Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, allegations of corruption in the game of cricket are a matter for the national and international cricket authorities to investigate, police, and regulate as they deem appropriate. However, we stand ready to help those bodies to combat any threat of corruption where necessary. The Minister for Sport and the Olympics recently met the president of the International Cricket Council and also raised this as an issue at the meeting of Commonwealth sports Ministers in Delhi.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that response. I understand that the International Cricket Council is much better equipped than it used to be thanks, if I may say so, to the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who I am glad to see is in his place. Nevertheless, I understand that the sports Minister in Delhi at the time of the Commonwealth games did not put forward proposals that the noble Lord has in mind because he was advised by officials that that would threaten a Pakistani walkout. What proposals did the sports Minister wish to put forward?
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I will look with great care. I have a serious brief here but I do not see a list of proposals that were available to be put at that meeting. If they are available, I will endeavour to get them and let the noble Lord know what they are.
Lord Condon: My Lords, I declare an interest in that until I retired earlier this year I was chairman of the International Cricket Council anti-corruption unit. Does the Minister agree that the ICC has kept corruption at bay for the past 10 years by having in place the strongest code of conduct for players and officials of any sporting body, and an education programme that all players must go through before they can play international cricket? Does he further agree that, against that background, any player who chooses to betray his country, his teammates and the cricket-loving public, if found guilty of criminal or cricket disciplinary offences, deserves the strongest condemnation and punishment, and that nothing less is necessary if the spirit of cricket is to prevail?
Lord Shutt of Greetland: I agree that what I have seen set out about the anti-corruption and security unit of the International Cricket Council is pretty robust. In the end, it is up to the cricket authorities to decide what should happen if allegations are proved. I have made my inquiries as to what it amounts to. At the moment, there is a player education programme run by the ICC. It is one day long, and it covers the current rules, the penalties, the processes involved and how corrupters may seek to groom from an early age. It is letting folk know what is involved. After last week's board meeting, it has been decided that that programme is to be further enhanced.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Government draw attention to the use that can be made of the legalised betting industry for spotting odds and fluctuations? That information should be passed on from this country to other nations, even when they do not have legalised betting.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, it is incredible how huge an industry sports gambling is. In this country, we have the Gambling Commission, but it has only been going for three years. There is a limit to what we can do in other places, although it is right that in both the gambling and sports authorities there is international co-operation. Clearly, word can be passed. There are many countries where gambling is not legalised-indeed, it is illegal-and yet takes place on a broad basis. It is very difficult to deal in such matters.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the all-party inquiry into the effects of betting on sport, which reported in 2005, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Condon, was such a powerful and convincing witness. Is the Minister satisfied with the progress which the Gambling Commission's new unit on sports betting intelligence is making, and is it receiving sufficient co-operation from the betting industry and from sports governing bodies?
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, all I can say is that the Government are very much behind that new work continuing. I am not in a position to say, because I do not know, whether the unit is getting all the co-operation that it should, but I have no evidence that it is not.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is a terrible tragedy when a promising young cricketer has his career ruined by being involved in such practices as corruption? Can he say more about what is being done to help
19 Oct 2010 : Column 761
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that. She is quite right, it is not quite cricket. Although the international cricket authorities are busy doing that work, so is the English cricket board, but it has only just got into this. The ICC is taking the lead, but the English cricket board has a zero tolerance approach to corruption and is fully supporting the ICC's anti-corruption unit. The ECB has recently agreed to enhance its work in this field by establishing an ECB anti-corruption commission for education, security and surveillance. Its work includes extensive education programmes for younger players via the county academies and the development of an online interactive training module which will be ready before the start of the next season. So it is taking the issue seriously and getting on with it for the next cricket season for youngsters.
Baroness Billingham: Perhaps I may revert to what the Minister was saying earlier about gambling, which is clearly at the heart of the problem. The Government-all of us-have to acknowledge that. The Government could do two things. First, there is a loophole in the Gambling Act which allows online operators to move offshore and therefore avoid scrutiny. That is a very important part. Secondly, will the Government regulate spread betting more carefully? Spread betting is another way in which the problem is being increased as it makes it difficult to hold people to account in the way that they used to be.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I am the last person in the world to know much about gambling but I take very seriously what the noble Baroness has said, and I will take this matter back to the ministry. The DCMS is there for sport, but it is also there as the regulator of last resort in gambling. I will take those important points back to the Government.
To ask Her Majesty's Government how their programme implementing the European Union Renewables Directive takes into account the existing level of fuel poverty and the likely effect on employment in British industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland): My Lords, ensuring that we deliver 15 per cent renewable energy will bring benefits to the UK. By 2020, it will reduce the UK's carbon emissions, contribute to our future energy security and create outstanding opportunities for the UK economy, with
19 Oct 2010 : Column 762
Lord Vinson: I thank the Minister for his considered reply and the sagacity that he is bringing to his department. Does he not agree that, nevertheless, the Government have signed up to an EU carbon saving scheme that has very damaging unintended consequences, which are already contributing to the 4.6 million households now in fuel poverty and which will create ever rising unemployment as our fuel-intensive industries are taxed into uncompetitiveness? Even the Guardian calls the wind power feed-in tariff crazy. As energy is the lifeblood of our society, could not our new Government look again to find better ways of achieving the same ends-but by a less costly, more rational and possibly slower route than blindly following a wholly inappropriate EU commitment, which, if fully implemented, will bring immense harm to our economy? That is no joke.
Lord Marland: I have been called many things, but "sagacious" is a new one for me; I am extremely indebted to my noble friend for calling me that. Whether we like it or not, we are legally bound by the EU renewable energy target of 15 per cent and this Government are not interested in breaking the law. Fuel poverty has increased because fuel prices went up by 80 per cent between 2004 and 2008. Yes, increasing our renewables will increase electricity bill prices by about £10 per year, but that is a small price to pay when you consider that fuel prices have gone up by 80 per cent.
Lord Kinnock: If the Government are so keen on combating climate change and enhancing the use of renewable energy in this country, as well as trying to moderate fuel bills for people throughout the country, why the devil have they today announced the cancellation of the Severn barrage, which could renewably provide at least 5 per cent of the country's energy needs? It is the stupidest thing that this Government have done, although I am certain that there will be more to come.
Lord Marland: That criticism is a bit rich coming from the noble Lord's Benches. The fact is that the Severn estuary barrage would cost £30 billion. As I think we were told when we took over government, there is no money. The barrage does not represent good value for taxpayers; we have made this judgment based on what is good value for taxpayers.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, given that in four years' time it is projected that we will import 80 per cent of our gas to fuel our houses and our power stations, would not the development of anaerobic digestion be a major resource? It could also bring about 20,000 jobs. I must declare an interest as chairman of the Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association-and I challenge any noble Lord to say that after a few drinks.
Lord Marland: My noble friend's expertise is well known and we welcome his commitment to anaerobic digestion, which is fundamental to our reaching our renewables targets by 2020. We anticipate that 3 to 7 per cent will come from anaerobic digestion, with the noble Lord's strong support and the use of sewage to get there, and we welcome his comments.
Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, yesterday's announcement by the Secretary of State on energy policy was a great disappointment to those of us who support and want to invest in renewable energy. Not only is the Severn barrage not backed, as we have heard, but there were only passing references to carbon capture and storage and to wind power and there was no reference to government commitment, support or funding. We would have appreciated and welcomed a Statement to this House also. I appreciate that there is another day before the final CSR announcement, but will the Minister confirm whether his department has won the battle with the Treasury and that the green investment bank will be only for low-carbon projects and not for general infrastructure? Given the Prime Minister's comment that this is the greenest Government ever, will the Minister confirm that there will be no reduction in the amounts confirmed by the last Labour Government?
Lord Marland: I welcome the noble Baroness to her new role, although I am not sure that I welcome the question, and I look forward to working constructively with her. As I have said many times in this House, the delivery of energy supply goes across many Governments and has a long period of development. Decisions that we make now will have fundamental relevance to Governments in five, 10 and 15 years. As for spending, I am sure that the noble Baroness will understand that I will not commit anything until after tomorrow, when I will be able to bring joyous news, I hope, on the subject.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, should fuel poverty payments not be stopped for those who are paying 40 per cent tax and instead allocated to those who are in desperate need of cold weather payments and fuel poverty payments?
Lord Marland: That is not really a matter for my department; it is a matter for the Treasury. There is no doubt that, under the last Government, fuel poverty went up from 4 million to 4.6 million households and, as I said, fuel prices went up by 80 per cent. This is a serious problem, which brings hardship to a lot of homes. We have a very significant problem reversing that trend.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): My Lords, the steps we are taking in this area include guidance via a
19 Oct 2010 : Column 764
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comprehensive reply and welcome the progress that has been made. We must bear in mind that last year alone, some 65,000 people were admitted to hospitals for hip fractures, which represents an increase of 17 per cent on the previous decade and is one of the highest figures in Europe. Will my noble friend ensure that the outcomes framework currently under review, which concentrates mostly on hip fractures, also includes indicators to reduce all fragility fractures? That would ensure that the NHS puts a comprehensive fracture preventive service in place.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is right to say that the outcomes framework will be central to assessing the performance of the NHS and driving up quality generally. The framework is still in development, and my department is currently looking at the responses to the recent consultation and carrying out the necessary analysis to ensure that it is as balanced and robust as possible. Having said that, the consultation document contained a number of proposed indicators that relate to falls and fragility fractures which are candidates for inclusion in the framework, although the department cannot take any final decisions until we have digested all the consultation responses.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister aware that drugs are now available that can halt the progression of osteoporosis? Is he satisfied that there are sufficient facilities in hospitals across the country to carry out bone density measurements, from which the position can be assessed at an early stage to allow those at risk to be given appropriate treatment?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the NHS in England has invested in additional diagnostic capacity over recent years, including the provision of more DEXA scanners, which are bone density scanners. The most recent data I have show that only 145 people in England waited for more than six weeks for a bone scan, and of those only seven had been waiting for over 13 weeks. That does not suggest that there is undercapacity. However, the noble Lord is right to say that several treatments are available, along with many messages put out by the department to promote a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent fractures.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a number of excellent leaflets containing information about the prevention of osteoporosis are available? What initiatives are in place to encourage the distribution of these leaflets in libraries, supermarkets, gyms and so on to enable women and men to get the information they need?
Earl Howe: My Lords, information is produced by the National Health Service on the risk of fragility fracture and, indeed, on how to prevent it. A number of good and authoritative sources of information exist on this topic, not simply from the NHS, but I would just say that information on osteoporosis is available on the NHS Choices website, which of course is accessible on computers, including those in libraries.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, if the normal communal incidence of osteoporosis were to be applied to your Lordships House, it is likely that half or even more than half of its membership would be suffering from it, even if they were not aware of any symptoms. That tells us what a common disorder we are dealing with. Does my noble friend agree that it is important to raise public awareness not just of diagnosis and treatment, but of how lifestyle changes to diet, smoking behaviour and alcohol consumption are extremely important in making sure that these adverse consequences do not arise?
Earl Howe: My noble friend is right. The job of the NHS in its public health role is to provide information about healthy lifestyle choices. NHS Direct does this at the moment, and in the future we will be looking to the new national public health service to maintain the provision of high quality and authoritative health advice. Moreover, as my noble friend says, that advice includes information about the value of a diet rich in vitamin D from oily fish, liver, cereals, eggs and so forth, as well as from safe exposure-I emphasise the word "safe"-to natural daylight.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is difficult for the House to decide between the noble Baronesses, both of whom I am sure noble Lords would like to hear. Perhaps if one takes priority over the other, we might get both in. I am asking for one of them to give way.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, it is well known that if an elderly or frail person living at home has a fall which results in a hip fracture is monitored, a great deal of future pain, distress and huge expense to the NHS can be avoided. Does the Minister agree that installing a fracture liaison service in every health area would reduce this serious situation and that the Government ought to make public that aim?
Earl Howe: The noble Baroness is correct: fracture services have produced some positive results where they have been used in various parts of the country. I can best answer her question in two brief ways. While decisions about the provision of particular services are best taken locally, it will be the outcomes framework, which I have mentioned, and the incentives that go with it, that will determine the extent to which the NHS locally responds to needs related to this area. Funding for the NHS is protected and will increase above inflation every year of this Parliament. In this
19 Oct 2010 : Column 766
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many jobs will be lost and how much money will be saved in the next comprehensive spending review period as a result of the decisions on the future of non-departmental public bodies announced on 14 October.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, the reforms to public bodies are about increasing the accountability of public services; they are not driven by savings. The primary vehicle for delivering savings will be the spending review. However, these proposals will help to support the Government's commitment to reduce the costs of central Whitehall and its public bodies by at least one third. For each of the reforms, individual organisations will be working with their staff to make sensible plans as to when and how the workforce will need to change.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Minister said that this is about accountability, and he is accountable to the House to give us as much information as he can. Is he saying that the Government have carried out no calculations on job losses and the costs involved, or is he saying that he will not tell us what those calculations are until tomorrow with the CSR? I refer to the handbook, which states:
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Perhaps if I may say so, I do not think that I need reminding by the noble Baroness of my responsibility at the Dispatch Box. It is very important not to conflate the savings that will come from the public bodies review with the spending review which will be announced tomorrow. The savings from the public bodies review are being made within departments. The departments will make announcements about the detailed savings that they will be making consequent upon the spending review tomorrow.
Lord Tomlinson: Is the Minister saying that it is beyond the capacity of government to tot up the sums from individual government departments and to tell us, quite simply, how many jobs and how much money?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: It is important for noble Lords to bear in mind that this is a complex process. The decision-making process has been decided; now
19 Oct 2010 : Column 767
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will my noble friend advise some opposition Peers to guard against the danger of becoming injured by the consumption of their own verbosity and indignation, and remind them that it is overwhelmingly in the public interest that, when an announcement on the spending review is due tomorrow, it should not come out in dribs and drabs beforehand?
Lord Tebbit: I know, my Lords, that Labour Peers used to practise that game on the sofas in among the spin doctors, but it is overwhelmingly in the public interest that the spending review comes out first and that the details of it are then announced so that we can see how they fit into it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank my noble friend for his intervention, which reinforces the point which I have been making, that there will be a series of announcements from individual spending departments consequent upon the spending review.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Minister says that the reduction in number of public bodies is not driven by savings, but can I refer him to the statement issued by the Prime Minister's Office on 25 May which said that the savings resulting from the reduction in number of public bodies were anticipated to be £1 billion year on year? Will he admit to the House that the Government have found that enormous costs are associated with getting rid of the bodies? Why will he not answer the Question asked by my noble friend; namely, what is the actual figure for savings that the Government have come to?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I was asked a Question about the next spending review period, not about year on year. That is an important point to bear in mind. The Government have already announced that they will make £6 billion-worth of savings across departments. This has been outlined for the next spending review period. We will hear how it is worked out in the spending review tomorrow, when the Government will announce the tough decisions which need to be made. Reducing spending on quangos will contribute both to this year's savings as well as those that will be announced tomorrow.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I recognise that there are bound to be significant costs in implementing these attempts to tackle the democratic deficit, including dealing with redundancies, retraining and some further recruitment. However, will my noble friend enable Parliament to have rather more detailed scrutiny of these matters and in particular arrange for pre-legislative scrutiny of the public bodies Bill?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: I thank my noble friend for that question because it enables me to say that the public bodies Bill is essentially an enabling Bill to provide a legislative framework to back up the decisions taken by the Government. I can assure noble Lords that it is likely to be introduced fairly soon. Meanwhile, as I have said, all decisions made by departments regarding their spending will be the subject of announcements which will be laid before the House.
Lord Bilston: My Lords, these four private Bills were all deposited in Parliament together in November 2007. The reason why it has taken so long to get to where we are today is the high level of opposition that they attracted in the Commons. Together with two similar Bills promoted by Bournemouth and Manchester, well over 24 hours have been spent in debating these Bills on the Floor of the House of Commons. They were opposed by a very small number of Members at every stage, including procedural stages such as carry over, but on each vote-and there have been many votes-there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the Bills.
The Bills are very similar to each other, but not identical. They all deal, in the main, with one general issue-that of street trading. Here I declare my special interest as a former member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Markets, and currently vice-chairman, and also as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The main area of contention in the other place was pedlars, and it is that subject that is also of concern today. All four Bills deal with this issue, and it is not the first time that a subject has been raised on a private Bill in this House. The provisions can be found in Clause 5 of each Bill.
Street trading is controlled by local authorities outside London under Schedule 4 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. Councils can designate streets in their area as prohibited streets, licence streets or consent streets, or can leave streets unregulated. In prohibited streets, no street trading is allowed at all, and in licence and consent streets it is allowed only with the authority of a licence or consent granted by the council. There are exceptions to the rule; one of them is for trading as a pedlar under the authority of a pedlar's certificate. A pedlar so trading can trade anywhere, even in a prohibited street. A number of councils have promoted private legislation to restrict that pedlar's exemption so that it applies only to pedlars who trade from house to house. They include all the London borough councils, Leicester, Liverpool, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Medway and Maidstone. The Bournemouth and Manchester Acts finally reached the statute book earlier this year. Similar legislation applies in Northern Ireland.
There are a number of reasons for the promotion of the pedlars clause. One key reason is the difficulty in enforcing the street trading legislation. A pedlar should travel as he trades, but case law has established that pedlars should be able to stay stationary for short periods of time before moving on. One case suggested that 15 minutes should be allowed. That requires constant monitoring of pedlars by council enforcement officers. There is nothing to prevent the pedlar moving on to a different location in the same street. Case law has also decided that pedlars should be able to use a barrow or stall. The councils argue that this has resulted in the abuse of pedlars' certificates in their areas, with pedlars effectively acting as street traders. With the councils unable to control where pedlars trade, this can result in trading in inappropriate locations; for example, in areas where the highway is already congested, or in town and city centre areas where the council has invested considerable resources to provide a more attractive environment. In some cases, this has been achieved in part by making a street a prohibited street but, as I have mentioned, that does not enable councils to prevent pedlars trading on those streets.
Another issue is that councils do not issue pedlars' certificates. Certificates are issued by the local police force where the pedlar actually lives, which is unlikely to be where he trades. The fact that pedlars are, by their nature, here today and gone tomorrow means that the councils are much less likely to be able to deal with complaints about the quality of goods sold than where they are sold by a trader licensed by them and whose name and address they know.
One of the main issues arising during the course of the promotion of these Bills is what to do with those who are known by some as "genuine pedlars". Broadly speaking, those are pedlars who are said to obey the rules by moving frequently and who either do not use a barrow or stall or, indeed, might use a small one. On this subject, in order to try to meet the concerns of Mr Chope, the honourable Member for Christchurch in another place, two of the four councils, Leeds and Reading, put forward amendments to their Bills in committee. As a result, their Bills are now different from the other two in that they would allow pedlars
19 Oct 2010 : Column 770
Nottingham and Canterbury have not made the same concessions as Leeds and Reading, and that is because they have different problems. Both cities have narrow and congested streets where problems would be, and are, caused by any type of trading activity. Canterbury is a particular case in point. Around the cathedral, the streets retain their medieval narrowness and are very congested indeed, particularly during the summer tourist season. The city council believes that a concession of the type given by Leeds and Reading would amount to a failure to achieve the Bill's purpose in Canterbury's particular circumstances.
That brings me in turn to another point which I am sure will be raised today: the desirability of different councils coming forward separately to create a patchwork of legislation across the country. The four councils could not agree more. They think that there should be a change and that it should be on a national basis, but the problems they face are here and now. I am told that when Westminster City Council, which was the first to promote this type of legislation, deposited its Bill in 1996, the Home Office objected on the grounds of prematurity, saying that a review of the pedlars legislation was imminent. Fourteen years on, the previous Government undertook a consultation exercise on the law-it closed in February-but there are no guarantees that legislation will come forward in the near future.
There has been some concern about the number of councils lining up to promote similar legislation. No similar Bills have been deposited since these in 2007, and as far as the councils and their parliamentary agents are aware, there is no queue of authorities waiting. This indicates, as the Minister said when he spoke at Third Reading on the Manchester and Bournemouth Bills, that there are probably only a limited number of councils that have experienced the problems that these Bills seek to address and which are prepared to go to the time, trouble and expense of promoting their own legislation.
Having dwelt on pedlars, I turn to the other provisions in the Bill. All the Bills contain new enforcement powers relating to unlicensed street trading. Following precedent in London, council enforcement officers and police constables would be able to seize items in suspected unlicensed street trading for use as evidence or for forfeiture by the courts on conviction. This would not apply just to the pedlars but to any person who trades unlawfully. There is provision for compensation to be paid in the case of unlawful seizure.
All four Bills would also enable the councils and police constables to serve fixed-penalty notices for street-trading offences, and they would provide an offence of giving a false name and address. In the cases of Reading and Canterbury, powers are also given to police community support officers to serve fixed-penalty notices. All four Bills would extend the scope of the street-trading regime to the provision of
19 Oct 2010 : Column 771
In the cases of Nottingham and Reading, the definition of "street trading" is also extended to the buying of tickets for gain or reward. This is intended to deal with the commercial ticket tout, which is a particular problem for Reading. When the annual Reading festival is on, selling tickets on the street as opposed to buying is already caught by the street trading legislation, and it is important to note that it is already a separate offence to tout for football tickets.
The only other way in which the Bills differ from each other is that Reading and Canterbury both include a clause that would regulate touting in their area. This is not the same as ticket touting, as some Members in the other place mistakenly thought, but is intended to cover touting for business in the streets, which can be a nuisance. I should also mention that the honourable Member for Canterbury South, Julian Brazier, gave the honourable Member for Christchurch an assurance at Third Reading that Canterbury would seek leave at the appropriate stage in this House for its tout clause to be omitted from the Bill, and that this will be done in Committee.
In conclusion, these promoters have identified, and are seeking to deal with, real issues in the Bills. Private Bills do not come before your Lordships that often, and it is a measure of how significant a step it is for any promoter to take, particularly a local authority, in these times of financial constraints. All four Bills will no doubt be subject to rigorous detailed scrutiny in Committee, and I urge your Lordships' House to support them on Second Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, for explaining the Bills so clearly. The House now knows exactly what they are about. I have two problems with them: first, as he said, this is the back end of a series of Bills on the same subject. I do not think that the Private Bill process was ever designed to be a substitute for public legislation in this way. The local authorities concerned, as well as Parliament, are spending a great deal of time and money to do something which should be done by the Government. As the noble Lord said, the Government completed a consultation in February this year. They are now in a position to say that there is no need for legislation such as this and that we should see an end to these Bills or that there is a need, in which case we should have it and there would be no need for these Bills. One way or another, it is time for the Government to come off the fence and take a decision.
The second reason why I have problems with the Bills is that, as the noble Lord said, they restrict the right of people to make a living by selling out in the open. That is a problem at all times, but especially now, in these difficult economic times. We have to encourage people to get out there and make a living, to start trying to build a business, and selling is one of the crucial ways of doing that. We do not want a system that puts barriers in the way of people starting out. If you want to start trading from a shop, you will
19 Oct 2010 : Column 772
I will admit to being an "Apprentice" addict. Any of your Lordships who share that addiction will see how dear this issue is to the noble Lord, Lord Sugar. He is always sending his apprentices out to sell sausages door to door in Notting Hill; whether he gets a pedlar's licence for that, I do not know, but he should. It is absolutely fundamental to that side of business.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, says, you quite rapidly find problems regarding location. The best place to sell is where the money is. Places with money tend to like being tidy and well organised. Westminster is the worst of these. When do you come across someone selling in the street in Westminster? How many street markets have been founded in Westminster in recent years? None. Westminster does its best to sweep the streets clean of this kind of thing. I do not accuse Canterbury or any of the other councils involved in these Bills of doing that; none the less, they are regulating from the point of view of the rich and the well-off to exclude those who are trying to make a start on the ladder.
To me, this is a national issue. It is a difficult balancing act; one does not want, as in the case of Canterbury, 20 or 30 pashmina trolleys up and down the high street. However, you do want to encourage people to get out there and start a business. There has to be a level playing field. Councils which look after rich, well-to-do areas have a duty to the rest of the country to provide opportunities for young entrepreneurs, and we have a duty to limit the disadvantage that that causes to their residents. This is a difficult balancing act and I hope that the Government will turn their mind to it so that in the next year or so there will be a clause to deal with this matter and allow us to settle it. It seems to me a fundamental part of the concept of the big society that each of us should be prepared to suffer inconvenience to give advantage to other people. This is merely an illustration of that.
I have put down an instruction to the committee. This is not something that will cause the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, any concern; I merely wish to raise, on the Order Paper, the importance that I attach to these Bills. As he said, obligations were undertaken in the Commons that I hope we will see fulfilled. There is the matter of consistency across the Bills, which I hope will concern the committee. I hope the committee will also turn its mind to whether the particular restrictions are justified. I am sure that the pedlars will argue that strongly when they come before the committee. Above all, I very much hope that the committee will address itself to the inappropriateness of the Government requiring councils to use this route to establish legislation for which they find they have a need.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, for introducing these Bills and for explaining them to your Lordships' House so carefully and thoroughly. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for the points that he made. I think we all agree that we should not be where we are today and that it is time that we looked at this. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I do not think anything in these Bills will greatly inhibit the apprentices of the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, selling sausages in Notting Hill, not least because Notting Hill is already covered by the provisions of the various London Local Authorities Acts, which some years ago covered similar ground to that now introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Bilston.
I declare an interest; I am still a councillor in a London borough. Indeed, among my responsibilities on the council's executive is the subject of licensing. This covers street trading and even pedlars. For some years we had a town centre manager who talked to me about little other than the Pedlars Act 1871. I learnt the definition of a pedlar many years ago. Should there be anybody in your Lordships' House who is not sure exactly what a pedlar is, the definition in the 1871 Act, which I think still applies, says:
"The term 'pedlar' means any hawker, pedlar, petty chapman, tinker, caster of metals, mender of chairs, or other person who, without any horse or other beast bearing or drawing burden, travels and trades on foot and goes from town to town or to other men's houses, carrying to sell or exposing for sale any goods, wares, or merchandise, or procuring orders for goods, wares, or merchandise immediately to be delivered, or selling or offering for sale his skill in handicraft".
If ever there was a reason for updating legislation, I think I have just read it to your Lordships. That it has survived so long-albeit with some subsequent case law to bring it into the 20th century, if not the 21st-is quite remarkable.
As I said, the London Local Authorities Act, which was the Bill promoted by Westminster on behalf of all the London boroughs to which the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, referred, has largely removed this problem in London. However, it is clearly still a major problem in several cities, including those covered by the Bills before us today. No local authority at any time, still less in the current climate, would undertake the enormous amount of work and the enormous cost of promoting private legislation unless it felt it had a real and significant problem to deal with. I looked at some of the lengthy debates on the Bill in the other place. Even the honourable Member for Christchurch, Mr Chope, was convinced when he saw photographs of the problems in, I think, Leeds. It was certainly one of these cities. If Mr Chope was convinced, I think we would all be convinced even more readily.
We are here because this is where we are, and the Bills are before us today for reasons very ably explained to us by the noble Lord, Lord Bilston. I hope that your Lordships will give them a Second Reading, but I hope still more that the Minister will tell us that these will be the last such Bills that have to come before the House, that this Government, like previous Governments, have recognised the need for legislation, and that a government Bill will be introduced to enable us properly
19 Oct 2010 : Column 774
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I support the speech of my good noble friend Lord Bilston. I declare an interest in that many years ago I had a close association with the National Market Traders Federation. I recall traders' agitation at the behaviour of pedlars at the federation's annual meetings and at the impact on the business of more than 30,000 traders of having to comply with all sorts of rules and regulations quite properly imposed on them by national and local government. I have nothing against pedlars; there must be some good and some bad-they are typical of a group of people. The phrase has been used more than once in this debate, "We are where we are": that is, we are on the verge of sending a Bill to Committee where it will be thoroughly discussed and reported on. Therefore, I hope the Government will recognise that this matter should not be dealt with in private legislation but that it is worthy of a government Bill.
My noble friend Lord Bilston referred to the fact that in 1996 Ministers said that this matter would be looked at very closely. However, 15 years later we are where we are. I do not think that anyone who has spoken is against government Bills as opposed to private legislation. However, the relevant authorities were forced to promote these private Bills in the absence of a government Bill. I hope that the powers that be-whoever they are-will recognise that a government Bill is needed. When the debates take place in Committee and recommendations are made, different points of view will be championed. However, by and large, local government recognises its own needs and the needs of others. Giving these Bills a Second Reading would demonstrate that we want action, not words.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may be a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by the Prime Minister.
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the strategic defence and security review. There are four things to say up front. First, this is not simply a cost-saving exercise to get to grips with the biggest budget deficit in post-war history; it is about taking the right decisions to protect our national security in the years ahead. The two are not separate: our national security depends on our economic strength, and vice versa. As our national security is a priority, so defence and security budgets will contribute to deficit reduction on a lower scale than most other departments. Over four years, the defence budget will rise in cash terms and fall by only 8 per cent. And it will meet the NATO 2 per cent of GDP target for defence spending throughout the next four years. But this Government have inherited a £38 billion black hole in the future defence plans-bigger than the entire annual defence budget of £33 billion. Sorting this out is not just vital for tackling the deficit but vital to protecting our national security.
Secondly, this review is about how we project power and influence in a rapidly changing world. We are the sixth-largest economy. Even after this review, we expect to continue with the fourth largest military budget in the world. We have a unique network of alliances and relationships: with the United States, as a member of the EU and NATO, and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. We have one of the biggest aid programmes in the world, one of the biggest networks of embassies, a time zone that allows us to trade with Asia in the morning and the Americas in the evening, and a language that is spoken across the globe. Our national interest requires our full and active engagement in world affairs. It requires our economy to compete with the strongest and the best. And it requires, too, that we stand up for the values we believe in. Britain has punched above its weight in the world, and we should have no less ambition for our country in the decades to come. But we need to be more thoughtful, more strategic and more co-ordinated in the way we advance our interests and protect our national security. That is what this review sets out to achieve.
Thirdly, I want to be clear that there is no cut whatever in the support for our forces in Afghanistan. The funding for our operations in Afghanistan comes not from the budget of the Ministry of Defence but instead from the Treasury special reserve. So the changes to the Ministry of Defence that result from today's review will not affect this funding. Furthermore, every time the chiefs have advised me that a particular change might have implications for our operations in Afghanistan, either now or in the years to come, I have heeded that advice. In fact, we have been and will be providing more for our brave forces in Afghanistan: more equipment to counter the threat from IEDs; more training and training equipment; more protected vehicles such as the Warthog heavy protection vehicle, which will be out there by the end of the year; more surveillance capability, including unmanned aircraft systems; and crucially, at last, the right level of helicopter capability.
Fourthly, this review has been very different from those before it. It has looked at all elements of national security, home and abroad, together, not just defence
19 Oct 2010 : Column 776
Let me take each in turn-first, the MoD. Even though the MoD will get real growth in its budget next year, the department will face some significant challenges. So the MoD will cut its estate, dispose of unnecessary assets, renegotiate contracts with industry, and cut its management overheads, including reducing civilian numbers in the MoD by 25,000 by 2015. We will also adjust and simplify civilian and military allowances. The new operational allowance stays, but there will be difficult decisions, although these will be made much easier by the return of the Army from Germany. Taken together, all these changes in the MoD will save £4.7 billion over the spending review period. Getting to grips with procurement is vital. Take the Nimrod programme, for example. It has cost the British taxpayer over £3 billion. The number of aircraft to be procured has fallen from 21 to nine. The cost per aircraft has increased by over 200 per cent and it is over eight years late. Today, we are cancelling it.
Second is the move from military intervention to conflict prevention. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the immense financial and human costs of large-scale military interventions. While we must retain the ability to undertake such operations, we must also get better at treating the causes of instability, not just dealing with the consequences. When we fail to prevent conflict and have to resort to military intervention, the costs are always far higher. We will expand our capability to deploy military and civilian teams to support stabilisation efforts and build capacity in other states, and we will double our investment in aid for fragile and unstable countries. By 2015, just under a third of the budget of the Department for International Development will be spent on conflict prevention.
Thirdly, we need to focus more of our resources not on the conventional threats of the past but on the unconventional threats of the future. Over the next four years, we will invest more than £500 million of new money in a national cybersecurity programme. This will significantly enhance our ability to detect and defend against cyberattacks and fix shortfalls in the critical cyberinfrastructure on which the whole country now depends. We will continue to prioritise tackling the terrorist threat, both from al-Qaeda and its affiliates and from dissident republicans in Northern Ireland. Although efficiencies will need to be made, we are giving priority to continuing investment in our world-class intelligence agencies and we will sharpen our readiness to act on civil emergencies, energy security, organised crime, counterproliferation and border security.
Fourthly, from Armed Forces that are overstretched and underequipped, we need to move to the most professional and most flexible modern forces in the world. We inherited an Army with scores of tanks in Germany that was until recently forced to face the deadly threat of improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan in Land Rovers designed for Northern Ireland. We have a Royal Air Force hampered in its efforts to support our forces overseas because of an ageing strategic airlift fleet, and a Royal Navy locked into a cycle of ever smaller numbers of ever more expensive ships. We cannot go on like this.
The White Paper we have published today sets out a clear vision for the future structure of our Armed Forces. The precise budgets will be agreed in future spending reviews. My own strong view is that this structure will require year-on-year real-terms growth in the defence budget in the years beyond 2015. Between now and then, the Government are committed to the vision of 2020 set out in this review and will make decisions accordingly. We are also absolutely determined that the MoD will become much more commercially hard-headed in future and adopt a much more aggressive drive for efficiencies. The transition from the mess we inherited to that coherent future force will be a difficult process, especially in the current economic conditions, but we are determined to take the necessary steps.
Our ground forces will continue to have a vital operational role, so we will retain a large, well equipped Army, numbering around 95,500 by 2015-that is 7,000 fewer than today. We will continue to be one of the very few countries able to deploy a self-sustaining, properly equipped brigade-size force anywhere around the world and sustain it indefinitely if needs be; and we will be able to put 30,000 into the field for a major, one-off operation. In terms of the return from Germany, half our personnel should be back by 2015 and the remainder by 2020, and tanks and heavy artillery numbers will be reduced by around 40 per cent. But the introduction of 12 new heavy-lift Chinook helicopters, new protected mobility vehicles and enhanced communications equipment will make the Army more mobile, more flexible and better equipped to face future threats than ever before.
We will also review the structure of our Reserve Forces to ensure we make the most efficient use of their skills, experience and outstanding capabilities. That will be chaired by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, General Houghton, with my honourable friend the Member for Canterbury, who serves in the reserves, acting as his deputy.
The Royal Navy will be similarly equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We are procuring a fleet of the most capable nuclear-powered hunter-killer Astute class submarines anywhere in the world. Able to operate in secret across the world's oceans, these submarines will also feed vital strategic intelligence back to the UK and to our military forces across the world. We will complete the production of six Type 45 destroyers-one of the most effective multirole destroyers in the world. But we will also start a new programme to develop less expensive, more flexible, modern frigates. Total naval manpower will reduce to around 30,000 by 2015, and by 2020 the total number of frigates and
19 Oct 2010 : Column 778
The Royal Air Force will also need to take some tough measures in the coming years to ensure a strong future. We have decided to retire the Harrier, which has served this country so well for 40 years. The Harrier is a remarkably flexible aircraft, but the military advice is that we should sustain the Tornado fleet, as that aircraft is more capable and better able to sustain operations in Afghanistan. RAF manpower will also reduce to around 33,000 by 2015. Inevitably, this will mean changes in the way in which some RAF bases are used but some are likely to be required by the Army as forces return from Germany. We owe it to communities up and down the country who have supported our Armed Forces for many years to engage with them before final decisions are taken.
By the 2020s, the Royal Air Force will be based around a fleet of two of the most capable fighter jets anywhere in the world: a modernised Typhoon fleet, fully capable of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, and the Joint Strike Fighter, the world's most advanced multirole combat jet. This fleet will be complemented by a growing fleet of unmanned air vehicles, and the A400M transport aircraft, together with the existing fleet of C17 aircraft and the future strategic tanker aircraft, will allow us to fly our forces wherever they are needed in the world.
As we refocus our resources on the most likely threats to our security, so we will remain vigilant against all possible threats and retain the capability to react to the unexpected. So, as we cut back on tanks and heavy artillery, we will retain the ability to regenerate those capabilities if needs be. While in the short term the ability to deploy air power from the sea is unlikely to be essential, over the longer term we cannot assume that bases for land-based aircraft will always be available when and where we need them, so we will ensure the UK has carrier strike capability for the future.
This is another area where the last Government got it badly wrong. There is only one thing worse than spending money you do not have and that is buying the wrong things with it, and doing so in the wrong way. The carriers they ordered are unable to work effectively with our key defence partners, the United States or France. They had failed to plan so that carriers and planes would arrive at the same time. They ordered the more expensive, less capable version of the Joint Strike Fighter to fly off the carriers, and they signed contracts so that we were left in a situation where even cancelling the second carrier would cost more than to build it. I have this in written confirmation from BAE systems. That is the legacy that we inherited-an appalling legacy that the British people have every right to be angry about. But I say to them today that this Government will act in the national interest. We would not have started from here but the right decisions are now being made in the right way and for the right reasons.
It will take time to rectify these mistakes but this is how we will do so. We will build both carriers but hold one in extended readiness. We will fit the "cats and traps"-the catapults and arrester gear-to the operational
19 Oct 2010 : Column 779
We cannot dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge so we will retain and renew the ultimate insurance policy-our independent nuclear deterrent, which guards this country round the clock every day of the year. We have completed a value-for-money review of our future deterrent plans. As a result we can: extend the life of the Vanguard class so that the first replacement submarine is not required until 2028; reduce the number of operational launch tubes on those new submarines from 12 to eight; reduce the number of warheads on our submarines at sea from 48 to 40; and reduce our stockpile of operational warheads from fewer than 160 to fewer than 120. The next phase of the programme to renew our deterrent will start by the end of this year. As a result of the changes to the programme, the decision to start construction of the new submarines need not now be taken until around 2016. We will save around £1.2 billion and defer a further £2 billion of spending from the next 10 years. So yes, we will save money, but we will retain and renew a credible, continuous and effective minimum nuclear deterrent that will stand constant guard over this nation's security.
Finally, the immense contribution of our highly professional Special Forces is necessarily largely unreported but their immense capability is recognised across the world. We are significantly increasing our investment in our Special Forces to ensure that they remain at the leading edge of operational capability prepared to meet current and future threats, and maintaining their unique and specialist role. This enhanced capability will allow them to remain at extremely high readiness for emergency operations through enhanced logistics, medical support and greater intelligence capability to support their operations.
We were left a situation where we had: a budget £38 billion overspent; Armed Forces at war, overstretched, underequipped and ill prepared for the challenges of the future; and the biggest budget deficit in post-war history. I believe that we have begun to deal with all those things, sorting out the legacy and fitting Britain's defences for the future. I commend the Statement to the House".
I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in the other place and join him in paying tribute to the men and women of our Armed Forces. I also pay tribute to their families, who sustain their loved ones as they prepare for, serve on and recover from operational service. We must always ensure that their interests are protected.
I thank the Leader of the House, and through him the Prime Minister and the Government, for advance notice of his Statement-advance notice in today's papers, in yesterday's papers, in Sunday's papers and in Saturday's papers. It almost did not matter that we in the Opposition got actual advance notice of the Prime Minister's Statement a full 10 minutes before he made it. However, I must record my thanks to the Secretary of State for Defence for his oral briefing. I am extremely grateful. I have to say to the Leader that, as someone who takes Parliament seriously, I think that the process of announcement of this review and the way in which it has come out have been shambolic. I hope that the Government will learn lessons from this.
On issues of national defence, we will always seek to be constructive. I believe that the Government approach the challenge of national defence as all Governments have done-with the right intentions-and it does neither our politics nor our armed services any good to imply anything different. The cuts announced today clearly represent a significant reduction, but what matters is not only the amount we spend but what the spending does to help ensure the defence and security of our country. That is what I want to focus on today.
He will know very well that the Defence Secretary is not alone in expressing this concern. It was shared by the Select Committee in the other place and, I believe, by many Members of this House, including noble and gallant Members. I look forward to hearing from some of them this afternoon, because I share those concerns. Is it not instructive that the strategic defence review in 1998 was carried out over a much longer timescale, with much greater consultation and in-depth study? Can the Leader of the House respond to the widespread perception that this review was driven by the short-term cuts in tomorrow's spending review and that it would have been better to have a longer-term strategic defence review?
I ask the Leader of the House about the most immediate and pressing issue: Afghanistan. I reiterate that we support the mission in Afghanistan and will work in a bipartisan way with the Government to both stabilise the country and bring our troops home safely. Have the Government received specific assurances from the Chief of the Defence Staff that no decision announced today will undermine or disadvantage in any way our military operations there?
I also raise the issue of extra helicopters, which those on the Benches opposite highlighted repeatedly in the previous Parliament. Today, the Government are, I believe, announcing a cut in the number of additional helicopters. Why have the Government done that?
I am sure that the Leader of the House agrees that a key part of preparing for the challenges of the future is the targeting of limited national resources at the most pressing threats. Yesterday's national security strategy identified terrorism as a tier-1 threat. Given
19 Oct 2010 : Column 781
On the issue of preparing our Armed Forces for future challenges, we agree that there are some opportunities to make savings in capabilities that were better suited to the challenges of the Cold War, such as in the number of Challenger tanks and heavy artillery, but I seek reassurance from the Government that they are content that the decisions made today do not compromise our ability to support current operations and defend our interests around the world. In particular, what does the capability gap arising from the scrapping of our Harriers and the withdrawal of "Ark Royal" mean for our force projection, which was made much of in the national security strategy, and our ability to defend our overseas territories? In that context, can the noble Lord also reassure the House that it really is the case that the best strategic decision for the next decade is for Britain to have aircraft carriers without aircraft? I heard what the noble Lord said about aircraft carriers, and I am sure that some of my noble friends will want to set the record straight.
I ask the Leader of the House about two things that he did not mention in repeating the Prime Minister's Statement. Can he confirm what he did not tell your Lordships' House: that page 19 of the review sets out a one-third reduction in the number of troops that Britain can deploy on both a short-term and an enduring basis? Will he take this opportunity to respond to the huge disappointment that there will be in south Wales following the decision announced in a Written Ministerial Statement in relation to the defence training college at St Athan, which the Prime Minister personally promised would go ahead, and confirm that, notwithstanding that action, St Athan will still have a future as a training facility for our services?
There will be concerns that this review has failed to address strategically the important questions about the future of our nuclear deterrent. I believe that there is widespread agreement in this House on supporting the retention of a nuclear deterrent alongside progress in the multilateral disarmament talks. I must tell the Leader of the House that there will be concern that the Government have announced a whole range of decisions on Trident, despite telling us that it was not part of the strategic defence review. Will he confirm that by choosing delay, the Government have created an unfunded spending commitment in the defence budget in the next Parliament-precisely the problem that the Prime Minister told us he wants to get away from in procurement?
We will help the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister and their Government as they seek to do what is best for our country's security. But we on this side of the House do not have to tell him that many people will believe that this review is a profound missed opportunity. This is a spending review dressed up as a defence review-shambolically conducted, hastily prepared and not credible as a strategic blueprint for our future defence needs. On this side of the House we will support the Government where we can, but we
19 Oct 2010 : Column 782
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not surprised by the tone of the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. She graced a Government who leaked their way for 13 years, not making announcements to Parliament.
Lord Strathclyde: It is, frankly, rich for noble Lords opposite to jeer about reading press briefings given not by members of the Government but by others. You only have to read the memoirs written by former distinguished Secretaries of State from the former Labour Government to understand just how much backbiting there was in the Government of whom the noble Baroness was a member.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: That is a very interesting point but it has no bearing on the questions that I asked the noble Lord. I would say to him that one of the most important strategies on the security of this country was published just yesterday, but the Government did not grace this Chamber with their presence so that we could hold them accountable. However, we did hear the Home Secretary on the "Today" programme, and we were fully briefed about it in the press.
As for the two reviews that we have published, yesterday we published the national security strategy, which I commend to your Lordships. It pointed the way for today's announcement on the strategic defence and security review, and the entire purpose was for the Prime Minister to make a comprehensive Statement today. Again I accuse noble Lords opposite. They never did a comprehensive review combining the strategic overview and the defence strategy in a single document. If they had done so in the round then we would not have been left in the mess that we now have.
The noble Baroness asks why we did it so quickly. I say to her: why did they take so long to repeat the exercise that they did in 1998? It was 12 years. Maybe they were concentrating on it but never came to a conclusion. This Government were pushed into action because of the appalling inheritance-the legacy-that we have discovered: the £38 billion overspend that will have to be paid for over the course of the next few years.
On an area which I think the noble Baroness and I will agree on-our role in Afghanistan-I can confirm that nothing in today's announcement will have an impact on our efforts in Afghanistan. We believe that the helicopters that we have, building on the announcements that the previous Government made,
19 Oct 2010 : Column 783
On the future of St Athan, as announced by the Secretary of State for Defence this morning, the defence training rationalisation programme has, regrettably, been terminated. However, given the significant investment in the area, St Athan remains ideally placed as a future site for defence training.
Let me turn to the capability gap, as it is called, on the carrier strike force. We may well not have been driven to the decisions that we have made about this if we had not found things as they were when we came into government in May 2010. We believe that there is a military case for a carrier strike capability, but not one that relies on the differently configured Joint Strike Fighters. That is why we have decided to invest even more money into making sure that there is a "cat and trap" capability on one of these aircraft carriers. That means that we will be able to co-operate with our allies in NATO and the EU and with the French and the Americans, who will be able to use our platform. In the short term, we believe that we have the overflying rights and the land-based runways to be able to continue to maintain air cover. In the long term, of course, none of us knows whether that will be possible: hence the reason why we have maintained the carrier programme.
Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, first, I should like to ask my noble friend whether we can have a major debate on this review in this House. Clearly, 20 minutes following a Statement on a matter of this importance is unsatisfactory. I am sure that the House would welcome a full debate. The coalition Government had a difficult task, given that the carriers had been irresponsibly ordered. Industry quite clearly once again has run rings around the MoD and the previous Government. On these Benches, we welcome the deferment of the main gate decision on Trident, the extra expenditure on our special forces and cybersecurity, the focus on Afghanistan and the pulling back from Germany.
I have four questions to ask my noble friend. First, the Prime Minister wants us to remain "a major military power". Is not 2 per cent of gross domestic product just too thin to maintain that capability? Secondly, what will the savings be on the phasing out of our Harrier force? Thirdly, is it not time to look more imaginatively at our Reserve Forces? One only has to look at what America does with its National Guard. We should start thinking outside the box, which, surely, would link in with the Prime Minister's belief in a big society. Finally, sadly, very little in this Statement refers to or discusses co-operation with France. Will my noble friend say a little more about that?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, are we a major military power? Of course we are. We are the sixth richest nation in the world. We will have the fourth largest military budget in the world. With the modernisation that is taking place, we will be extremely powerful and will be able to reach across the globe. The 2 per cent
19 Oct 2010 : Column 784
I am sure the entire House will gratefully receive the information that there will be a debate on the Floor of this House. I understand that it has been pencilled in for 12 November and I hope that interested noble Lords will come to it. We hope to make further announcements shortly on France, but we seek to create a stronger partnership with that country.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen: My Lords, having done, with honourable colleagues, a strategic defence review that was consultative, inclusive, policy-led and convincing, perhaps I can say to the Leader of the House that I know a strategic review, I have done a strategic review, and this is not a strategic review.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen: Instead, will it not be seen by the country as a cobbled-together exercise on the back of a letter from the Treasury calling for deep and random cuts in the defence budget? As such, it is unworthy of those who serve in Her Majesty's forces today. Is he not concerned about promoting a policy review that will have aircraft carriers without aircraft, an Army that is at war reduced by 7,000 operational troops, and really nothing at all said about how we will blend in and mix with our NATO allies to meet the challenges of the future? I also ask about procurement, of which the Leader of the House, and I daresay the Prime Minister as well, are making much at present. Why have they called for yet another review? Last year, Mr Bernard Grey made a comprehensive and detailed study of the procurement crisis in the Ministry of Defence. It was a clear analysis and the recommendations were accepted. Why has his offer to help the Government been completely snubbed? Finally, on the cancellation of the Nimrod programme, what is going to happen to maritime reconnaissance capability in this country?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, was blessed as a Secretary of State for Defence in that he was the first Labour Secretary of State for Defence to follow on from a Conservative Government, under which the public finances were properly looked after. He was able to make the money and take the time. That luxury was not afforded to this coalition Administration when taking over after 13 years. If there had been a little more strategic economic thinking by the last Government, we would not be in the state that we are in.
The noble Lord is right, however, to ask questions about procurement. We have uncovered a number of issues and there will need to be major studies on precisely how this is done. I hope that we will be able to say more about that in our debate next month.
Lord Boyce: My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of WS Atkins and a number of pro bono roles with various service charities and organisations. I cannot say that I welcome the Statement on this cash-driven defence review, and I certainly cannot possibly dignify it with the word "strategic". It will be viewed with dismay by our hardworking and operationally pressed sailors, marines, soldiers and airmen. Can the Leader of the House inform noble Lords, with regard to naval reductions in the destroyer frigate force levels, what operational tasks currently being undertaken by an already overstretched fleet will be concomitantly dropped and how this will resonate with our allies?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we believe that the newly configured naval forces will be able to do all the standing tasks they have been asked to do. The Navy will have the helicopters, the new frigates, the submarines, the renewed Trident and the carriers that are being built. Of all the Armed Forces, I would hope that the Navy will feel able to support the decisions that have been taken.
Lord Touhig: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord of the bitter disappointment that is being felt at the decision not to proceed with the defence training academy at St Athan. This is not so much a strategic defence review, but more a butchery of our defence capability. I was a Defence Minister when we did a lot of work in preparing for this academy, which was intended to provide a world-class training facility for our Armed Forces, as they rightly deserve. Even in the most difficult times, it is utterly insane to eat our seed corn when we desperately need to invest in training for the future. Will the Leader of the House go back to his Cabinet colleagues and say that, so far as St Athan is concerned, they need to think again?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have already mentioned the case of St Athan. This decision comes despite strenuous efforts being made by the MoD in helping the consortium make the project affordable and in developing the commercial structure necessary within the given time. I should make it clear that this decision was not taken as part of the SDSR and that the MoD still intends to move towards greater collective training on a reduced training estate.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, this review has surely shown that we are overdue a serious national conversation about the identity of our country and its interests in a dark, volatile and troubled world. Does the Leader of the House agree that a nationwide debate on the questions raised by the review would be much welcomed and long overdue? A national conversation on defence and security issues may indeed have little impact on this review, but it might help to frame and shape its successor.
Lord Strathclyde: I agree with the right reverend Prelate. In the national security strategy document, which was published yesterday afternoon, there is a page on national security and British values which I think he would find interesting and like to play a part
19 Oct 2010 : Column 786
Lord Reid of Cardowan: In paying tribute to our service men and women, I have to say that they deserve a little better than this in terms of the time spent on, the depth of and the range of consultation. On the presentation of the argument, I would much prefer not to have the party politics in it.
I wish to make a number of points in response to the contribution of the Leader of the House because he got one or two things wrong. First, on the carriers, can he confirm the sequence by which the Harrier jump jets will be removed? He may not know it but our present carriers are actually through-deck cruisers with a very short runway. If you did not have the short take-off and vertical landing aircraft, other aircraft would fall off the carrier's edge on leaving and arriving. This is why we ordered the variant from the Americans. Can the noble Lord confirm that the Harrier jump jets are being phased out? If they are, we will not have anything which can go on the present aircraft carriers. Given that the whole point of an aircraft carrier is to carry aircraft which can leave and join it, it would appear that we will have a massive capability gap.
Secondly, will the noble Lord respond to the point about the reduction of our troop numbers? I confess that I thought it was grossly unwise to announce in advance to the Taliban and everyone else when we intended to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. It reinforces that error when we tell them not only that we have the option of withdrawing but that we are reducing our numbers so that we have to withdraw. Is it an absolute commitment to reduce troop numbers irrespective of conditions on the ground in Afghanistan?
On cyber, I welcome the £0.5 billion increase provided that it does not include money that is meant to be allocated to the intercept modernisation programme. If it does, it will be grossly inadequate and will completely undermine our capacity to mount the surveillance of communications in and out of this country which has been the basis of our counterterrorist intelligence efforts.
Finally, will the noble Lord confirm that, although this is the biggest reduction in our fighting capability since 1945, every single element of additional fighting power that he mentioned today was ordered by the previous Government?
Lord Strathclyde: I am delighted that the noble Lord welcomes the announcement on dealing with cyberterrorism. It is an important new threat which we take seriously. However, I do not agree with his remarks which gave the impression that there was no consultation and no discussion with anyone at any stage. Of course there was. There had to be in order to be able to make the decisions that we have made today.
We have been in Afghanistan since 2003; we are aiming to leave by 2015. Given that we will have been there for 12 years and that we have put enormous resources into training the local police and the army, it is fair enough to have given a five-year warning of our intention to leave. However, we will not leave Afghanistan completely. DfID, with its enormous budget, will clearly wish to play a role.
There will be a gap in air cover after the retirement of the Harriers, which are due to be disbanded by April 2011. We take no pleasure in making that decision; it means that one of our carriers will immediately be withdrawn. However, we believe that our land-based runways and overflying rights will give us the global reach by jet aircraft that we need.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, many of us will have found it very difficult to listen to the chastisements that my noble friend has received from the other side of the House when some noble Lords here bear a very heavy responsibility for the mess that we are now in. Previous Ministers placed orders with money that they did not have. That now threatens employment and has made inevitable the Statement which my noble friend has had to repeat today. Anybody who studied this matter with any interest knew that, once those carriers were ordered-I think that it was in the time of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson-it became a shambolic programme from then on. We still do not have any carriers. Everybody knew the pressure, problems and lumpiness that it would create for the naval budget. The difficulties that my noble friend and the Prime Minister have had to cope with are simply enormous. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will know that his strategic defence review never said that we were going to be in Afghanistan or that we were going to fight a second Iraq war. The then Government made no adequate attempt to adjust the policy and the resources to meet those new demands. We now have to get the resources in place based on our best estimate of the risks that we face and then, if the situation changes and the unexpected happens, be ready to change as well.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the House will know just how grateful I am to hear my noble friend, with all the common sense that he speaks born of experience and of having given these warnings over many years while we were in opposition. I entirely agree with him that we must now look to the future, deal with the damage of the past and focus our best resources on getting the best result.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I am afraid that I have to share the view of a number of noble Lords and, I think, a number of people across the country that this review is not really strategic but is cost driven. However, we are where we are and a Government have to govern. Therefore, they have to explain what they are going to do. It is no good having some political knockabout about what might have gone on in the past.
I shall focus on the carriers. I happen to have an interest in them in that I have spent quite a large amount of my life on aircraft carriers, so I think that I know quite a lot about them. I am delighted by the decision that we will go ahead with the two new aircraft carriers. That fits in exactly with the view that I think all of us have of the United Kingdom; namely, that we need global reach and that we are still a great power. A lot of people might deny that, but I argue that we are. We are one of the six richest nations in the world. We have commitments all around the world; we have huge investments around the world; we run global shipping; we are an important and great power. There
19 Oct 2010 : Column 788
The Leader of the House mentioned that we will put cats and traps in only one carrier. That means that, for a percentage of the time-I would be interested to know what his assessment of it is-there will be no carrier available because, if you have one of something, it cannot always be there. You can bet your bottom dollar that, at the time when you really need it, it will be deep in refit; that is my experience. Therefore, I believe we should have cats and traps on both of them and run both of them.
There is also an inconsistency in how we go from where we are today to there. In a hospital where there were old-type scanners, one would not dream of saying, "We'll get new ones in 10 years but we will stop using the old ones for 10 years". That would be bonkers, and it is bonkers to get rid of the Harriers. The noble Lord says that it was a military judgment that the Harriers and not the Tornados should go, but the Harriers' job cannot be done by any other aircraft while the Tornados' can. I should be interested to know why that decision was made.
Finally, the Leader of the House mentioned DfID. I find it extraordinary that we give money to India and China, which are developing carrier programmes, yet we have difficulty in funding ourselves. Will we continue doing this in future?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, to take the last point first, the DfID budget is protected and substantial and was built up by the previous Administration. That department needs to decide how to make its priorities in view of the Government's overall priorities. On the whole, I welcomed the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead. He certainly started off in a very positive light. He asked one straightforward question about the carriers and the cats and traps. We have given a commitment to putting cats and traps on to one carrier-that will go ahead-but we have not yet decided finally on what should happen to the second one. We do not need to make that decision now but, when we do, it will be widely announced to the House.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: This is a self-regulating House. Why can we not collectively decide on such an important Statement not to limit ourselves to 20 minutes but to have 40 minutes so that all noble Lords who want to ask questions can be permitted to do so?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord needs to calm himself down. It is well precedented over many years that 20 minutes of Back-Bench time is allowed after a Statement. I know that this is a considerable and important Statement, which is why the usual channels have already agreed that there should be a whole day's debate devoted to this subject. I know that many noble Lords wanted to speak, including three former Secretaries of State for Defence whom I can see on the other side. We should hear from them all, and I look forward to the opportunity. But we should now carry on with the next business. That would be in accordance with our rules.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: This is a self-regulating House and the Leader of the House has made my point for me in pointing out all the people who want to speak. Just because we have always done something in the past does not mean to say that we do not have to change it in future.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course this is a self-regulating House, but it is not an anarchists' House. We do not believe in anarchy; we do not make it up as we go along. We have broad rules and a broad framework, which are supported by most noble Lords in the House.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The House is due to finish at six o'clock tonight and everyone will be going home because there is no other business. This is the most important issue. Tomorrow we will have a Statement on the comprehensive spending review. Will we get only 20 minutes on that? That would be absolutely outrageous. This House needs to pull itself together and make some decisions and not just do something because we have always done it.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Now that we have returned to normality, I shall add a couple of words in the gap. I have debated a number of these Bills, in particular the Select Committee on Bournemouth Borough Council Bill and the Manchester City Council Bill, as well as the Westminster Bill, where the issue of pedlars raised its head on a number of occasions. There was a Private Member's Bill in another place some time ago. I hope that the Minister will come up with some idea on what we can do about pedlars, because, quite frankly, I am fed up with hearing about them on private Bills.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Bilston for giving us the opportunity to discuss these Bills and for the learning experience of dealing with the erstwhile mysteries of private Bills. In particular, this means that, unlike with public Bills, we are not formally affirming the principle of the Bills today. If we were, I would say that my noble friend has made a powerful case. However, given
19 Oct 2010 : Column 790
We have heard from my noble friend that they have a long and tortuous history, having secured Second Reading in another place over two years ago. Yet if these Bills' history is long, the legislation to which they refer goes back much further, to the Pedlars Act 1871. Street trading is an ancient tradition with a long and varied history-one which, as we have heard, continues to have a place in modern society-but the legislative framework which underpins it is in need of modernisation, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, so ably illustrated. We also heard from my noble friend of the particular issues which these four councils share in respect of the current legislation, and the plea that Government should take action at national level to avoid the necessity of a further group of councils bringing forward similar private Bills, the cost of each of which can run to several tens of thousands of pounds.
The Bills seek to: extend the definition of street trading so that it covers the supply of services as well as that of any article; alter the exemption enjoyed by pedlars from the street trading regime; empower council or police officers to seize articles and equipment where they consider that a street trading offence has been committed; allow the courts to order the forfeiture of any article, receptacle or equipment which relates to an offence, and; empower council officers to serve fixed penalty notices. In addition, as we have heard, Reading and Canterbury are seeking powers to regulate touting.
The Bills are not identical in respect of alterations to pedlars' exemptions from the street trading provisions. In the case of Canterbury and Nottingham, it is proposed to limit the exemption to persons trading by house-to-house visits; for Leeds and Reading, there is an additional requirement that all items used in connection with trading are capable of being carried without other means of support by the pedlar, such as trolleys. My noble friend explained the background to that.
I shall concentrate my brief remarks on the instruction which is the subject of the Motion spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He is seeking to require the Select Committee to which the Bills are committed to consider them in the light of a prior Select Committee's,
with national legislation. Indeed, the noble Lords, Lord Bilston, Lord Graham and Lord Tope, all included that issue in their contributions. The Select Committee recommended that the Government should undertake an urgent review of the law. Things have moved on since the Select Committee's considerations of those Bills. The Labour Government and the existing Scottish Government consulted on the case for amending the law as it applies to the control of street trading and the certification of pedlars. Consultation commenced on 6 November 2009 and closed on 12 February 2010.
Prior to this, the then Government commissioned research from Durham University, which was undertaken between June and September 2008 and published in February 2009. The purpose of the research was to assemble qualitative and quantitative evidence on how
19 Oct 2010 : Column 791
The joint consultation sought views on: ways of making street trading and pedlary regulatory regimes more effective and proportionate; providing local authorities with additional enforcement options in respect of illegal street trading; updating the Pedlars Act to modernise the definition of a pedlar; considering how local authorities might exert proportionate limits on certified pedlar activity in designated areas; draft guidance for enforcement officers, street traders and pedlars, and on options for revoking the Pedlars Act and providing regulation within the street trading regime.
The UK and Scottish Governments set out preferred options over some of these areas. On the matter of the meaning of "pedlar" they recognised the need to clarify the definition and offered some possible elements of a new definition, one of which included the use of a small means of carrying goods. The consultation also covered the matter of the services directive and changes needed to the regime for pedlars of service-only activities, a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has taken an interest in.
It will be seen that these preferences cover much of what is sought in these private Bills and provide an update of our latest deliberations. An intervening event in May this year precluded the Labour Government from taking this forward, but doubtless it has now found its way into the tray of the Minister. We look forward with interest to her contribution to this Second Reading. It is accepted that the Government will be neutral on Second Reading of private Bills, but will she say whether, and to what extent, the responses to the consultation are to be published, whether further legislation is planned and, if so, covering what areas? On this matter, I contend that we have given the coalition a good legacy-indeed, a good start.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will consider not pressing his proposed instruction to the Select Committee-he indicated that he probably would not-as the passage of time has seen at least some progress on the recommendations that he sought to highlight. I hope that we have common cause on the desirability of agreeing a modern, practical and proportionate framework for street traders and pedlars. These four Bills, as my noble friend has explained, seek just that in the absence of national legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox): My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to respond to the debate, which, as always when private Bills on these matters come before either House, has been informative and lively.
We have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Bilston, Lord Tope and Lord Graham, who have taken this opportunity to set out their support for these Bills. In doing so, they have also made plain their concerns about the national position regarding the regulation of street trading and pedlars. Other noble Lords-the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord McKenzie-have been clear that they feel that the case for these private local Bills, or at least some elements of them, is not made and that they may be unfair to the genuine trader. Nevertheless, they too acknowledged that there may be a case for providing additional powers for local authorities generally-in particular, where problems are experienced with traders in the street that they feel cannot be properly dealt with under existing powers.
The Government will of course reflect further on all those views as we consider the need for change to national legislation. For now, though, I would like to inform the House about the Government's next steps in relation to the national situation.
I should begin by restating an important procedural point, which I think the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has already made. Traditionally, the Government do not take any view on the content or progress of private Bills, unless they are exceptionally moved to do so. It is a matter for Parliament to consider private business on its merit. On this occasion, however, I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of this House an issue that has emerged in the course of my department's consideration of the position of the national pedlar and street trader regimes in the context of the services directive.
During this debate I cannot go into the detail of the Government's forthcoming response to our consultation on national street trader licensing and pedlar legislation. Nevertheless, the House may be aware of the contribution of my colleague in another place, the Minister for Consumer Affairs, to the revival debate on two of these Bills and the City of Westminster Bill in the other place in July this year. On that occasion, the Minister acknowledged that whatever the Government's conclusions following the responses to the consultation, the way ahead must take full account of the effect of the services directive, particularly because in the light of further analysis and exchanges with other member states, it has become apparent that retailing, including by pedlars and other street traders, is considered to be the provision of a service within the scope of the directive and is not simply the supply of goods, which is exempt.
Noble Lords will also recall the reply I gave on this issue in response to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also in July. Those noble Lords with an understanding of the services directive will already appreciate that its application to this area must have a significant impact on the future shape of regulation.
19 Oct 2010 : Column 793
As I mentioned, I cannot say any more about the Government's conclusions at this time. I bring this point to the attention of the House now so that, should the Bills progress to the Committee stage, their accordance with the services directive can be properly scrutinised. I shall, of course, ensure that as soon as the Government publish their conclusions on this matter, they will be available to the Libraries of this House and in the other place.
More generally-services directive aside-I should like to outline again the matters the Government are considering in this area. Of course they have noted that there are now a number of private Acts and Bills on street trading which contain substantially similar provisions. In fact, including the Bills under discussion this afternoon, there are now more than a dozen such pieces of private legislation either already on the statute book or under consideration. We have also noted that additional Bills, which some in the other place had suggested in debate might be waiting in the wings to be introduced last year, have not so far materialised.
As noble Lords will appreciate, there is much to consider in the wider context of the current national legislation. We have legislation which provides local authorities with the option to regulate street trading in their areas by issuing licences and separate legislation under which itinerant traders can be certified as pedlars and for whom a requirement to obtain a licence to trade in a particular location in a particular local area at a particular time, as licensed street traders are generally permitted to do, is not suitable. It is clear from the research and from the actions of some local authorities that they experience particular difficulties in being able to deal with illegal street trading under the current regimes. It is also clear that for the most part, the problems expressed by local authorities are not to do with legitimate pedlary within the definition of that mode of trade but with those who, although they may have a pedlar certificate, are trading in ways which suggest that they should actually be licensed as street traders and, frankly, subject to enforcement action.
Noble Lords will be aware that some local authorities, in pursuing their private Bills, have acknowledged that in their areas this is indeed the case. They have made adjustments to provisions which otherwise would prevent pedlars trading in certain streets in their areas or would have the practical effect that pedlary would cease in certain streets. The Manchester and Bournemouth Acts were adjusted and I note that the promoters of
19 Oct 2010 : Column 794
Among those matters currently under consideration by the Government are: the effect of unlawful trading on the livelihoods of licensed street traders and others entitled to trade in the streets; the future of the certification of pedlars and the desire not to stifle their legitimate activities; the scope and evidence for making available to local authorities additional powers to help them improve their efficiency when enforcing local licensing against unlawful traders; and the need for guidance for traders and enforcers on the application of the relevant provisions.
The new Government are aware of the history behind these and the other private Bills and Acts, that the Bills represent the desire of the local authorities to exert more control over trading in their respective areas and that the local authorities believe that they need more powers to do so. The previous Government, with, I believe, the good will of this House, undertook research into the effect and application of the current regimes. They then issued a consultation document to seek views on possible options for reform of the relevant national legislation and on interim guidance on the meaning of the current legislation.
In considering the way ahead, the Government need to take into account those issues that I have just mentioned. They also need to settle on solutions that will have a positive impact on the lives of licensed street traders, pedlars and the regulatory authorities. Precisely which options we shall propose in addition to, or as an alternative to, the current regimes will be published by my department shortly. Of course, these matters do not exist in isolation but stand against the backdrop of a difficult economic climate.
We recognise that some of these issues and the stakeholder relationships that underpin them, particularly those between local authorities and licensed street traders or certified pedlars, can be especially sensitive. They encompass important issues, such as the concern of static retail businesses during the downturn, the changing face of the high street, the desire to encourage vibrant and vital trading conditions that encourage value for money for consumers and the need for proportionate and effective enforcement to benefit honest traders of all types and consumers alike. Coupled with these considerations, there is also the desire not to restrict unduly the legitimate trading activities of pedlars, while acknowledging that in some cases there may be a need to restrict trading activity where, for example, there are genuine concerns for safety in congested areas.
I hope I have illustrated that the Government are very sensitive to the different perspectives of the stakeholders involved in these matters, and to their differing views on how best to achieve a fair trading environment in our streets. I hope I have also conveyed to the House that, while in many respects talk of pedlars and street traders might seem quaint, the issues under consideration are very serious. They affect the livelihoods of people running small businesses and speak to the type of society and trading environment that we want to promote and see flourish.
Lord Bilston: My Lords, I offer my grateful thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed to the Second Reading of these important private Bills. I also thank those noble Lords who kindly sat through my overlong speech of introduction.
I find myself in the happy and contented position of being able to agree with the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Tope and Lord Graham, and both the government Minister and, from my own Front Bench, my noble friend Lord McKenzie. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that for at least 10 years the all-party parliamentary group has sought to bring about national legislation that would avoid the question of private Bills. We have discussed these weighty matters with four Ministers. However, at least we got to the point of having the consultation that took place a few months ago.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for her comments. We look forward to continuing the discussions and to resolving the major issues affecting market traders, street traders, pedlars and all the people covered by these private Bills. I thank all noble Lords on behalf of the four local authorities that brought forward these private Bills. I ask the House to give the Leeds City Council Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to whom the bills are committed that they should consider the bills in the light of the conclusions of the report of the Select Committee on the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [HL] and the Manchester City Council Bill [HL] which, while allowing those bills to proceed, expressed "strong reservations about the use of piecemeal private legislation to remedy perceived problems in national legislation" and recommended that "the Government should undertake an urgent review of the law on trading in the streets and selling from door to door with a view to producing national legislation which reflects current conditions." (HL Paper 148, Session 2006-07)
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton is right that this is a good legacy which has been passed by his Government to ours. I am grateful for all the work that he, his colleagues, and the team behind them have done. I am even more delighted that my noble friend Lady Wilcox and her team have decided to pick up the issue and take it forward with dispatch. That is excellent news which will cheer the promoters of these Bills as much as it cheers me -happiness all round.
I suspect that the promoters will decide to hang fire on these Bills pending the publication of the Government's thoughts because my noble friend has raised serious questions about the European directive. I am sure that the promoters know how apt that sort of thing is to derail the best drafted legislation and that it may well be best to wait and see what comes. I know that many things can get in the way of legislative timetables from all directions. Therefore, in case we find ourselves in a position where there is nothing from the Government and we have to consider these Bills in Committee, I wish to move my Motion.
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the wider benefits of adult education; and what steps they are taking to support and encourage institutions which seek to promote lifelong learning.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am stimulated to initiate this debate by the publication this time last year of Learning Through Life, a report commissioned by the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, with the aim of taking a forward look at the future requirements of and for adult education. I see this debate as a chance for this House to take a look at the same topic.
"Irene plucked up the courage to come into a family literacy group because she wanted to know how best to support her daughter who was just beginning to show signs of falling behind. A single parent with three children, Irene was living on a poor estate, with a lot to think about as well as the education of her children. Although she felt safer at school than other places, she was still terrified about going 'back to school'. The course was publicised as 'help your child, help yourself', so she ignored the 'herself' bit, and went to help her daughter. She talks of the courage that it took just to walk through the door.
"Irene finished the course and found that she had learnt things too-she improved her spelling, found out a bit about how her daughter learns, visited the library, got into the habit of doing things at home with her daughter and was feeling OK with things".
"Eventually, she re-appeared and went on to an access course at the local college and she set up a group for other parents with children with disabilities-this gave her the courage and the skills to decide she wanted to do something for her community-she joined the school governors, became chair of the tenants' group, and got a job on the estate".
This quotation illustrates well a number of points about adult education. First of all, what is adult education? It is, strictly speaking, any education for a person over 19. In this debate, I do not want to discuss university-based higher education for 18 to 21 year-olds, although last week's publication of the Browne report makes it very tempting to do so. Strictly speaking, this does not fall within my definition of adult education. I prefer the Wikipedia definition quoted in Learning Through Life:
The emphasis is on adults returning to organised learning after doing other things. Given that definition, adult education is about a lot of different kinds of learning. It may be about basic literacy or numeracy; it may be about supplementing the basics, such as Irene's IT and English courses; it may be about upskilling by training for a job that requires particular competences; or it may be about reskilling by training for a new job
19 Oct 2010 : Column 798
Besides the actual learning involved, a whole lot of different benefits flow from it. In Irene's case, it was the confidence to go on learning and enjoy it, the companionship of other learners, the ability to help her daughter, and the real benefits for her child's performance, now well documented, that flow from a parent's involvement with their child's education. There was the confidence for her to move into a wider community, her involvement as a school governor and becoming chair of the tenants' group.
It is well known that wider benefits flow from involvement in adult education, and it is now also well researched. Work by Professor Feinstein at the Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning in the Institute of Education here in London has documented the advantages that go with higher levels of education-higher earnings, less unemployment, better health, longer lives, better access to technology, lower crime rates and higher civic participation. Above all, there is greater self-learning and self-confidence, which in turn make people feel that learning is worth while in itself and for itself. In other words, it is positively associated with economic and social well-being, with enabling people more easily to accept and manage change, and with promoting social justice and community cohesion.
It is worth looking at one or two of these areas in greater detail. Take health, for example. We know from research that those who participate in educational activities tend to enjoy better health and live longer. Generally speaking, they smoke less, exercise more, take less medicine and manage their own healthcare better than those who do not participate. This in turn reduces both the medical costs of the elderly and the costs of caring for them. At Tansley House care home in Derbyshire, the use of medication fell by more than 50 per cent when learning activities were introduced.
This is even more true of mental health, where many of those who have problems benefit from a regular commitment that gets them out of the house, provides them with friends to talk to and gives them a sense of self-worth and achievement. In a speech on 3 July, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Vince Cable, spoke movingly of his mother, who had left school at 15. He said:
"My mother was a housewife and when I was ten she had a major nervous breakdown and spent time in a mental hospital. When she recovered she saved her mind through adult education-learning for the first time about history, literature, philosophy and art".
Finally, I will mention crime. Every prisoner costs us more than £40,000 a year to keep locked up. Some 75 per cent of prisoners are functionally illiterate and
19 Oct 2010 : Column 799
"Adult learning has a really important role to play in encouraging active citizenship. I'm not just talking about what people learn about specifically, but how that learning makes them feel. Going along to college means meeting people, discussing what's going on in the world, boosting your belief in what you can do. It's that self-belief that leads people to get involved with their communities and become more active citizens. Given that my vision for this country is for us all to get involved and play our part in national renewal, I believe adult learning, and the way it inspires people, is crucially important".
The general thesis of Learning Through Life is that we need to rebalance expenditures on adult education-taking its broad definition-away from the 18 to 24 year -olds and spread it more proportionately. In particular, the twin challenges of demography and technology will require radical changes in our thinking.
I will pose a number of questions-about adult learning and about the changes that are likely over the next few days-to my noble friend, whom I welcome to the Dispatch Box for the first time. How far do the coalition Government look to a more flexible programme that will allow room for greater emphasis on older workers and for reskilling and upskilling through life? In particular, what is happening to the basic skills programme? The basic skills commission has been wound up. Is there still an emphasis on promoting basic literacy and numeracy in the adult population?
Secondly, given the abandonment of Train to Gain, will the Government continue the policy of providing adult education and skills training for a first level 2 for free? Given their emphasis on level 3 and technician training, will the free first level 3 up to the age of 25 continue? What about ESOL? It hardly seems right to put such emphasis on citizenship and contributing to society for those who choose to live in this country if we are not prepared to help them to learn English. I welcome the coalition Government's new emphasis on level 3 apprenticeships and technician training, but how far are they proposing to implement the Banks report and shift funding on to a shared basis between the state, the individual and the employer? Will we see, as with Browne and the universities, a substantial shift of funding on to the individual student? If so, will the new funding arrangements for part-timers announced in the Browne report be applicable to further education as well as higher education? Are the Government prepared to see these programmes applied to those over 50 for reskilling and updating their knowledge? Will the coalition continue the policy, adopted with the apprenticeships Act of 2009, of giving employees the right to ask employers for time off for study? What plans, if any, has the coalition for something akin to the individual learning account or a learning bank, where money which the individual sets aside for training is matched by a government contribution? Finally, what is the position of the safeguarded adult education budget of £210 million? Will adult leisure learning receive any of this?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the opportunity to debate this vital Question today. In the report, Learning Through Life, to which the noble Baroness referred, Tom Schuller and David Watson start from a premise that we should all endorse-that the right to learn throughout life is a human right. Yet our current system of lifelong learning has failed to respond to the major demographic challenges of an ageing society and to the variety of employment patterns as young people take longer to settle into their jobs and older people take longer to leave theirs.
Furthermore, for a society theoretically supportive of fairness, total expenditure on post-compulsory learning, including by the Government, employers and the third sector, as well as by individuals, is, as the noble Baroness said, heavily skewed towards young people and those who succeed initially, and we know that those who succeed initially are from the most advantageous of families. The £15 billion spent on teaching provision and student support for colleges and universities is weighted heavily in favour of young, full-time students. Currently, part-time students get only one-10th of the support of full-timers. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, is a welcome recognition of this and a move in the right direction, but more is certainly needed.
Participation is very closely related to social class. Basically, the higher up your socio-economic position, the more likely you are to take part in learning. Therefore, our approach should be to tackle the current weaknesses and to put continuing education in the path of late developers, those from disadvantaged social classes, the disabled, ethnic minorities, women and, yes, us older people. We know that an ageing society makes health issues-both physical and mental issues have been mentioned-increasingly important. As has also been said, it has been proven that adult learning promotes good health.
I have to declare an interest as a long-time member, though dreadfully poor attendee, of the council of Ruskin College in Oxford. I should like to say something of the college's pioneering work, which has led the way for over a century in offering high-quality "second-chance" education to generations of men and women from the less advantaged parts of society. As formal qualifications for entry are not required, the normal barriers to educational institutions therefore do not exist.
Traditionally via trade unions, Ruskin picked up some of the brightest of working-class, early school leavers whose union activity had brought them to the attention of canny union officials. Ruskin then offered them-perhaps by then people of 25 or 40 years of age-the chance of a post-16 education tailored to their experience and needs. Perhaps I may give just three examples of the life-changing nature of adult education, in these cases at Ruskin.
The first is now a successful partner in a law firm but she left school at 16 with few qualifications, enrolled on a hairdressing course in Chesterfield, moved to the production line at a local factory, became a trade
19 Oct 2010 : Column 801
The second Ruskin graduate, originally from west Yorkshire, did poorly in school exams, probably because nobody diagnosed that she was dyslexic. She did manage to get an RSA typing certificate and worked for an accountancy firm but then stopped working full time to raise her daughter before going back into business. However, rather like in the case of Irene, when her daughter left home for university, she herself packed her bags, jumped on a train before any self-doubts could stop her, and enrolled on a one-year residential course at Ruskin. She said, "I knew money would be tight but I also knew this chance to learn would be my salvation and change my life, and it certainly has". Ruskin opened a new world for her. She went on to university where she got an honours history degree, then a PhD, and she now teaches at university. Of the opportunity for others to go to Ruskin, she says, "You have nothing to lose and a whole new world to gain".
Finally, no one will be surprised by my third example-it is our own, my noble friend Lord Prescott, who often says that he owes everything to Ruskin. He had worked for 10 years before as a merchant seaman, went there and afterwards completed his higher education elsewhere. He went into politics, I think, became Deputy Prime Minister, and then came to your Lordships' House. Not bad for a Ruskin student.
So lifelong learning is just that. It offers both a second chance to those not privileged to enter higher education at 18 and provides return-to-learning opportunities for adults with few or no qualifications. It is also not bad for those of us who did have the privilege of a post-18 education. I myself got that PhD just a little before I received my old-age pension at the age of 60. Lifelong learning is good for students who want to develop themselves but it is also good for society. Educated workers are good for the economy. Many with this life-changing experience also want to put something back into society.
Ruskin and similar institutions change people's lives but they also enrich society. However, this provision cannot live on fresh air any more than can its students. Adult learning is currently seriously vulnerable in places such as Ruskin, with its vital residential facility, and working men's colleges. Such institutions do not fit into the mainstream mould but they meet the needs of exactly those who missed out on the normal post-school chances.
The Government threaten to remove family allowances from 16 to 18 year-olds-just the time when working-class children need every incentive to continue their studies and aim at higher education. We heard from Michael Gove yesterday that the Government may cut the all important education maintenance allowances, which have done so much to bridge that gap between compulsory education and university. Lifelong learning should start with the maximum of pre-work education and the Government need to invest in that as much as they do in other parts of the economy.
We as a country then need to plan for and help everyone to learn throughout their lives, enriching all of us as well as society. Public and private resources invested in lifelong learning amount to more than £50 billion. Their distribution should reflect a coherent view of our changing economic and social context, our longer working lives and our increasing life expectancy.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for initiating this debate, not least because the Church of England has long experience of encouraging and supporting adult education and lifelong learning, which it does not only for its own members but within the wider community. I believe that churches are very well placed, as we look towards the big society, to work in partnership with others in helping to provide learning facilities.
Many noble Lords will know of the work done by the Church Urban Fund over the past 30 years, which has been responsible for numerous projects. Over the past five years, it has included 30 learning and training projects and the development of specific skills with particular groups including the long-term unemployed, asylum seekers and women from particular ethnic groups.
My cathedral of Blackburn has made its own contribution here, mainly through the work of a body that we named Exchange, which, for the time being, is supported by the North-West Development Agency and others. We have been able, among other activities, to provide public dialogue with various communities and people on the margins. We have been able to lay on various exhibitions and to create internships, bringing young people over from Sri Lanka and South Africa. We have also provided lectures and have organised leadership programmes. This work has presented opportunities for participants to reassess inherited or long-held views. Basically, we wanted with Exchange to create a safe space within which people could look at their assumptions and within which the possibility to change could be real. We wanted to answer the questions that people are actually asking.
We viewed lifelong learning not as taking people on a predetermined journey or topping up, but rather as enabling them to ask questions born out of their experience which they needed to ask and to try to equip them to answer them. One course was the awareness course, which encouraged members to examine in depth what globalisation meant to the local community-what it meant in the local context-from a faith perspective. Lifelong learning is surely about creating access to knowledge where people are not able to find the means to access it. With Exchange, the canon of my cathedral, who ran it, the dialogue development officer and the small volunteer team found that time and again people were hitting up against the access and resource question. "We know that there is something in this", participants would say, "but how do we
19 Oct 2010 : Column 803
I am convinced that adult education and lifelong learning offered through the church make a significant contribution to building social and community capital. I must say that we could not have done what we did in Blackburn for nothing. You just cannot make lifelong learning happen for nothing. I fear that it cannot all be done by volunteers, however well meaning. We need trained and professional people who will signpost and guide such learning opportunities, and such people and their work must be adequately resourced.
I have focused on fairly informal but nevertheless well-developed programmes at a local level because I believe they have real value and should provide a way forward. But I have also done this because it seems that there has been a trend over the past decade to channel resources and funding only to courses leading to formally recognised qualifications. Now, certainly it is easier to channel government support and resources through large institutions, and many need the formal qualifications for employment purposes but, please, let us encourage smaller and more local organisations and partnerships to develop further lifelong learning programmes, ensuring that we do not forget the harder-to-reach groups, and that we do not forget those who would not be likely to access more formal educational opportunities.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for this absolutely superb opportunity to participate in this important debate. I think that it reflects all her views and her understanding of the issue.
The benefits of adult learning are researched and well known. Perhaps the best summary is provided by the respected Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning. Its synthesis of research over a number of years suggests that, in addition to economic benefits, learning improves the health of the population as a whole through, for example, the adoption of healthier lifestyles, as other speakers have said. It reduces crime rates and the propensity to engage in anti-social behaviour. It promotes social cohesion, participation, particularly in democratic institutions, and good citizenship. To quote the report directly, it says:
"We have strong evidence that adult education can help to reduce racism, increase civic participation and voting, and improve healthy living. It is, for example, associated with giving up smoking and taking more exercise. Moreover, such benefits are greater for educationally disadvantaged adults".
Adult learning has a direct impact on these outcomes, and an indirect impact resulting from improved parenting and support for children. In terms of the current policy, adult education can be seen to support a number of objectives which have clear cross-party support and which-I am delighted to say-reflect the policies of the previous Government. It promotes the type of active citizenship needed to underpin the big society. It promotes social mobility, particularly by giving a second chance to those who did not achieve their full potential at school, a subject referred to by my
19 Oct 2010 : Column 804
In preparing my speech today I talked to a number of people including the 157 Group of colleges, of which I am a patron, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I also looked up a recent speech by the Minister with responsibility for skills, John Hayes, who recently spoke of adult learning in terms that would command widespread support across all parties. His approach is very reassuring, as the Labour Government, working with the trade unions, were very committed to lifelong learning, and many feared that the same commitment might not be evident within the coalition Government.
John Hayes highlighted the key issues of adult learning. He said that when parents are engaged in learning, their children are more likely to value education and take an interest in school. Many of us know that from personal experience. He said that it enriches the lives of individuals and the communities of which they are a part. He also very importantly said that it is not a luxury but an essential component of our education system. I trust that in her response the noble Baroness will confirm that view. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I welcome the noble Baroness to her role on the Front Bench. We have worked opposite each other in many other ways.
In order to achieve these benefits, the Government need to put a few things in place. In order to protect schools and universities, they must avoid the risk of disproportionate cuts falling on adult learning. The sector needs to take its share of cuts, but no more than its fair share in relation to other areas of education. The Government need to look at student support, particularly for those who are on low pay and who currently miss out. With the planned fees increases, some FE students will need to take out loans. It is really disappointing that the proposals in the Banks review suggest much less favourable career development loans than those suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. It would be very wrong to introduce a second-class loan scheme for adults in FE. Again, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to assure us that that is not the case.
As individuals and individual employers take on more responsibility for paying for adult learning, we need to remove the restrictions on what can be supported by public funding. That may mean cutting back on intermediary bodies which seek to restrict the qualifications that people can take and, crucially, allowing the Skills Funding Agency to fund units of qualifications and not just whole qualifications. This is an area in which the Semta sector skills council has been heavily involved. I declare an interest in working with that body. The opportunity for bite-sized training can make a huge difference not only to the earning capacity of individuals but also to their confidence.
We must be aware of the temptation to say at a time of restraint that the Government should focus their support more tightly. At a time of restraint, the opposite is true. A one-size-fits-all policy determined in Whitehall cannot meet the variety of needs in adult learning across England. Colleges and adult education institutions
19 Oct 2010 : Column 805
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|