Antarctic Bill

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Martin Horwood

Friday 18th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am grateful for all the comments that have been made throughout the debates on the Bill, not least on Second Reading and in Committee. There has been a huge amount of all-party agreement about the purposes of the Bill.

[Martin Horwood]

May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour in Gloucestershire on bringing the Bill this far? The Bill is vital for the future of Antarctica and the wider environment that it represents. He has the full support of the Liberal Democrats for the measure.

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank my hon. Friend very much. I appreciate that, not only because the Liberal Democrats are part of the coalition Government, but because it is good to know that all parties support the Bill. I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s comments earlier on the Opposition’s support for the Bill. The Bill is important precisely because we all care about the future of Antarctica and recognise its vulnerability, as well as its awesome size and climate. The widespread agreement on the Bill is therefore impressive and reassuring to me and to others who have worked on it.

I also appreciate the number of people who have congratulated me in one way or another on the work that we have done thus far. I reassure the House that I will not stop trying to ensure that the Act—if the Bill becomes an Act—is used as an instrument to encourage other nation states to do what we have done and underline the need to protect Antarctica for the foreseeable future. In my book, that means a very long time.

As I have informed the House, I visited Antarctica at the beginning of the new year. I went with the British Antarctic Survey, supported by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I was pleased to have the opportunity to go there for several reasons. The first was, funnily enough, to understand more about why this measure really matters. That became increasingly obvious the closer I got to Rothera, the main base of the British Antarctic Survey, where we have up to 90 people working in various ways.

This is a good opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the British Antarctic Survey. What it does really matters. I would like to emphasise the extraordinary amount of scientific research that is undertaken at Rothera and on other bases. We were there for only five days, but we looked at all sorts of research projects. For example, there is research into the future of the Southern ocean, its role in absorbing carbon, its changing food chain and the changing temperatures of the water at different levels. All of that matters because we need to know how our changing climate is influencing things and what the consequences might be for that continent and the various crustaceans, fish and other wildlife living in and around Antarctica. It was impressive and encouraging to see that the work being done to study the ocean is of such huge value in terms of science, research and commitment.

Gloucestershire Libraries

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Martin Horwood

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

This debate has turned out to be extremely topical. In the past week, the importance of libraries has been highlighted by children’s laureate Julia Donaldson, author of “The Gruffalo” and “The Snail and the Whale”, which I think is a masterpiece of children’s literature. I must have read it at least 50 times with my kids and I never stopped enjoying it. Ms Donaldson says that

“Libraries…provide a wonderful opportunity for adults and children to browse, borrow and engage with books, but they are also great community centres.”

She is right, of course. Libraries are community hubs and noticeboards, providing sources of information as well as pleasure and learning. They are vital in communities that face particular challenges, where free access to books is not some middle-class luxury, but an essential local service—and not simply access to books, but access to quiet work space, including for homework, when sometimes that is impossible to find at home. In the internet age, modern libraries increasingly provide access to the net for those who cannot easily afford the latest home PC, thus combating both digital and social exclusion.

Hesters Way is one such community in my constituency. It belies Cheltenham’s stereotypical image as a picture-perfect, universally affluent, regency resort town. Three of the six worst-scoring neighbourhoods in Cheltenham, according to the Government’s multiple indices of deprivation, are in Hesters Way, and all three are in the bottom 17% of neighbourhoods nationwide. According to one of those indices, educational outcomes, two of those neighbourhoods are in the bottom 10% in the country. Hesters Way’s schools, both the primary schools and the stunning new All Saints academy, are benefiting significantly from the pupil premium. I am not citing those statistics to embarrass anyone in Hesters Way, which boasts many community success stories, not least in education now at both primary and secondary levels. I am doing it simply to underline the fact that it is a part of Cheltenham where many people have to work very hard to make ends meet and where the luxury of buying a new computer or splashing out on new books in the beautiful branch of Waterstones in town is not always possible.

In short, Hesters Way is an area that needs a library, and given that the source for the statistics I have cited is the county council’s own dataset, it should have known that, too; yet the rather opaque process followed in Gloucestershire suggested that Hesters Way’s was one of those libraries that was surplus to county council requirements. At this point, I should say that I understand the Conservative administration’s genuine problems. I accept the need to reduce the deficit at national level and it was inevitable that local government would have to play a part in that. We may have argued in this place about the pace and scale of the cuts, but that was not Gloucestershire county council’s responsibility. Tough decisions would have been necessary, whatever the political flavour of the administration. All the same, recent figures from the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, which gathered survey responses from 93 library authorities, highlight the scope for different approaches, given the political will.

According to the institute’s survey, some English authorities reported increases in expenditure; eight reported reductions in revenue expenditure of 2% or less; 45 reported reductions of between 2% and 10%; 25 reported cuts of at least 10%; and two reported cuts of more than 20%. The scope for political decision makers to follow different paths is clear. I am not sure whether Gloucestershire was among those that responded to the survey, but if it was, we would have been at the very top of that league table. Politicians often trade statistics, but let me quote from a letter that John Holland, the previous assistant head of Gloucestershire’s libraries and information service, sent both to the leader of Gloucestershire county council, Councillor Mark Hawthorne, and to the Minister. He wrote:

“Whilst the need to make savings and reduce services is clear, the proposed cuts to the library service are damaging and disproportionate. The library service is a high profile cost-effective service representing only 1.45% of the county council budget, yet loans over 3.3 million books and other media and has nearly 3 million visits from users a year. The proposed cuts reduce the current library service budget by 43%, a far greater cut than the overall county council target of 28%.”

Even allowing for annual variations in the book fund, Gloucestershire is still at the very top end of the cuts being made by library authorities in England.

In Cheltenham, the suggestion was that Hesters Way library would close as a county library and that the community might take it over, with residual support of some £20,000 per annum from the county council. Hesters Way is also, for all the reasons that I have mentioned, an area in which volunteers are not as easy to come by as they are in more affluent areas. In practice, what was meant by “the community” was the local neighbourhood project, which was initiated and supported by Cheltenham borough council. The plan was far from ideal; it would have resulted in the loss of the library’s existing premises; and, most of all, it risked the loss of professional librarians—a nationwide issue highlighted by the institute. An issue that was never resolved was the risk that non-public libraries would not pay public lending rights, thus reducing the income to authors as well.

I pay tribute to all those who supported a tremendous campaign to save Hesters Way library as a public library, including the outstanding county councillor, Suzanne Williams, Councillors Charmian Shepherd and Mike Skinner, and Chris Pallet and Nancy Graham. Most of all, I pay tribute to a non-party political voluntary campaign group, Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries, which surpassed all our efforts in its dogged campaign to defend Gloucestershire’s library services, and gathered 13,000 petition signatures and took the battle all the way to the High Court.

Again and again, Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries highlighted the impact of the cuts, particularly the careless way in which the strategy seemed to have been put together. In its case to the High Court, it highlighted an issue that was particularly relevant to Hesters Way—that of equalities—which I had raised personally on a number of occasions with Councillor Hawthorne. On Wednesday 16 November 2011, His Honour Judge McKenna ruled that Gloucestershire county council’s plans for our public library service were unlawful on equalities grounds, the council having failed to consider properly the impact of its proposals on disadvantaged groups—just as Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries and many others had pointed out.

Councillor Hawthorne, for whom I have a great deal of time in other respects, dismissed the ruling as being

“tripped up on a technical point”.

I have to disagree with his conclusion very, very profoundly. I think that it was a damning judgment that could have been avoided if the county council had been prepared to listen to dissenting voices.

To be kind to the county administration for a moment, the outcome in Hesters Way is good. The forced rethink has resulted in the library staying open in its current premises as part of the county network, albeit with reduced hours, which is a tremendous community victory. Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries, however, remains deeply concerned, and reports that under the redrawn plans, seven libraries still face closure. Public library services will be withdrawn from those areas, and local communities will be offered the chance to run and fund their own library facilities as volunteers. Those facilities will not be part of the statutory public library network.

Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries has raised with me, and with the Minister on a number of occasions, an issue that directly concerns him: the duty of the Secretary of State under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to

“superintend, and promote the improvement of, the public library service provided by local authorities in England and Wales, and to secure the proper discharge by local authorities of the functions in relation to libraries conferred on them as authorities by or under this Act”.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to point out that we have similar issues about libraries in my constituency of Stroud. For example, we have a very well run community library in Painswick, which is well supported and, indeed, has the support of the county council. It is a great success story, so will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the people of Painswick on making such a successful effort?

[Martin Horwood]

I am not familiar with the situation in Painswick, so I had better not venture into that. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the provisions from the 1964 Act that I read out. It is the duty of the Secretary of State to

“superintend, and promote the improvement of, the public library service provided by local authorities in England and Wales, and to secure the proper discharge by local authorities of the functions in relation to libraries conferred on them as authorities by or under this Act”.

Those local authority duties include the provision of a

“comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof”.

The Minister is familiar with those powers, as he drew attention to them in the case of the Wirral in 2009, when we were both in opposition.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Martin Horwood

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

I am grateful for that intervention, which goes to the heart of the question. If we are worrying about powers that concern us, the answer to my question is still no. That is the point: the answer is still no, because no powers are being transferred through this legislation from us to the European Union. If anyone can describe a power that is being transferred, I want to know about it, but unless they can the answer is that no powers are being transferred. That point is really important.

I shall go further. The real issue about the legislation is that it effectively removes qualified majority voting from the issues of what we were deciding before. That is why we need not worry; we are saying that there is now a power of veto on the process—so, ironically, there is a further strengthening of the British approach to dealing with the European Union. I question the need for regular referendums because that would reduce the influence of the House and I certainly say that there is no need for a referendum on this item, because at the end of the day there is no evidence of any transfer of power.

That is not the end of the matter. The issue that has been bubbling around this debate is that we do not like the euro so we have to pull out or do something to undermine it. My point is that we are not going to join the euro, but we want to make sure that our interests as a country are properly protected so that we can continue trading with the countries that are in the euro.

Let us face it—those countries are significant traders. As a whole, the European Union still effectively controls a quarter of the world’s gross domestic product. Seventeen members of the eurozone are part of that and they are the bigger part of the EU. In sheer figures, we are talking about a large portion of the world’s gross domestic product. That suggests that we have to be sensible about how the euro is treated. Sensible American policy makers agree; they want Britain to be part of the European Union, exercising appropriate influence in a way that promotes the trade activities that we see in Europe and beyond. That is not true of all Americans; one or two in Tampa during the Republican convention would raise eyebrows. However, American government, in the broadest sense, recognises that having Britain in the European Union is a good thing because it has a good influence on how the EU shapes up. It is important for us to recognise that as politicians, policy makers and administrators.

Poland was mentioned earlier, and I understand why. It is a very interesting country to think about because it is the only one that has not had a problem with growth ever since this crisis started. That is partly because it has always had a relatively sensible approach to borrowing money and deficit management. It has also recognised its close proximity to Germany, which is of course part of the eurozone. It is not surprising that the Polish Government are now wondering exactly what they are going to do about signalling their intentions on joining the euro—a decision that Donald Tusk needs to start to formulate as the months and years go by. Poland is not necessarily going to reject the option of joining the euro, and that is in complete contrast to the usual story about countries leaving the euro. We need to bear that in mind as we deliberate on the future of the euro as a whole.

We do not want to join the euro ourselves; we think that would be a mistake. We are not planning to make any decision that would lead us towards having to do so, but the British Government and the British industrial state need to think very carefully about how the euro situation unfolds. Our relationships with the big players are therefore very important.

[Martin Horwood]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech, not least on his points about the importance of European trade to business in Gloucestershire, where both he and I obviously have an interest. He is doing a good job of flying a more positive and realistic flag for the Conservatives’ approach to Europe, and I congratulate him on that as well. Would he go as far as me in saying that until the eurozone returns to economic health it will become increasingly difficult for this country to return to full economic health, and that therefore any small thing that we can do to enable that to happen must be a positive? I am not suggesting that this Bill guarantees that that will happen, but it is perhaps one small step in helping to enable European, particularly eurozone, countries to rebuild their economies.

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I am very grateful for the level of support. Plenty of Conservatives share my views; he should not think that we are some sort of sect. He is absolutely right to point out that Britain’s best interests are connected with helping the overall economy in Europe, which obviously includes the eurozone.

Several hon. Members have referred to the situation in Germany, which is pivotal. One has to ask what Angela Merkel is really thinking and why she takes the attitude that she does about how the bail-out operations are decided and managed. That goes to heart of something else that has cropped up in this debate—devaluing currencies. The Germans like a robust currency because they believe that it is good for their economy. They have had one for an awfully long time, and in broad terms their economy has benefited from it. They know that the relative strength of the deutschmark before, and the euro now, has been a good thing for economic policy management. They also know that if they dish out bail-outs too prematurely they will not extract the necessary promises from the other nation states to put right the issues that are not so good in those countries.

At the end of the day, it is important that bail-outs lead to a result, namely improved productivity, better debt management and better management of public expenditure. That is what needs to happen in nation states that are in difficulty, which is why the issue of eurobonds is so interesting and is taking such a long time to crystallise into real results. Those countries that understand the need for robust currencies and, effectively, inflation-proof strategies will win a long-term gain, which proves that that is the right way to improve productivity and ensure that economies grow according to robust economic indicators.

It is necessary for the British Government to continue to work with the German Government in that regard, so that it remains possible for us to develop the right kind of relationship with the rest of the eurozone. We have to ensure, first, that we influence the single market to expand into services and energy; secondly, that we get proper discipline over public finances; and thirdly, that we recognise the value of strong currencies.

It is not true that devaluing willy-nilly achieves results—we have seen that so often in our own history and in that of other countries. Remember 1967, when devaluation was argued over ruthlessly by Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan and others, but what did it actually produce? It did not produce additional productivity or the kind of growth that was anticipated and so desperately needed. Devaluation is not a panacea in complex economic situations in which a lot of trading takes place between complex economies. That is an important marker for our own economic prospects.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that this country needs to deal with its deficit and I recognise the importance of reforming the real economy. I apply the same logic to both of those things in the European Union. Britain should be a positive influence. It should not necessarily be involved in the euro, but it should be able and willing to ensure that the world’s largest single area of economic activity remains a credible force for the future.

Afghanistan and Pakistan

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Martin Horwood

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). I agree completely with my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) in recognising that we need a definite date for withdrawal.

I wish to pay tribute to Rifleman Martin Lamb, who recently died. He was a constituent of mine who was serving his country bravely and correctly, and we remember him appropriately.

The next person whom I wish to mention is my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), because I agree that it is very important for us to consider the international approach. It is what we do next that matters, and we need to prepare the ground now. I want to talk briefly about the Helsinki accords, the process that they led to and the process of getting to them, and see where the parallels might be with the situation in the region that we are discussing today.

Very bravely, Gerald Ford signed those accords as President of the United States when neither he nor the idea of détente were at their most popular in the US. Nevertheless, off he went to complete the process, which involved 35 states. Many had views that were not consistent with one another, and many had a huge number of reasons to disagree with their neighbours.

Three baskets of themes were captured in those accords, the first of which was security. The idea was to give other member states the confidence that their military position and security issues would be treated fairly and justly. That would be achieved largely by states notifying one another what would happen.

The second basket was politics and the production of good governance—we should remember the governance of some of those states at that time, and certainly, for example, Romania. Good governance was an important part of the Helsinki accords, but it is also an element that we need to deliver in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The third basket was culture and human rights. Oddly enough, the third basket turned out to be the most influential. Many commentators will now say that the Helsinki accords suggested to repressed people in those 35 states—obviously, I am talking in the main about eastern Europe—that we would give them the comfort and space to develop their interest in having human rights.

If we extend those three baskets, and in particular the third one, to Afghanistan, Pakistan and—critically—their other neighbours, we could engage them in a way that gives shape to their security and traction to better governance, and that starts to equip their people with the idea that they have space to develop their human rights. That model—it cannot be exactly the same as that of 30 or 40 years ago—could be a framework for international co-operation and for involving the various states that we need to involve. That is the kind of thing that would be of interest as we move towards a new phase of politics.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Carmichael]

I would prefer not to, but if the hon. Gentleman is quick, I will.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it may apply in unexpected areas. One of the points made by the Community Appraisal and Motivation Programme report, which I cited earlier, is that the frontier areas of Pakistan have never been fully integrated into Pakistani democratic politics. In effect, they still have the post-British colonial style of military administration. That has isolated people in those areas from mainstream politics, and indeed from the enjoyment of full human rights of the kind that he is describing.

[Neil Carmichael]

That is exactly right. Another interesting thing about the Helsinki accords is that, oddly enough, they recognised frontiers that had not been properly recognised before. The accords also enabled those frontiers to be changed through peaceful means. Funnily enough, that mechanism was used by the two German states that were unified in 1990. That is a parallel of what the hon. Gentleman says, although the situation is not precisely the same.

We should go down that route and look at the processes that were involved in the accords. We should ask who would participate and how far the region would extend. My belief is that it should be pretty big, and that we should think in terms of 20 or more states in the area. The UK, the US, and Russia and China ought to be involved in the process too.

That is a big project and it will not happen overnight—it will not happen very quickly at all. Most people would recognise that the Helsinki accords took an awful long time to produce anything, but produce something they did. The process worked. It enabled nation states to start understanding one another, to build better governance, and above all, to respect and promote human rights. That is the basis on which we should start, and it would be interesting to see how such a process unfolds if we develop that policy.

European Union Bill

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Martin Horwood

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood]

There has been some discussion about the risk of votes being whipped. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a greater risk of a vote in committee being whipped under the system that Labour Members propose, because the Executive can handpick the membership, than there is for a vote on the Floor of the House?

[Neil Carmichael]

Yes. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover went through the possible Members who could serve on the proposed committee, obviously with a slant towards those who are participating in the debate and are interested in the European Union. The point is much the same—the committee’s membership would matter. The shadow Minister has not explained how it would be formed, managed and so on. However, we can assume that whipping would take place. That is not helpful.

I am also concerned about the role that new clause 9 would give the House of Lords, given the events of the past few weeks. We need to put that down as a marker when considering how the Bill would unfold if new clause 9 were accepted.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) is concerned about timing. He is absolutely right. He is a lawyer, and lawyers love time. [Interruption.] I have watched the clocks tick by myself. New clause 9 does not deal with that.

I tabled an amendment to get clarification on what constitutes a decision in the context of the outcome of a European Council meeting. That is important, and I hope that the Minister, when winding up, will explain what sort of decisions we should consider following a European Council or a meeting of the Council of Ministers, and when a decision is actually a decision.

We must acknowledge that the Bill will be seismically important to our relationship with Europe. It will also make a dramatic difference to the way in which the House and the Government deal with Europe in connection with the electorate. Far too often, people have found out about decisions some time afterwards. They have not felt included in that decision making, and consequently and because of their concerns, they have felt angry about the decision.

I am convinced that we will shape a much better relationship with Europe if we have the courage to explain more and to engage people more effectively. The Bill will do that without new clause 9 and other amendments that would stop us from ensuring that Parliament is the first port of call for the necessary key decisions, and that the people are always consulted when those decisions are pivotal.

Transport (CSR)

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Martin Horwood

Thursday 25th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood]

Deregulation played a role. In terms of the co-ordinated provision of information and marketing and selling bus transport to local populations, it is much more difficult in areas where buses have been so comprehensively deregulated. I do not think that the renationalisation of bus services nationwide is likely. Much as I would love to overturn some of Mrs Thatcher’s legacies, we probably should not concentrate on that one.

My point is that there are solutions to trying to support commercially viable bus routes, or making those routes more commercially viable, that do not necessarily involve large sums of public money and might be about smarter and more intelligent policy locally.

I should like to highlight two local issues. On the Dartford crossing, a small but locally important part of the CSR will maintain the toll regime for its 150,000 users a day. I understand the Government’s case for that, because it is part of an investment in future transport provision in that area and traffic management will be improved, and so on. But the original idea was that the toll would cease when the Dartford crossing had been paid for. I am afraid that it has now been paid for, so there is some fairly justifiable anger locally that this is continuing.

The Minister knows that none of my speeches are complete without a reference to the redoubling of the Swindon to Kemble line in the south-west of England. That is potentially the only rail project that the Government might cancel, which would be regrettable. It is important to the west of England and south Wales, and to Welsh Members and, I suspect, to my neighbour the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael).

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is an excellent neighbour. We both make the same point, which is that the Stroud-Kemble line should be redoubled, if at all possible. The case for that is strong both in terms of business and tourism. It is a good idea to encourage people to use the rail system by ensuring that the magic figure of less than two hours for a rail journey from Gloucester to London is achieved.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case that all Gloucestershire MPs from all parties agree with. Even when there were Labour MPs in Gloucestershire, they agreed too and strongly supported it. That project would increase the reliability and the number of through services in many ways, which is important for Gloucestershire and for the rest of the network in the area, not least because of what one Welsh Assembly Member described as

“an insurance policy against interruption in the Severn Tunnel.”

The Swindon to Kemble line has regional implications. It was, I think, a strange aberration by the Office of Rail Regulation not to include that line in the Network Rail major investment plan. I hope that the Government will see a way to rectifying that mistake.

Overall, the picture from the CSR, as the dust settles on the battleground, shows that the Government have secured substantial investment in transport, particularly shifting the balance of investment towards more environmentally sustainable forms of transport, which is important for the period of the CSR and for future generations for many years to come, and I congratulate Ministers on achieving it.