight weeks, but major ones then got sent off. I wonder if that can be clarified.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am happy to clarify the question of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, immediately: it does not apply to every single application. This clause applies to major applications. Minor applications would not be included in any consideration for designation. Major developments, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has said, are already in secondary legislation. They are precisely as he read them out, and they would be the criteria by which we would seek to move ahead; that is the basis on which we are defining “major development”.
This is another point of consultation. The noble Lord is suggesting that “major” should be in the Bill. I would rather see all the replies to the consultation and come back on that, but the noble Lord has raised an important point.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that response. We look forward to further discussion on that on Report.
I think that it is right, as I have indicated, that the Secretary of State does not have to delegate to the Planning Inspectorate, but could delegate to others. Is that correct? Are there any proposals to do that at all? Whom might those others encompass?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I think that it would be the Planning Inspectorate, but nods and winks from over there suggest that I should write to the noble Lord as to whether there is another area to which it could go.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, while the noble Baroness is writing to us, can she also give us the statistics that have been mentioned several times and are quite important to this discussion: the proportion of major applications that the Planning Inspectorate itself determines within 13 weeks? Perhaps the noble Baroness has the figure to hand but, if not, could she let us know?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, again, I am grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this amendment is about connected applications, which are dealt with in Clause 1(3). I also have Amendment 12 in this group, and there are two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
Connected applications are those where a local planning authority has been designated so that major applications, we now learn, can be made to the Secretary of State and not to the authority. Where a major application goes to the Secretary of State and a further application is then submitted that relates to the relevant application, it is called a “connected application” in the Bill. Clause 1(3) states that a connected application is determined as such by the opinion of the applicants. This may be made direct to the Secretary of State, or it could be made to the local planning authority. The Bill states that this applies to listed building consents and applications for conservation area consent, which are applications under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, or, and this is the question behind my amendment,
“an application of a description prescribed by the Secretary of State”.
This is a probing amendment to find out what kind of applications might be prescribed by the Secretary of State which are not among those set out in the Bill. For the life of me, I am not quite sure that I can think of what they might be. No doubt the Minister can tell us.
Where does the applicant get advice on whether a connected application is connected before submitting it? Does that advice come from the local planning authority? In particular, where do applicants go for pre-application advice before they know whether the application has been accepted by the Secretary of State as a connected application? Clearly, if an application is submitted to the Secretary of State and then rejected and sent back to the local authority because it is not connected, it might well cause further delays.
Amendment 12 refers to Clause 1(4). If the Secretary of State has an application submitted as a connected application but considers that it is not connected, what happens? The Bill says that the Secretary of State “may” refer it to the local planning authority to determine. Mine is a traditional, old fashioned may/must amendment and says that he “must” send it back to the local authority. Under what circumstances might the Secretary of State presumably decide to determine it himself, or through the Planning Inspectorate? The Bill does not actually say that that is what would happen, just that he “may” send it to the planning authority. That needs clarifying. In particular, how come an application that is not connected should nevertheless be dealt with by the Secretary of State? These are probing questions to tidy up and understand exactly how the Government think that this would work. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have Amendments 11 and 17 in this group. Amendment 11 refers to circumstances where a connected application is made to the Secretary of State. It would clarify that the Secretary of State will be responsible for ensuring that all statutory requirements which a local planning authority or hazardous substance authority have to meet will be met by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that.
Amendment 17 is very much along the same lines as that pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. It would bring some clarity to the boundaries of what counts as a connected application. The Bill clearly includes listed building consent and conservation area consent, but otherwise means,
“an application of a description prescribed by the Secretary of State”.
This prescription will presumably be via some parliamentary process. Our amendment would require a consultation to be held. However, the particular purpose of the amendment, like the probing amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is to get more on the record concerning the Government’s approach to this. It is understood that this may be driven, at least in part, by the Penfold review, but that was looking at non-planning consent, so I am unsure how that would fit; indeed, some of the other recommendations of the Penfold review are being carried forward in the Bill. Can the Minister say whether anything is in contemplation under Clause 1(3)(a)(ii)?
We support Amendments 10 and 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which would make it mandatory to refer a non-connected application to a relevant planning authority or hazardous substance authority. If it were not mandatory, I am not sure where it would go.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I need to start by explaining why we have made provision for connected applications in subsections (3) and (4) of new Section 62A to be inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 under Clause 1. In the few cases where a planning application is submitted directly to the Secretary of State—that is, at the behest of the developer—it is important that if there are any other consents that need to be obtained under the planning Acts, and which are directly connected to the scheme concerned, it makes sense to have the ability for them to be considered by the Secretary of State at the same time. That would be a normal planning process. This is not a hidden provision that would allow an expansion in the use of Clause 1 by the back door but a common-sense measure to minimise bureaucracy and to streamline the process.
We have not sought to specify every single consent that could conceivably fall into this category but have instead cited the principal ones and given the Secretary of State the ability to prescribe any additional consents that may need to be dealt with in a similar way, which might include, for example, hazardous waste, advertisement consent or tree preservation order consent. There probably are some others but those would be the main ones.
This is a common approach in legislation, which avoids the Act becoming unnecessarily detailed and complicated. In practice, it will relate just to a small number of applications and consents that are required only occasionally, and which are, additionally, limited to consents required under the planning Acts and not under any other legislation. Nor is there any need, as Amendment 11 seeks to do, to say in the Bill that in dealing with such applications the Secretary of State should comply with relevant statutory requirements. We will ensure through the secondary legislation that all statutory requirements apply, whoever the decision-maker is.
Amendment 17 seeks to make decisions about the submission or transfer of connected applications subject to published criteria. Once again, I do not think that placing such a requirement in the Bill is at all necessary. It usually will be a matter of common sense as to whether a particular consent is “connected” or not. Therefore, we do not need to add to the mountain of planning guidance that already exists. Indeed, as noble Lords will know, the Government are undertaking a radical streamlining of the planning guidance under the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. He probably would not welcome our adding any more to his work.
I can deal quite briefly with Amendment 12, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said, concerns the language—we have discussed this on many occasions as regards many amendments—and whether it should say “may” rather than “must”. However, this is consistent with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is the legislation that this clause would amend. This is a matter of drafting convention that we should respect. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked me where the advice would come from and whether an application is connected. We would expect that that would be covered in any pre-application discussions either at the time the application was moved to the Planning Inspectorate or initially.
I would like to reassure noble Lords that there is absolutely no question of the Secretary of State holding on to a “connected application”, should it be found to be unrelated—unconnected—to the planning application that he is considering. There would be no reason for him to do so and it clearly would not be at all sensible. I hope with those explanations that the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I think I have got the answer that I was seeking on the “may/must” issue: the Secretary of State would send it back to the local planning authority and there would be no question—I think that those were the Minister’s words—about that, which is okay. As someone who believes that words must mean what they mean, I do not understand why it should say “may”. Nevertheless, I accept the Minister’s assurance.
I can understand how the conservation consents and the listed building consents fit naturally with the relevant application with which the Secretary of State is dealing. I started to get a bit alarmed when the Minister referred to advertisement consent and TPOs. Advertisement consent tends to concern things that happen over a period of time. For example, at the beginning of a big new development, there will be some adverts. But what happens if someone comes along two years after the development has taken place and asks for more or different advertisements, or whatever? Because the application originally had been a relevant application dealt with by the Secretary of State and assuming that the authority was still designated two years later, would it still go to the Secretary of State or would it be regarded as a completely new application, although not a major application because it refers to just advertisement consent, and be dealt with by the local authority in the normal way? In other words, what would the system be for minor additions or changes to the development once the development had been completed and signed off? That is the question that arises in my mind.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, there is always a danger in being clever. I found a briefing note about the extra provisions and I thought that it would be sensible to read it out. I am now regretting it enormously because the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has raised further perfectly sensible and relevant questions about it. As regards the tree preservation order and the advertisement consent, I can see how they could be connected applications but the noble Lord might be happier if he gets a proper response and I will make sure that he does. I am very sorry but I have completely forgotten what else he asked me.
Lord Greaves
I asked about what will happen when further minor applications or advertisement consents come up—for example, if a big development has taken place and people want to change it or to put up adverts.
Baroness Hanham
I apologise for that. I was getting the small things right. They would be new applications and therefore they would be considered in the same way, depending on whether the authority at that stage was designated or not.
Lord Greaves
Perhaps the Minister would include that in her clarification letter. Clearly, if the authority is no longer designated, it would deal with applications because there would be no procedure for sending them off. But if it was still designated, at what stage does a development break free from being a relevant development and is treated like any other development?
Baroness Hanham
My understanding is that any fresh application, even one which is associated with a development, would be considered to be a new application. It would therefore fall to be considered on the basis of whether or not the authority was designated and whether the developer under those circumstances wanted to take it back to the Planning Inspectorate. If that is not correct, I will let the noble Lord know.
Lord Greaves
We could go on talking about this for a while but I think that it would be better to clarify it outside the Chamber. I am very grateful for the answers that I have been given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
Lord Greaves
My Lords, Amendment 13 and this group of amendments are about money and the extent to which local planning authorities will be recompensed for work that they do which is related to applications that have been referred to the Secretary of State as relevant applications. Amendments 14 and 23 in this group also stand in my name and other amendments in the group stand in that of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
Amendment 13 is an even more classic traditional amendment, which seeks to leave out “and”. However, the grouped Amendment 14 is rather more significant. It also concerns connected applications. If somebody lodges a connected application with the Secretary of State and the latter, after due consideration, decides that it is not a connected application and sends it back to the local authority—as the Minister assured us would happen when we discussed the previous group of amendments—what happens to the fee that has been paid when that application was lodged and submitted? Is that fee returned with the application to the local authority or is it returned to the applicant and the latter is told to make a new application with an appropriate fee to the local planning authority? This is a technical issue but one that needs to be cleared up.
Amendment 23 refers to Clause 1(6), which, again, is where the Secretary of State takes over an application as a relevant application from a designated authority and gives directions,
“requiring a local planning authority or hazardous substances authority to do things in relation to an application made to the Secretary of State under this section that would otherwise have been made to the authority; and directions under this subsection—
(a) may relate to a particular application or to applications more generally; and
(b) may be given to a particular authority or to authorities more generally”.
One can imagine that it is most likely to happen in the case of the local planning authority which has been designated and which will still be in existence. As lots of local work has to take place, perhaps on consultation or whatever, that authority is instructed by the Secretary of State, no doubt after discussions, to carry out that work. It seems to me that this is a perfectly reasonable way in which the new system might work: namely, that the planning inspectorate has somebody dealing with applications in a particular authority, but dealing with them through that authority’s staff. Perhaps this would be a way of giving support and training to help that authority become more efficient.
In an extreme form, one might imagine the Planning Inspectorate putting its own man in the town hall and that person handling those applications with the help of the council’s staff. It would be interesting to know whether the Government are considering that scenario in relation to designated authorities and relevant applications or whether they will try to run all this—all the local consultation and all the rest of it, including the fact-finding on the ground—through somebody based in Bristol, presumably living in a local hotel for the duration. It would be interesting to know how the Government see this working.
Whatever happens, if the local authority has to do work in relation to an application for the Secretary of State and the Planning Inspectorate, it will cost money. However, the fee for the application will have gone to the Secretary of State. Therefore, my proposed new subsections (6A) and (6B) suggest ways in which an appropriate amount of that money should be handed over to the local authority to enable it at the very least to cover its costs. Otherwise, we will have a poorly performing authority, on the Government’s criteria, which may be robbed of its major source of planning income—the major applications—and is struggling to keep going with its staff. It is very difficult to downsize an authority by, say, 20% if you have only three planning staff. How will this work? How will the Government ensure that authorities are not severely financially affected by being designated? I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have Amendments 20, 21, 22 and 24 in this group. Amendment 24 simply requires the Secretary of State to reimburse the local authority any costs it incurs,
“in carrying out directions given under subsection (6)”.
From that point of view we are being somewhat more ambitious than the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who is simply looking to share the fee.
In Committee in another place, the Minister was taken to task over the rather strange wording of this provision under which the Secretary of State can give a local authority or hazardous substances authority a direction to do things in relation to an application. Such a loose and potentially open-ended obligation obviously gives rise to uncertainty about resources and costs. Later amendments require that there must be set out in regulations the range of responsibilities which can be imposed on a local authority under these provisions. The Minister in the Commons prayed in aid the planning performance and planning guarantee consultation, which has been much referred to this afternoon. As we have discussed, that consultation has now ended. We may know the outcome by the time we get to Report. The consultation suggests that a small number of administrative functions will need to be carried out locally, including: site notices and neighbour notification; providing the planning history of the site; and notification of any cumulative impact considerations, such as where environmental impact assessments or assessment under the habitats regulations are involved.
The local planning authority would remain responsible for maintaining the planning register. The discharge of any planning conditions would remain the responsibility of the local planning authority. If this is the range and type of functions envisaged, they should be clearly set out and subject to some process. At the very least we need something clearly on the record but the Bill is much more open-ended than this and needs to be constrained.
As for reimbursement of costs, I anticipate that the Government’s response will remain that planning fees will go to the Secretary of State or the Planning Inspectorate and there will be no need for any sharing of these. The logic seems to be that as planning is a loss-making activity for local authorities, notwithstanding the recent increase in fees, they will be relieved of this loss and in any event are funded by way of grant for these activities. Will the Minister update us on the position of grant support for local authorities under the current government settlement, given the draconian cuts that they have endured?
Amendments 21 and 22 seek to make sure that the authority which can be instructed “to do things” is in fact a designated authority and that the applications concern designated authorities. I seek clarification on that point.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I understand and agree with the intention behind Amendments 13 and 14. We have no argument with the suggestion that the fee for any connected application should be transferred to the local planning authority or the hazardous substances authority if it is found that the application is not, in fact, connected and the authority is the most appropriate body to determine the application. I hope that that covers those points. That is not, however, something that we want to provide for in the Bill, because such matters are most appropriately dealt with, alongside other fees issues, in the appropriate secondary legislation. It will be in secondary legislation and I should like to reassure noble Lords that that is what we intend.
Turning to the other amendments in this group, it is our intention that the Planning Inspectorate will deal with as many aspects of an application made directly to the Secretary of State as possible. In these circumstances, as the consultation document makes very clear, we intend to ask a designated planning authority to carry out only some basic administrative tasks. These include entering the application on the local authority’s planning register, undertaking neighbour notification and posting site notices. Therefore, subsection (6) of this clause has probably generated more excitement than is merited because none of these situations is very cost-intensive. While the provision indeed gives the Secretary of State a direction-making power in relation to designated authorities, it is intended to be used in a manner strictly limited to those aspects of handling an application for which it makes absolute sense for the job to be done locally. While I agree with the sentiment behind Amendment 20, I am not convinced that it is necessary to put such a requirement in the Bill.
I am also confident that there is no need to add “designated” before “authority” in subsection (6)(b), which Amendments 21 and 22 seek to do. The subsection can apply only to applications made directly to the Secretary of State, which would be possible only where an authority has been designated under this clause. It follows that the additional words are unnecessary.
In relation to Amendments 23 and 24, the local authority planning service is funded not only by fees from planning applications, which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, alluded to, but from the local government grant, which authorities will continue to receive to help cover these basic administrative costs. There will be no diminution there. The cost of the work will be minimal but the potential need to meet these costs should be seen as part of the disincentive to performing poorly.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. She referred to the grant made available to local authorities and said that there will be no diminution in it. Are we talking about a separate grant or one that is paid as part of the business rate retention scheme and revenue support grant? How does that come through, particularly given the assertion that it has not reduced?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I think that I am talking about just the main local grant that comes with the formula grant. I may need to write to the noble Lord on that aspect. With that reservation—it needs to be part of the compendium that will come after this session—I hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, there used to be something called the planning performance grant, but my understanding is that it had been abolished. I do not know if any answer on that will be forthcoming, but it would be helpful.
Local authorities will have this extra cost because their income from planning applications, particularly major applications, will decrease or be taken away. The authority will therefore have no choice but to attempt to downsize its planning department. However, downsizing a small department and saving money is not always easy because the authority may have staff in whole numbers and it may not be possible to split them up into part-time staff. The authority may have to choose, if it has four development control staff, to get rid of a whole person. That may be more of a reduction than is reasonable for the continued efficient operation of the department. Who knows? All circumstances may be different but it is ambitious for the Government to suggest that costs will be minimal.
In addition, confining the department to performing basic administrative tasks simply may not be possible in reality because, with the best will in the world, the Planning Inspectorate will as much as possible want to tap into local information and knowledge, which will reside within the local planning department; there is no doubt about that. Is the idea that the department will perform only a few administrative tasks and that staff will not receive telephone calls, e-mails or whatever asking for more information? When you are dealing with a major planning application, all the time you are seeking lots of information from lots of sources, and some of it will be ambiguous and you will want to know its planning history. You will therefore go to the local planning officers to get that information. That will inevitably take up their time and some of the resources of the local authority. The idea that the local authority planning officers simply bang up a few notices on site or put them in the local paper is utterly unrealistic. They are going to get involved because it will be in the interests of the Planning Inspectorate that they do so; and that will be the way to get a good, quick and efficient decision. The inspectorate should not have to seek information from scratch when it is there within the local planning department. That will happen all the time and it will cost money. We may continue to talk about this and—
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may follow his point about the extent of the engagement of the local planning authority, which is important. He has opened up some real questions. As I understand it, the planning authority will still be able to—it may be expected to—make representations to PINS or the Secretary of State about a particular application. The authority would presumably want some public engagement to be able to formulate its views. Are those activities that the local authority will have to carry out in addition?
The consultation document makes reference to Section 106 negotiations, which it seems to suggest will not be dealt with by the Secretary of State or the planning inspector and will go back to local authorities. There was also the suggestion that such negotiations are carried out at the end of the process. I am not hugely familiar with some of the detailed processes of Section 106 negotiations but I wonder whether they always happen at the end or along the way as part of the application. There seems to be other potential activity that the local planning authority will, of necessity, be involved in.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the question of whether the Section 106 procedure is carried out by the local authority or the Planning Inspectorate will depend on where the negotiations take place, because they sometimes take place during the process of the application. I need to obtain a firm response on whether, in some cases, that will be done by the local authority, subsequent to the planning decision. It is my recollection—this is not from the officials—that the Section 106 procedure is usually, at the end of the day, part of the conditions of the permission. It would therefore make sense that it had to be negotiated during the course of the application. If that is not correct, I will let noble Lords know before the next stage. However, that is probably as near as I can get at the moment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
That would be helpful. The noble Baroness has prompted another thought: will the discharge of conditions for planning consent be left with the local planning authority, not dealt with by the inspectorate?
Baroness Hanham
Local residents will of course have the same right to put their representations directly to the Planning Inspectorate as they would to a local authority.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has raised some extremely important issues. Perhaps this is a matter on which we could receive a letter but my understanding is that the imposition of conditions will be part of the planning permission. I am not sure what “discharge of conditions” means, but if it means checking that they are taking place, and monitoring and supervising that, if the local planning authority is to carry that out, depending on what the conditions are, it will take time and resources—particularly staff time. If there are then complaints from anybody that it is being done wrongly, the local authority will be responsible for enforcement. That costs money, which, in a normal state of affairs, would be partly paid for by the planning application fee. In the case of big applications, the fee can be considerable.
The other thought that I had when the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was questioning the Minister was that it is inconceivable that a local planning authority—by which I mean the councillors—will not want to act as a consultee if it is a major planning application. It is inconceivable that the planning management committee, or whatever it is called in a particular area, will not consider that application, just as the local parish councils will do. In doing so, it will want quite a lot of solid evidence from its officers. It will not be prepared to behave like a parish council that simply gets the application and talks about it but does not really have any expert advice, the advice being based on local knowledge and so on; it will be a planning committee which expects a proper report and which expects to make representations to the Secretary of State—or Planning Inspectorate—who makes the decision. It is inconceivable that that would not happen.
As a councillor, I do not envisage that my authority will be designated. I would be ashamed if it were and I am sure that it will not be. However, if I was on a council that was designated, as a councillor it is inconceivable that I would not want the councillors to put in their two pennyworth. That, too, will cost money, and for the Government to say, “Oh well, that will just have to come out of the general funds”, is very unsatisfactory.
I am very grateful to the Minister for her response to my first amendment and I raise my glass to her on that. I think that there is more to be talked about on the general financial issue between now and Report and, on that basis, I am pleased to—
Baroness Hanham
Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I need to correct what I said so that we are absolutely clear. I should have remembered that the proposal in the consultation is that the planning authority will continue to deal with Section 106 and the discharge of conditions, although we will of course need to look at what people have said in the consultation. However, the proposal is not as I think I presented it; it is that the planning authority will continue with Section 106.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this gets a bit more mysterious. The decision on whether or not to grant planning permission sometimes depends on whether a satisfactory Section 106 agreement is available. That is what tips the balance one way or the other if it is a marginal application. Certainly, I do not know what “discharge of conditions” means. Perhaps we need to understand that, as I have already said. However, the decision as to what the conditions are is an integral part of granting planning permission. You do not grant planning permission and then sit around thinking, “What conditions shall we put on it?”. You discuss the conditions and all the arrangements and then, on the basis of the whole package, you say, “Yes, that’s okay”. You might take off one condition that is proposed and put on another, or you might say, “We’ll have another condition to make it reasonable for people within that particular street”, or whatever. That is how it works, and I simply do not understand how the Planning Inspectorate can give planning permission without conditions. I do not believe that it is going to do so because, with regard to appeals, when an application is turned down the inspector decides what conditions to put on at that stage. He will always ask the local planning authority that turned down the application for a list of possible conditions if he decides to approve it. That is how it works. I think that we need some clarity on this. Having said that, I shall make a further attempt to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
“( ) Where an application is made to the Secretary of State under this section, the provisions of paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 shall apply to the Secretary of State as they apply to a local planning authority when determining applications for planning permission.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 30 and 31. Again, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has amendments in this group.
These amendments concern information and publicity. They are about notification, consultation and the treatment of representations. I think that all those things fit together neatly because they can potentially cause a considerable amount of confusion and difficulty locally in particular. The question is: how are all these matters going to be dealt with when a relevant application goes to the Secretary of State? It has been suggested that some of them might be dealt with by the local planning authority, and that needs to be clarified.
Amendment 15 is a specialised but important amendment. It concerns the current practice of the notification of planning applications to parish and town councils so that they can put in their two pennyworth—or perhaps more—in the local consultation process on those applications. I am grateful for support on this amendment from not only my noble friend Lord Tope but the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.
The amendment states that paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will apply to relevant applications determined by the Secretary of State. This is slightly odd because most of the consultation rules for planning applications are set down in secondary legislation. However, this one appears in the schedule to the primary legislation—the main Act—and it sets out the rules for notification to parish and town councils of planning applications and any significant amendments to planning applications. It is a procedure that is well established and well understood, and it happens because it is in the legislation. Local planning authorities are geared up to do it, and it is obviously now easy enough to do so with electronic communications. It is absolutely vital that the Secretary of State is given the same duty. Given that this duty lies on the face of the 1990 Act, it seems sensible also to put the duty on the Secretary of State into this Bill and not simply to rely on promises, assurances and so on.
The remaining amendments refer to publicity; consultation, including with statutory bodies; the period for receiving representations; and the procedures for making representations. They say that the procedure for applications which are dealt with by the Secretary of State should be the same as that for applications which are dealt with by the relevant designated local planning authority. Some local planning authority applications may still be major applications that people have preferred to submit locally, and some will be relevant applications that go off to the Secretary of State. The important principle is that all the bodies consulted should be the same in both cases. In most cases they will be because most of the consultees are statutory. For example, there is the local highways authority and the Environment Agency and so on, and they have to be consulted, but practice varies in different areas. In some, local organisations will be consulted because of local circumstances—for example, the internal drainage board. One can imagine all kinds of local bodies that the local planning authority has decided at some stage are important enough locally to be added to the list of consultees, and so the consultation goes off automatically with all the rest.
It is very important that the system and the list of bodies is the same as it would be if the local authority was dealing with the application, even if it is the Planning Inspectorate that is involved. People need to know where they stand; they get to know the system and it ought to be the same.
A further part of this amendment refers to the rights of ordinary members of the public—citizens—to make representations about planning applications. It might be a big application and they might have strong views on how it might affect their area or their town, they might be in favour of it because of the extra jobs, or they might be against it because it is being built in an area that they value. In every area, there is a system by which people can put forward their views; it varies from council to council because councils over the years have brought in different ways in which people could make representations. In particular, in some areas, people have the right to make representations in person to the decision-making body—the committee which has responsibility for determining applications. If that right is to be taken away, or other similar rights are to be taken away because the application is being dealt with by the Secretary of State nationally, at the very least, that is not going to go down very well in those areas. It is unnecessary and a publicity own- goal. It means that the Planning Inspectorate has to make some arrangements whereby people can make representations direct to the planning inspector who is primarily dealing with this application. If that does not take place, then there is a dysfunction between the rights that people have—the rights in the general sense—and the rules that apply to the way in which they can put forward their views on planning applications in an area.
Amendment 31 is related to the ability to inspect documents. Again, there will be a system locally and people will know what that system is. They will know that if they want to inspect documents, they have to go to the town hall or perhaps the local library, or wherever it is. The council may have district offices where relevant planning applications in an area are provided. It is very important, if this system is to work smoothly, that people can find the applications in the same places, under the same terms, even though the application is being made to the Secretary of State and not to the local planning authority.
Nowadays, a lot of people look on the internet for this information, so it is important that whatever system there is locally, access to information on the internet—including all the planning documents related to the application—applies to a planning application made to the Secretary of State. This must not be on some obscure website that people cannot find because it is a government website hidden away somewhere when they are used to finding local planning applications on the local authority’s website. It can be made perfectly clear who is making the decision on the application—who is determining it—but the information provided to the public needs to be provided in the same places and in the same way as it would if the application were being dealt with locally. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have Amendments 16 and 18 in this group; I will start in reverse order with Amendment 18. This requires the Secretary of State,
“to ensure that there has been adequate consultation with the local community”.
Both of these amendments were pursued as amendments in Committee in the Commons.
The consultation document, hot off the press at that time, acknowledges that the planning committee stage obviously will be denied these processes. It is at this stage that the merits of any proposal would generally be considered in public. However, in a case which circumvents the local planning authority, it seems that the process for engaging with the local public will be left to the Planning Inspectorate to determine on a case-by-case basis. The presumption is that applications will be examined principally by written representations, with the option of a short hearing to allow the key parties to briefly put their points of view. These strictures do not seem to be supporting community engagement in a very fulsome manner. Is it not likely that, given a choice, a developer with a potentially unpopular development plan will opt for circumventing the local planning authority?
Evidence given in another place stresses the point that local communities will become increasingly reluctant to accept new developments if their voices are not to be heard. The tasks which the Secretary of State will delegate to the local planning authority may include site notices and neighbour notification, but there is no mention of a wider consultation—the very detailed points that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has just reviewed. Site notices on a lamp post are no substitute for a proper consultation—the interaction with local communities which frequently leads to changes in applications for the better, both for the community and for the developer, and helps drive quality decisions.
Written representations are not the preferred means of communication for everyone. Who does the Minister consider should be treated as “key parties” in this process? Will this always include the local planning authority? Given that the process and the scope of any consultation will be largely delegated to the Planning Inspectorate, what will the Secretary of State do to satisfy himself in the interests of good planning that the consultation with the local community is at least adequate?
Amendment 16 requires that any decision on an application falling to the Secretary of State because of designation must take full account of local and neighbourhood plans of relevant local authorities. One might have added the NPPF. We acknowledge that planning law requires that applications for planning permission are determined in accordance with the development plan, unless, of course, material considerations indicate otherwise. To that extent, the amendment might be seen as superfluous, but it gives me the chance to ask the Minister what will happen where updated plans are not yet in place, and whether the Secretary of State or the Planning Inspectorate will look to the NPPF, presumably as the local planning authority would.
There are issues around determining material considerations in any given situation. Might these be different when we are talking about a Secretary of State’s perspective and that of the local planning authority? There is doubtless a range of other considerations as well, but the amendment is probing whether the designation might not only involve a different speed of decision-making but could also mean that the criteria which in practice might be brought to bear could be different around the different perspective on material considerations and, if there is no local plan in place, around the perception and requirements of the NPPF.
Lord Deben
This is an important series of amendments because they bear on the very issue that we have all raised with the Minister as to the difficulties which arise because of the procedure initiated by this clause. There is a real issue here, and it is one for her to consider deeply. I heard what she said about this not being contrary to the localism agenda; I cannot say that I was entirely convinced, but she obviously is concerned that it should be consonant with the localism agenda. Surely, the one important thing in the localism agenda is that the public locally feel themselves involved. The nature of the kinds of applications which are likely to be referred to the Minister rather than to the local authority is that they will be controversial and particularly controversial locally.
I say to the Minister that, in my experience of being a Member of Parliament for nearly 40 years, the one thing people will not put up with is not being able to be heard. I would commend to her my experience of the campaign about how we should build Sizewell B. This was very successful; we got every local parish council—50 or so—to support that planning permission. We did it because we went round to every single one of them and discussed it. We put the case for and against. We listened and made sure that none of the discussions were dominated by incoming protesters from either side and were just done by the locality, so that by the time they finished hardly anybody could say—nobody could say truthfully—that they had not been involved.
The Earl of Lytton
I added my name to this amendment not least because it was originally drafted by the National Association of Local Councils, in relation to which I have already declared an interest.
I apprehend that Clause 1 is not intended to create a new type of planning application or that such applications should follow a fundamentally different evidential or representative process. It needs to be stressed that neighbourhood plans, as well as local plans, will continue to be relevant to that process. I am glad to see the Minister nodding her head. It is right that the amendment seeks to clarify this. In writing to me in the context of Clause 1, the Minister helpfully said:
“Local people will be able to comment on an application in the usual way if it’s being decided by the Planning Inspectorate instead of the local authority”.
That seems to be an incredibly helpful overarching consideration.
There is one bit of detail that needs to be addressed. Parts of the online version of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—I am referring to Schedule 1(8)(i)—have been altered by subsequent legislation. I appreciate that the Minister may be unable to answer right now but it is not clear to me precisely what has been appealed and whether the amendment fulfils that purpose. I would like to clarify that because, under the original 1990 legislation, the parish council had to notify the planning authority that it wanted to be notified in relation to appeals. I do not see how that process will operate with the Planning Inspectorate. I am sure that there must be a way, but I would appreciate having some clarification as to how it will work in practice. The effect of Clause 1 is to move this one stage further away from the parish and neighbourhood in an application going direct to the Planning Inspectorate. In other words, it has not been dealt with by the principal authority with which it may already have existing arrangements. If the Minister could give us some clarification I would be enormously grateful.
Baroness Hanham
I have been trying to make it clear all the way through this afternoon and evening that, when the application is taken to the inspectorate, the same consultation processes will have to take place as would have taken place if the local authority had conducted the application itself. The consultation document makes it clear that there will be no dilution in the ability of communities to become aware of applications through notifications or discussions, or in their ability to comment on them in very much the same way.
I appreciate what my noble friend Lord Deben says about people being consulted. I draw his attention to the Localism Act, in which there is a requirement for planning developers to undertake pre-application planning discussions. One would expect that to happen in the first instance. The size of the applications being discussed by my noble friend would be beyond the purpose of the clause; they would be major infrastructure applications. However, some applications that will not go quite so far will still be big enough to arouse local feeling. We intend that all the current statutory requirements on local authorities should be transferred to the inspectorate. There will be the same standards of publicity and consultation, and the same opportunities and periods to make representations; and all the relevant documents will have to be available at the offices of the relevant planning authority and on the Planning Inspectorate’s website, so one will be able either to look them up on the internet or check them out locally.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Will the Minister confirm that the current standard arrangements for consultation involve the presumption that applications are examined principally by means of written representations, with the option of a short hearing to allow the key parties briefly to put their point of view? Is that a characterisation of how the system works at the moment?
Baroness Hanham
Every local authority has its own methods, which must fall within the statutory consultation process. It would not be out of order for a planning inspector to hold a direct hearing to hear from local people; I do not see why he should not be able to do that. That would happen now anyway if the local authority thought that it was required. The process would be exactly the same as that available now. We do not think that this requires anything other than secondary legislation. It will be in secondary legislation. I am prepared to keep that under review for a little while to make sure that that is correct.
In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, planning inspectors will need to take into account all material considerations, which will include any local or neighbourhood plans. I am sure that any statutory obligation to undertake consultation with parish councils will remain. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful to a number of speakers who took part in this debate. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his support on the issue of parish councils. I think that I have an up-to-date version of the 1990 Act, but one can never be totally sure about these things. I think that my amendment stands up, but I will look at it again, and perhaps the Minister will clarify the issue.
What the Minister said on parish councils did not quite meet the case. She said that the present statutory position would still apply. However, the statutory provision is in relation to planning applications made to the local planning authority. The question is: will it automatically transfer as a statutory provision to the Planning Inspectorate? If not, should paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the 1990 Act be amended to make it absolutely clear that it does apply to the Planning Inspectorate, and that parish councils will have a right to notification—which I think now is an automatic right, but I will check this—rather than having to ask for it?
I was particularly grateful for the splendid speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who said some things that I would like to have said in your Lordships’ House but stepped back from saying because noble Lords might have thought that I was threatening to organise all the Swampys of the world to go and make a nuisance of themselves—which of course I would never do, but might have done in my youth. However, I will march hand in hand with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, leading a band of people behind us.
I will be serious, because this is a very serious matter. The Minister said that people like to be consulted. They do—that is absolutely true—but nowadays they demand to be consulted, and are very unhappy if they feel that they have not been consulted and, whatever the final decision is, that their representations and views have not been taken seriously. That is the important thing that we must get right, and I am not sure that the Bill does that.
The Minister said that all the same processes would take place, but the question is: given that they are different in different planning authorities, can the Planning Inspectorate cope with doing different things in different areas? The basics of what it does will have to be the same. There will have to be site notices, appropriate notices in the newspapers and so on. However, because some planning authorities go much further than they have to under the legislation, will it be local custom and practice—local policy—that applies, or will the Planning Inspectorate try to apply the same thing everywhere? That is the fundamental question that needs more thought.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
In relation to the consultation, the response was frankly a bit thin. This is an issue that we need to consider further. I will revert briefly to the point about material considerations, the Planning Inspectorate and the NPPF. I accept that it may be an entirely irrelevant point, or at least a technical one. Will there be any difference in the weight given to material consideration issues or to issues in the NPPF that balance a range of things between the perspective of a planning inspector and that of a local planning authority? This is quite apart from any difference in process. We might align them as much as we can, but is there something inherent in the process that could give a different result? I do not assert that there is, but I would be interested in a response on that point.
Baroness Hanham
I will give the noble Lord a response, but I may have to change it. My instinct is to say that the Planning Inspectorate already deals with innumerable applications from different local authorities. I do not see why the processes that it will follow when taking an application initially will be any different from those that it follows when it considers an appeal. That seems to be the sensible answer. If there is another answer that does not come under the heading of “sensible”, I will let the noble Lord know.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, that was a very interesting dialogue. Most of the things that the Planning Inspectorate deals with now are appeals, for which there can be a standard system everywhere. Dealing with initial applications is different everywhere. These are things about which we need to think further, not least to avoid revolution in the land, particularly in rural areas. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Freedom of Religion and Conscience
(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their strategy for promoting freedom of religion and conscience internationally as a fundamental human right and as a source of stability for all countries.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to address this important Question to Her Majesty’s Government. First, I will say how delighted I am that the Minister will be responding, as I am aware that today she presided over a major conference at Lancaster House with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on precisely this topic, which has only just concluded.
At the outset I stress that my Question is what it says on the label: it is about freedom of religion and conscience. It is not about creating an opportunity to make a partisan appeal for Christians alone, nor even for religious believers alone. The word “conscience” is intentional. Noble Lords may recall Cardinal Newman’s remarks to the Duke of Norfolk at the time of the debate on papal infallibility. He said, “I shall drink to the Pope if you please—still, to conscience first”.
Precisely because conscience and truth go together, it must be right that there is more concern about freedom of religion than there has been for some time. This debate is topical because of a considerable increase in the encroachments upon religious freedom all over the world. Many sources could be cited. Objectively, I draw particular attention to the United States State Department’s annual report of 2011 from its Office of International Religious Freedom. This records a rising tide of anti-Semitism in many parts of the world and pressures on many religious groups: the Baha’i and Sufi Muslims in Iran, Coptic Christians in Egypt, Ahmadis in Indonesia and Pakistan, and Muslims in a range of countries, including Europe. I emphasise that that is not an exhaustive list.
My diocese of Guildford is linked with a number of dioceses in Nigeria, where we have seen a tragic increase in sectarian violence, triggered initially by questions of political power after the presidential election, but now unequivocally having a definite religious complexion with the militant group Boko Haram attacking government offices, bombing churches and threatening to kill Christians in the north and any Muslims who oppose it. On Saturday, the Emir of Kano was attacked: his driver and two armed guards were killed, though the Emir survived.
There has also been a recent and well-documented study on increasing pressure on Christians throughout the world entitled, interestingly enough, Christianophobia, by Rupert Shortt. My point, however, is not to indulge in a tit-for-tat debate about who is persecuted most but to emphasise that no one should be discriminated against on grounds of religion or conscience, for the sake of the stability of societies and their common good in a multicultural and multifaith world. Towards this goal, it is essential that religious communities speak out on behalf of others and not only their own adherents. Also, faith communities should not be slow in condemning behaviour within their own communities which is discriminatory to others.
I sadly recognise that no religious communities have a perfect track record in this regard. Even this House, with another place and the Church of England no less, does not have a clear historical conscience as regards religious toleration. Look back beyond the 19th century, for example, to the Act of Uniformity. Although it returned the Book of Common Prayer to the Church of England and the nation in 1662, it was also the instrument of the expulsion of many ministers and people who could not accept it. Nor was Catholic emancipation so strongly supported from these very Episcopal Benches in the beginning of the 19th century; nor were Methodists much welcomed as partners in the Gospel. I am aware of religious glass houses—the Crusades, the wars of religion, the martyrs of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation.
At the same time, there have been very sharp and terrible secular attacks on religious freedom from time to time, and not only as long ago as the French Revolution or the French anti-clerical laws at the beginning of the 20th century. Think of anti-clerical Mexico in the 1920s and 1930s; Nazi Germany and the Confessing Church; the Stalinist Soviet Union and eastern Europe in relation to the Orthodox Church; the Roman Catholic Church, and other churches too. Think also of Marxist China and Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. These regimes, of extreme Left or Right, with their materialistic, political and economic ideologies, had no room for either political conscientious objection or faith communities, or for churches as alternative loyalties to the authority of a monolithic and deified state. Millions of people died under these regimes.
The question is: how do we make more effective the excellent work done by a number of individuals and NGOs already researching and publicising breaches of religious freedom, so that all—and not only one faith or conscientious group—might enjoy this acknowledged right?
The European Union is developing guidelines on freedom of religion or belief but, like many things in relation to the EU, greater transparency would be welcome. The Minister may be able to tell your Lordships’ House of any developments since the recent statement of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, on promoting human rights. The Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe is currently reconstituting its council of advisers on freedom of religion or belief. As reconstituted, it will need to address the problem holistically rather than through episodic interventions for particular campaigns which would relapse into the apparent partisanship of which I have already spoken.
On the European Court of Human Rights, Members of your Lordships’ House will, of course, have been pondering on the recent judgments from Strasbourg. I discern two things. Religious belief is not simply a “residual” or even marginalised human right only to be considered when no other rights come into play. It can, on the contrary, have precedence over another right, such as the corporate image of a company. I am thinking here of the Coptic Christian, Ms Nadia Eweida, her modest cross and British Airways. In the other three cases the balance was held to be different—health and safety, for example, in the case of the hospital ward or surgical theatre. My point here is that a balance of rights and recognition of context is indicative of religious freedom as a real and not only a nominal human right. Nor is religious freedom ultimately in opposition to other rights, such as freedom of expression, non-discrimination, women’s rights and gay rights.
At the global level, does the Minister agree that there is a need to continue to support the United Nations rapporteur in moving beyond the issues of defamation or incitement, important as those issues are? For 45 years the aspiration of drafting a convention on the freedom of religion or belief has been on ice. Surely now its time has come.
Before concluding I wish to welcome and encourage further what I know is already going on in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s human rights and democracy programme. Clearly, Her Majesty’s Government now take religious freedom seriously. Developments at Wilton Park, leading to the establishment of a human rights advisory panel, and the discussion group at the Woolf Institute in Cambridge are to be welcomed, as are practical advances such as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s tool-kit on religious freedom. I am also aware that the Minister is in the process of looking again at religious freedom issues in United Kingdom foreign policy.
In a Written Answer to a Question I raised, the Minister helpfully spoke of using the excellent expertise and experience of the United Kingdom in interfaith dialogue and co-operation. The Church of England is in the middle of all that and I strongly encourage such partnership. The Foreign Secretary has an important advisory group on human rights, but should there not also be some group, under the Minister, on religious freedom to work with the Foreign Secretary’s group— not, I hasten to add, a group of disparate partisan representatives but a group which could work, as I have suggested, holistically? I hope that this short debate tonight will stimulate such questions and encourage their exploration and development.
In conclusion, I ought very briefly to address the question that some will ask—not many, perhaps, in your Lordships’ House, but outside. How can a bishop of the established church address freedom when the church has not always been its champion? This is not the time or place for a theological exposition of how freedom is a genuinely basic ingredient of the three monotheistic faiths and others and so I simply offer two brief testimonies. The noble Lord, Lord Sacks, the outgoing Chief Rabbi, has described religion as,
“part of the ecology of freedom”.
He backed that contention up with a powerful argument about what happens when religion as a key contributor to civil society is absent.
Secondly, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Williams of Oystermouth, until recently my archbishop, has more than once drawn attention to Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. The Grand Inquisitor speaks to Jesus, who has returned to Seville during the Inquisition after the burning of heretics. The inquisitor has imprisoned Jesus and castigates him for the freedom he brings to the earth—so unsuited, says the Grand Inquisitor, to the masses. Jesus says nothing, but in the end kisses the inquisitor’s aged lips and goes away. Dostoevsky’s parable gets the relation between true faith and freedom right.
Lord Parekh
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford for securing this debate and introducing it with such wisdom and eloquence. As the subject of the debate rightly points out, freedom of religion and conscience is both a human right and a source of stability; in other words, it is desirable in principle as well as for its consequences. I have two small but critical footnotes to add to the proposition.
First, when we talk about religion and conscience, there is a danger—I do not think that the Bishop made this mistake—of equating conscience with religion as if a non-religious conscience does not have the same rights as a religious conscience. I would like to insist that atheist and secularly minded people can feel just as strongly, hold certain beliefs just as strongly and be committed to a certain way of life just as strongly as religious people, and they need to be protected. Secondly, I am slightly uneasy about calling freedom of religion a fundamental human right. If something is important enough to be a human right, by calling it fundamental one is either guilty of tautology and thus not adding anything or one creates confusion by saying that there can be human rights which are not fundamental. To call something a human right is by definition to say that it is absolutely fundamental and non-negotiable. As an academic I wanted to get those small linguistic and conceptual quibbles out of the way and get down to the politics of the proposition.
We have an obligation to promote freedom of religion internationally. How can we do that? I think that there are two ways, although there is a tendency to concentrate on one and neglect the other. We promote freedom of religion positively as well as negatively. We do it positively by persuasion, through moral and political pressure and by setting an ideal example. However, I do not think that we have always been a good example in terms of promoting freedom of religion in our own society and therefore sometimes we have spoken to the world in inconsistent voices.
I want to concentrate on how we can promote freedom of religion negatively, and on how we have failed to do so. We can easily undermine the conditions in which freedom of religion can grow and flourish in other societies. We do that by following certain kinds of economic and foreign policies that create the conditions in which religion becomes an object of suspicion, conflict is created between religious groups, and religion becomes the site where deep political and economic group conflicts are played out. By and large, in every society people know that they have to live together and they work out a kind of modus vivendi whereby those of different religions somehow rub along and learn to live together. Things begin to go wrong when the normal rhythm of that human relationship is disturbed, and that is where the outsider comes in. The outsider can disturb the rhythm of human relationships by creating conflict, wittingly or unwittingly. Situations can be created in which people feel threatened, frightened and besieged, so they turn on each other as objects of hatred. Consciously or unconsciously, I think that we did that in Iraq by invading the country and in how we ran it afterwards, creating conflict between the Shias and the Sunnis. That is what we did in uncritically supporting Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabis where religion is hardly respected; or at least only a particular kind of religion is respected.
It is also what we have done by supporting aggressive secularism, as we did in the case of Algeria several years ago when the army took over. We are so frightened of religion that we encouraged secular forces which came down heavily on religious people, who then felt threatened and became terrorists. That gave rise to a vicious cycle whereby religious and secular fundamentalism have played each other out. If we are really concerned about freedom of religion, we have to make sure that our foreign and economic policies do not create the conditions, wittingly or unwittingly, in which religious groups are at each other’s throats and, as a result, freedom of religion becomes the first casualty.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are very short of time so I would remind noble Lords that when the clock registers four minutes, the speaker needs to bring their remarks to a close quickly.
Baroness Cox
My Lords, I thank and congratulate the right reverend Prelate on initiating this timely debate. Today, diverse faith communities suffer persecution in many countries, including the Baha’is in Iran and Egypt, Ahmadyyia Muslims in Pakistan, the Falun Gong and Uighur Muslims in China, Rohingya Muslims in Burma and multi-faith communities of Muslim, Christian and African traditional believers in the states of Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan in Sudan. All deserve the support of the international community for protection of their fundamental human right to practise their faith freely.
However, without indulging in tit for tat, the reality is that the faith tradition now suffering the most widespread and systematic violations of religious freedom is Christianity. It is estimated that there are at least 250 million Christians suffering persecution today, from harassment, intimidation and imprisonment to torture and execution. Major ideological contexts include residual Marxism-Leninism in China and Cuba, the totalitarian repression of any religion in North Korea, and extremist Hinduism erupting into episodic attacks on other faiths in India. But the most widespread and escalating violations of freedom of religion for Christians are associated with militant Islamism. The so-called Arab spring has left a legacy of increased pressure on Christian communities in countries such as Egypt. President Mubarak’s rule posed many challenges for the Coptic Christian community, but since his downfall there have been even more attacks on Christian communities and the exodus of many Copts from Egypt.
Time only allows me to give two further detailed examples based on my firsthand experience of visiting communities suffering from militant Islamism in Nigeria and Sudan. Last June, I and HART colleagues visited the states of Plateau, Bauchi and Kano in Nigeria. The Islamist Boko Haram group, to which the right reverend Prelate referred, had already attacked many churches with the express intention of eliminating all Christians from northern Nigeria. Suicide bombers had driven into church services, detonating their bombs and causing multiple deaths and injuries. But the Boko Haram assaults are just the latest in many attacks against Christian communities in Nigeria over the past 20 years. Thousands of Christians have died and hundreds of churches have been destroyed.
Just last week I was in Sudan in the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile where civilians are suffering from the ICC-indicted President Al-Bashir’s commitment to turn the Republic of Sudan into a “unified Arabic Islamic State”. Constant aerial bombardment is forcing civilians to hide in caves or by rivers, and many have died from starvation. Some 200,000 have fled to refugee camps in South Sudan. Those suffering include Christians, Muslims and African traditional believers who resist the Khartoum Government’s intention to impose Sharia law. The people of the Nuba Mountains are committed to their tradition of religious tolerance and as a consequence they are the victims of Al-Bashir’s agenda to impose hard-line Islamist policies.
The security implications are grave. In Nigeria there is a fear that the Islamist agenda pursued by Boko Haram and other militant groups may destabilise the nation, with serious repercussions for the whole of West Africa. In Sudan, the Khartoum-based Islamist guru Hassan Al-Turabi has reportedly declared that he sees South Sudan as the equivalent of an “Iron Curtain”, claiming that if he could only break South Sudan, he could spread his militant Islamism “all the way to Cape Town”.
I conclude by asking the Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government will follow the good example of the United States and Canada with initiatives such as appointing a religious liberty commission or special adviser on religious liberty; publish an annual FCO report on international religious freedom; consider a linkage between aid and respect for religious freedom, and consider imposing targeted sanctions on key individuals or Governments who are responsible for serious, widespread and systematic violations of religious freedoms. The need for action is urgent. Those suffering oppression look to those of us who have the privilege of living in freedom to use that freedom to promote and protect theirs. I hope that tonight’s debate and the Minister’s response will give them the encouragement they need and deserve.
Lord Patten
My Lords, the entirely virtuous pursuit of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, whether by Governments or by churches, should be underpinned by two fundamental principles. The first is that everything should be all right at home, which is the launching pad for these suggestions in the United Kingdom. The second is that the Government and the churches should be even-handed in their approaches to these issues abroad.
On the first issue, as to whether everything is all right in the United Kingdom as far as freedom of religion and conscience is concerned, there are some who would say that it is not. How so? We have a head of state who is also head of the established church and we have three gorgeously enrobed bishops here in their places to show that they are part of the body religious. However, if you go a little further than that you see that we live in a very secular society. Religion is a minority sport—I happen to play it myself but it is not played by the majority of people in this country.
Some people say that we have aggressive secularism. I see no problem at all with secularism, atheism or agnosticism—I see a splendid example, in the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, of the best sort of atheist, agnostic or secular person—but as we look around the United Kingdom, we see recent examples, such as the wearing of the cross by that Coptic Christian. That was judged by UK courts, to their shame, to be not right, although it was put right by Europe. Just imagine if someone in a place of work had said to Mr Sikh, “Take that turban off” or had said to Mrs Muslim adherent, “Take that scarf off”. I suspect there would have been outrage that these things were suggested in the first place.
Christianity and other religions are under various forms of attack. The Plymouth Brethren, for example, feel that they are facing prejudice in some parts of the United Kingdom. Some people find the Plymouth Brethren a bit odd and a bit strange. People used to think that Roman Catholics were a bit odd and strange, but we have to protect those people who are different in their religious beliefs. We must be convinced that all is well on the home front.
Abroad, we have to be equally convinced by the second fundamental principle, that the churches and Her Majesty’s Government must under all circumstances be even-handed in the way in which they approach the promotion of religious rights and freedom of conscience. I will mention three countries where some people have suggested that we have not been even-handed. Turkey is a fellow NATO member and one-time cadet member of the European Union. It is a terrific place to do business in but not very free as far as religion is concerned. Sometimes people have said that UK Governments—in the past, I am not just speaking about since 2010—have been pretty muted in what they have said about the terrible conditions of the Alevi Muslim minority sect. It is also pretty rough to be a Greek Orthodox in Istanbul today. An Anglican vicar—I hope I have the term right—came to see me not long ago in your Lordships’ House. He tries to minister to holidaymakers—it is a very good job that they go to church in a couple of the peninsulas in Turkey—but he says that he is not given the freedom to have a public service anywhere. He has to have the mass or celebration, as in the old days, in a house church. He asked why the Turkish Government cannot be nicer to Anglicans. I said that I did not know. I am nice to Anglicans and try to be nice to them all the time, and I think that the Turks should be nice to Anglicans.
In Egypt, we have the so-called Arab spring, which is an Arab winter for the Copts, on which I do not have to elaborate a moment longer. Then there is Bahrain, which is a great strategic partner of ours and an old ally. We value the close relationship. However, those of lesser standing among Muslims in Bahrain do not get the right level of attention compared to the minority who actually run Bahrain.
I look to Her Majesty’s Government and the churches to adopt these two fundamental principles.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford for raising this profound issue for our world, of freedom of conscience, as a human right involving the ability for human beings to make their own choices as to which, if any, faith system they wish to follow. That means that individuals must have the opportunity to change their adherence as a matter of personal conviction and call.
I want to concentrate on two areas. The first is the increasing abuse of blasphemy laws across the world. The Church of Pakistan has actively challenged the misuse of blasphemy laws in that country, which has led to the persecution of both Hindus and Christians and which, in particular, appears to be used to prevent Muslims from converting to another religion or to no religion. Although it is perfectly appropriate to deprecate the insulting of any religion, it is a denial of human rights to prevent anyone from changing or abandoning their faith stance. In principle, Pakistan continues to uphold the rights of religious minorities but, in practice, the existence of the blasphemy laws encourages illegal persecution and rejection.
The same sort of danger exists, for example, in Sri Lanka, where Muslim and Christian minorities fear the effect of blasphemy laws in a predominantly Buddhist society. Will the Government make it clear that countries which pass discriminatory legislation such as repressive blasphemy laws, or Pakistan’s anti-Ahmadi laws, risk their reputation in the international community?
My second point of emphasis is on the way in which our Government could, and I believe should, make it clearer that this country rejects all forms of religious bullying, by providing proper protection for those who flee here having suffered from it. In the discussions last night about North Korea, I was very pleased to hear the Minister say how wrong it would be to return any people to North Korea.
I am aware time and again of those who have fled to this country from Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere having suffered abuse and being terrified of being returned to their countries of origin because of it. My experience is that freedom of religion, conscience and non-religion is not taken as seriously as a human right in this country as is political persecution. Those who change their religion in particular are regarded with suspicion by tribunals and find that their faith is not taken seriously.
I recently met a taxi driver accused of blasphemy by Muslim leaders in Lahore, who fled here with his wife and children after hiding in the hills in their homeland. They faced deportation back to Pakistan. Among the reasons for the negativity of their tribunal seems to be that they found a home in a different Christian tradition here from that from which they came. Roman Catholics in Lahore, they attended an Anglican church in Leeds. This was taken to be evidence that they did not take their faith seriously. I do not ask for comment on a particular case; what I ask for is for it to be stressed by the Government that those who flee persecution in their country must and will receive an equivocal welcome here.
We have in the past couple of days recognised the need for faith groups to work together. The Minister knows that West Yorkshire in particular needs to be a welcoming society for those of all religions who come here. I look forward to hearing a firm assertion of the Government’s commitment to defending religious freedoms in this country as elsewhere.
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, we are extremely fortunate to live in a country where freedom of religion is not just accepted but respected and acknowledged as a key pillar of a free and healthy society. People from a whole range of faiths live alongside each other, as well as with those who do not consider themselves religious. I think it is fair to say that, in general, this has worked very well.
Since arriving here many years ago, I have always appreciated the freedom afforded to me to practise my own religion of Islam. In religious matters, I think that we have the right balance in our country. While the Church of England is our official state religion, others are able to flourish without fear of persecution. We should all be proud of what we have achieved. We are indeed a role model, although, of course, we are not a perfect society.
The main commonality between people of all religions is that they cherish the sense of unity provided to them by their faith, a sense of belonging and endearment that often carries over into a sense of comfort and stability on a regional or national level. I have always maintained that there are more similarities between people than differences and nowhere is this truer than in faith. Unfortunately, in some parts of the world, certain religious communities are undermined and persecuted for their beliefs. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for freedom of religious expression, yet too often a growing number of individuals are denied this fundamental right. I am not naive to the fact that evil is sometimes conducted in the name of religion, but these minorities are merely using their manipulative interpretations of faith for their own gain. The message that we are calling for to be promoted here today will help to tackle this destructive behaviour, which is detrimental not just to religious communities but to their relationships with others who live alongside them.
In a number of countries, religious bodies undertake voluntary work in a range of sectors, helping to relieve pressure that would otherwise be placed on the state. Perhaps most notably, they provide high-quality educational institutions for children and healthcare facilities which have helped change the lives of many people in different parts of the world.
I am pleased that our Government continue to maintain a strong commitment to the promotion of freedom of religion, as outlined in Human Rights and Democracy: The 2011 Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report. Using our embassies and high commissions to engage with Governments around the world is undoubtedly the most effective way of making an impact on the ground. The United Kingdom has trade and historic ties with a number of countries overseas, particularly countries in the Commonwealth, and we can use our influence in a gentle and appropriate manner. Going through such channels will help us reach the leaders who can make a difference.
I was very pleased to see the Foreign Office join the Canadian High Commission in London last month to hold a conference on this very subject. A number of potential measures were discussed. There was a general consensus that we shall have to play a greater part in promoting harmony between people both within our own communities and across the world. I agree with this sentiment. Governments and political leaders will have to work alongside religious leaders, civil society groups and, in some cases, the media to help promote good relationships between people of different religions.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston
My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford for initiating this important debate and for his inclusive definition of “conscience” to include non-believers. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.
A small but significant advance was made with the subsequent United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
The significance of that for a humanist such as me was in the interpretation of “belief” to include non-religious beliefs, for the reasons eloquently outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. Those of us with no religious belief are as diverse as our fellow citizens in churches, temples, mosques and synagogues. In Britain, we are second in number only to the Christians, according to the recently published 2011 census results, which show that 25% of respondents ticked the box for no religion. That is a remarkable increase, up from 15% in 2001 to 25%—or 14 million British citizens—in just 10 years. I speculate, but the fact that so many millions of our fellow citizens now refuse any religious affiliation may well be linked to the increase in violence by religious extremists. As we have heard tonight, noble Lords who are religious will be even more appalled than non-believers by the atrocities that result when their faiths are twisted to legitimise hatred and killing.
Reacting presciently to that increase in violence, the United States under President Clinton introduced a Freedom from Religious Persecution Act, and the State Department now publishes an annual international religious freedom report, which warns of the growing use and abuse of blasphemy and apostasy laws, which constrain the rights of religious minorities and limit the freedom of expression of non-believers, or even threaten them with death. Inevitably, that continual, low-profile oppression has been overshadowed by the sheer scale of sectarian killing in recent years, which countries such as the United States and Canada seem to monitor more closely and denounce more vigorously than we do.
Here in Britain, in defence of our freedom of religion and conscience, secular organisations such as the British Humanist Association are potential allies of those faith groups active in opposing oppression. After all, the 25% who declare that they have no religion are in almost every other regard identical to the 75% who tick the census box declaring their religion. Whether humanists or religious believers, we in Britain share common values—many of them anathema to the sectarians, who refuse dialogue. Our tolerant balance of the sacred and secular contributes to the stability that Britain has enjoyed for so long, a stability which, in recent decades, has also been enjoyed by a growing number of newly democratic countries.
I join other noble Lords in asking the Minister: what action taken by the Government has proved most effective in advancing freedom of religion, conscience and belief for those oppressed? I hope that she can dispel the concern expressed tonight that Britain is not yet doing enough.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate for securing today’s debate on a topic that has not received the attention that I believe that it deserves. I am fully aware of some of the poor history of the Christian Church in this arena and the legacy that this nation has left in some Commonwealth countries by the insensitive application of our then laws on blasphemy. However, the title of the Pew Research report in this area, the Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion, says it all. The current global trajectory is not promising, so we must act now.
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is a human right, but it is best framed as a freedom. It is not about compulsion or coercion; it is a freedom. That is why it is so interrelated with the freedom of expression. If you are not exposed to any other views, how can you really be said to have exercised freedom or choice? It is perhaps the most fundamental human right, but it is hard to understand sometimes in our secular society. The fact that individuals in the UK can choose to be secular is an indication that that freedom is in operation. It is the freedom to choose no God at all. Human beings’ innate right to choose was first exemplified by the tree in the garden of Eden; we have a choice in this ultimate matter.
That issue is affecting all religious communities, as described by many noble Lords. Late last year, there was one compelling story reported by the BBC of an Ahmadi Muslim, Ummad Farooq, who was shot in the head in Pakistan. I am proud to say that he is claiming asylum here in the UK. Is this the shape of asylum applications to come, and are the UK Government ready for that?
As chair of the All-Party Group on International Religious Freedom, I am so pleased that representatives of religious groups in the United Kingdom, such as the Baha’is, Sikhs, Hindus, the Coptic Church—so ably represented in the UK by Bishop Angaelos—as well as groups such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide and Aid to the Church in Need, are working together on the issue. The group’s first report will be entitled, “Article 18: An Orphaned Human Right”, and submissions are currently being sought. The title of the report reflects the fact that this human right has not become the basis of an international convention, such as those on the rights of the child or women. In the wake of the Arab spring, is this not to be the human rights issue for decades to come and the lens through which many world issues need to be seen?
There are encouraging changes at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which has hosted two Wilton Park conferences of the issue. Sue Breeze and her assistant are now dedicated FCO staff within the human rights team. Can my noble friend please outline what further steps or mechanisms the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is looking at to raise the profile of this issue at the EU and the UN? Also, what is Her Majesty’s Government’s approach to the emphasis within international institutions on defamation of religion and incitement to religious hatred laws, which I believe has left the rump of Article 18—namely, life, limb and employment—obscured from view?
While it is true, as Archbishop Temple said, that when religion goes wrong it goes very wrong, we cannot turn a blind eye. As Dr Martin Luther King so rightly said,
“freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed”.
However, we must all do what we can to help those demanding their freedom. It is not only the least we can do; it is our duty.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, I appreciate the opportunity of saying a word in the gap to draw our attention to just two events. These events prompt me to regard them as milestones in the move for greater liberty and conscience, and understanding between religions.
One was the inauguration once again yesterday of President Obama, whose breakthrough four years ago as the American president was hailed as a great move forward among people who wanted to dispel all discrimination. Even yesterday, he reminded us of the great march on Washington led 50 years ago by Martin Luther King. Things have moved and changed, often for the better.
As a Liberal I also acknowledge the birth, 150 years ago, of David Lloyd George. He was elected as the Member of Parliament for Carmarthen Burrows in 1890, at a time when Wales was open to new ventures in education and in looking at the vulnerable with compassion and understanding. Again, that was a move in the right direction. Education holds the key to so much as we can stretch the minds and have people who, because they are thinking and free to think, can resist all tyranny. While acknowledging that there are unfavourable situations today, we should say that we are grateful for what has happened over the years.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating this debate. Freedom of religion and belief is a human right which applies to everyone. Inadequate religious freedom is a threat to freedom of association, to freedom of speech and to social, economic and cultural rights. Respect and tolerance are the key ingredients in building a safer and more peaceful world.
The relationship between oppression of religious belief and armed conflict is clear. In the Government’s Building Stability Overseas Strategy it was recognised that,
“religious freedom is often crucial to ensuring conflict prevention and post-conflict peacebuilding”.
The report continued:
“Violence against a religious group can be a forewarning of wider conflict”.
As we have heard in today’s debate, hundreds of millions of people of all religions and none find themselves facing daily threats of violence simply for exercising this basic human right to practise their faith. Even those who look to defend the rights of others regularly face similar intimidation, threats and violence.
Too often when we discuss issues of religion and human rights, it is to consider the ways in which sets of rights conflict—or seem to be in conflict—with each other. I was particularly pleased to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford note that religious freedom is not ultimately in opposition to other rights such as freedom of expression, non-discrimination, women’s rights and gay rights. As a humanist, I would certainly not suggest that freedom of religion and belief be elevated over other human rights, nor that they can go unchallenged where the safety or rights of others are threatened. Yet neither can religious belief simply be seen as a right at the margins, to be considered only when no other rights come into play. In that context, the point made by the right reverend Prelate about the right to manifest religion taking precedence over other rights, such as the corporate image of a company, was an important one. Above all, a balance of rights and a recognition of context are indicative of religious freedom as a real, not just a nominal, human right.
As with other fundamental freedoms, religious freedom is something that benefits everyone because it creates conditions for peace, democratisation, development and human rights. To that end, I ask the Minister whether the Government have considered following the example of such countries as Canada and the US in prioritising the issue of protecting religious freedoms. Our country’s links of tradition and trade to many of the most troubled areas make it well placed to use that influence to best effect. And act we must, for the human rights abuses of which we have heard this evening must not be allowed to continue unchallenged.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford on securing this very important debate and thank all noble Lords who have made such valuable contributions to today’s discussion.
This is such an important and relevant time to be having this debate; as I was saying earlier to the right reverend Prelate, we have had a conference today at Lancaster House specifically focusing on this very issue. The Foreign Office and indeed the Government take the promotion of the protection of the right to freedom of religion or belief as a key human rights priority, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to tell the House of the work that we have been doing.
This is an issue that I know is followed closely by Members of this House, and I receive much correspondence about it from both parliamentarians and the general public. It is an issue that can quickly bring the abstract into our living rooms via media stories that have such a human element.
Freedom of religion or belief is, I believe, one of the fundamental human rights, and one that underpins many of the others. It is a valuable litmus test of other basic freedoms. I say that because, where freedom of religion or belief is under attack, we often find that other freedoms are under attack too.
This is an issue that also matters to me personally as an individual, as a practising Muslim in a Christian country and as a Minister in the FCO with responsibility for human rights, of which a priority area is freedom of religion and belief. Indeed, earlier today, as I mentioned, we had a historic meeting, trying to form a core group of government Ministers, senior advisers and ambassadors from across the world.
The Secretary-General of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the Foreign Minister from Canada and Ministers from Pakistan and Morocco were there, along with ambassadors and senior officials from a wide spread of other countries, including many countries that have been mentioned here today. I hope and believe that our discussions today will make a real contribution to solidifying the international consensus around the need to do more to combat religious intolerance and promote the right to freedom of religion and belief, using Resolution 1618 as a framework. It is important diplomacy but of course it is risky; I have had numerous conversations with my officials about what we can achieve but what may be lost when we have these honest conversations. However, we must be brave, for exactly the reasons mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds.
I am grateful that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said that he did not want the debate to be a fight about who around the world is victimised more. This is a universal right and we must therefore protect all minority religions, wherever they are and whenever that abuse occurs. I think that I speak for people of faith when I say that evil in the name of faith can be found in the distortion of any faith, and we must therefore all speak out when we see that evil. The strongest arguments that I have heard are from those people who speak out not for a religion that they themselves belong to but for a religion that someone else belongs to and suffers abuse as a result.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and my noble friend Lord Patten both raised specific examples. Those examples are important but it is more important and powerful for us in Britain to be seen not just to be speaking out for Christian minorities but to be speaking for minorities wherever they may be abused.
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, asked what has worked. I can give a very personal example from my involvement in Pakistan: tough conversations, a consistency of approach, leading by example, being able to talk about how we have been through our history with regard to religious minorities—we may not always have got it right but we have learnt from those mistakes—and making the issue universal in a globalised world. I have often said that maybe it is not Christians in the West and Muslims in the East but Muslims in the West and Christians in the East who could probably foster this dialogue and come forward with some real solutions.
The right to freedom of religion or belief is set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the issue is not about abstract discussions or a debate on philosophy or human rights law but about people’s lives—the right to be individuals and to be free. The right to be free, as far as your religion or belief is concerned, is very broad. It is not about the freedom just to hold a belief, but also to manifest that belief, for example through worship, dress and the wearing of religious symbols. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford mentioned the European court case. Noble Lords will, I am sure, join me in acknowledging that the court came to the right decision last week when it ruled in favour of Nadia Eweida.
We believe the right to freedom of religion or belief also includes the right to share your faith and to teach others about it and, importantly, it includes the right not to hold a religious faith. All these approaches deserve space in society, and it is the responsibility of government to ensure that this is the case. We are tireless in our efforts to defend these rights worldwide but, sadly, according to recent research by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 75% of the world’s population now live in countries where Governments, social groups or individuals restrict their ability to practise their faith freely. Restrictions on religion are increasing in each of the five major regions of the world, including in the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa, the two regions where overall restrictions had previously been in decline, and the share of countries with high or very high restrictions on religious beliefs and practices rose from 31% in the year ending in mid-2009 to 37% in the year ending in mid-2010.
In many countries, following the wrong religion can lead to torture, violence or even death, so we need to make sure we do our utmost, both to raise individual cases where freedom of religion or belief is under attack and to tackle it through organisations such as the UN. This Government are absolutely committed to getting it right because, quite simply, lives are at stake if we do not. It is because defending this right is so important to us that we have developed a comprehensive strategy to guide our work in this area. The strategy draws on valuable expertise from members of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary’s human rights advisory group, which is composed of leading British experts in the field of human rights. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford asked about a religion or belief advisory group. I know that such a group existed under the previous Government, but I understand that it became unwieldy with each religion and each brand of each religion demanding a seat at the table. What we have done instead is to ensure that some of the members of the Foreign Secretary’s human rights advisory group—Malcolm Evans and Joel Edwards—bring a faith perspective and an awareness of international human rights law in the area of freedom of religion or belief to the group. We are currently looking at broadening that brace to bring in experts in relation to other religions.
How is this strategy implemented? It is implemented by having a very ambitious action plan, which works at all levels. I hope that I can give my noble friend Lady Berridge some comfort when I say that it includes: working in multilateral organisations, chiefly the UN, the EU and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe; bilateral negotiations, where we raise individual cases, practices or laws that discriminate against people on the basis of their religion or belief; and project work in a range of countries, many of which were mentioned today, working with NGOs on issues such as promoting better understanding between faiths, bridging sectarian divides, promoting dialogue between faith groups and government, and offering technical advice on laws that need amendment—issues that were raised by my noble friend Lord Sheikh.
Britain has a good story to tell, although we have made mistakes in the past. In many ways, in interfaith dialogue we are very much at the cutting edge of work that is being done around the world and it is important that we share that. It is also important that our policy is informed so that we do not knowingly walk into the consequences that were spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. We are training FCO officials better to understand the role of faith in society and foreign policy. A series of lectures and some specific training is being given to understand the nuances between religions and within religions.
My joint ministerial role, spanning the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is also proving extremely valuable. Ministerial oversight in both departments allows the Government to join up our domestic and international work on this crucial issue more effectively. As I have said on many occasions, what happens in Benghazi has an effect on the streets of Bradford.
We should also be mindful that, while Governments play a key role in creating the conditions for all to practise their religion or belief freely, or for individuals to live free from discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, Governments alone cannot change the landscape. They need the co-operation of civil society to promote messages of understanding and tolerance for the followers of other religions or those without a faith. A climate of intolerance curtails freedom to practise and manifest a religion as individuals would wish to practise it.
Noble Lords will be aware that in some cases the issues are much more complex than they may first appear. Some cases are not actually about religion but about deprivation and other issues. Dr Paul Bhatti, Pakistan’s Minister of National Harmony and Minority Affairs, rightly told me that some issues are more to do with social justice than religion. Too often it is the poor, the exploited and the marginalised who are affected. Religion becomes an extra issue on top of that.
I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that the Government report on violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief in our annual rights report. The next one will be published in April and will look back at events over 2012. I am sure that it will prove a source of much debate in your Lordships’ House.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, I think, asked about the appointment of an envoy for international religious freedom; or maybe he did not. Somebody did. We continue to keep this option under review. However, for the moment, we believe that the best course of action is to continue to make each of the FCO Ministers responsible for defending freedom of religion or belief in the areas of the world that they cover. Each Minister is aware of issues affecting religious communities on their patch, so to speak.
Much more needs to be done, but I assure the House that this Minister is personally committed to tackling this issue. It is a matter that I have dealt with domestically and take extremely seriously. Internationally, it is a matter into which I and my office put a huge amount of energy. I know that your Lordships also share my passion for ensuring that we make a real difference, so that we can say that, because of our actions, the world is becoming a safer place for people to practise their religion or belief freely. I hope that we can continue to work together to bring about that real change.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“(5A) Any performance standards that apply to local planning authorities in the consideration of planning applications shall also apply to the Secretary of State in the performance of his functions under this section.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, Amendment 19 is a probing amendment, which I hope will not detain us for long. So far as the planning guarantee is concerned, the consultation document proposes that a 26-week limit will apply to the Planning Inspectorate where it is determining applications. That is fine because, clearly, given the lack of a right to appeal, a limit of no more than a year is not appropriate.
However, paragraph 64 of the consultation document proposes that the performance standard for the inspectorate would initially be to determine 80% of cases within 13 weeks, or 16 weeks where proposals are subject to an environmental impact assessment. On what basis has this target been set? For how long is it envisaged that the initial phase will endure? What will the Government do if it emerges that the inspectorate is not meeting its targets—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also touched on earlier? I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I want to make absolutely clear the level of service that an applicant can expect from the Secretary of State in those very few cases where the applicant applies directly to him, and to explain why this amendment is unnecessary. As I have said several times today, the ability to apply directly to the Secretary of State would be limited to a very small number of situations where there is clear evidence that a local planning authority is not delivering an effective service. For example, in relation to the speed with which applications are dealt with, we have proposed in our consultation that the measure should apply only to authorities that have decided 30% or fewer of their major applications within the statutory period.
We will ensure through amendments to the secondary legislation that exactly the same statutory period for determining applications applies to the Secretary of State. We have proposed in our consultation to set a performance standard for the Planning Inspectorate of dealing with 80% of those applications within the statutory period unless an extended time has been agreed in writing with the applicant. That compares to the current average performance among planning authorities of deciding 57% of applications for major developments within 13 weeks.
The inspectorate will publish quarterly data on its performance so that it is clear what is being achieved. We are clear in our commitment to offering applicants the choice of a genuinely better service in those few cases where this clause has to be used in the future. The secondary legislation and performance standards set for the Planning Inspectorate are the appropriate places to set this out. I do not think that there is any need to add a specific provision in the Bill.
The noble Lord also asked about what would happen if the Planning Inspectorate did not achieve that. The fact that the inspectorate will have to make its own reports if it does not do 80% probably will be quite a serious obstacle for it to overcome if it is not achieving that.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I may have missed it, but I do not think she said on what basis that 80% target has been met. If she did, will she kindly repeat it? If not, will she cover that point?
Baroness Hanham
May I write to the noble Lord on that? I am not sure about the 80% but I will write to him.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
That is fine. I am grateful for that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) This section shall cease to have effect two years after it comes into force.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Clause 1 stand part and we are happy to take it on that basis. I am conscious that we had somewhat of a stand part debate earlier. Nevertheless, I wish to get something on the record as to our overall position.
We wish to see Clause 1 removed from the Bill; it is wrong on so many levels. Fundamentally, it is a denial of localism, representing as it does a shifting of powers from local planning authorities to central government. It is not, of course, the only clause in the Bill to do this. We will debate Clause 24 in due course and there are other consultations in hand relating to permitted development rights and call-in powers which demonstrate the same direction of travel.
Such consultation as there has been is being undertaken now in parallel with consideration of the Bill. It is a truncated eight-week consultation and it is not planned that we will see the Government’s response until we have completed our deliberations. The powers in the Bill, especially around designation, go way beyond the stated intent of the clause, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee points out.
Of course, the clause is predicated on the proposition that delays in the planning system are holding back growth, but scant evidence has been provided for this. There is obviously clear evidence on the time being taken by local planning authorities to handle applications, but any linking of this to growth—or the lack of it—is, frankly, anecdotal. In any event this seems to ignore the existing powers of the Secretary of State in relation to call-in and the right of applicants to appeal to the Secretary of State against non-determination. We should bear in mind that an appeal against non-determination can be made up to six months after the expiry of the period that the local planning authority had for dealing with the application. This is 13 weeks for major cases and 16 weeks if the application is accompanied by an environmental statement, or whatever extended period has been agreed between the local planning authority and the applicant.
Why are these powers insufficient? As the TCPA points out, planning is not a process. It refers to the complexity of planning decisions, which often hang on fine judgments of local and national policy, and the deliberate anchoring of the system to democratically elected local authorities—the basis of our planning system since 1947. Appeal rights for non-determination, or call-in powers, still retain a role for the local planning authority.
Clause 1 means that the substantive right to have a planning decision taken by a democratically elected local authority is removed, negating one of the founding principles of the 1947 English planning system. There is no doubt that the Government are focusing on the speed of decision-making to the exclusion of quality. Paragraph 47 of the consultation document states:
“We also propose raising the bar for the speed of decisions after the first year”.
Any assertions by the Government that the clause will be used in extremis sound a little hollow. The Government cite the decline from 65% to 57%, in the year ending June 2012, in the number of applications for major developments dealt with within 13 weeks, but there is no substantive analysis of why this might be or, indeed, what might be done to improve the position.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling this stand part debate as it gives me an opportunity to read into the record what I should like to say in reply. That is fair because it lays out for both of us the starting or finishing points— I am not sure which it is.
We have debated the merits of this clause at length. While some have argued that it breaches fundamental principles of local decision-making and somehow marks a retreat from localism, I reassure noble Lords that that is simply not the case. On the contrary, as I have sought to make very clear, this clause is necessary and appropriate, and it will be used only in exceptional circumstances.
This Government believe that planning plays a key role in facilitating investment and growth, which is why we announced an inflation-related increase in fees last year and have put locally produced plans at the heart of the system for identifying and addressing development needs. Most planning authorities are rising to the challenge of delivering an effective and positive service in what are, we acknowledge, difficult times. However, it would be wrong not to act in those few cases where planning was not being delivered effectively. Equally, though, this is a measure of last resort, and we will ensure that it is deployed in a way that is fair and proportionate.
Decisions that are unnecessarily slow, or which result in development being refused without good reason, can have a real impact by delaying or discouraging investment. That is bad for the economy and bad for communities, and we should not stand by and delay taking action in those very few cases where this is a significant problem. This clause represents an appropriate response to such situations.
Far from being an unprecedented move to centralise power, Clause 1 will ensure that action can be taken in the rare cases where planning services are failing, just as previous Administrations have sought to ensure in relation to schools, hospitals and other services that are vital for the well-being of the community. Nor should we forget that applicants for planning permission can already go to the Secretary of State for a decision where the local planning authority fails to decide within the statutory period. What we are proposing in Clause 1 merely extends that principle by saying that in those very few cases where authorities have a track record of genuinely poor performance, applicants should be able to exercise that choice from day one rather than wait for the statutory period to elapse.
I have already made it clear that, where it is obvious that more time than the statutory period is genuinely needed to decide an application, and agreements between developer and local authority are in place to extend the determination period, these applications will be excluded from the performance figures provided that there is an agreed timetable for reaching a decision, as we should not let these cases drag on unnecessarily. This will ensure that there is no risk of quality being sacrificed for speed and that there is a transparent process and timetable when applications need more time than usual. This does not by any means require a full-blown planning performance agreement in all such cases, but there should at least be a record of what has been agreed on the way forward.
We consider that sector-led support will play a key role in identifying and addressing any weaknesses in designated authorities. We will work with the Local Government Association and the Planning Advisory Service, which the Government fund, to ensure that struggling authorities get the support they need in order to improve. This is something which should, in future, also help to avoid the need for any designations altogether.
Our aim in introducing this clause is simple. It is to give applicants the choice of a better service where this is genuinely justified, while encouraging sound and timely decisions on the part of all planning authorities. As I hope the consultation shows, we have thought carefully about an approach that does this while minimising any risk of the sort of perverse outcomes that have characterised some previous performance measures.
So let us be clear. Based on the criteria that we have suggested in our consultation paper, this measure would affect only those authorities that show a wholly unacceptable level of performance—on speed, for example, those authorities that do not meet the statutory target on 30%, or fewer, of their major applications.
In addition, we are not removing powers from local authorities. We are saying that, where applicants are unhappy with the level of performance, they will now at least have an alternative. They will have the choice of applying directly to the Secretary of State.
We all understand why the Government cannot support the proposal to switch off this clause after two years—that it would be provide insufficient time for it to work and it would also remove the continuing incentive for planning authorities to deliver a good level of performance. I therefore must reject the proposal for, effectively, a sunset clause and hope the noble Lord will understand that and withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, though I am bound to say that it did not come as a surprise. There are a range of points in relation to the clause-stand-part proposal that I do not accept, but given the hour and given that we have many more Committee days and some more on Report, I am sure we will return to each of these points. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Greater London: option to make planning application directly to Mayor of London
In the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, after the new section 62A insert—“62B When application may be made directly to Mayor of London
(1) In Greater London, a relevant application that would otherwise have to be made to the local planning authority may (if the applicant so chooses) be made instead to the Mayor of London if the following conditions are met at the time it is made—
(a) the local planning authority concerned is designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 62A; and(b) the development to which the application relates (where the application is within subsection (2)(a)), or the development for which outline planning permission has been granted (where the application is within subsection (2)(b)), is of a description described in subsection (2)(c), (d), (e) or (f).(2) In this section “relevant application” means—
(a) an application for planning permission for the development of land in Greater London, other than an application of the kind described in section 73(1); or(b) an application for approval of a matter that, as defined by section 92, is a reserved matter in the case of an outline planning permission for the development of land in Greater London,in either case where the development is development—(c) for the purposes of provision of a school that is or will be the subject of an academy arrangement made under section 1 of the Academies Act 2010;(d) by an electricity undertaker which is not permitted development for the purposes of a development order made under section 57(1);(e) prescribed by the Secretary of State as an application of potentially strategic importance in an order made under section 2A(4); or(f) otherwise prescribed by the Secretary of State.(3) Where a relevant application is made to the Mayor of London under this section, the Mayor may direct that he is to be regarded as the local planning authority for the purposes of determining the application, and the Mayor may determine it accordingly.
(4) Where a relevant application is made to the Mayor of London under this section, an application under the Planning Acts referred to in section 62A(3) (“the connected application”) may (if the person making such an application so chooses) be made instead to the Mayor of London.
(5) If the connnected application is made to the Mayor of London under subsection (4) but the Mayor considers that it is not connected with the relevant application concerned, the Mayor may—
(a) refer the connected application to the local planning authority, or hazardous substances authority, to whom it would otherwise have been made, and(b) direct that the connected application—(i) is to be treated as having been made to that authority (and not to the Mayor under this section), and(ii) is to be determined by that authority accordingly. (6) Section 38(1) (delegation of functions by the Mayor) shall apply to the Mayor of London’s functions under this section.
(7) Section 2E (section 2A and planning obligations under section 106) shall apply to any direction given under subsection (3).
(8) Section 2F (representation hearings) shall apply to any application in relation to which a direction has been given under subsection (3).””
Lord Tope
My Lords, in moving Amendment 39, I shall speak also to Amendment 80, both of which stand in my name and are supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine. Though on the Marshalled List her name is only attached to Amendment 39, she has assured me that she supports Amendment 80 as well.
I begin with two apologies. I should earlier have declared my interest as a councillor in a London borough. Given the subject of these amendments, I must particularly declare my interest as a London borough councillor. Secondly, I apologise on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, who has an important engagement this evening and was unsure whether we would get to this amendment or, if we did, at what time. I agreed that she should go and keep her important engagement rather than wait here, and promised to do my best—not to represent her views; I cannot do that—at least to put this debate on record. I should perhaps also declare on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, since I am speaking for her as well, that she is chief executive of London First and a board member of the Peabody housing trust.
These two amendments are the first to refer to the unique position of Greater London in these considerations. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, reminded me of the combined authority in Greater Manchester; it is not exactly the same as in Greater London, but if he wishes to bring forward proposals of a similar nature, I would certainly consider them with great sympathy. In view of the time of night, I do not want to go into great detail on this; I am not sure that, at this stage, it is necessary to do so because I am sure we will return to it on Report. However, the situation and position in London is that the Mayor of London—and here I refer to the office, not necessarily the office holder at any particular time, in which I have not so far had any interest to declare—already has the responsibilities for strategic planning in London. I am unclear whether the Government have given any consideration—and if so, what—to the position of London in relation to the provisions of this Bill.
It seems to me that if any London planning authority has the misfortune to be designated—we all hope that this does not happen, and I have made my views clear about that—it would be sensible in all respects for it to be referred to the Mayor of London and to the Greater London Authority, rather than to the planning inspectorate, which just happens to be in Bristol. I say that on a number of grounds. The first is the important democratic principle that the Mayor of London is elected by Londoners; he is accountable to Londoners and he is accountable particularly directly to the elected London assembly. Therefore, the actions he takes and the decisions he makes are directly accountable to an elected body, which is not the case with the planning inspectorate.
Secondly, the planning department in the Greater London Authority has on the whole a good relationship —certainly a relationship—with all the planning authorities in London, some more than others, as necessary. It knows the situation in London and the individuals concerned in many cases. It is by definition more local than somebody based in Bristol could possibly be. It is better placed to consider particular local circumstances, and indeed, people are able to make their representations directly to that elected and accountable body.
From the point of view of the Mayor of London with his responsibility for strategic planning in London, if a planning authority is performing so badly as to be designated, that must have implications for him and his strategic role, so again, in all respects the mayor has a particular interest in planning. For me the important principle is that if there is to be designation, at least in London it can go to an elected and accountable body rather than to an appointed body some distance from London. I have made my position clear several times, but if it is to happen, that is a far preferable situation and far more in accordance with our belief in localism.
Briefly, Amendment 80, which is much further on in the Bill, would ensure that planning applications for developments relating to school and energy infrastructure must be referred to the mayor as being of potential strategic importance. This would allow him to call in applications that are deemed to have strategic significance for the capital’s future and expedite the decision-making process, getting key projects off the ground. That would also allow the mayor to delegate his call-in powers in cases where he does not have the time personally to hold the representation hearing or he has a conflict of interest in which case the power is currently automatically lost. We need to consider the position of London in the context of a Greater London Authority and an elected mayor. Should it be deemed in the future that Greater Manchester is in that position, that will be fine. It is the principle that I am concerned with here. In England, that principle applies only to London, and I do not see that the Government have yet given any consideration to the position of London in relation to their proposals. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, due to procrastination, I did not ask for my name to be added to those of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, until the weekend, by which time the first Marshalled List was already with the printers. However, I warmly support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and I do not need to add very much to it.
The point I would make is that the Mayor of London—I am talking about the office and not the individual—already has very substantial strategic planning functions in London. As to the question of designation and the right of an applicant to apply under the rest of the Bill to the Secretary of State, it seems obvious that in London the application should be referred to the mayor because, by definition, we are talking about major applications. As I think my noble friend said, the mayor has extraordinarily good planning relationships not only with the boroughs but with a range of other interests, such as developers, other stakeholders and so on, who are very much concerned with planning. That has been developed to a considerable degree of expertise and skill. That is the right body to exercise the function if, as has been said, any London borough suffers the misfortune of being designated. I very much support this.
I hope that by the time we come to debate Amendment 80, my name will have been added to it. It is a very useful and important addition. The Mayor of London, with his overall economic functions, has a very considerable interest in ensuring that there is sufficient energy to supply London, particularly when one is dealing with decentralised energy—what might be local wind-power turbines and things of that sort. It would be entirely appropriate in those circumstances that he should have the right to call in applications that refer to such functions. Like my noble friend Lord Tope, I warmly support the amendment and hope that the Government may see their way to accepting it. Amendments 39 and 80 were drafted to follow the pattern of the earlier part—Clause 1—of the Bill, so I hope that the Government may feel able to accept them. It would be very much welcomed in London, and also by the London boroughs. I have already declared my interest as a joint president of London Councils. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend says from the Front Bench.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who moved the amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who set out his support for it. A very good case was made. I am attracted in particular to the democratic principles underpinning this. One does not necessarily always like how the democratic process works, but we should always see the principle as sacrosanct.
I was unclear about whether, if an authority is designated, it is only in respect of strategic issues that the mayor will step in, or whether he could do so in respect of all major applications. Clearly the two are not necessarily the same. However, the proposition is worthy of very serious thought.
I was a little confused about Amendment 80. On the one hand, the proposition is that the mayor should have more powers and things to do; on the other, that he will have the right to delegate because he will not have the time to deal with some of the representative meetings involved. However, I will not dwell on that point. A decent case has been made this evening and I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s reply.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I will explain the Government’s position on this amendment. I was amused when my noble friends referred to the distinction between the office and the person. When one thinks of the present incumbent of the Mayor of London’s office, or indeed his predecessor, it is very hard not to talk about the person in the office. One can make that claim about both the current incumbent and his predecessor.
I listened to the arguments in favour of Amendment 39. First, I will say that I concur completely with the point that the Mayor of London should play an important role in strategic decisions affecting the capital. My noble friend Lord Tope made that point very well. As a former councillor in a neighbouring borough to his, I dealt with issues in collaboration with the Mayor of London’s office. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, the mayor already has powers to put in place a strategic framework for planning in London, and to call in for his own decision any applications that are of potential strategic importance. Clause 1 was drafted to ensure that his power to call in such applications would remain where proposals were made directly to the Secretary of State. The question was raised about discussions with the mayor’s office. The Government have had positive discussions with the mayor’s office about how this would best be implemented. We gave the reassurance that applications of potential strategic importance would be notified to the mayor very quickly once they had been received by the Planning Inspectorate, so that he will be able to act immediately should he wish to intervene. This presents a more practical and workable approach than the one proposed in the amendments.
It is also important that we do not overcomplicate the process for applicants. As it stands, the amendment would introduce a three-way choice for those proposing major development in the capital should the borough be designated on the basis of poor performance. They could, for example, choose to apply to the borough as normal, or to the Secretary of State, or to the mayor. In the Government’s view this would complicate matters further. In other words, what constitutes the application’s potential strategic importance or falls into one of the other proposed categories could end up being extremely complicated and confusing and risk further delay should an applicant misjudge the criteria. The mayor would then have to return an application because he could not decide upon it. It is much simpler for the applicant to have a two-way choice, as we propose, and for the planning inspectorate to decide whether an application it has received is one in which the mayor could have an interest. This approach is entirely consistent with the existing situation where the authorities, not the applicant, decide whether an application is of potential strategic importance.
We would also need to make sure that the categories are generally strategic in nature and consider the views of the London boroughs and other interests. We are happy to have that debate but currently feel that the Bill is not the place to make these changes.
Reference was made to Amendment 80. While there may be a case for the changes proposed, this again can be achieved at the appropriate time by amending secondary legislation. Amendment 80 would allow the mayor to delegate decisions relating to planning applications in the capital. As I have already said, we are sympathetic to this proposal but believe that the Bill is not the best place to address it. In this regard, we propose that we look at the mayor’s planning powers as a whole package and then, in discussion with all interested parties, consider the opportunities for making any appropriate changes.
With those assurances and reassurances I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
Can the Minister indicate whether it is the Government’s intention to consult the Mayor of London, or indeed any body, about proposals to permit the conversion of office premises to residential premises, which I understand has not gone down too well in parts of London?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
It is the standard procedure. We continue to consult the Mayor of London’s office on a raft of issues and discuss them. I am sure that the noble Lord is well aware of such practices.
Lord Tope
My Lords, mention was made of the reference which I and my noble friend Lord Jenkin made to the office and not the office holder. We did so partly out of sensitivity to Members of the opposition Benches, who may have some sensitivity towards both office holders thus far. I thought that we should be clear in our heads, as far as that is ever possible, about distinguishing the office from the office holder. Given that they are such personalities, that is what we should try to do.
I am not sure that I am greatly reassured by the Minister’s reply. The suggestion that an applicant in a major project would be confused because he might have three choices rather than two is rather demeaning to such applicants. I am sure that they could understand the difference between the local authority, the Planning Inspectorate and the Mayor of London. What choice they might make is up to them but I do not think that it is beyond their intellectual capacity to cope with that. I do not speak for the Mayor of London—perish the thought. In my view, they should still have two choices—the local planning authority or the Mayor of London. Given the role of the mayor as the strategic planning authority, I do not see a role for the Planning Inspectorate. However, that is my view. I do not know what the mayor’s view is; I am sure that he will let us know.
Clearly I am not going to push this to a vote. I urge the Minister to continue discussions—I hope that there are discussions already—with the GLA to try to reach some agreement on what should be in the Bill when we come to its later stages. I do not feel that we can go through the Bill, proposing the designation of authorities and passing responsibility to the Planning Inspectorate and the various other provisions, without recognising the role in Greater London of the Greater London Authority and, in particular, the Mayor of London. It may well be a good idea in some future legislation, primary or secondary, to give further consideration overall to the planning powers of the mayor and indeed to how planning works in the capital city. However, I think that Amendment 39 applies particularly to the provisions of this Bill. I am sure that we will return to this subject on Report, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this amendment concerns the arrangements when an application has been made to the Secretary of State in circumstances where another person is to be appointed to deal with the application. The provisions of Schedule 1 enable the Secretary of State, for so long as the application has not been determined, to revoke that appointment and to appoint another person to determine the application instead. On the face of it, this is a very wide power.
It is accepted, of course, that for these purposes the Secretary of State has to appoint an individual and it is further accepted that there may be circumstances where the individual may be unable to complete the task for a number of reasons and has to be replaced. However, the revocation of the appointment can be for any reason or, indeed, for none. Our amendment seeks to constrain the power by making it subject to the agreement of the local planning authority and the applicant. This is not the only constraint that might be adopted, but it is the one that is being proposed. Perhaps the Minister will put on the record the policy involved in the application of this power. Concerns obviously arise around the Secretary of State intervening to pre-empt a decision that is on the point of being made. What criteria does the Minister consider it appropriate to attach to this power? I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, this provision in Schedule 1 allows a new inspector to be appointed in cases where, for example, illness or probity would prevent the original inspector considering a particular case. It is a safeguard and a check, and nothing more. The applicant would be informed of the change of inspector as a matter of course, but there should not be a requirement to do so, only with their agreement. The Secretary of State must be able to choose the most appropriate person to determine an application, just as happens currently with any planning appeal. Equally, there should not be any need to agree this with the designated authority, especially as it would not be the determining body for the application. With those assurances and clarification, I hope that the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for that reply. I understand the thrust of it and I understand that probity and illness are circumstances in which someone would have to be replaced, but as I said earlier, the nature of this power is quite wide and the noble Lord has not reassured me as to whether there is any constraint on its usage. Perhaps I can take this opportunity to pick up a point we touched on earlier, which is that persons who can be appointed by the Secretary of State under these provisions are not just the Planning Inspectorate; it is not limited to that body. I think that the noble Baroness is going to write to me on that point. I am sure that she has not had a chance to do so in the dinner break, so I will forgive her and return to the issue when we have the correspondence. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could say a little more about not so much where the power will be used but the constraints that could be imposed upon it. Can he have another go and help me further on this?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I think that my noble friend has already undertaken to write to the noble Lord on the other point, so I will ensure that this is covered in the letter.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in moving Amendment 41, I will speak to Amendments 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49. With this group, we seek to ensure that when the Secretary of State awards costs, he does so in keeping with the principles of good consultation and in a way that is beneficial to the planning process.
Ensuring that all parties to an appeal act reasonably is of course essential, but the clause risks overly penalising local authorities and working against localism. If the risk of being designated as failing is not a strong enough deterrent for local authorities to turn down inappropriate development, the risk that they might have to pay the costs of appeals certainly will be. There are concerns that the costs of appeals are inhibiting a true localism. Given that, how can increasing the number of instances in which a local authority would have to pay the other party’s costs be beneficial, especially given shrinking budgets and the huge resources that developers often have at their disposal to undertake appeals? When local authorities consider the risk of having appeal costs awarded against them alongside the risk that any decision overturned at appeal may contribute to their designation as failing, that makes it much more likely that developments, whether good or bad, will be nodded through by a local authority.
At present, costs are awarded in very few instances. The impact assessment sets out that, last year, costs were awarded in only 3.7% of cases but goes on to predict that, under Clause 2, the number of cases would rocket, with costs being awarded in as many as 20% or more of all appeal decisions. Worryingly, the Minister’s department has made no estimate of the amount that that would cost local authorities or any other party; hence, the need for amendments to allow for clear criteria and proper regulation of the procedure.
Amendments 41 to 47 specifically target the need for proper criteria to be used when assessing whether costs should be awarded. The impact assessment states that,
“this measure will lead to an increase in the number of costs awarded at least in the short term until longer term behaviour changes”.
However, there is no assessment of how long that might take. Published criteria, set out in regulations, would surely speed up the change in behaviour more effectively. Such criteria would allow the Secretary of State to define what would be deemed unreasonable behaviour and would therefore encourage, rightly, local authorities to avoid it. There is no benefit in giving the Secretary of State discretionary powers to award costs in the hope that it will change behaviour unless the instances in which costs are to be awarded are plainly set out. Furthermore, as the clause will allow the Secretary of State to award a portion of costs, he will need clear guidance in setting out the formula on which the portion of costs is to be awarded and perhaps, more importantly, how it is to be calculated.
Amendment 48 is key to this argument that we are making against the clause. New sub-paragraph (11) allows the Secretary of State to subsume to himself personally any power in connection with the award of an appeal. Can the Minister explain why the Secretary of State would require individual power to award costs, independent of the experts appointed to decide such an award? The amendment seeks to ensure that such power will be used only when it is to the benefit of all involved. It is difficult to conceive of a set of circumstances in which that might be the case; nevertheless it is important that some restraints are put on the Secretary of State’s powers under the sub-paragraph. We need to ensure that the Secretary of State is able to take such power unto himself only if parties to the appeal agree that it is appropriate in the circumstances.
Amendment 49 further constrains the power proposed in sub-paragraph (11). It seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State will make any decision under the sub-paragraph in accordance with published criteria, which would be extremely useful to assist in trying to determine what is in the Secretary of State’s mind. We want the Secretary of State to publish criteria that can be assessed to see whether he is making a fair and even-handed decision about the award of costs, and we want a requirement for him to publish his reasons for his decisions. Not only do we want open and transparent criteria that will inform decisions but we want them to be published. We also would wish to know, in particular circumstances, how they are being applied.
We would like the Secretary of State to publish his reasons. It should not be the role of local authorities, the other agencies involved or Parliament to try to work out what the reasons might have been in any particular set of circumstances. We want it to be clear and transparent. We would have thought that this was something that the Government also would want. I beg to move.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I sought to scribble down the noble Lord’s questions as they came in. I apologise if I miss certain questions. On anything omitted, I shall write to the noble Lord.
The award-of-costs system supports the Government’s drive to improve the planning system by seeking to reduce the poor behaviour that leads to wasted expense and unnecessary delay. Clause 2 extends existing powers to enable the Secretary of State to recover his own costs in planning appeals and makes provision to improve the handling of costs awards between parties. A timely and efficient appeals service will promote economic recovery. At the start of the debate—I hope that this shows my level of attentiveness throughout the past few hours—my noble friend said that this was a magic wand of a Bill. Certainly, what it seeks to do is remove hurdles to growth and it is our view that this is one of those elements.
Clause 2 extends the existing powers of the Secretary of State to recover costs in full or in part in all appeal procedures. It already provides, at subsections (5) and (6), for rules and regulations to lay out the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may direct that costs may be recovered—about which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked. Amendments 41 to 44 and 46 and 47 would duplicate provisions already made in the clause and are therefore not necessary.
On Amendment 45, the current award-of-costs system is already flexible enough to take account of mitigating circumstances when all claims for an award of costs are being considered. All parties will have the opportunity to present evidence, including detail of any mitigating circumstances, before a decision is made on an award of costs. We therefore consider, again, that no further change is necessary.
The noble Lord asked how the new powers of the Secretary of State would be laid out transparently. I assure him that established guidance is provided on what constitutes unreasonable behaviour and behaviour that may give rise to an award of costs. This guidance will continue to apply whether an award is made by the inspector or by the Secretary of State. We will of course ensure that clarity is provided on the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may recover his costs.
The noble Lord said that the Secretary of State seemed to be able to take a lot more powers to himself to recover costs. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the Secretary of State already has powers to recover his own costs. The clause simply makes it clear that he can do so in full or in part in relation to the different appeal procedures. It is right that these powers cover all types of appeal, and we will ensure that information is provided on what type of behaviour may give rise to the Secretary of State recovering his costs before any costs are recovered.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said that the proportion of appeals in which costs are awarded is estimated by the impact assessment to rise from 3% to 20%. The 20% figure was rather a high estimate; we also gave in that same assessment medium and low assumptions of 10% and 5% respectively. I guess that one can only make estimates until the reality kicks in, and I am sure that we will return to the subject at that time.
Clause 2 is about improving the efficiency of appeals handling and freeing up inspectors’ time to focus on planning issues. Subsection (7) enables the identification of categories of work connected with appeals which will be dealt with by the Secretary of State instead of by a planning inspector. It is unnecessary to seek the agreement of parties to do this in each case. Parties to an appeal can be assured that any matters dealt with directly by the Secretary of State will be handled fairly and justly. Award-of-costs decisions, which I have covered, will be made in line with current guidance on grounds for an award. As I have already assured the noble Lord, we will amend existing guidance to make it clear what type of cases this will apply to. Therefore, Amendments 48 and 49 are deemed unnecessary.
Ultimately, this is to make the whole process more efficient and effective. I am sure that all of us involved with the planning process would welcome such changes. I therefore hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, is willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
The Minister said several times that the purpose is to increase the efficiency of the appeal system or of appeal-handling in pursuit of economic growth. I am not sure what the direct correlation is between the efficiency of the appeal system and economic growth, except that decisions might be taken more quickly. Is the phrase, “increase the efficiency of appeal handling”, a euphemism for more applications being passed and therefore not going to appeal at all? Is that what is behind all this?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The short answer to the second question is no. This is about making things more efficient. I am sure that anyone involved with the planning process would welcome greater efficiency. If a decision is more efficient—if it is quicker—it makes the planning process more in line with requirements and, ultimately, saves costs for all involved. I commend the changes because they are simply making something more efficient. To anyone involved with the public or private sector, increased efficiency is always a welcome development.
Lord Greaves
I agree entirely with that. Whatever you are doing, doing it more efficiently is a good idea. However, I do not understand what the allocation of costs—increasing the costs on local authorities and increasing the number of cases where costs are allocated—has to do directly with efficiency. I said earlier that, in my experience, the Planning Inspectorate has not always been the most efficient organisation in the country. However, my perspective is that that is not because the Secretary of State could not get his costs back at the end of it all or that more costs might be allocated to other people in the process but that, as a bureaucracy, the Planning Inspectorate was not very efficient. Either it did not have enough people working for it or those people were not working sufficiently efficiently. The long delays that there were in planning appeals—there still are in some cases, although it has very much improved—do not suggest that the Planning Inspectorate has always been the most efficient organisation in the world.
What on earth has that got to do with the Secretary of State being able to take money off local authorities following the end of an appeal?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I said, from my experience of life, whether in business or the public sector, it helps growth because things progress that much more quickly. My noble friend also raised a point about added costs for local planning authorities or developers. On the contrary, no local authority or developer will face an award of costs if they behave reasonably. It is in everyone’s interest that all parties behave reasonably at all stages of the planning process. If anything, making these changes will prevent delays, drive good behaviour and therefore reduce unnecessary expense and delay for everyone.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am not sure that we can progress much further on this this evening. I fear that part of the rationale underlying this is an encouragement for local authorities not to risk appeals and to tick through, at least at the margins, those applications which they might otherwise have rejected.
The Minister told me that the amendments are unnecessary because they duplicate what is in the Bill, there is established guidance on it or the Secretary of State already has that power. That is all good stuff. Perhaps he might give us the reference to, or in due course pass a copy of documents relating to the definition of “reasonableness”. The Minister said that the established guidance was going to be updated to ensure that there is clarity on this. Perhaps we could have a draft of that updated guidance before we reach Report. Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.